330
This one actually has some sound biology behind it when used on Bluegill populations with moderate recruitment and a history of good size potential. It was tried experimentally for a number of years and proven successful at improving and maintaining size on some lakes in Beltrami County.

Their recommendations could be based on several findings. If they want to reduce the bag limit to increase the size then if they have science that shows that the panfish population is not at a high density then leaving more older fish to grow another year or two will increase size. Their fyke netting results and creek checks (numbers and size range of fish kept by anglers) then that would be good science. If they don't have that data then increasing population may only stunt fish growth and do more harm then good. Size range and year class info should have been helpful for them to determine the best course to take. Lowering bag limits is almost always not popular with the fishing public and many times that pressure can and does create poorer management strategies as well.
The type, number and size of the game fish population also has a huge impact on the size structure and population of the pan fish as does the amount and density of the vegetation.

Bryce

I have never read that from a credible source. I could be wrong but it is my understanding that wolves were never “reintroduced” or transplanted to MN. We have always had wolves and are the only state to maintain a population since European settlement.

That is the frustrating dichotomy of managing public natural resources. The managers have to collect data, formulate a plan, introduce it to the public and get their approval to implement that plan which is likely designed to protect or enhance the resource which will, long-term, benefit the public.

However, the public gets the opportunity to oppose any such action with zero data, no plan and no context in the situation. “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” is often muttered as a sound, logical and fail-proof motto that does not explain why any technological advance was ever made. Candles weren’t broke but that silly Edison guy thought he could do better. Fool!

I didnt say Just....... its a combined issue
However if the Amish do what I witnessed some Asian families doing then the species population can Never be sustained.

The one lady ( out of 9 mothers there ) that I questioned about a pail filling up with tiny bluegill , sunnies and crappie told me the Size didnt matter because they "GRIND" I asked her if she opened to remove the guts or scaled them. She said "NO WE GRIND"

Clark the DNR, yourself and even the President sometimes get it wrong. Public comment and opposing view points are meant to hash these things out.

I happen to support this initiative.

Clark,
You are a strong proponent of Only book learning Clark...if you believe all that goes on in Mn. Or will go on has or will be Written down ( both within the DNR and without) then you will live your whole life here Understanding a portion but Not All that makes up our State.

I don't see too many people taking stringers full or even buckets full of pan-fish away from the local reservoir or streams at all around here. Last time I checked we were NOT lacking in fish population or size and our pan-fish limit is 50. Every pond and stream around (unless poisoned and we have plenty of those) holds bluegill and other sunfish, catfish, those nasty carp (might have to try these in pocket sets), and some flavor of bass. That's not including the toothy critters which are also fairly abundant. In fact quite a few of those "sunnies" are going to find their way into my pocket sets next fall. (I'm ready for the coons that will surely need thinned judging by the amount of roadkill here)

I can count the number of people that I know willing to actually clean and cook their own fish on one hand (of course I'm a bit anti-social too so there's that). And I still know where the SLABS are (both crappie and gillies) Two pound test on the ultralight, nice little black ant with two maggots on the hook, dangling under a bobber = fillet heaven.

Here I have not seen it slow down yet, and I probably ought to shut up in case Samuel Yoder, and all 27 of his kids, is somehow allowed to get on someone elses internet connection and reads this.....hahahaha "lectric" is from the devil!

Clark being a proponent of sound biology, while you and 330 express the importance of public comment, explains why fishery management is complicated. It is the difference between managing a fish population, and managing a fishery, which includes those using the resource. Biology, using population densities, age and size distribution, growth rates, ultimate growth potential, etc, can tell managers how much harvest reduction or size protection may be necessary to produce more 10 inch bluegill, but public input will tell you if the tradeoff in lost harvest is acceptable for the improvement in quality. For example, a slot limit protecting all the preferred harvest size bluegill from 8-10 inches would likely achieve a goal of producing more 10+ inch fish, but that tradeoff in harvest opportunity is likely not acceptable to most anglers. That is why public input is important in Fishery management, and why this proposal provides some balance of increased protection and while maintaining harvest opportunity.

Born, I’m not dismissing public comment and opinion. It’s important and part of the process. However, the public should bring more to the table then a fear of something new or unknown. We don’t make advancements without trying something different. I was mostly responding to the criticism raised in this thread which seemed to err strongly on the side of “doing nothing is better than trying something new”.

330, I would love some solid evidence that wolves have been released into this state. Yes, I am a fan of learning both from books and field experience. I do take umbrage that you think I only believe what is written down. Trust me, I hold many views in my chosen career (forestry) that are considered heretical and worthless but are based almost entirely on field experience and observations.

I had a friend always would say, the DNR means ++++ near ruined. I told him, you can shoot 4 deer a year, have one of the best fresh water fishery in the world, 7 month small game season. The deer season is 4 months long. Great turkey season. Trapping was not to bad a that time. So what did they ruin?
The DNR has made mistakes, yes. But they take care of a lot more issues than most people think. Take the time and go to one of there meetings, they are open to the public. JMO

Clark....you are too dismissive of the knowledgeable public ...you always say Yes they should be heard ....... here it comes....... (But) and then youre right back to preaching the Study. While telling how the public is just fearfull of New

Same Story whether its about Mille lacs lake or Deer or Bear

330....Where these DNR initiatives usually go haywire (and I love that term, it is perfect) is when there is a disconnect on the specific objectives. In the original Bluegill example, the objective of providing or maintaining large bluegill is something most everyone I know finds desireable. The debate then becomes how much harvest restriction is acceptable to achieve that.

Your examples above, and I'll add Wolf management, is that no one seems to be able to agree on a mutually desireable objective. With all the debate surrounding Mille Lacs walleye management have you heard anyone state what the defined management objective is? How can anyone agree on how to get there when we don't know where we are going?

It seems in my experience that many if not most of these DNR "initiatives" are the result of public pressure. It could be my conclusions are biased.

The "Waters" could become Clear . Without being flippant and Real real ideas could be put on paper... Things could get done making Most on both sides Happy ........If

And to borrow the transitional word from another.......but.....

There are too many roadblocks:
Honesty is the main one

Spot on, but which public pressure? Often things go haywire (there's that term again) when you think you are hearing from the public, but not really. Examples are meeting with a lake association who claims to have an interest in protecting the resource but really just want to keep folks off "their" lake. Or meeting with the big shots invited to the DNR roundtable and thinking thier views represent the general angling public.

Honesty
----------------------------------------------
Heres the blurry lines - roadblocks

Calling racism when there is none
Being racist
Greed
Ulterior motives
Pride
Traditions
Overlooking Laws (both sides)
Appeasing Any Group
Allowing imput where none is required
Over rating Field Knowledge
Under rating The Same
Too much imput / Not any
Emotional content = to common sense

The balance Needed to move foreward appropriatly is now thrown off by inappropriate Imput . Can equilibrium be regained?


Too many cooks in the kitchen right now for that to happen.

330....."Too many cooks in the kitchen right now for that to happen."

Spot on once again.

Perfect example will be the Wolf input group the DNR is assembling to provide input on management once the Wolf is delisted. The makeup of the group will be "diverse and inclusive" so plenty of animal rights/protectionist types to balance the hunters, trappers, farmers, or just people who don't like their pets eaten. What are the chances of any science, biology, population dynamics, sustainable harvest, predator management driving this process? I fully expect it will go haywire!

And it will

Emotion will overrule truth. I'll say it again, there's a pattern happening all over.