No Profanity *** No Flaming *** No Advertising *** No Anti Trappers *** No Politics
No Non-Target Catches *** No Links to Anti-trapping Sites *** No Avoiding Profanity Filter


Home~Trap Talk~ADC Forum~Trap Shed~Wilderness Trapping~International Trappers~Fur Handling

Auction Forum~Trapper Tips~Links~Gallery~Basic Sets~Convention Calendar~Chat~ Trap Collecting Forum

Trapper's Humor~Strictly Trapping~Fur Buyers Directory~Mugshots~Fur Sale Directory~Wildcrafting~The Pen and Quill

Trapper's Tales~Words From The Past~Legends~Archives~Kids Forum~Lure Formulators Forum~ Fermenter's Forum


~~~ Dobbins' Products Catalog ~~~


Minnesota Trapline Products
Please support our sponsor for the Trappers Talk Page - Minnesota Trapline Products


Print Thread
Hop To
Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
MNDNR Walleye bag limit #7192444
02/22/21 03:46 PM
02/22/21 03:46 PM
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,744
MN
W
walleye101 Offline OP
trapper
walleye101  Offline OP
trapper
W

Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,744
MN
Minnesota fishermen, how many of you are aware of legislation currently progress to lower the statewide walleye bag limit from six fish to four fish?

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: walleye101] #7192457
02/22/21 04:03 PM
02/22/21 04:03 PM
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 81
Mn
M
mskrtman Offline
trapper
mskrtman  Offline
trapper
M

Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 81
Mn
I've heard about it. It's probably time to do something, I would prefer a daily limit of 2 or 3 and a possession limit of 6.

Last edited by mskrtman; 02/22/21 04:04 PM.
Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: walleye101] #7192585
02/22/21 06:25 PM
02/22/21 06:25 PM
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 303
Western pa
F
frank1969 Offline
trapper
frank1969  Offline
trapper
F

Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 303
Western pa
Are the numbers down up there if so what's the problem

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: walleye101] #7192586
02/22/21 06:26 PM
02/22/21 06:26 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 36,619
Northern Maine
Bruce T Offline
trapper
Bruce T  Offline
trapper

Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 36,619
Northern Maine
That doesn't sound good at all.


My President is still President Trump
Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: walleye101] #7192593
02/22/21 06:37 PM
02/22/21 06:37 PM
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 8,970
Champaign County, Ohio.
K
KeithC Offline
trapper
KeithC  Offline
trapper
K

Joined: May 2009
Posts: 8,970
Champaign County, Ohio.
The big problem with Minnesota walleye numbers seems to be over harvest and wanton waste by the Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians.

Keith

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: walleye101] #7192599
02/22/21 06:42 PM
02/22/21 06:42 PM
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 931
USA-WI
K
Kre Offline
trapper
Kre  Offline
trapper
K

Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 931
USA-WI
4 sounds pretty good to me.

Most lakes I fish, I can only keep 3 and only 1 of those can be over 14 inches.

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: walleye101] #7192639
02/22/21 07:17 PM
02/22/21 07:17 PM
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,619
minnesota
M
mnsota Offline
trapper
mnsota  Offline
trapper
M

Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,619
minnesota
I don't think reducing to four would would have any affect on creating better walleye fishing. Heck, most anglers don't even bring in two or three.I wouldn't have a problem with it though,I just don't see any science behind it. It is more of a feel good action in my opinion.
Here is some info I took off Sundin's site:

image links to fishing guide jeff sundin Jeff Sundin February 19, 2021 Walleye Bag Limits "Linking the Link-Able"
image links to article about minnesota walleye bag limit reductionI know that Ringo Starr gets by with help from his friends, but these days, mine are doing a darn good job of helping me get by too!

On Thursday, I mentioned my search for some of the charts and statistical information that had been shared, at various times during the time that I served as a volunteer on the Walleye Advisory Committee.

More than a few of my friends helped me out by pointing to their specific locations on the internet and in the end, I wound up with almost enough information to crash the mainframe at IBM. Some of the publications that will interest a few of you are these:

Minnesota DNR Creel Surveys Report Cook-Younk (Table 25 Pictured Here).
Minnesota Bag Limits "A Proposal For Change" Radomski-Cook
Minnesota Fish Limits History
There are still a couple of problems, one of them is tying the information together without writing a book. The second is that while many of them are highly comprehensive, well conducted studies, they’re getting a bit dated. Still, a discussion based on scientific data, dated or not, is better than forming opinions based on third party hearsay and internet chatter.

Along the way, my search for clarity about whether the walleye bag limit reduction is a good idea or not, the door has been open for a lot of comments from anglers. Some have been good, others have been great and below, I’ve shared comments from most of folks who have given me permission to do so. Scroll down to read each of them individually.

One of the more extensive expressions of opinion, came in the form of a “social” media comment from Nate Blasing. In it, Blasing dresses me down, apparently for not properly or thoroughly thinking through my position in opposition of the bill to reduce Minnesota’s walleye bag limit.

Responding to his list of questions not only offers me an opportunity share my views, but also allows me to tie in links to some of the scientific data that supports them; so here goes.

On February 17, 2021 Nate Blasing wrote, “I represent the Walleye Alliance, Inc. and we have been working hard on this initiative. It is supposed to be something from anglers for anglers that we have heard concern for several years now relating to walleye populations from many anglers across the state.

I think we have been transparent in that the MN DNR does not have the data to show that going to a statewide 4 bag will do much for walleye populations overall. But it might, in some instances, and also is more of a social change at this point. That being said, let me pose a couple questions.”
Nate, before I get into each of your questions individually, let me start by saying thank you for your comments and thank you also for the opportunity to share some history with you and with our readers.

Like you, I have been concerned about the quality of Minnesota’s walleye fishery for long time. In fact, I was a charter member of the Walleye Advisory Committee which was formed in 2005. Among the first issues we addressed was a MN DNR proposal to reduce the walleye bag limits that was published in May of 2001. Yes, that’s right, 20 years ago.

The publication “Bag Limits in Minnesota: A Proposal for Change” endeavored to lay out a case for reducing walleye bag limits in Minnesota.
While the paper contains extensive information to support their assertion that bag limit reductions were needed, their motivation for making the change is spelled out by this language that appeared within its abstract.

"Recent research has indicated that creel limits are largely ineffective in regulating recreational fish harvest in Minnesota. Current creel limits give an unrealistic picture of the biological capabilities of Minnesota's fisheries and less than 5% of angler-trips culminate with the harvesting of a creel limit.

We present evidence that high creel limits may cause anglers to have unrealistic expectations of their potential harvest. When fishing success expectations are not met, the result is often dissatisfied anglers. We propose reducing creel limits to more appropriate levels by using a probability angling management strategy. These new limits would be based on past recreational harvest data from completed angler-trips.
Our goal is to select creel limits that more anglers could attain or come closer to attaining. Over time, we anticipate reduced creel limits would function more as an educational tool and may help anglers develop more realistic expectations of Minnesota's fisheries."

The message, as it appears to me, is that they were offering to lower the bar, making the goal of catching a limit of walleyes easier to attain, thereby relieving our distress about not being able to accomplish that goal. In other words, in their view, the effort to reduce walleye bag limits was a “social” one, and with their assistance, we would all be happier.

Fast forward to 2021, if my math is correct, approximately ALL of the walleyes that were alive and swimming at that time are now dead and gone. Somehow, despite all of our advances, we are still able to catch walleyes today. Amazing, how does that happen?

Since that time, efforts to tinker with the walleye bag limit have come and gone and I suspect that will not change. But in my view, these efforts are unnecessary because if the issue of preserving quality walleye fishing is a social one, then we should handle it “socially”, not through regulation. So with that, lets tackle your list of questions.

1) Do you have concern with the current fishing pressure many lakes in MN are seeing?

A) Yes, I’m concerned that the number of people participating in fishing and outdoor sports might go down! My concern stems from listening to anglers expressing their frustration about increasingly complicated regulation. Most folks want nothing more than to spend a fun day on the water, catch a few fish and be left alone. I like seeing a full parking lot my favorite bait shop because it makes me optimistic that they will stay in business and I will be able to buy bait in the future.

2) Do you feel the DNR creel data accurately reflects current winter fishing pressure/harvest? It used to be thought that winter harvest accounted for a minor portion of the yearly harvest other than some of the major lakes.

A) If there is any problem with DNR creel data, it is that we don’t provide them enough funding to conduct more of them. I have friends who gather creel data, and, in my opinion, they do an excellent job. I can’t think of any better way to gather the information and I believe that DNR Fisheries should be doing more creel surveys.

3) Do you think “zeebs’ (Zebra Mussels) are having an effect on fry stocking success?

A) This one is over my pay grade Nate. I really can’t find any scientific research that supports the assertion, and my personal experience is limited to less than 100 lakes in north central Minnesota. However, I have been advised by Region 2 fisheries staff at Grand Rapids that so far, Zebra Mussels have not reduced walleye recruitment on Lake Winnibigoshish. I realize that is only one example and also that Winnie is not a “fry stocked” lake. But if productivity in that lake remains good, there are likely others that remain healthy as well.

4) Night fishing on many “zeebs” lakes appears to be getting very popular, do you think the DNR has accurate creel surveys that capture that harvest?

A) Again, I would love to see more creel surveys and my instinct is to say no, there probably is not enough data from a wide variety of lakes where night fishing is popular. But, I don’t see how a reduced bag limit on walleye will do anything to fix that. Night fishing can be good, but like fishing during the daytime, does not automatically guarantee an increased harvest. In fact, I could probably argue that releasing fish caught at night is more successful than releasing fish during the daytime.

5) Do you think if the DNR was able to be proactive with respect to the small pike issue in the state that lakes may be in a different situation rather than now trying to solve the problem that is already here?

A) In my view, the preservation of large pike does not relate to walleye bag limits in any shape, manner, or form. If by “being proactive” you mean preventing folks from harvesting large pike from lakes that already produced them, then yes. If we had not removed so many large pike from lakes that had the ability to produce them, then we would have fewer lakes where stunted populations of pike now exist.
There are, and always will be, certain lakes that simply do not provide habitat that will produce large pike. So, one size fits all regulation would not necessarily have been the answer to preserve large pike either. Social reform is and was what we need. If we were to convince all of our fellow anglers to eat little pike and release the big ones, we would see an impact and it would happen quickly.

6) Do you feel the DNR has accurate creel data that reflects guides catches versus the pubic?

A) I do not believe that they attempt to separate creel data based on the angler’s occupation or skill level. If what you’re getting at is that guides should have a “special” regulation, then you should pursue that.

I have expressed on numerous occasions that I already subject myself, voluntarily, to much more restrictive limits than what would be “legal”. I don’t see any reason to restrict the catch of one citizen to offset a greater catch of another one. Here’s where the “social” should really come into play. There’s nothing stopping us from raising our own bar. We, along with our fellow anglers who have the greatest access and availability could, and should, self-regulate.

7) Does the general public voice frustration with varying regs from lake to lake?

A) Yes, they absolutely do.

8) If the average person only catches 2 walleyes, why would this be of concern to them? But rather be of the concern for the folks that are able to catch a limit on a regular basis and likely taking a larger portion of the fish?

A) Statistically, it is true, most folks don’t even come close to catching their limit on a per day basis. But I have argued and will continue to argue that most folks simply want to have the opportunity to catch them. Anglers who travel long distances to fish in Minnesota may not catch a daily limit of fish on any given outing, but over the course of a week, may be able to accumulate a possession limit.

In the past, MN DNR Fisheries has expressed a Zero Tolerance Policy against having a split limit for walleyes. But if there was a single regulation that might actually serve to improve the overall quality of walleye fishing in Minnesota, it might be a 2 fish daily limit, combined with a 6 fish possession limit.

Blasing summed up his comments with this, "We are not trying to suppress any varying thoughts on the topic. Everyone's opinion on this is just as important as our groups so more power to varying thoughts. The DNR are the experts, I am relying on them constantly for data. Again, the concern in some instances is that by the time the data is there and can be acted on, it may be to late. Proactive vs reactive. Thanks."

These days, the term proactive could mean a lot of things, especially in government.

I suppose we could set up checkpoints and tell anybody that has a fishing pole that they have to go home because you never know, if we let them go the lake, they might catch too many fish.

Or maybe we should make them download an app that keeps track of how many fish they catch and whenever they reach an arbitrary threshold, the APP signals the GPS to return the boat to the landing.

Or what we could try is to treat the “social” issue with a “social” response. In the 1980s, getting folks to release fish voluntarily was easy. They were proud to do it because they were being trained to believe that it was helping to ensure a future filled with good fishing. Resorts, lodges and bait shops passed out special decals for anglers who released fish of certain sizes and anglers collected them like they were tournament trophies. I’d like to go back to that, I’d like to see all of us spend more time teaching and less time bickering about minutia, especially when the bickering won’t lead to the desired effect anyway.

Speaking of desired effects, I think that for now, I’m about done working on the walleye bag limit story. The legislation is already in the works anyway, so if you have strong feelings one way or another, the time has come to contact your legislators and let them know your thoughts. If you don't know who your representatives are, finding them is easy, just click this link for the Minnesota Legislature Website, here you'll find a fantastic interactive map that will locate them for you.

For me, it’s time to get back to fishing or least talking about fishing anyway. If you’re in the neighborhood and want to help me do that, then swing into the open house at Ray’s Marine in Grand Rapids. I’ll be in and out of there today, Friday 2-19-2021 and for most of the day on Saturday 2-20-2021, I hope to see you there! fish smiley image — Jeff Sundin 218-245-9858 or EMAIL

image reader comments Reader Comments Shared With Permission February 19, 2021 MN Walleye Bag Limits S.F. 12 Dave Heck
Dave Heck wrote, “After reading your post about the proposed limit reduction on walleye, I feel I need to share my two cents worth. My name is Dave Heck and I live near a small town in east central Iowa. For most of us who live in Iowa walleye fishing wouldn't be considered a primary fish source.

It doesn't mean there aren't walleye available to catch here because the DNR have done a great job of introducing them back into our streams and a few lakes. I'm just not set up for river fishing It's why we make two trips to northern Minnesota each year.

We spend a Pretty good chunk of dough on these trips and have even gotten a guide six times to help "train us" to catch walleye. When you're on a fixed income it's not easy to do, but we do it for the love of fishing and the friends we've created along the way.

We could buy walleye in the store and save a ton of money if all we wanted was to eat walleye. It's the North woods experience and the people we've come to call family that keep us coming back. All that said, let me make it clear. Two of the reasons we stopped going to Canada were the costs and the small limits we could return with. Because we are multi-species fisherman and walleye aren't the only fish, we are targeting we have done well over the years to bring back quantities of fish that appease the fact that we are spending as much money as we do on these trips.

Put another way we don't have the same opportunities a local fisherman has to go fishing at the drop of a hat. If a local fisherman can fish multiple times in a year and take-home multiple quantities of fish then why should we as out-of-staters only be regulated to take home only four fish per trip. I know two fish doesn't sound like much, but it does make a difference. Besides there are other states that have some great walleye fishing in them also. Just saying... Well, that's my two cents worth. Thanks for all you do and mean to fishing.” — Dave Heck

image reader comments Reader Comments Shared With Permission February 19, 2021 MN Walleye Bag Limits Gary Barnard
NOTE: This section actually includes 2 unique comments, each one arrived in its own seperate message. Both pertaining to specific portions of Jeff Sundin's follow up about Gary Barnards commentary about S.F. 12 from February 17, 2021. For reference, links to each individual section are provided.

On February 18, 2021 Gary Barnard (Reference Report 2-17-2021) wrote, "To be clear, I have no dispute with the projections of harvest saving, or that harvest saving may be more significant on some waters. What I do dispute is the automatic assumption that any harvest reduction realized would somehow "help" those walleye populations. That lack of understanding of how walleye populations function is troubling coming from professional fish managers, and very misleading to the angling public." — Gary

On February 18, 2021 Gary Barnard (Reference Report 2-18-2021) wrote, "Jeff, Good observation on Walleye slot limits, and pertinent to the ongoing bag limit discussion. Walleye slot limits are a very effective management tool where sound biological data confirms the NEED for improving or protecting spawning stock. They are also useful when there is demand to improve quality (size) in a fishery, as long as the significant trade off in walleye harvest opportunity is clearly understood and acceptable. Broad application of Walleye slot limits because they are popular, "might help the fishery", but with no defined objectives are poor management decisions." — Gary

image reader comments Reader Comments Shared With Permission February 19, 2021 MN Walleye Bag Limits S.F. 12 TR James
On February 18, 2021 TR James wrote, "Hi Jeff, thanks for the reply and your post today, linking Mr. Barnard's comments directed toward the Senate hearing. Interesting that it was not included in testimony along with others (Mr. Barnard's assertion) that were in opposition. I think Mr. Barnard's comments are very concise and instructive and based on a lifetime of professional experience, in part directed specifically toward walleye management. There is no evidence that he can present (from a biological standpoint) to support the measure.

A couple of highlights are worth restating: "When discussing the potential effects of harvest reduction, it is essential to understand the different types of Walleye populations we have in Minnesota, Natural reproduction lakes, Fry stocked lakes, and Fingerling (including yearling and adult) stocked lakes.

Unnecessarily lowering the statewide Walleye limit sends the wrong conservation message. It implies that Minnesota anglers are over harvesting Walleye populations when in most cases there is no evidence to support that.

The quote in your article from the Brainerd Area Fisheries Manager on the other hand, "A minority (of anglers) disagree with a reduction in the limit. This is primarily a social regulation change requested BY ANGLERS, that will do no harm (and) in many parts of the state, in some cases, may help; especially in the long run. What a refreshing situation where the Senate, House and Executive branches all support the bill. Let's get on board this train.", would appear to be a completely political statement.

From my viewpoint, the proposal is a classic case of directing a very blunt object at a problem that exists largely in the minds of a select group of people who must have something to gain from the change. It is not about the resource.

I have contacted both my State Representative and Senator and asked that they oppose the measure. Thanks again for the conversation." — TR

NOTE: At the time he wrote, both of James' state legislators had responded, but until we learn whether we have permission to share their responses, they will remain private.

image reader comments Reader Comments Shared With Permission February 19, 2021 MN Walleye Bag Limits S.F. 12 Shawn Wahlstrom
"Hi Jeff, I just read your article on the MN (walleye) bag limit and I've been thinking about this for a few years too. My thought is 3 or 4 fish daily limit but have 6 in possession, so the out of staters on vacation can still bring home a few meals.Just a thought. Hope to talk soon!" — Shawn Wahlstrom, Pine Grove Lodge"

image reader comments Reader Comments Shared With Permission February 19, 2021 MN Walleye Bag Limits S.F. 12 Alan Kershaw
"Hey Jeff, just wanted to put my two cents in on the walleye reduction topic. I live in the grand rapids area and am basically retired. I fish on average 2 to 4 times a week and practice selective harvest or catch and release almost 100% of the time. Reducing bag limits wouldn't affect me personally because of the amount of time I spend on the water. My thought is that a reduction wouldn't really affect our fisheries health. Most of the major walleye fisheries that get the most pressure already have special regulations.

I think the biggest problem we have is over harvest and wanton waste, especially in the winter. I have personally witnessed people keeping every walleye they catch no matter the size or how many. Also I have seen dozens of nice size pike laying on the ice that were just thrown under fish houses.

I don't want to just classify a group of people but with the wheel house boom the amount of pressure during winter on lakes like Red, LOTW, Mille Lacs and Winnie has sky rocketed and a certain amount of people are just harvesting everything. Bag limit and slot enforcement is difficult for conservation officers with wheel houses and permanent shelters. I think this is gonna be our biggest problem especially on lakes that get heavy pressure." — Alan Kershaw

image links to fishing guide jeff sundin Jeff Sundin February 18, 2021 Walleye Bag Limits "Following The Follow-Able"
Follow up on yesterday’s report about the legislative proposal to reduce Minnesota’s walleye bag limit is going to take a little while. That’s because somewhere in my piles of saved stocking reports, DNR meeting agendas and notebooks filled with jotted notes, are some facts. Facts, in this case, facts about average walleye angler catch rates in Minnesota. I know they’re out there though because I’ve seen them with my own eyes. I just can't put my fingers on them and I don’t want to start spewing information, relying only on my memory.

The reason I am searching high and low for facts about walleye catch rates, is because nobody else is doing it. Advocates for walleye bag limit reductions cite plenty of “social reasons” for making the change. But statistical information and biological facts are harder to come by than an autographed Virgil Ward fishing pole.

Frankly, I’m surprised that the discussion about walleye bag limits is even still alive. A month ago, according to everything I had read, passage of S.F. 12 “should have been” a foregone conclusion. The Walleye Alliance supports it, MN-Fish supports it, the DNR supports it, heck, even my own State Senator is a co-sponsor. It seems like the reader comment on the “social” page sums up the spirit of support for the measure, “if it’s good enough for Al, it’s good enough for me.

Okay, I get it, anglers who fish a lot, especially those who catch a lot, support reducing the walleye bag limit. It would be easy for me to jump on the band wagon too, I catch enough fish to be happy and I’d be fine with a 4 fish limit. But that doesn’t mean that this is the RIGHT thing to do.

The reason that the discussion began heating up is that certain people began inquiring as to the facts. How do we know that reducing the bag limit will help? Further, how do we know that it won’t make matters even worse? Unexpected consequences, that is what I’m afraid of and I think, for good reason.

I have been around the block a few times and in the past, I have supported other “popular” regulation changes. 20 years ago, I was out front and center in support of “protected slot size limits” for walleyes. It seemed like a good idea at the time, protecting more female fish so that they could re-produce more and allow all of us to enjoy even better fishing than we already had, who wouldn’t feel good about that?

While slot limits didn’t turn out to be a total disaster, they did not create walleye fishing Nirvana either. Sometimes they made fishing harder, especially for folks who were eager to gather a few fish for a meal. Looking back, I think that on balance, I was wrong to support slot limits and would take it back if I could.

That’s why I want to be more careful this time. Anyone can drum up anecdotal examples that support their singular point of view and we’re seeing a lot of that going on now. But laying out facts isn’t as easy, it takes time, but I’m working on it. Please check back tomorrow for a progress report. fish smiley image — Jeff Sundin 218-245-9858 or EMAIL

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: walleye101] #7192640
02/22/21 07:18 PM
02/22/21 07:18 PM
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,128
North Cass Co. Minnesota
DiggerDale Offline
trapper
DiggerDale  Offline
trapper

Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,128
North Cass Co. Minnesota
I would be okay with that but ONLY if they did away with the "only one over 20 inch" rule.... Too many times I have to release larger ones and I always wonder about the mortality rate...
[Linked Image]

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: KeithC] #7192679
02/22/21 07:48 PM
02/22/21 07:48 PM
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,744
MN
W
walleye101 Offline OP
trapper
walleye101  Offline OP
trapper
W

Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,744
MN
Originally Posted by KeithC
The big problem with Minnesota walleye numbers seems to be over harvest and wanton waste by the Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians.

Keith


Well, band harvest is really only happening on Mille Lacs Lake. And that lake has the tightest harvest restrictions anyone could imagine. No harvest at all 9 months of the year, then winter harvest with a ONE fish bag limit, if the one fish is in a TWO INCH harvest slot between 21-23 inches. So how has reduced harvest worked out on that lake?

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: mskrtman] #7192686
02/22/21 07:51 PM
02/22/21 07:51 PM
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,744
MN
W
walleye101 Offline OP
trapper
walleye101  Offline OP
trapper
W

Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,744
MN
Originally Posted by mskrtman
I've heard about it. It's probably time to do something, I would prefer a daily limit of 2 or 3 and a possession limit of 6.


Care to share why you think it is time to do something? Have you seen some indication we are overharvesting our Walleye fisheries with a 6 fish bag?

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: walleye101] #7192687
02/22/21 07:51 PM
02/22/21 07:51 PM
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,410
South metro, MN
C
Calvin Offline
trapper
Calvin  Offline
trapper
C

Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,410
South metro, MN
It's the new MN DNR. First someone thought we needed to protect the pike, then there's quality sunfish management limits. Now the walleye. This is a snowball going down a hill on a warm day. It's just the start. This isn't about fish numbers, it's about reducing fishermen/women.

The DNR is phasing out hunting/trapping and fishing. Their (self admitted) focus customers are "urban hikers, "bird Watchers" and "school groups". What's the make up of those groups that will allow killing anything in the future? And those groups have money. Just ask California.


The insane are running the asylum.
Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: walleye101] #7192714
02/22/21 08:07 PM
02/22/21 08:07 PM
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,744
MN
W
walleye101 Offline OP
trapper
walleye101  Offline OP
trapper
W

Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,744
MN
This proposal is working it's way through the legislative process. DNR is supporting the bill, but since it is not going through normal DNR rulemaking they do not need to show need and reasonableness for making the regulation change. As Calvin said, this is more chipping away at consumptive harvest opportunity for no biological gain. The Senate bill is S.F. 12 and has already passed out of committee in the Senate. There is a house companion as well but I don't know the number. If you oppose this bill, or the process they are using to slide it through, now is the time to contact your senators and representatives.

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: walleye101] #7192886
02/22/21 10:06 PM
02/22/21 10:06 PM
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 490
minnesota
G
gman Offline
trapper
gman  Offline
trapper
G

Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 490
minnesota
This is what happens when you get preservationists running the show rather than conservationists!


Keith C. Your comments on ML and the band are totally false and ridiculous. There is so much oversight on the band harvest that it is almost ridiculous.

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: walleye101] #7192894
02/22/21 10:17 PM
02/22/21 10:17 PM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,008
western mn
B
bucksnbears Offline
trapper
bucksnbears  Offline
trapper
B

Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,008
western mn
Sure would be good if MN would manage the immigration problem first.


swampgas chili and schmidt beer makes for a deadly combo

You have to remember that 1 out of 3 Democratic Voters is just as dumb as the other two.
Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: bucksnbears] #7192900
02/22/21 10:22 PM
02/22/21 10:22 PM
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 7,918
St. Cloud, MN
trapperkeck Offline
trapper
trapperkeck  Offline
trapper

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 7,918
St. Cloud, MN
Originally Posted by bucksnbears
Sure would be good if MN would manage the immigration problem first.

Pretty sure, the powers that be have the immigration system right where they want it.


"The voice of reason!"
Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: walleye101] #7192903
02/22/21 10:23 PM
02/22/21 10:23 PM
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,073
Minnesota
Born Offline
trapper
Born  Offline
trapper

Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,073
Minnesota
A former DNR employee has come out against this bill. His comments were in this week or last week Outdoor news. I believe or very own DNR has stated that this is not needed. Harvest is not reducing walleye numbers. I am not in favor of this bill or the one in favor of banning lead jigs. We have no shortage of Loons or Trumpeters. In fact the DNR recently has mentioned Trumpeters have reached a population level capable of a hunting season.


Help yourself.



Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: gman] #7192912
02/22/21 10:30 PM
02/22/21 10:30 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,471
MN
M
Mark K Offline
trapper
Mark K  Offline
trapper
M

Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,471
MN
Originally Posted by gman
This is what happens when you get preservationists running the show rather than conservationists!


Keith C. Your comments on ML and the band are totally false and ridiculous. There is so much oversight on the band harvest that it is almost ridiculous.



No. It is not. I have talked to a lot of indians who have taken part in the harvests. They say that they saw their peers killing anything that came up no matter what it was. If the fish were good walleyes they went into the harvest. If not, they were killed. Didn't matter if it was a sunnie or a carp, or a undersize walleye or a muskie. All were killed.

Also, one I talked to said that he was part of the Mille Lacs DNR or whatever they call lit and said that there is no reason at all to limit the harvests on the sportsmen like they are doing. He said that the numbers were staggering. I think the reason is exactly what Calvin said it was.

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: walleye101] #7193007
02/23/21 02:09 AM
02/23/21 02:09 AM
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,410
South metro, MN
C
Calvin Offline
trapper
Calvin  Offline
trapper
C

Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,410
South metro, MN
I'll add one more thing: I was told by a long term DNR biologist (whom is a trapper) who stated the days of trapping in MN are very limited ( due to their new customer base).


The insane are running the asylum.
Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: walleye101] #7193010
02/23/21 02:49 AM
02/23/21 02:49 AM
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 8,970
Champaign County, Ohio.
K
KeithC Offline
trapper
KeithC  Offline
trapper
K

Joined: May 2009
Posts: 8,970
Champaign County, Ohio.

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: walleye101] #7193103
02/23/21 07:23 AM
02/23/21 07:23 AM
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 289
Wisconsin
D
Dirk Offline
trapper
Dirk  Offline
trapper
D

Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 289
Wisconsin
Pools 3-8 on the Mississippi River have a 4 fish limit, 15" minimum and 1 over 20"

I wouldn't mind it down to 3 fish, eliminate the out of state meat hunters

Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Previous Thread
Index
Next Thread