Lots of these DNR initiatives go haywire!!!

McFeely: Cheers to the Minnesota DNR's big bluegill initiative, with hope of more to come
13 Otter Tail County lakes, five Becker County lakes on list for possible lower limits
Written By: Mike McFeely | Feb 12th 2020 - 2pm.
The Minnesota DNR is proposing special regulations that would lower bag limits on bluegills on some lakes in an effort to produce bigger sunfish in many waters around the state. These special regulation proposals currently include five lakes within the Glenwood Area DNR's work area and could include almost two dozen lakes in Otter Tail County. Forum News Service file photo
The Minnesota DNR is proposing special regulations that would lower bag limits on bluegills on some lakes in an effort to produce bigger sunfish in many waters around the state. These special regulation proposals currently include five lakes within the Glenwood Area DNR's work area and could include almost two dozen lakes in Otter Tail County. Forum News Service file photo
The Minnesota Department of Natural

Our DNR did that a few times. Didn't work as they wanted it to. Over populated most of the lakes with the sunfish. A slot limit would be better and may work.

Side affect was it did help grow bass and catfish in size and weight.

A lot of the uppers in DNR's don't even trap, hunt or fish. These things happen when libtards infiltrate our departments of wildlife. It's nuts!

there is a pond in were my grandmother lives , residents and their families may fish and if is all catch and release , blue gill , sun fish and a few bass.

if you haven't caught a fish in 30 seconds you better check if you still have bait.

but you better be using a small hook or you won't be reeling any in

some fish need to come out or they all end up ting in my experience

a slot might work

Many MN lakes get hammered by fishermen. We have a lot of lakes but tons of fishermen. I am unfamiliar with how the panfish are doing in those lakes but I could see a lower limit being justified in some of our local lakes.

We had quality deer management areas they came up with here so they blocked off the roads, now you need to drag a deer a mile to your vehicle or have a quality heart attack either one. I think it saves money for them not needing to keep the road up was the real reason.

And they wonder why participation is falling...........

My take on falling fisherman numbers ...

A big part of it is 7,496 page Rule book and growing

The hunting and fishing Law , Synopsis- rule book is so Thick and detailed that its Almost not readable

When I was 10 I used to read the regs book each year ...Now a 15 year old couldn't figure it out

Was the decision made on science and biology or a knee jerk reaction? Just like the catfish laws in Indiana. There is no reason to change anything and then comes along a few crybaby internet trolls who occasionally catfish tournaments and put pressure on politicians to reduce the daily limit.
Out pops our dud of DNR and reduce the limit and adjust the minimum size limit. All changes based on nothing.

I think they come out of college with their biology degree and they have to have something to do

That doesn’t sound too bad.
At least your DNR didn’t decide to import Canada geese to your State with the theory that they would migrate back North come Spring and then return the following year.
The geese had other plans. They liked it so much down here they decided to stay! It was nice to have something new to shoot at, but now we even have a special early season and our regular season. A lot of places have to sometimes hire shooters to come in to remove the geese. The good news is they started banding them...everyone in SWGA that’s shot a goose has a band to prove it, lol! They even gathered a bunch up from a local downtown Lake because they were over populated and carried them down South about 50 miles to a much larger lake and when released, they flew straight back to the lake they got them from, lol!!! So now there’s a city lake surrounded by houses with banded Canada geese crapping everywhere.

Thats how they "Boosted" our Wolf populations

Here in Ohio, you probably can't hook and line catch enough bluegill to adversely effect the bluegill population in a healthy body of water. The more bluegill you pull out the more babies successfully reach decent size. Older bluegill size goes up in bodies of water that are heavily fished too.

Bluegill typically only live 5 to 8 years. The can breed at very small, non useful sizes and large females can lay 60,000 eggs every time they spawn and spawn multiple times a year.

Do bluegill have recruitment issues in cold Northern waters?

Keith

Unless you fish in a area with Amish, they will reduce to nill.

I'm right in the middle of this area and can say for now that I think it's a great idea. This area has always been known as a magnet for tourism with all the lakes in the area. And with that comes the attitude that I spent good money on a license, by golly I'm going to get money's worth. The result is that people keep whatever they catch up to and exceeding their limit, may fish way too small to keep. Release?? No way! Just last weekend I was on an area lake that was so full of fish houses, it would rival any small town. Not the first time and it won't be the last by a long shot. The fish are hit hard to the point that it's become difficult to catch a keeper, yet next weekend it'll swamped again. If the limits are reduced (10 right now) maybe the big ones will return again. I have no problem catching 4-5 nice ones for a meal vs 10-15 for the same amount of meat. Conservation

What Catch said....^^^ And the asian groups with 11 kids each. That grind whole 5 gal. Pails of any size bluegill and crappie.

330 I don't think it is just the Asian groups. Here we have a lot of Amish with huge families. When they go fishing the boat is full and there are many 5 gal pails that get taken out of our lakes daily with pan fish. Size here doesn't matter.

I’ve seen smaller bodies of water here in Ohio with large populations of big sunfish hammered to the point you couldn’t catch one over 4” within a matter of a few years. Once the word got out the meat hunters show up in herds.

There's a thing going on in my neck of the woods and I seem to be going nowhere with our DOW. Shreve Lake is our local fishery and they shut it down about 4 years ago. I won't go into the details of my conversations with them but included was a size limit or something. I do not like to encourage any Gov agency because they are knotheads and always screw things up. But the ding dang Amish take everything and poof, the fishing sucks.

We do have one lake here that has enormous bluegills in it. It is a PRIVATE run lake and the min. length to keep is 10 inches. Nothing smaller are you allowed to keep. For whatever reason it has worked there very well. it is not uncommon for a good fisherman to catch 5-10 keepers in a few hrs there. Mostly in the spring but some can find them year round.

From what I have been told there is only gills and catfish in the lake. With lots and lots of catfish to keep the numbers of gills in check.

the only cats I have caught there were 2-5 lb channel cats. There is supposed to be alot of really big channel cats there though.

The owners won't let the DNR on the lake for any reason.

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

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

Bryce

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

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

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

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

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

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

I happen to support this initiative.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are too many roadblocks:
Honesty is the main one

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

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

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

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


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

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

Spot on once again.

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

And it will

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

I don’t know where you get the idea that I am “right back to preaching the Study”? Nor do I entirely understand what you mean by that. I think you and I are largely agreeing on this topic and I agree with your other post that there are too many things that come into the process that should be left out.

The diverse and inclusive makeup of the group will insure that Wolves are not managed as the sustainable renewable resource that they are, and coincidentally will give the governor the outcome he has already stated, no Wolf harvest season.

I believe if Clark, I , and 3 other Sportsmen...two farmers
All sat down we could get things done

But like you said above^^^

Inclusiveness for the Sake only of inclusiveness

= muddy waters

We had a 10 year size restriction on northern pike on a lake I fish a lot here in southern mn. This lake is known for having a lot of small sunfish. After about five years the northern fishing was an awful lot of fun and the size of the panfish went up. When the restriction came off it went right back to the way it was before.

I've seen in the past with our dnr, they will do what they want. They have been doing creel checks this winter on my local lake so would not surprise me if they are looking to do a more restrictive panfish limit in effect here.

Just enforce the overlimit s being taken first....before making new regs

Its so blatant in certain regions and particular lakes

Walz and company are going to do the best they can to stop a harvest of wolves if they come off the list. Why else would they need to convene another roundtable? We already have a plan.

We as sportsmen are going to have to get involved heavily in the upcoming election cycle, if the suburbanites take control of the senate and keep the house we are in trouble. Caucuses are coming up, as much as I hate to say it we all need to be involved and make ourselves heard.

Correct ...the plan is there already Steven

I can tell for a fact, having worked for the DNR in Ohio and very closely with DNR in Florida, that their biologist in most cases are like most all other scientific, college educated people. They read a book or two and listened to some professor, who told them everything is carved into stone... "ONE SIZE FITS ALL". Nope it doesn't. Some of the best biologist I have known have had no college education. They all read books... many books and listened what everyone said. Then they honestly studied every case, body of water, river, or what ever the species it was they were trying to improve the habitat for, and it most every case, the results will always be somewhat different in each case.

I can give you one example: Fishery people were going to stock a new species into a manmade lake, that was an impoundment of a river. This fish was basically a river fish. This should have told them that the fish liked flowing water. I was somewhat instrumental in getting the fish put in this lake and I suggested that when they released the fish into the lake it should be done at the upper end of the lake, where the river entered the lake. This would have been a couple of miles above the dam and the fish would have had room and time to acclimate to the slower flow of water, and the lake would retain more of the fish.

So... when they released them into the lake... where did they do it... 50 to 75 yards above the (This word is unacceptable on Trapperman). Where did a large bulk of the fish end up going … through the spillway.

Common sense is one of the more important things that aren't taught in colleges. The book is their bible.

Garry-

True stuff Garry

I can tell you that all of the lakes in the county have gone to the lower bag limit if 10 or 15 panfish in an effort to gain large sized fish. For the past 15 years these regulations have been in place. It has done nothing to promote size or numbers in the lakes. If everyone let the larger fish go and kept a few smaller ones that would be of better help to the populations I believe. Most of the lakes in the Ottertail area are packed with both numbers and size quality panfish. They are also very fertile lakes where something like this may work. A blanket regulation for all lakes will not work on all those lakes same. Some need to have numbers of fish removed to benefit the population or they stunt.

Classic example of this is on a small lake next to my house. The lake was loaded with potato chipper panfish. DNR came in and removed 50000 crappie from a lake less than 125 acres. The crappie sizes exploded and my PB at 17 1/4" was caught on this lake. Then the DNR loaded the lake with Pike. Today you can still catch a few nice crappie out of the lake but most average that 7-8" range. Sunfish are still on the small side. Largemouth bass a very plentiful and probably average around 12" with a few nice ones and a large pike is 30".