Guests - If You want access to member only forums on FM. You will gain access only when you Sign-in or Sign-Up on Fishing Minnesota.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Daze Off

Moving Opener/Reduce Walleye Limit Proposal

47 posts in this topic

Saw this on-line and thought I would share it. Daze Off

Make fishing opening earlier, lawmaker proposes

BY DENNIS LIEN

Pioneer Press

Article Last Updated: 12/19/2007 03:33:24 PM CST

A key Minnesota lawmaker has proposed moving up the state's fishing opener a week, in part to reduce conflicts with Mother's Day.

State Sen. Satveer Chaudhary, DFL-Fridley, sent a letter this week to Department of Natural Resources Commissioner Mark Holsten and to members of an upcoming DNR roundtable. He said he plans to introduce the change during the upcoming legislative session.

"The benefits of this change include bringing the fishing opener to a date consistent with border lakes and border states, benefit resort activities, and reduce conflicts with Mother's Day,'' Chaudhary, head of the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee, said in the letter.

He also unveiled plans to set a statewide daily limit on walleyes of four, instead of six.

The DNR was not immediately available for comment.

In an interview, Chaudhary said moving up the mid-May opener a week is a proposal worthy of discussion and he welcomes the opportunity for feedback from the DNR forum in early January.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Changing the walleye opener because it conflicts with a holiday made up by greeting card companies makes zero sense. If the lefty from Fridley had done any amount of research he would know that the opener corresponds with the walleye's reproduction cycle and the average time that water temps are warm enough for that to naturally occur, allowing for a buffer time of recovery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do we have state senator's establishing fishing limits?

Let the DNR do their job please!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's more:

Minnesota state lawmakers will consider major fishing changes

John Myers

Duluth News Tribune - 12/19/2007

Minnesota lawmakers may be about to mess with some longstanding Minnesota fishing regulations.

A key lawmaker on Wednesday unveiled plans to move the state’s walleye fishing opener a week earlier and impose a statewide limit on walleyes of four, down from six daily.

The proposed changes were relayed in a letter from State Sen. Satveer Chaudhary, DFL-Fridley, chairman of the Environment and Natural Resources Committee, to state Department of Natural Resources Commissioner Mark Holsten.

The proposals still must pass both the state House and Senate and be signed by the governor to become law. But they signal some major changes in the state’s rich outdoor heritage.

In the letter dated Dec. 17, Chaudary wrote that “we will be considering legislation to begin [the] fishing opener one week earlier than the present schedule. The benefits of this change include bringing the fishing opener to a date consistent with border lakes and border states, benefit resort activities, and reduce conflicts with Mother’s Day. I believe climate changes have impacted the spring spawning such that much, if not all, has occurred by the existing opener date. This should leave any biological impact minimal to none.’’

If the rule were approved and ready for 2009, the fishing opener would be held on May 2 instead of May 9.

DNR officials were not immediately available to comment Wednesday afternoon.

Chaudhary also said lawmakers will consider a statewide slot limit, or length limit, for walleyes. For example, on some lakes only walleyes between 14 and 18 inches are legal to keep; smaller and larger fish must be set free.

While many of the state’s top walleye fishing lakes already have lower limits and more-restrictive size limitations, this would be the first time those limits were imposed statewide.

Biologists have said that lowering the statewide limit to four from six will do little to reduce the number of fish caught because so few anglers catch even four walleyes per trip.

Chaudhary also informed Holsten that he would support a plan, likely emerging from the DNR, for the state to pay farmers to allow hunters access to their land for free. Many Minnesota hunters have complained of having too few places to hunt, especially game like pheasants.

The letter also expresses support for a new conservation fishing license, similar to an option offered in Ontario, where anglers agree to keep fewer fish each day in exchange for a less-expensive fishing license.

Moreover, Chaudhary raised the possibility of eliminating all license fees for children under age 18 to bolster youth participation in hunting and fishing. National trends show fewer youths are going afield.

DNR officials have said that change would cost the agency $2 million annual in lost revenue.

“I believe the Legislature has the ability to compensate this short-term loss, and that the costs are outweighed by the long-term benefit of recruiting youth who will become adult fee-payers,’’ Chaudhary said. “This is an inexpensive investment in our future.”

Other issues likely to be raised during the 2008 legislative session include raising the limit for pheasants; expanding requirements for the use of steel shot and fishing tackle instead of toxic lead shot; and new rules for fish farming, especially minnows in public waters.

Also expected during the session is an agreement on a constitutional amendment that would allow Minnesota voters to dedicate part of the state sales tax for conservation, fish and wildlife.

DNR officials are expected to reveal their priorities for the coming year at their annual roundtable event in St. Cloud the first week in January.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of the rule changes so far that I have heard (i.e. 1) no fish house license needed for attended portables 2) eating fish on the ice 3) turnback the opener one week, etc.) do nothing but benefit and expand our fishing enjoyment on the water. If they want to reduce the daily possession limits for walleyes to four....so what! You guys would complain if you were hanged with a silk rope for crying out loud! The DNR enforces the rules set by the legislature. I for one, think it's about time.

I looked this up. Here is the mission statement of the DNR:

“Our mission is to work with citizens to conserve and manage the state's natural resources, to provide outdoor recreation opportunities, and to provide for commercial uses of natural resources in a way that creates a sustainable quality of life.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said elsewhere:

Years past=Statewide 6 walleye limit with no slot

Fast Forward to selected lakes having reduced limits and slots

Fast Forward even more to a good portion of lakes having some sort of reduced limit and or slot

Now we are back at statewide regs?

I'm all for it, but anyone else really think this will hold for more than a few years?

Pretty soon it's.....well ya know, lake X isn't doing so well, we need to impose some additional regs.

Then it's lake Y and Z as well

Next thing you know we are right back to a statewide reg of a 2 fish limit.

Honestly, just for the mental ease, I would love to see a statewide regulation, but if that happens, let's leave it that way for a while....please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the earlier ice outs and lakes warming to spawning temperature earlier an earlier opener does make sense. I also think it's time to lower bag limits and set a statewide minimum size. The impact of ice fishing needs a good examination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree completely with Hanson. Let the DNR propose any regulation changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why doesn't Minnesota have a rule like Wisconsin where a family license can include children 16 and 17?

Wisconsin Fishing Regulations...page 5 states,

• Nonresident annual family license—Fee $65.00. Includes children 16 & 17 years old.

Let's see...in Minnesota...Combination Angling License (husband and wife).....$25.00

Individual Angling license.....say age 16....$17.00

Individual Angling license.....say age 17....$17.00

-----------------------------------------

Total cost of Fishing...(husband, wife, 16 and 17 yr old children)======$59.00.

Add the license fees at $2.00 per license......grand total......$64.00.

I can fish in Wisconsin as a non resident with my family of two boys the same as I can in Minnesota.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every lake is different so the DNR should be the one imposing regulations. There simply is no set of regulations that will be ideal for every lake in the state. It should be up to the DNR to go through lake by lake and decide what needs to be done. A good example is the change the WI DNR made to bass regulations: the end result was an explosion of bass populations and near extirpation of walleye's in smaller lakes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should change mothers day so it doesnt conflict with the minnesota opener as far as I'm concerned grin.gif. What if there is still ice on the lakes? We go to Kabetogama for opener, very possible that we would have enough ice to not put the boat in and not enough ice to walk on. I guess we'd have to go to the Rainy river then but imagine how packed that would be if that was the case.

I dont see a need to change to a statewide slot other than it would be less confusing given all the lakes that impose slot limits. But it doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure it out.

No need to change the limit either, if you are having a hard time catching walleyes on a certian lake, then go to a differnt one. The whole state doesnt need to cater to your fishing needs because "it should be easier". Screw that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:

They should change mothers day so it doesnt conflict with the minnesota opener as far as I'm concerned
grin.gif
. What if there is still ice on the lakes? We go to Kabetogama for opener, very possible that we would have enough ice to not put the boat in and not enough ice to walk on. I guess we'd have to go to the Rainy river then but imagine how packed that would be if that was the case.

I dont see a need to change to a statewide slot other than it would be less confusing given all the lakes that impose slot limits. But it doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure it out.

No need to change the limit either, if you are having a hard time catching walleyes on a certian lake, then go to a differnt one. The whole state doesnt need to cater to your fishing needs because "it should be easier". Screw that.


While I agree that each lake should be managed differently. You have to admit, the micro managing has got to a point where it kind of is rocket science to figure it out. Especially for the weekend warrior.

It has got to be a nightmare to enforce all these rules/regs. Where did you catch that fish? Are you transporting it correctly in regards to that lakes regs. Did you eat any fish while you were out there? Hey, is that a weed on your trailer? Where did that come from?

Do you have all your endorsements on your license? I see you have a bait bucket there, where did the water in there come from?

I can see why new fisherman are in a decline. There has to be a better way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mothers day is a national holiday, and the MINNESOTA fishing opener is a state afair. I would think if they want to change something it would be a lot easier to change the opener.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nutty, it was a joke, hence the " grin.gif".

Dtro, well said. And although I have nothing but respect for the DNR officers, that is the job they signed up for.

My whole problem with it is this: Who the **** is this lefty senator from Fridley to speak for the whole fishing state? I dont care what little committe you run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This issue is being discussed in at least 3 other threads. Is there a way the mods can combine them into one? It's a good discussion but it's hard to follow in that many places at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:

This issue is being discussed in at least 3 other threads. Is there a way the mods can combine them into one? It's a good discussion but it's hard to follow in that many places at the same time.


This is a UBB board and new versions of UBB do allow thread merging, but whether fishingMN has it enabled is another question. I know I wish the phpbb site I mod had that ability (at nearly 2 million posts (fishingmn has just over 1 million) it definitely is needed).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I am not mistaken, the opener really isn't scientifically set for spawning seasons, but more a "tradition" of having an opener. It is socially set. Most states do not have an "opener" like we do. It is sort of like the noon opener for duck hunting, that was recently changed to 9 am (few years ago).

Doesn't matter to me, really, we will still keep our traditional trip dates regardless, with the main trip the week after "opener" as it is usually better fishing then, for us anyway.

It sure would give the crappies a bit of a break in the spring wink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody needs to take home 6 walleyes, thats just filling the freezer. Then multiply 6 times ma and the two kids - thats overkill. Even 4 walleyes/8 fillets is a lot of fish.

Moving the opener would be ok by me, I don't fish it anyway. Why face the zoo on the opener when I can go out Mon or Tues evening and find only 1-2 boats on the lake?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Farly I saw your grin.gif But I thought I would say it because it has been brought up many times when ever this came up before. Sorry it came across to strong. Sometimes I think the mothers like the idea of having the day to them selfs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

although not yet a minnesotan, i have an opinion on this issue.

mn has such a variety of waters, that state wide regs would seem silly. from the deep tanic waters of the north, to the over pressured waters of the metro, to the shallow weedy lakes fo the southwest, to the many river systems. all of witch need there own type of management.

a 6 to 4 walleye limit sounds about right. and that hidden part of more land for pheasnt hunting laugh.giflaugh.giflaugh.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One great thing about South Dakota is there is no opener. Though I allways seem to be in minnesota for the opener. I usually have a couple days on the water and countless days shore fishing before then. They do limit fishing in creeks and streams in certain counties in the spring. I also think a 4 walleye limit is more then fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta think like a marketing analyst...

Trying to collect some spending revenue from Fishermen by giving us one more week of fishing! That proposal, (same as some past hunting season proposal) was so that it compete with neighboring states. The other flip side was so that consumers not combining their activity in one weekend but end up doing two things separately. More spending revenue...down the line. grin.gif see what college does to people.

Good thing I quit before I got brainwashed...or did the fishing brainwashed me insted. grin.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It amazes me that all they try and do is INCREASE your fishing enjoyment and make it EASIER for everyone and all people do is complain.... only in Minnesota

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep opener where it is and set the walleye limit at 4. 6 eyes a piece is too many. Heck I fish mostly on a water with a 2 fish limit and thats cool with me. Of course I very seldom keep a limit no matter where Im at.

Believe it or not up north and in most of MN. the opener does protect the spawning fish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Opening the season one week earlier would just even out the 6 fish compared to 4 on limits.

With a better early season bite they [DNR] would obviously just end up with the same number of total fish being caught with limit number change.

It would definatly help trade for buisnesses associated with fishing and tourism.

Kinda would end traditon of border jumping thou that has become tradition for thousands of fishermen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Posts

    • Cliff Wagenbach
      brianfisher, Welcome to Fishing Minnesota! Using a flasher in open water is way more difficult then using a regular depth finder! It takes a lot of study time to really learn to recognize what it is showing you! Basically anything marked even slightly off of the bottom is likely a fish unless there is a lot of floating weeds etc. in the water column. I suggest that you get out on the ice with your friend this winter and use his flasher through the ice. You will very quickly learn to adjust the gain settings and learn to recognize fish under a controlled depth condition! If possible have someone that is familiar with his flasher model go with you and show you how to operate it. Once you learn to read a flasher your fish catching rate will go way up! Cliff      
    • RuddyDuck
      Ice forming in the dogs water dish right now! Forcast still looks good starting Tuesday. I predict the first truck thru the ice on Buffalo will be Dec 23!
    • knoppers
      have to give this topic a bump since ice will be here soon. any reports will be useful, thanks in advance.    
    • Ray Berg
      Just got back from show,Picked up an ion x. Don't know if i have ever seen it so busy. Now the wait begins.....
    • river rat316
      I am definitely in! My boss also gave me permission to start looking at jet boats this spring. We have to get rid of a 3rd car first but I do believe a Lowe 1760 pathfinder with a 115/80 will also be in my future!