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

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: Dirk] #7193121
02/23/21 07:39 AM
02/23/21 07:39 AM
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 Dirk
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


With this attitude why not go to Mille Lacs regs statewide? That would eliminate the in state "meat hunters" as well.

The point is there is no biological reason to go from 6 to 4.

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: walleye101] #7193138
02/23/21 08:16 AM
02/23/21 08:16 AM
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 490
minnesota
G
gman Offline
trapper
gman  Offline
trapper
G

Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 490
minnesota
Keith. You obviously didn't read any of the articles you posted. And by the way I am not defending the ML netting-I don't like it at all but I also don't bs.

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: Dirk] #7193158
02/23/21 08:44 AM
02/23/21 08:44 AM
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,514
Northern Minnesota
BernieB. Offline
trapper
BernieB.  Offline
trapper

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,514
Northern Minnesota
Originally Posted by Dirk
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


There are no out of state meat hunters coming to Minnesota. The slot limits in so many lakes are so restrictive you can hardly keep enough for a meal. Nobody's going to travel to Minnesota to keep 6 fish of which only one can be over 20. They are coming for other reasons if they are coming at all.

Just go to Devils Lake, or just about any other lake in North or South Dakota. Look at the license plates of the trucks in the parking lots. Droves of Minnesota anglers are taking their money to the Dakotas to fish because you can actually keep enough fish to make it worth going. There are currently 67 different walleye length, slot and possession limits in Minnesota. And when a survey was done of people who quit fishing, the number one answer for the reason they quit was that the regulations were too complicated.

What's being done in Minnesota the past 25 years is not working. PERIOD. Not working. I don't know what the answer is, but I'll bet it's not to keep doing the same thing only more of it.

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: walleye101] #7193162
02/23/21 08:48 AM
02/23/21 08:48 AM
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,464
Michigan
M
Michigander Offline
trapper
Michigander  Offline
trapper
M

Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,464
Michigan
Sheesh sounds like a mess. How can you justify going fishing for a 1 fish limit on Mille Lacs?

We are struggling to harvest enough walleyes in the Saginaw bay and Lake Erie. Limit of 8 in the bay and a 6 limit in Erie with talks of increasing it. Record walleye hatches the past couple years have ensured superb fishing for the next decade.


Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: walleye101] #7193210
02/23/21 09:45 AM
02/23/21 09:45 AM
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 81
Mn
M
mskrtman Offline
trapper
mskrtman  Offline
trapper
M

Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 81
Mn
On another note, I never thought I'd see the day the sunfish limit was half the northern pike limit. Looks like that's the deal in a few days for much of the state.

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: walleye101] #7193233
02/23/21 10:17 AM
02/23/21 10:17 AM
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 409
Northern MN
A
atrapper Offline
trapper
atrapper  Offline
trapper
A

Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 409
Northern MN
Bernie, I agree that there are many complicated regulations in our state from one body of water to another. That said, how can there not be? Putting a blanket limit or regulations on all lakes state-wide would be difficult to do when some rely on stocking for walleye presence, some rely on natural production, some are netted (Mille Lacs), some are border waters, etc. There are a lot of variables that come into play when considering what a lake can and can't handle.
I would argue that there is more pressure on fish today than there ever has been. More people are fishing, equipment and technology make it easier to target and catch fish, equipment makes it easier to spend more hours on the lake (sleeper fish houses), etc. etc. How can we do nothing to constrict regulations yet expect fishing to be as good or better than it's been in the past? I don't think there's anything wrong with a 4 fish limit. Heck, I live on Lake of the Woods and when I want to catch fish I go over to Canada. The fishing is much better, the scenery is better, and there are less fisherman. And remember, the limit in Ontario is only 2 walleyes. What's that saying?

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: Dirk] #7193274
02/23/21 10:57 AM
02/23/21 10:57 AM
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 265
s.e. minnesota
H
Hornytoad1 Offline
trapper
Hornytoad1  Offline
trapper
H

Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 265
s.e. minnesota
Originally Posted by Dirk
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



The limit on MN,WI boarder water changed from 6 down to 4 in 2020. The change came because the MN&WI dnr surveyed anglers and found a very lopsided majority of anglers from BOTH states wanted the reduction. You don't need biological support when people cried for it. A case of careful what you ask for. You brother anglers across the river may see Wis. dnr do the same one day.

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: gman] #7193313
02/23/21 11:35 AM
02/23/21 11:35 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.
Originally Posted by gman
Keith. You obviously didn't read any of the articles you posted. And by the way I am not defending the ML netting-I don't like it at all but I also don't bs.


The articles all clearly state the natives waste huge numbers of fish. They likely take and use and resell even more. It's not good for the numbers of fish.

Keith

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: KeithC] #7193316
02/23/21 11:41 AM
02/23/21 11:41 AM
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 10,090
MN, Land of 10,000 Lakes
T
Trapper7 Offline
trapper
Trapper7  Offline
trapper
T

Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 10,090
MN, Land of 10,000 Lakes
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

Amen to that. Not to mention netting in the spawning beds during spawning season. MN DNR says it doesn't have an impact on the spawning, so they don't comment on it for fear of being called racist.


Dear Algebra, Please stop asking us to find your X. She's never coming back and don't ask Y.
Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: walleye101] #7193319
02/23/21 11:50 AM
02/23/21 11:50 AM
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 409
Northern MN
A
atrapper Offline
trapper
atrapper  Offline
trapper
A

Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 409
Northern MN
I agree that it seems hypocritical for them to be netting in the spring but I disagree that over harvest and wanton waste of walleyes in our state is strictly due to native netting. A majority of walleye lakes in MN are not netting. Some of our best walleye lakes are netted (Red Lakes) and they are still premier walleye lakes. Some lakes can sustain being netted and fished heavily because they have fantastic natural production. Others can't.

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: walleye101] #7193320
02/23/21 11:51 AM
02/23/21 11:51 AM
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 10,090
MN, Land of 10,000 Lakes
T
Trapper7 Offline
trapper
Trapper7  Offline
trapper
T

Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 10,090
MN, Land of 10,000 Lakes
Originally Posted by walleye101
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?


It has worked out well for the Indians while bankrupting resorts. Although, the resorts have been very busy once governor Porky Pig allowed them to open again. I've never seen that many fish houses on the lake in years. Which means the DNR will probably say too many fish were taken this winter as a result and the summer season will be catch and release only. That will last about a month and the DNR will say catch and release has caused too high of a mortality rate. Then, they'll close the summer season for walleyes.


Dear Algebra, Please stop asking us to find your X. She's never coming back and don't ask Y.
Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: walleye101] #7193322
02/23/21 11:54 AM
02/23/21 11:54 AM
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,744
MN
W
walleye101 Offline OP
trapper
walleye101  Offline OP
trapper
W

Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,744
MN
Mille Lacs is an interesting topic on it's own but has nothing to do with the proposed change in statewide bag limit. Nor does netting on Mille Lacs have any impact on the rest of the lakes in Minnesota.

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: gman] #7193331
02/23/21 12:02 PM
02/23/21 12:02 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 10,090
MN, Land of 10,000 Lakes
T
Trapper7 Offline
trapper
Trapper7  Offline
trapper
T

Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 10,090
MN, Land of 10,000 Lakes
Originally Posted by gman
Keith. You obviously didn't read any of the articles you posted. And by the way I am not defending the ML netting-I don't like it at all but I also don't bs.

I've had a place on the lake for over 20 years. He's not bsing, just telling it like it is. There have been articles with pictures showing piles of non-target fish dumped in the woods. These Indians are the worst conservationists out there. They net in the spawning beds while the fish are spawning!

One day while out jet skiing my wife and daughter came across an Indian gill net that obviously hadn't been checked recently. There were about 15 dead, rotted walleyes, a couple were still alive, 2 loons, a duck, and a few other species of fish. I called a conservation officer and took him out to where the nets were. He took several photos and pulled the net on shore. Nothing ever came of that. Nothing in the paper, no comment from the DNR. They basically covered it up. I wouldn't be surprised if the CO was reprimanded for taking photos.


Dear Algebra, Please stop asking us to find your X. She's never coming back and don't ask Y.
Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: atrapper] #7193336
02/23/21 12:09 PM
02/23/21 12:09 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 10,090
MN, Land of 10,000 Lakes
T
Trapper7 Offline
trapper
Trapper7  Offline
trapper
T

Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 10,090
MN, Land of 10,000 Lakes
Originally Posted by atrapper
I agree that it seems hypocritical for them to be netting in the spring but I disagree that over harvest and wanton waste of walleyes in our state is strictly due to native netting. A majority of walleye lakes in MN are not netting. Some of our best walleye lakes are netted (Red Lakes) and they are still premier walleye lakes. Some lakes can sustain being netted and fished heavily because they have fantastic natural production. Others can't.

True. But, over harvesting due to netting on Red took place not not that long ago. The lake was shut down to walleye anglers. It took some years for the lake to come back. I know because I went up there and caught some of the biggest crappies I've ever caught as a result. Now, the crappies seem to be gone and the walleyes are back. But, they had to get the Indians to agree not to net until the walleyes came back. The walleyes were depleted due to the netting more so than the angler pressure.


Dear Algebra, Please stop asking us to find your X. She's never coming back and don't ask Y.
Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: atrapper] #7193342
02/23/21 12:12 PM
02/23/21 12:12 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.
Originally Posted by atrapper
I agree that it seems hypocritical for them to be netting in the spring but I disagree that over harvest and wanton waste of walleyes in our state is strictly due to native netting. A majority of walleye lakes in MN are not netting. Some of our best walleye lakes are netted (Red Lakes) and they are still premier walleye lakes. Some lakes can sustain being netted and fished heavily because they have fantastic natural production. Others can't.


Not a single person posted that the low walleye numbers are "strictly due to native netting", but it definitely is a factor.

Keith

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: KeithC] #7193344
02/23/21 12:16 PM
02/23/21 12:16 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 10,090
MN, Land of 10,000 Lakes
T
Trapper7 Offline
trapper
Trapper7  Offline
trapper
T

Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 10,090
MN, Land of 10,000 Lakes
Originally Posted by KeithC
Originally Posted by atrapper
I agree that it seems hypocritical for them to be netting in the spring but I disagree that over harvest and wanton waste of walleyes in our state is strictly due to native netting. A majority of walleye lakes in MN are not netting. Some of our best walleye lakes are netted (Red Lakes) and they are still premier walleye lakes. Some lakes can sustain being netted and fished heavily because they have fantastic natural production. Others can't.


Not a single person posted that the low walleye numbers are "strictly due to native netting", but it definitely is a factor.

Keith

It was the major factor on Red Lake. It was reported that the low walleye numbers were due to over netting. Sure, fishermen played a role, but a small one in comparison.


Dear Algebra, Please stop asking us to find your X. She's never coming back and don't ask Y.
Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: walleye101] #7193366
02/23/21 12:43 PM
02/23/21 12:43 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 walleye101
Mille Lacs and Red Lake are an interesting topic on there own but has nothing to do with the proposed change in statewide bag limit. Nor does netting on Mille Lacs have any impact on the rest of the lakes in Minnesota.

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: Hornytoad1] #7193369
02/23/21 12:52 PM
02/23/21 12:52 PM
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 7,249
mn north of blakely
S
Steven 49er Offline
trapper
Steven 49er  Offline
trapper
S

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 7,249
mn north of blakely
Originally Posted by atrapper
Bernie, I agree that there are many complicated regulations in our state from one body of water to another. That said, how can there not be? Putting a blanket limit or regulations on all lakes state-wide would be difficult to do when some rely on stocking for walleye presence, some rely on natural production, some are netted (Mille Lacs), some are border waters, etc. There are a lot of variables that come into play when considering what a lake can and can't handle.
I would argue that there is more pressure on fish today than there ever has been. More people are fishing, equipment and technology make it easier to target and catch fish, equipment makes it easier to spend more hours on the lake (sleeper fish houses), etc. etc. How can we do nothing to constrict regulations yet expect fishing to be as good or better than it's been in the past? I don't think there's anything wrong with a 4 fish limit. Heck, I live on Lake of the Woods and when I want to catch fish I go over to Canada. The fishing is much better, the scenery is better, and there are less fisherman. And remember, the limit in Ontario is only 2 walleyes. What's that saying?

Originally Posted by Hornytoad1
Originally Posted by Dirk
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



The limit on MN,WI boarder water changed from 6 down to 4 in 2020. The change came because the MN&WI dnr surveyed anglers and found a very lopsided majority of anglers from BOTH states wanted the reduction. You don't need biological support when people cried for it. A case of careful what you ask for. You brother anglers across the river may see Wis. dnr do the same one day.



This. Most of these special regulations came from public comment. The last time they lowered the limit on LOW it was instigated by the resorts.

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: walleye101] #7193405
02/23/21 01:32 PM
02/23/21 01:32 PM
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 409
Northern MN
A
atrapper Offline
trapper
atrapper  Offline
trapper
A

Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 409
Northern MN
You're right, Trapper 7. It was netting that seemed to have thrown off the balance in Upper Red in the late 90's. Now after the walleye demise, crappie boom, crappie demise, and walleye boom, they seem to have the numbers figured out. Seeing a success story like Red and then looking at what's been happening on Mille Lacs for so long really has to make a person wonder what's going on? There appears to be much more politics than science happening on Mille Lacs.

Spot on Seven. Lake of the Woods is an interesting study as well. The resort owners could see the writing on the wall with the amount of fishing pressure happening in the last decade or two and understood that they needed to reduce limits. I have to assume that they will adjust those limits again sooner than later with the amount of pressure that LOW gets. Thank goodness for the Canadian side of LOW replenishing our side of the lake or I think the resort industry would have been in a world of hurt long ago. I'm always amazed at the number of houses or boats out on the water on any given day, the amount of fish taken out daily, and the amount of fishing that the lake continues to have. It's truly a walleye factory.

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: atrapper] #7193413
02/23/21 01:42 PM
02/23/21 01:42 PM
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,514
Northern Minnesota
BernieB. Offline
trapper
BernieB.  Offline
trapper

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,514
Northern Minnesota
Originally Posted by atrapper
Bernie, I agree that there are many complicated regulations in our state from one body of water to another. That said, how can there not be? Putting a blanket limit or regulations on all lakes state-wide would be difficult to do when some rely on stocking for walleye presence, some rely on natural production, some are netted (Mille Lacs), some are border waters, etc. There are a lot of variables that come into play when considering what a lake can and can't handle.
I would argue that there is more pressure on fish today than there ever has been. More people are fishing, equipment and technology make it easier to target and catch fish, equipment makes it easier to spend more hours on the lake (sleeper fish houses), etc. etc. How can we do nothing to constrict regulations yet expect fishing to be as good or better than it's been in the past? I don't think there's anything wrong with a 4 fish limit. Heck, I live on Lake of the Woods and when I want to catch fish I go over to Canada. The fishing is much better, the scenery is better, and there are less fisherman. And remember, the limit in Ontario is only 2 walleyes. What's that saying?


It's saying that it's even worse in Ontario. Seriously, you can go to a wilderness lake where the walleyes can be caught 100 per day, and hardly anyone else fishes the lake, and you can keep two walleyes. Go eat your two walleyes for shore lunch and you're done. Can't keep any more. You can take two walleyes home. It's crazy and certainly not based on any kind of science or logic.

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: walleye101] #7193421
02/23/21 01:49 PM
02/23/21 01:49 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 10,090
MN, Land of 10,000 Lakes
T
Trapper7 Offline
trapper
Trapper7  Offline
trapper
T

Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 10,090
MN, Land of 10,000 Lakes
atrapper, you're right on about MilleLacs. It's all politics, not science. I blame the Indians with their netting. But, the DNR's mismanagement of the lake is just as bad.

About 10 years or so ago, I spoke to one of the fisheries managers about how they were managing the lake. He told me not to be surprised if eventually MilleLacs would become a catch & release lake. And that the goal also was to make MilleLacs a trophy lake. I feel that's still the DNR's goal. I told this same person that resorts will be hurting financially if they go through with this plan. His comment was, 'We know there are going to be casualties."


Dear Algebra, Please stop asking us to find your X. She's never coming back and don't ask Y.
Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: walleye101] #7193422
02/23/21 01:50 PM
02/23/21 01:50 PM
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 409
Northern MN
A
atrapper Offline
trapper
atrapper  Offline
trapper
A

Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 409
Northern MN
I understand what you're saying. It's true that the Ontario two fish limit can't be based on science. But it's been working for them for quite a while. My point is that during years with open borders, fisherman flock to Ontario to enjoy some of the best fishing in the world even though the walleye limit is only two fish. Based on this, I don't buy the argument that MN needs to keep a higher bag limit to encourage out of state tourist.

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: walleye101] #7193427
02/23/21 01:56 PM
02/23/21 01:56 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 10,090
MN, Land of 10,000 Lakes
T
Trapper7 Offline
trapper
Trapper7  Offline
trapper
T

Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 10,090
MN, Land of 10,000 Lakes
Maybe our DNR could take some lessons from the Dakotas DNR. Take Devil's Lake as an example. A friend of mine doesn't even buy a MN fishing license. He does all his fishing in Devil's Lake with his wife. Limit is 5 per person, any size. He and his wife go for a weekend. They come home with their possession limit of 10 each almost whenever they go. They've been doing this for about 20 years according to him.


Dear Algebra, Please stop asking us to find your X. She's never coming back and don't ask Y.
Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: Trapper7] #7193442
02/23/21 02:07 PM
02/23/21 02:07 PM
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,067
North Dakota
grumley701 Offline
trapper
grumley701  Offline
trapper

Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,067
North Dakota
Originally Posted by Trapper7
Maybe our DNR could take some lessons from the Dakotas DNR. Take Devil's Lake as an example. A friend of mine doesn't even buy a MN fishing license. He does all his fishing in Devil's Lake with his wife. Limit is 5 per person, any size. He and his wife go for a weekend. They come home with their possession limit of 10 each almost whenever they go. They've been doing this for about 20 years according to him.


How does that work with your possession limit being your freezer limit, do you think if the MNDNR searched his freezer he be in hot water? The idea that your daily possession limit is your freezer limit is ridiculous too me.

Last edited by grumley701; 02/23/21 02:16 PM.

Trump won....
Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: walleye101] #7193460
02/23/21 02:25 PM
02/23/21 02:25 PM
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 409
Northern MN
A
atrapper Offline
trapper
atrapper  Offline
trapper
A

Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 409
Northern MN
Interesting information about Mille Lacs, Trapper 7. I have a hard time understanding why the DNR would feel such an obligation to mess with a lake like Mille Lacs. It certainly has appeared to have turned into a trophy small mouth, muskie, and to an extent walleye lake. Maybe they feel that would appeal to a different crowd? I feel sorry for the resort owners and even cabin owners in that area. They've sure been jerked around for a long time with few answers and a lot of unknowns about the future of the lake.

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: grumley701] #7193466
02/23/21 02:28 PM
02/23/21 02:28 PM
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 409
Northern MN
A
atrapper Offline
trapper
atrapper  Offline
trapper
A

Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 409
Northern MN
Originally Posted by grumley701
Originally Posted by Trapper7
Maybe our DNR could take some lessons from the Dakotas DNR. Take Devil's Lake as an example. A friend of mine doesn't even buy a MN fishing license. He does all his fishing in Devil's Lake with his wife. Limit is 5 per person, any size. He and his wife go for a weekend. They come home with their possession limit of 10 each almost whenever they go. They've been doing this for about 20 years according to him.


How does that work with your possession limit being your freezer limit, do you think if the MNDNR searched his freezer he be in hot water? The idea that your daily possession limit is your freezer limit is ridiculous too me.



I've often wondered about that too, Grumley. No different with waterfowl, etc. that may cross state lines. How would the DNR truly know where they came from? My guess is that they would do some digging to find trip dates, hotels/resorts you stayed at, and the whole jazz to figure out if the game came from out of state or not. In the end they really wouldn't have any way of truly knowing though.

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: walleye101] #7193470
02/23/21 02:30 PM
02/23/21 02:30 PM
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,067
North Dakota
grumley701 Offline
trapper
grumley701  Offline
trapper

Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,067
North Dakota
Hey, maybe if you are in possession of a ND fishing license you don't have a freezer limit in MN?? crazy


Trump won....
Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: atrapper] #7193475
02/23/21 02:38 PM
02/23/21 02:38 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 10,090
MN, Land of 10,000 Lakes
T
Trapper7 Offline
trapper
Trapper7  Offline
trapper
T

Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 10,090
MN, Land of 10,000 Lakes
Originally Posted by atrapper
Interesting information about Mille Lacs, Trapper 7. I have a hard time understanding why the DNR would feel such an obligation to mess with a lake like Mille Lacs. It certainly has appeared to have turned into a trophy small mouth, muskie, and to an extent walleye lake. Maybe they feel that would appeal to a different crowd? I feel sorry for the resort owners and even cabin owners in that area. They've sure been jerked around for a long time with few answers and a lot of unknowns about the future of the lake.

You forgot to mention the northern pike as a trophy. That seems to be the case for this species as well since the protected slot is 30-40 inches and one over 40 inches.

When we first bought our place on the lake, we bought it for the great perch fishing the lake had. With the DNR's protection for the large predators, the perch population is very low. Not many perch grow to be large enough to make for a sizable harvest.


Dear Algebra, Please stop asking us to find your X. She's never coming back and don't ask Y.
Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: walleye101] #7193496
02/23/21 02:53 PM
02/23/21 02:53 PM
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 409
Northern MN
A
atrapper Offline
trapper
atrapper  Offline
trapper
A

Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 409
Northern MN
I can imagine the DNR looked at the lake's forage base in perch, ciscoes, suckers, and smaller walleyes and saw the potential it had for growing big esox. It's become an experimental lake. To the chagrin of some and jubilation of others. I still just fail to see then why the DNR is so reluctant to open up the walleye fishery more. Is the main clientele on the lake still walleye fisherman or has it transitioned into mostly musky, bass, and pike fisherman?

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: walleye101] #7193534
02/23/21 03:32 PM
02/23/21 03:32 PM
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,514
Northern Minnesota
BernieB. Offline
trapper
BernieB.  Offline
trapper

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,514
Northern Minnesota
Mille Lacs is one of the most amazing natural walleye factories of all time. If the DNR can screw that up, they can screw up anything. They may not be to blame for the smallmouth explosion, but they are to blame for not reacting to it fast enough. The muskie fishery has run its course and is a shadow of what it was 10-15 years ago.

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: walleye101] #7193621
02/23/21 04:48 PM
02/23/21 04:48 PM
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 409
Northern MN
A
atrapper Offline
trapper
atrapper  Offline
trapper
A

Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 409
Northern MN
Bernie, what's your opinion on the DNR's intentions for Mille Lacs walleyes? Did they mess with it to intentionally make the lake a grand fishery for other species or did they have good intentions that went wrong for walleyes? Or is the walleye population as good as ever and politics are hand-cuffing what they can do for regulations? I've fished the lake once, I know very little about it.

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: walleye101] #7193629
02/23/21 04:55 PM
02/23/21 04:55 PM
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 3,635
WI
Sprung & Rusty Offline
trapper
Sprung & Rusty  Offline
trapper

Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 3,635
WI
With all the hunting and fishing rule changes, it's looking like they are making it more difficult for a person to harvest his own food. Pretty soon it will all have to be bought and all game will be owned by the government only.

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: atrapper] #7193663
02/23/21 05:22 PM
02/23/21 05:22 PM
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 7,249
mn north of blakely
S
Steven 49er Offline
trapper
Steven 49er  Offline
trapper
S

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 7,249
mn north of blakely
Originally Posted by atrapper
You're right, Trapper 7. It was netting that seemed to have thrown off the balance in Upper Red in the late 90's. Now after the walleye demise, crappie boom, crappie demise, and walleye boom, they seem to have the numbers figured out. Seeing a success story like Red and then looking at what's been happening on Mille Lacs for so long really has to make a person wonder what's going on? There appears to be much more politics than science happening on Mille Lacs.

Spot on Seven. Lake of the Woods is an interesting study as well. The resort owners could see the writing on the wall with the amount of fishing pressure happening in the last decade or two and understood that they needed to reduce limits. I have to assume that they will adjust those limits again sooner than later with the amount of pressure that LOW gets. Thank goodness for the Canadian side of LOW replenishing our side of the lake or I think the resort industry would have been in a world of hurt long ago. I'm always amazed at the number of houses or boats out on the water on any given day, the amount of fish taken out daily, and the amount of fishing that the lake continues to have. It's truly a walleye factory.


If the resort owners could see.tje writing on the wall maybe they should look in the mirror instead of on the wall.

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: Steven 49er] #7193693
02/23/21 06:03 PM
02/23/21 06:03 PM
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,619
minnesota
M
mnsota Offline
trapper
mnsota  Offline
trapper
M

Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,619
minnesota
Originally Posted by Steven 49er
Originally Posted by atrapper
You're right, Trapper 7. It was netting that seemed to have thrown off the balance in Upper Red in the late 90's. Now after the walleye demise, crappie boom, crappie demise, and walleye boom, they seem to have the numbers figured out. Seeing a success story like Red and then looking at what's been happening on Mille Lacs for so long really has to make a person wonder what's going on? There appears to be much more politics than science happening on Mille Lacs.

Spot on Seven. Lake of the Woods is an interesting study as well. The resort owners could see the writing on the wall with the amount of fishing pressure happening in the last decade or two and understood that they needed to reduce limits. I have to assume that they will adjust those limits again sooner than later with the amount of pressure that LOW gets. Thank goodness for the Canadian side of LOW replenishing our side of the lake or I think the resort industry would have been in a world of hurt long ago. I'm always amazed at the number of houses or boats out on the water on any given day, the amount of fish taken out daily, and the amount of fishing that the lake continues to have. It's truly a walleye factory.


If the resort owners could see.tje writing on the wall maybe they should look in the mirror instead of on the wall.





That's a bingo!,...I think it's better now,.at least hope so.

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: walleye101] #7193732
02/23/21 06:58 PM
02/23/21 06:58 PM
Joined: May 2019
Posts: 847
Saskatchewan
R
rvsask Offline
trapper
rvsask  Offline
trapper
R

Joined: May 2019
Posts: 847
Saskatchewan
This is an interesting read. As an avid walleye and pike fisherman who fishes a variety of different water bodies with varying regulations and varying walleye and pike opportunities, I don’t know the answer. I know keeping everybody happy is a real difficulty. Personally I’d rather catch more and bigger fish and be able keep less to eat but I realize that’s just my preference.

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: walleye101] #7193758
02/23/21 07:29 PM
02/23/21 07:29 PM
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,640
Ohio
S
stinkypete Offline
trapper
stinkypete  Offline
trapper
S

Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,640
Ohio
I remember Millacs and the Upper Red in the hey day. Upper Red has been on the mend. Over Harvesting was the reason. MN DNR botched Millacs with there ridiculous regulations. Not based on science. Based on politics. Still lots of walleye fishing in MN. But a 4 limit state wide is not necessary at all.

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: stinkypete] #7193850
02/23/21 08:49 PM
02/23/21 08:49 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 stinkypete
I remember Millacs and the Upper Red in the hey day. Upper Red has been on the mend. Over Harvesting was the reason. MN DNR botched Millacs with there ridiculous regulations. Not based on science. Based on politics. Still lots of walleye fishing in MN. But a 4 limit state wide is not necessary at all.


Bingo, we have a winner!

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: atrapper] #7193855
02/23/21 08:54 PM
02/23/21 08:54 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 atrapper
You're right, Trapper 7. It was netting that seemed to have thrown off the balance in Upper Red in the late 90's. Now after the walleye demise, crappie boom, crappie demise, and walleye boom, they seem to have the numbers figured out. Seeing a success story like Red and then looking at what's been happening on Mille Lacs for so long really has to make a person wonder what's going on? There appears to be much more politics than science happening on Mille Lacs.

Spot on Seven. Lake of the Woods is an interesting study as well. The resort owners could see the writing on the wall with the amount of fishing pressure happening in the last decade or two and understood that they needed to reduce limits. I have to assume that they will adjust those limits again sooner than later with the amount of pressure that LOW gets. Thank goodness for the Canadian side of LOW replenishing our side of the lake or I think the resort industry would have been in a world of hurt long ago. I'm always amazed at the number of houses or boats out on the water on any given day, the amount of fish taken out daily, and the amount of fishing that the lake continues to have. It's truly a walleye factory.


Walleye factory indeed. Walleye are a renewable resource. It is no coincidence that heavily fished walleye populations continue to produce frequent strong year classes to replenish the population. There is no need for a statewide four fish limit.

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: walleye101] #7193864
02/23/21 08:59 PM
02/23/21 08:59 PM
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 490
minnesota
G
gman Offline
trapper
gman  Offline
trapper
G

Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 490
minnesota

There have been several post on Trapperman showing huge piles of rotting fish left by the natives and a multitude of news articles


Keith-did you even read these articles? Your statement is total BS! All those "piles" are filleted fish. They are not rotting-wasted fish. Total of wasted fish appears to be 23 northerns. Very insignificant

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: walleye101] #7193873
02/23/21 09:12 PM
02/23/21 09:12 PM
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 490
minnesota
G
gman Offline
trapper
gman  Offline
trapper
G

Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 490
minnesota
I've had a place on the lake for over 20 years. He's not bsing, just telling it like it is. There have been articles with pictures showing piles of non-target fish dumped in the woods. These Indians are the worst conservationists out there. They net in the spawning beds while the fish are spawning!
One day while out jet skiing my wife and daughter came across an Indian gill net that obviously hadn't been checked recently. There were about 15 dead, rotted walleyes, a couple were still alive, 2 loons, a duck, and a few other species of fish. I called a conservation officer and took him out to where the nets were. He took several photos and pulled the net on shore. Nothing ever came of that. Nothing in the paper, no comment from the DNR. They basically covered it up. I wouldn't be surprised if the CO was reprimanded for taking


T7 Could you show me those articles. Also do you remember the name of the CO you talked about? And how did you know it was a band net?

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: atrapper] #7194186
02/24/21 07:31 AM
02/24/21 07:31 AM
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,514
Northern Minnesota
BernieB. Offline
trapper
BernieB.  Offline
trapper

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,514
Northern Minnesota
Originally Posted by atrapper
Bernie, what's your opinion on the DNR's intentions for Mille Lacs walleyes? Did they mess with it to intentionally make the lake a grand fishery for other species or did they have good intentions that went wrong for walleyes? Or is the walleye population as good as ever and politics are hand-cuffing what they can do for regulations? I've fished the lake once, I know very little about it.


I think they had good intentions. But this lake for it's entire history produced incredible walleye fishing until the 1990's. Resorts did well and the winter perch bite was known far and wide. It was managed for maximum sustainable yield and man did it yield. In the 1990,s the slot limits started. They started managing the lake for muskies as well as pike, which may or may not have made a difference. It was a world class muskie fishery for many years but that is now well past its peak.

I am not a biologist, I guided on the lake and have fished it many many times and run many walleye tournaments on the lake. I've seen it at its best and at its worst. I really don't know the answers. Seems to me the netting is a factor and the wanton waste by the Wisconsin tribes is well documented, but nothing is ever done about it. In the early 2000's. It was clear that something was wrong because the slot limits were glutting the lake with just a few year classes of fish which is not sustainable as they will die off for lack of food, which is the cycle we are in now. Boom and bust. Different sizes of fish eat different baits so you can't just keep taking certain sizes and expect the lake to be healthy. Plus the slots create a unbalanced number of males in the harvest Which is something the DNR just now admits they never thought about. The number of walleyes that have died on that lake because of the mismanagement of the DNR is mind blowing. It's just plain bad stewardship to have all these walleyes starving and going to waste when they could be providing food and tourism. Nobody really knows where the smallmouth bass came from, but they have been a huge boom to the lake for bass tournaments, which has helped tourism a little, but the bottom line is that people eat walleyes, they are a food fish and you can't expect people to come stay in a resort to fish for the best tasting fish there is and put them all back.

Like I said I don't know the answer. The lake is so out of whack I don't know how to turn it around. Anglers are more skilled and have better equipment than ever, so that is an issue that has to be a factor. People catch more fish than they used to. Honestly I think there is something seriously flawed in the DNR's population estimates. I really think their systems of monitoring walleye populations is not accurate and that needs to be changed. For sure, the smallmouth bass population needs to be reduced. The invasive rusty crawfish has decimated the huge cabbage beds that once gave refuge to fingerling walleyes and perch. How do you fix that? No idea.

There's a part of me that says to take the lake back 25 years and just allow 4-5 walleyes per day of any size and see if the lake will correct itself in a few years. Most people will just keep enough for a meal and maybe take a couple home. Wish I had a pat answer but I don't.


Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: walleye101] #7194338
02/24/21 10:14 AM
02/24/21 10:14 AM
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 409
Northern MN
A
atrapper Offline
trapper
atrapper  Offline
trapper
A

Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 409
Northern MN
Thank you for your thoughts. Some interesting stuff there. I tend to agree with you on the thought process of just allowing a 4 fish limit, no slots, and trying to let the lake straighten itself out. At this point in time, most anglers can agree on the importance of spawning sized females to a naturally preproducing lake so hopefully with some common sense, anglers would show some constraint and stewardship when keeping fish.

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: walleye101] #7194399
02/24/21 11:08 AM
02/24/21 11:08 AM
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,022
SE Minn
R
Rat Masterson Offline
trapper
Rat Masterson  Offline
trapper
R

Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,022
SE Minn
Back in the 60s and early 70s if memory serves 10,000 boats on the lake opening day. Seems like a lot of pressure to me. The big change was netting, and the DNR is going to spin it to save their backside. They and anyone else will never convince me otherwise.

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: atrapper] #7194443
02/24/21 11:55 AM
02/24/21 11:55 AM
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 10,090
MN, Land of 10,000 Lakes
T
Trapper7 Offline
trapper
Trapper7  Offline
trapper
T

Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 10,090
MN, Land of 10,000 Lakes
Originally Posted by atrapper
I can imagine the DNR looked at the lake's forage base in perch, ciscoes, suckers, and smaller walleyes and saw the potential it had for growing big esox. It's become an experimental lake. To the chagrin of some and jubilation of others. I still just fail to see then why the DNR is so reluctant to open up the walleye fishery more. Is the main clientele on the lake still walleye fisherman or has it transitioned into mostly musky, bass, and pike fisherman?

There are some hard core walleye fishermen that still go after walleyes. There are a few musky fanatics out there too. Thanks to national promotion, small mouth have become fairly popular on the lake.
Personally, my wife and I fished walleye one year where you could take one between 21-23 inches, I think it was. I remember we caught and released roughly 70 fish. Only one fit the tight slot. I have pretty much resorted to fishing northern pike. If you know how to remove the Y bones, they are a pretty tasty fish.


Dear Algebra, Please stop asking us to find your X. She's never coming back and don't ask Y.
Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: walleye101] #7194447
02/24/21 12:00 PM
02/24/21 12:00 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 10,090
MN, Land of 10,000 Lakes
T
Trapper7 Offline
trapper
Trapper7  Offline
trapper
T

Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 10,090
MN, Land of 10,000 Lakes
Originally Posted by walleye101
Originally Posted by atrapper
You're right, Trapper 7. It was netting that seemed to have thrown off the balance in Upper Red in the late 90's. Now after the walleye demise, crappie boom, crappie demise, and walleye boom, they seem to have the numbers figured out. Seeing a success story like Red and then looking at what's been happening on Mille Lacs for so long really has to make a person wonder what's going on? There appears to be much more politics than science happening on Mille Lacs.

Spot on Seven. Lake of the Woods is an interesting study as well. The resort owners could see the writing on the wall with the amount of fishing pressure happening in the last decade or two and understood that they needed to reduce limits. I have to assume that they will adjust those limits again sooner than later with the amount of pressure that LOW gets. Thank goodness for the Canadian side of LOW replenishing our side of the lake or I think the resort industry would have been in a world of hurt long ago. I'm always amazed at the number of houses or boats out on the water on any given day, the amount of fish taken out daily, and the amount of fishing that the lake continues to have. It's truly a walleye factory.


Walleye factory indeed. Walleye are a renewable resource. It is no coincidence that heavily fished walleye populations continue to produce frequent strong year classes to replenish the population. There is no need for a statewide four fish limit.

According to a resort owner, MilleLacs is a self sustaining walleye factory. It has never been necessary to stock it with walleyes. Even now, there is no shortage of walleyes in the lake, contrary to what the band and MNDNR say.


Dear Algebra, Please stop asking us to find your X. She's never coming back and don't ask Y.
Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: walleye101] #7194448
02/24/21 12:01 PM
02/24/21 12:01 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
Since you insist on making this about Mille Lacs, let me try this one more time.

Since we all agree that Mille Lacs is a mess.........Are you ok with the State lowering the Walleye bag limit from 6 to 4 on the rest of the Walleye lakes in the state, without showing any need or justification for the change?

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: Rat Masterson] #7194475
02/24/21 12:20 PM
02/24/21 12:20 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 10,090
MN, Land of 10,000 Lakes
T
Trapper7 Offline
trapper
Trapper7  Offline
trapper
T

Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 10,090
MN, Land of 10,000 Lakes
Originally Posted by Rat Masterson
Back in the 60s and early 70s if memory serves 10,000 boats on the lake opening day. Seems like a lot of pressure to me. The big change was netting, and the DNR is going to spin it to save their backside. They and anyone else will never convince me otherwise.

It took a few years, but eventually the netting started the walleye downward trend. How could it not when the Indians netted in the spawning beds during the spawn? I posed that to one of the DNR managers at the time. He said that didn't have any impact on the spawning success of the walleyes!
I asked him if it didn't, they why are there signs on some lakes prohibiting boat traffic in certain areas because they are spawning beds. His answer was that every lake is different.

Bernie refers to mismanagement by the DNR. A perfect example is for years they targeted the walleyes in a slot of 14-18 inches depleting the number of male walleyes. It took them quite a few years before their test netting made them realize what they had done. That's when they bumped up the size to target the females.

Another time I told the management a limit of 2 walleyes, any size would be a good idea. It would also help the starving resorts on the lake. Once again , I was told they realize there are going to be casualties. Bernie you say you don't know what the answer is. I don't know for sure either, but I can't believe keeping the Indians out of the spawning beds until after the spawn isn't a bad idea.


Dear Algebra, Please stop asking us to find your X. She's never coming back and don't ask Y.
Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: walleye101] #7194476
02/24/21 12:21 PM
02/24/21 12:21 PM
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 409
Northern MN
A
atrapper Offline
trapper
atrapper  Offline
trapper
A

Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 409
Northern MN
Personally, I'm good with a 4 fish bag. Again, I think with today's technology, social media, and advancements in fishing, and number of fisherman, it has put a lot more stain on fish populations. Take Lake of the Woods for example. The amount of fishing hours that lake gets during winter alone has grown exponentially due to the simple fact that people now fish the lake 24 hours a day with their sleeper houses. That wasn't happening just 25 years ago. I feel that it's better to error on the side of caution than overfish a lake and have to start over. That said, I don't think that one blanket bag limit it ideal for all Minnesota lakes. There are just too many factors that come into play with each individual lake to say that a 4 fish bag limit is the perfect fit for each lake.

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: Trapper7] #7194482
02/24/21 12:27 PM
02/24/21 12:27 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
Originally Posted by Trapper7
Originally Posted by atrapper
I can imagine the DNR looked at the lake's forage base in perch, ciscoes, suckers, and smaller walleyes and saw the potential it had for growing big esox. It's become an experimental lake. To the chagrin of some and jubilation of others. I still just fail to see then why the DNR is so reluctant to open up the walleye fishery more. Is the main clientele on the lake still walleye fisherman or has it transitioned into mostly musky, bass, and pike fisherman?

There are some hard core walleye fishermen that still go after walleyes. There are a few musky fanatics out there too. Thanks to national promotion, small mouth have become fairly popular on the lake.
Personally, my wife and I fished walleye one year where you could take one between 21-23 inches, I think it was. I remember we caught and released roughly 70 fish. Only one fit the tight slot. I have pretty much resorted to fishing northern pike. If you know how to remove the Y bones, they are a pretty tasty fish.

Lol....I would give up fishing with that slot limit.


My President is still President Trump
Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: walleye101] #7194485
02/24/21 12:30 PM
02/24/21 12:30 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 10,090
MN, Land of 10,000 Lakes
T
Trapper7 Offline
trapper
Trapper7  Offline
trapper
T

Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 10,090
MN, Land of 10,000 Lakes
Originally Posted by walleye101
Since you insist on making this about Mille Lacs, let me try this one more time.

Since we all agree that Mille Lacs is a mess.........Are you ok with the State lowering the Walleye bag limit from 6 to 4 on the rest of the Walleye lakes in the state, without showing any need or justification for the change?

The DNR has been reducing bag limits on more fish than just walleyes. Just recently they reduced the sunfish-crappie limit to either 5 or 10 on about 70 or so different lakes with the promise of many more to come. This isn't anything new as they have reduced limits on quite a few lakes prior. You have to be sure to read the launch signs at every lake you fish or you could get into a lot of trouble if you plan to keep any fish.

I don't think I'd agree with a 4 walleye limit statewide. For some lakes it might be appropriate. Others fisheries not, such as the Mississippi river where I live. If you drift the river for half a day you will almost be guaranteed to catch 20 walleyes and 20 smallmouth at certain times.. So, the 6 bag limit is fine.


Dear Algebra, Please stop asking us to find your X. She's never coming back and don't ask Y.
Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: atrapper] #7194492
02/24/21 12:33 PM
02/24/21 12:33 PM
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,514
Northern Minnesota
BernieB. Offline
trapper
BernieB.  Offline
trapper

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,514
Northern Minnesota
Originally Posted by atrapper
Thank you for your thoughts. Some interesting stuff there. I tend to agree with you on the thought process of just allowing a 4 fish limit, no slots, and trying to let the lake straighten itself out. At this point in time, most anglers can agree on the importance of spawning sized females to a naturally preproducing lake so hopefully with some common sense, anglers would show some constraint and stewardship when keeping fish.


Absolutely almost everyone releases those 24-28-inch females which are the most valuable to the future of the fishery. They key is education, which is something that the Minnesota DNR is the worst at, I mean worse than any other state I know of. People hate the MN DNR because they are sick of being told what to do rather than being told how they can be part of a team effort to improve the fisheries. People want to do the right thing. If the DNR would spend some effort helping people understand what they are trying to accomplish and why, instead of just arrogantly mandating everything, they would have a lot better public image. This is a toxic culture in the MN DNR that has been around since I first started fishing in this state in the early 1970s.

While most people understand the value of the spawning fish (They've learned it from reading magazine articles, books and TV shows, not from the DNR) there should always be an opening for exceptions. Some family comes up from Chicago or elsewhere and spends thousands to stay at a resort, they need to be able to keep a few fish to eat and one daily limit to take home. They also need to be able to keep that once-in-a-lifetime fish if they happen to catch it. If they are jumping up and down over catching a 8-10 pounder and want to take it home to mount, that's okay and it's VERY good for tourism and the resort they stayed at. Just my opinion.

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: BernieB.] #7194517
02/24/21 12:56 PM
02/24/21 12:56 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 BernieB.
Originally Posted by atrapper
Thank you for your thoughts. Some interesting stuff there. I tend to agree with you on the thought process of just allowing a 4 fish limit, no slots, and trying to let the lake straighten itself out. At this point in time, most anglers can agree on the importance of spawning sized females to a naturally preproducing lake so hopefully with some common sense, anglers would show some constraint and stewardship when keeping fish.


1)Absolutely almost everyone releases those 24-28-inch females which are the most valuable to the future of the fishery.

2)If the DNR would spend some effort helping people understand what they are trying to accomplish and why, instead of just arrogantly mandating everything, they would have a lot better public image.

3)While most people understand the value of the spawning fish (They've learned it from reading magazine articles, books and TV shows, not from the DNR) there should always be an opening for exceptions. Some family comes up from Chicago or elsewhere and spends thousands to stay at a resort, they need to be able to keep a few fish to eat and one daily limit to take home. They also need to be able to keep that once-in-a-lifetime fish if they happen to catch it. If they are jumping up and down over catching a 8-10 pounder and want to take it home to mount, that's okay and it's VERY good for tourism and the resort they stayed at. Just my opinion.


1) Totally agree, where spawning stock is limited, but those big females can be the curse of a fishery when you have stockpiled them way beyond what is needed for reproduction, and total density is suppressing future year classes.

2) Totally agree, and the best example is the statewide Walleye bag limit change being proposed right now, with no explanation of what they are trying to accomplish.

3) Totally agree, we have gone overboard on protecting big fish and are paying the price in some lakes. Sure there is a need to provide some protection of spawning stock on large natural lakes, but some thinning of the adult population helps as well. Stocked lakes don't depend on spawning stock and don't require the same protection. Consumptive harvest is conservation, wise use, sustainable and can actually benefit walleye fisheries.

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: walleye101] #7195112
02/24/21 10:12 PM
02/24/21 10:12 PM
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 490
minnesota
G
gman Offline
trapper
gman  Offline
trapper
G

Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 490
minnesota
Seems to me the netting is a factor and the wanton waste by the Wisconsin tribes is well documented, but nothing is ever done about it.

Bernie-could you show some documentation on this? Thanks


And T7 ya never answered my ?'s to you-did ya miss them?

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: gman] #7195269
02/25/21 05:57 AM
02/25/21 05:57 AM
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,514
Northern Minnesota
BernieB. Offline
trapper
BernieB.  Offline
trapper

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,514
Northern Minnesota
Originally Posted by gman
Seems to me the netting is a factor and the wanton waste by the Wisconsin tribes is well documented, but nothing is ever done about it.

Bernie-could you show some documentation on this? Thanks


And T7 ya never answered my ?'s to you-did ya miss them?


Well documented means that anyone can find it.

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: walleye101] #7195429
02/25/21 09:37 AM
02/25/21 09:37 AM
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 490
minnesota
G
gman Offline
trapper
gman  Offline
trapper
G

Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 490
minnesota
I can't seem to find it---maybe you can guide me along. And by the way I do not like the netting anymore than you do-but I don't like people spreading bs about it either. Also the courts are to blame for this ML problem-NOT the MNDNR. Were you in Mn when this all played out?


T7 Still waiting.

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: walleye101] #7195474
02/25/21 10:30 AM
02/25/21 10:30 AM
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 687
minnesota
T
trapperroscoe Offline
trapper
trapperroscoe  Offline
trapper
T

Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 687
minnesota
The regulations on that lake are a joke. I fished there with a friend of mine a few winters ago and the amount of large fish is huge. The amount of eater size fish is also huge, there is no reason you shouldnt be able to keep a few walleye any time of year.

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: gman] #7195767
02/25/21 02:57 PM
02/25/21 02:57 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 10,090
MN, Land of 10,000 Lakes
T
Trapper7 Offline
trapper
Trapper7  Offline
trapper
T

Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 10,090
MN, Land of 10,000 Lakes
Originally Posted by gman
I've had a place on the lake for over 20 years. He's not bsing, just telling it like it is. There have been articles with pictures showing piles of non-target fish dumped in the woods. These Indians are the worst conservationists out there. They net in the spawning beds while the fish are spawning!
One day while out jet skiing my wife and daughter came across an Indian gill net that obviously hadn't been checked recently. There were about 15 dead, rotted walleyes, a couple were still alive, 2 loons, a duck, and a few other species of fish. I called a conservation officer and took him out to where the nets were. He took several photos and pulled the net on shore. Nothing ever came of that. Nothing in the paper, no comment from the DNR. They basically covered it up. I wouldn't be surprised if the CO was reprimanded for taking


T7 Could you show me those articles. Also do you remember the name of the CO you talked about? And how did you know it was a band net?

The CO was Verkeilein, out of Garrison. I think his first name was Greg. He confirmed it was a band net. It would be illegal for anyone but the band to set gill nets. I doubt anyone outside the band would be stupid enough to set gill nets as tight as restrictions are for non-Indians. The CO said it was a band net. I assume he knew what he was talking about and had seen other nets making it possible for him to identify it as a band net.

It was some years ago that I saw the articles and photos. I remember seeing them at Twin Pines resort when we had stopped there to eat.

Now let me ask you something. Do you think it's ethical and good conservation to net walleyes while they're spawning in their spawning beds?


Dear Algebra, Please stop asking us to find your X. She's never coming back and don't ask Y.
Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: walleye101] #7195831
02/25/21 04:04 PM
02/25/21 04:04 PM
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 717
St. Croix County, Wisconsin
T
ToTheWoods Offline
trapper
ToTheWoods  Offline
trapper
T

Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 717
St. Croix County, Wisconsin
You would have to be very closed minded and completely oblivious to not see and understand that there is a direct correlation from when the spearing and netting were granted by the courts and when the walleye issues, pike sizes etc started. I know of a local lake that if netting was allowed a person could probably wipe out 50% of more of the lakes walleye population in just a week or two during the spawn. One group has to fish with rod and reel and our take has to fit inside a specific size. The other group has none of those regulations to follow. Not hard to figure out where things have gone south. On lakes with cooperation like Red a lake can come back but if there isn't any give from one side there is no option or solution. Wanton waste is like said before a very big problem. We see it here in Sawyer County. I have personally seen the ditches full of all species of fish just left to rot.

I agree is makes ZERO sense to lower a daily limit when the average Joe isn't getting to that limit anyway.

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: ToTheWoods] #7195842
02/25/21 04:16 PM
02/25/21 04:16 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 10,090
MN, Land of 10,000 Lakes
T
Trapper7 Offline
trapper
Trapper7  Offline
trapper
T

Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 10,090
MN, Land of 10,000 Lakes
Originally Posted by ToTheWoods
You would have to be very closed minded and completely oblivious to not see and understand that there is a direct correlation from when the spearing and netting were granted by the courts and when the walleye issues, pike sizes etc started. I know of a local lake that if netting was allowed a person could probably wipe out 50% of more of the lakes walleye population in just a week or two during the spawn. One group has to fish with rod and reel and our take has to fit inside a specific size. The other group has none of those regulations to follow. Not hard to figure out where things have gone south. On lakes with cooperation like Red a lake can come back but if there isn't any give from one side there is no option or solution. Wanton waste is like said before a very big problem. We see it here in Sawyer County. I have personally seen the ditches full of all species of fish just left to rot.

I agree is makes ZERO sense to lower a daily limit when the average Joe isn't getting to that limit anyway.

Spearing and netting have a major impact on MilleLacs. It wasn't that noticeable at first, but that's because MilleLacs is a big lake. But, spearing and netting in the spawning beds has an even greater negative impact because it destroys the future of the lake. It would with any lake. Red Lake was overharvested mostly due to the netting and I don't know if they even netted in the spawning beds like is being done on MilleLacs.


Dear Algebra, Please stop asking us to find your X. She's never coming back and don't ask Y.
Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: walleye101] #7195858
02/25/21 04:37 PM
02/25/21 04:37 PM
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 717
St. Croix County, Wisconsin
T
ToTheWoods Offline
trapper
ToTheWoods  Offline
trapper
T

Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 717
St. Croix County, Wisconsin
Trapper7 I agree but we can also look at all of the smaller lakes in MN/WI and see where this netting/experiment has continued to go horribly wrong. Lakes we used to catch 20-30 walleyes on in a morning and keep a limit now and again if we wanted are almost dead now-a-days. That is all over in the ceded territory. Go down to southern MN/WI and those lakes that held good numbers are still holding good numbers and a lot of those lakes and flowages outside the ceded territory at pressured pretty hard. Some people find it hard in todays landscape of PC to call a spade a spade.

Now I haven't fished Mille Lacs in many years but a few guys that I know that do fish it regularly have told me that there are still good numbers of fish just not in the slot limit given to them. Age class seems to be a major concern for the future of the lake. Get cooperation from the tribes and close the lake down to all walleye and from what little I know about the lake it will revive and come back on its own. Then start over with sane scientific based regulation

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: walleye101] #7196287
02/25/21 10:06 PM
02/25/21 10:06 PM
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 490
minnesota
G
gman Offline
trapper
gman  Offline
trapper
G

Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 490
minnesota
T7 No I don't think it is a good thing-it shouldn't be allowed but that's what a liberal judge can do. I also don't believe the netting has had a big impact on the ML fisheries. The allowable harvest numbers are way to low to have a big impact. And the band has hardly ever reached the maximum harvest they are allowed. And that has lead to total mismanagement. The fishing in ML is as good or better than it has ever been.The fish are still there. But because of the allowable harvest numbers the DNR has to keep the harvest ridiculously low.

With that being said my problem is the myth of wanton waste that has been perpetuated. Possibly an isolated incident-sure. But wholesale wanton waste just has not happened. People seem to think the band fishing is just a big free for all and it is not. It is very highly regulated and the opportunities for the band members to cheat are very few. Now I am talking ML not other lakes in the ceded territories.

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: walleye101] #7196486
02/26/21 06:09 AM
02/26/21 06:09 AM
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,322
Iowa
T
trapdog1 Offline
trapper
trapdog1  Offline
trapper
T

Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,322
Iowa
Been following this with interest. I don't have a dog in the fight, but it seems to me everyone, Indian or not, should have to play by the same rules.

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: trapdog1] #7196540
02/26/21 08:07 AM
02/26/21 08:07 AM
Joined: May 2019
Posts: 847
Saskatchewan
R
rvsask Offline
trapper
rvsask  Offline
trapper
R

Joined: May 2019
Posts: 847
Saskatchewan
Originally Posted by trapdog1
Been following this with interest. I don't have a dog in the fight, but it seems to me everyone, Indian or not, should have to play by the same rules.


If only that thought and idea had always been applied to the natives. However, anyone with an ounce of honesty can admit they’ve had much shittier rules to play by.

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: rvsask] #7196551
02/26/21 08:21 AM
02/26/21 08:21 AM
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,514
Northern Minnesota
BernieB. Offline
trapper
BernieB.  Offline
trapper

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,514
Northern Minnesota
Originally Posted by rvsask
Originally Posted by trapdog1
Been following this with interest. I don't have a dog in the fight, but it seems to me everyone, Indian or not, should have to play by the same rules.


If only that thought and idea had always been applied to the natives. However, anyone with an ounce of honesty can admit they’ve had much shittier rules to play by.


Who do you mean by they? You can't possibly mean the Indians.

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: walleye101] #7196559
02/26/21 08:30 AM
02/26/21 08:30 AM
Joined: May 2019
Posts: 847
Saskatchewan
R
rvsask Offline
trapper
rvsask  Offline
trapper
R

Joined: May 2019
Posts: 847
Saskatchewan
Bernie, if you can’t acknowledge the raw deal they got then,...................
I’m not surprised.

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: walleye101] #7196564
02/26/21 08:35 AM
02/26/21 08:35 AM
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,619
minnesota
M
mnsota Offline
trapper
mnsota  Offline
trapper
M

Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,619
minnesota
Oh boy! ..here we go!

Back to the original OP, there is no data to suggest reducing statewide would change anything.

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: walleye101] #7196568
02/26/21 08:42 AM
02/26/21 08:42 AM
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,022
SE Minn
R
Rat Masterson Offline
trapper
Rat Masterson  Offline
trapper
R

Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,022
SE Minn
Tell that to the tribes the existing tribes wiped out.

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: rvsask] #7196636
02/26/21 09:51 AM
02/26/21 09:51 AM
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,514
Northern Minnesota
BernieB. Offline
trapper
BernieB.  Offline
trapper

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,514
Northern Minnesota
Originally Posted by rvsask
Bernie, if you can’t acknowledge the raw deal they got then,...................
I’m not surprised.


Guess I know a little more about Native American history than you do.

You said they have to play by {bad} rules. They play by NO rules. No bag limits, no seasons no closed periods day or night. Yeah they really have to play by horrible rules.

Like the natives that moved a mobile processing plant onto the west side of the Duck Mountians a couple years ago and hunted elk at night and day with thermal and night visions scopes. They nearly wiped out the entire herd of elk in less than two weeks. Terrible rules, it really sucks for them.

Those are terrible rules they have to abide by that make them use gill nets during the spawn so they can only catch hundreds of walleyes per person instead of 6 per day. And of course it forces them to kill muskies and other bycatch accidentally and throw them to the bottom of the lake. Man it sucks for them. That spearing thing in Wisconsin too. Horrible that they have to do that instead of catch puny little limits like non-natives. Poor little Indians.

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: walleye101] #7196653
02/26/21 10:10 AM
02/26/21 10:10 AM
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 29,915
james bay frontierOnt.
B
Boco Offline
trapper
Boco  Offline
trapper
B

Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 29,915
james bay frontierOnt.
Biden will further implement UNDRIP so that Indigenous people will have control of the existing natural resources on their traditional territory and move towards self determination,without interference by the colonizers..

Last edited by Boco; 02/26/21 10:11 AM.
Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: Boco] #7196656
02/26/21 10:12 AM
02/26/21 10:12 AM
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 36,619
Northern Maine
Bruce T Offline
trapper
Bruce T  Offline
trapper

Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 36,619
Northern Maine
Originally Posted by Boco
Biden will further implement UNDRIP so that Indigenous people will have control of the existing natural resources on their traditional territory and move towards self determination,without interference by the colonizers..

You mean indians


My President is still President Trump
Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: mnsota] #7197386
02/26/21 08:23 PM
02/26/21 08:23 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 mnsota
Oh boy! ..here we go!

Back to the original OP, there is no data to suggest reducing statewide would change anything.


Thanks mnsota, but it is impossible to steer this thread back on topic. No one cares about the statewide Walleye limit. Mille Lacs is way more fun.

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: walleye101] #7197395
02/26/21 08:26 PM
02/26/21 08:26 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
Originally Posted by walleye101
Originally Posted by mnsota
Oh boy! ..here we go!

Back to the original OP, there is no data to suggest reducing statewide would change anything.


Thanks mnsota, but it is impossible to steer this thread back on topic. No one cares about the statewide Walleye limit. Mille Lacs is way more fun.

Doing the same crap here with brook trout.


My President is still President Trump
Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: Boco] #7197398
02/26/21 08:28 PM
02/26/21 08:28 PM
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,322
Iowa
T
trapdog1 Offline
trapper
trapdog1  Offline
trapper
T

Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,322
Iowa
Originally Posted by Boco
Biden will further implement UNDRIP so that Indigenous people will have control of the existing natural resources on their traditional territory and move towards self determination,without interference by the colonizers..


Self determination? What does that even mean? Colonizers. That's funny.

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: walleye101] #7197409
02/26/21 08:36 PM
02/26/21 08:36 PM
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 490
minnesota
G
gman Offline
trapper
gman  Offline
trapper
G

Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 490
minnesota
You said they have to play by {bad} rules. They play by NO rules. No bag limits, no seasons no closed periods day or night. Yeah they really have to play by horrible rules.

I don't think you know a whole lot about this subject Bernie-at least you are not talking about the MN tribes. The seasons might be called fairly liberal but they have rules they have to play by also. And what about all the wanton waste you said was documented?? Haven't seen it yet.

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: walleye101] #7197505
02/26/21 09:28 PM
02/26/21 09:28 PM
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,619
minnesota
M
mnsota Offline
trapper
mnsota  Offline
trapper
M

Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,619
minnesota

Thanks mnsota, but it is impossible to steer this thread back on topic. No one cares about the statewide Walleye limit. Mille Lacs is way more fun.


,..does that mean the gloves are off? grin,...gman,you're looking through Steve Wonders eyes,..plenty of documentation. Throw your net out there in the world of information,..we're not allowed to!

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: walleye101] #7197885
02/27/21 10:01 AM
02/27/21 10:01 AM
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 490
minnesota
G
gman Offline
trapper
gman  Offline
trapper
G

Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 490
minnesota
.plenty of documentation.

lets see it--I can't find it. I doubt you can either. A little here or there -possibly-wholesale wanton waste--bs



you said they have to play by {bad} rules. They play by NO rules. No bag limits, no seasons no closed periods day or night. Yeah they really have to play by horrible rules.

and this is pure bs

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: mnsota] #7198100
02/27/21 01:23 PM
02/27/21 01:23 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 mnsota

Thanks mnsota, but it is impossible to steer this thread back on topic. No one cares about the statewide Walleye limit. Mille Lacs is way more fun.


,..does that mean the gloves are off? grin,...gman,you're looking through Steve Wonders eyes,..plenty of documentation. Throw your net out there in the world of information,..we're not allowed to!


Yes, fiddling while Rome burns.................................Apparently we're going to spend our time bickering and bashing Walleye management on one lake while the state is quietly reducing the Walleye bag limit on all the others for no reason.

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: BernieB.] #7198143
02/27/21 02:01 PM
02/27/21 02:01 PM
Joined: May 2019
Posts: 847
Saskatchewan
R
rvsask Offline
trapper
rvsask  Offline
trapper
R

Joined: May 2019
Posts: 847
Saskatchewan
Originally Posted by BernieB.
Originally Posted by rvsask
Bernie, if you can’t acknowledge the raw deal they got then,...................
I’m not surprised.


Guess I know a little more about Native American history than you do.

You said they have to play by {bad} rules. They play by NO rules. No bag limits, no seasons no closed periods day or night. Yeah they really have to play by horrible rules.

Like the natives that moved a mobile processing plant onto the west side of the Duck Mountians a couple years ago and hunted elk at night and day with thermal and night visions scopes. They nearly wiped out the entire herd of elk in less than two weeks. Terrible rules, it really sucks for them.

Those are terrible rules they have to abide by that make them use gill nets during the spawn so they can only catch hundreds of walleyes per person instead of 6 per day. And of course it forces them to kill muskies and other bycatch accidentally and throw them to the bottom of the lake. Man it sucks for them. That spearing thing in Wisconsin too. Horrible that they have to do that instead of catch puny little limits like non-natives. Poor little Indians.


Do you know more about their history than I? Maybe you do, maybe you don’t. Don’t assume bc I’m from Canada I know nothing of Native American History. You’re busy focusing on these specific rules while I speak of other rules. They didn’t get to vote in Minnesota until 1960. The Indian Relocation Act of1956 further pushed them into poverty. Centuries of Federal rules put them at a disadvantage socially and economically. Those are the rules I speak of and I’ve got enough empathy in my bones to acknowledge that. At least I can acknowledge my great grandpa left his Norwegian immigrant family behind in Minnesota and came to Saskatchewan where his great great grandkids will inherit a bunch of high priced farmland that was once native land while their native buddies, while catching up, are behind the 8 ball in comparison to them. We feel no need to apologize for it, we too are a product of a system. But we are aware.
I guess that’s why when me and my boys are sitting in my 40000 dollar Lund boat, catching and releasing 45 inch northerns in May we won’t give a (This word is unacceptable on Trapperman) about the ones we know are in the smokehouses in front of the dilapidated native shacks scattered along the bay. We worry more about the hundreds of spoiled guys like ourselves konking those big females and making sure they have a limit to take home and spread around their neighbourhood after their weekend in the lodge is over.

There are definitely things that need to be addressed in regards to their usage of those rights in conjunction with hunting and fishing but to blanket that as the problem itself is pretty narrow minded.

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: walleye101] #7198165
02/27/21 02:11 PM
02/27/21 02:11 PM
Joined: May 2019
Posts: 847
Saskatchewan
R
rvsask Offline
trapper
rvsask  Offline
trapper
R

Joined: May 2019
Posts: 847
Saskatchewan
At the lake we have a cabinI find that most of the “fish pigs” as we like to call them, prefer to blame native netting when numbers seem poorer but from the perspective of a person that’s been fishing there for three decades it’s not so simple. The native netting has always been happening and the drop in numbers and limits has also strangely corresponded with major increase in angling pressure and 15 barrels of walleye and pike carcasses being hauled away from the filleting shacks each days for months on end.

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: walleye101] #7198265
02/27/21 03:34 PM
02/27/21 03:34 PM
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 29,915
james bay frontierOnt.
B
Boco Offline
trapper
Boco  Offline
trapper
B

Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 29,915
james bay frontierOnt.
Good posts Sask.

Last edited by Boco; 02/27/21 03:35 PM.
Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: walleye101] #7198388
02/27/21 05:10 PM
02/27/21 05:10 PM
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,022
SE Minn
R
Rat Masterson Offline
trapper
Rat Masterson  Offline
trapper
R

Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,022
SE Minn
Every minority wants to be treated as an equal, until they are, then they want special consideration. People have assimilated in this country since it's inception, which is the way it should be. I fished ML lake starting in the 60s, fishing pressure was huge then. Netting during the spawn has an effect, I have no doubt. This is the DNRs way of mitigating consumptive fishing, which I feel is another step to rid themselves of any natural resources benefiting an individual.

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: walleye101] #7198755
02/27/21 09:15 PM
02/27/21 09:15 PM
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 490
minnesota
G
gman Offline
trapper
gman  Offline
trapper
G

Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 490
minnesota
I fished ML lake starting in the 60s, fishing pressure was huge then.

You are right Rat. But you must also remember that every few years ML turned into the Dead Sea. You couldn't catch a fish. Well the fish were still there same as now. This now is just plain mismanagement. Politically driven. 4 fish limit and all the slots are not warranted.


Also---where's all this so called documentation on the rampant wanton waste. Yup I'm calling a couple of you guys out here. You might be right but it's time to prove it. I can't find it-except for a few northern pike. I am more than ready to admit I'm wrong if you can show me the proof.

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: gman] #7199054
02/28/21 08:12 AM
02/28/21 08:12 AM
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 gman
I fished ML lake starting in the 60s, fishing pressure was huge then.

You are right Rat. But you must also remember that every few years ML turned into the Dead Sea. You couldn't catch a fish. Well the fish were still there same as now. This now is just plain mismanagement. Politically driven. 4 fish limit and all the slots are not warranted.




Just to clarify, no one is proposing a 4 fish limit for ML. If they were everyone would be happy. The 4 fish limit proposal is for the rest of the state, and would not include Mille Lacs.

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: walleye101] #7199161
02/28/21 09:55 AM
02/28/21 09:55 AM
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,304
USA MN
Snowpa Offline
trapper
Snowpa  Offline
trapper

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,304
USA MN
Stop gill netting


Never Confuse Stupid With Crazy
Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: walleye101] #7199559
02/28/21 04:31 PM
02/28/21 04:31 PM
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 490
minnesota
G
gman Offline
trapper
gman  Offline
trapper
G

Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 490
minnesota
No Response???

Re: MNDNR Walleye bag limit [Re: walleye101] #7200109
02/28/21 09:22 PM
02/28/21 09:22 PM
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 289
Wisconsin
D
Dirk Offline
trapper
Dirk  Offline
trapper
D

Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 289
Wisconsin

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