Statewide Slot lower limit for walleye.

[BobT]

You do realize that if you're keeping enough to get through spring, summer, and fall you are keeping over your possession limit. I assume that to keep through all three seasons requires more than 6 walleyes.

Bob

[hhguide]

I was thinking the same things BobT!

[goose89]

 Originally Posted By: fishfarmeat

The difference for me is I don't go out there after I have enough to eat. I'm not greedy... But I do catch enough to get me by through spring, summer, and fall because...

I don't care for tournament fishers or other ones who think they are great sportsmen for catch & releasing fish just for the sport of it.

Fishfarm, I respect your views, but I can't agree with them, unless you're eating 2 walleyes per season. If they are the 12"ers you mention in the other thread regarding Minnewaska, then you'd be better off finding some panfish, I think. The law doesn't have any provisions for stocking up early because you can't fish later on when your busy.

Many anglers don't think they are "great" because they release fish just for the sport of it. Some of us really ENJOY fishing and catching fish and would rather release them so they can keep on fishing LEGALLY, ethically and resposibly. I'd rather keep on fishing than putting the boat away because I had enough in the freezer.

I hope this thread can keep going without people starting to bash each others views. But I do respectfully disagree with you, for now.

[PikeHook]

I think the times have changed..The days of filling your freezer are just something that needs to stop..2 fish 4 fish 6 fish limits do not matter...There being fish for our kids and there kids and so on is what should matter...I for one remember growing up with alot better fishing then there is now well I'm in my 30s whats it going to be like when I'm in my 60s...Not even funny really

[eyehunter01]

Agree completely! I'm in my 20's and their must be a statewide slot limit and possession. You can easily feed your family with 4 18" walleyes. If you want more go catch some more! Thats what fishing is all about.

[eyehunter01]

I may be only 22 years old, but I've been fishing Mille Lacs since I was a little kid. nearly every weekend with my family. Fishing with a 2" slot limit for more than a couple years. We had no problem throwing them back and watching the population grow. AND IT ALL PAID OFF!!! Last year was the best year I've ever had on that lake. I have never come in with my limit (of 4 walleyes) so many times in one year! It was a blast! I've never ate a walleye over 20". My dad always told me they don't taste as good when they get that old. Probably a wise tale, but he has taught me a great deal in the 15+ years of fishing with him. Support a slot limit! Support a possession limit! It's not about how many fish you can eat, its about how many fish you can catch!!

[Hatchman9]

PikeHook, you're right on! Fresh fish is better than frozen fish anyway.

Where are we going to be 30yrs from now? The fishing pressure? The technology? Wow, scary if things are not changed with the limits over those years.

Not too long ago they adjusted the crappie from 15 to 10 and I'll bet a lot of people have forgot about that or were too young to remember. Change can be difficult to some, but we just have to accept it and in time we get used to it.

[hhguide]

"Eyehunter" thats the exact same thing my dad said, "the bigger ones dont taste good" I dont know if he just said that but it stuck on me we would always be taking a picture or two and throwing them back.

[BobT]

I dont' have a problem with putting fish in the freezer so long as one doesn't abuse the possession limit. To say you're going to only keep fish if you can keep a meal is limiting yourself too much. Sometimes one might only bring home one fish. Hardly a meal if you have 5 kids. In this case, one might have to bring home a fish 5 times to enjoy a meal. Nothing wrong with that. I suppose he could just bring home one 30 incher too.

Bob

[ICE_TEAM_DREAMER]

Pike, i agree. In my opinion, i think the lowered limit is a good idea. 3-4 fish daily. I do however think the staewide slot limit is the only option. Not because i simply believe that is the best option. I am looking at it from an enforcement side. It seems everyone on this forum is pro enforcement. I truly believe that a lake by lake slot limit would just be impossible. There are just not enough people to figure that out and we would need to be a laws book bigger than the bible to explain what size fish you can take out of wat lake. I know that the the huge majority of us are law abiding, ethical, good stand up sportsmen and women. Unfortunately, not all of us are. the statewide rules and regs are the only way to effectively enforce this. I do however agree with (cant remeber who posted it) about a special, say, 24 hour or say a 7 day, 6 fish limit license for $??.00. I see what the resort owners are saying and this might be a possible solution????? This is just my thoughts for this solution. All in all lower limits and slots for sure. GREAT THREAD!

[fishin58]

Nope I got blasted in the ottertail-battle lake forum on the same subject, they had a lot different opinion. Check it out!

[PikeHook]

It seems most of us think something needs to change..The ones who do not are part off the problem...I know lake to lake slots seem very unlikely the resources just aren't there to study every lake..So it needs to be state wide...But in some cases lakes need the extra protection from the meat fishers,the two a dayers and the overall pressure in gereral...Areas of lakes closed for spring for spawning..Certain times of the year catch and release only...I know 6 fish 1 over 20" sounds to some like the plan..It's not working...I hear the arguement that a family of 6 needs more fish for a meal well correct me if I'm wrong if all the adults have a License then the Possession limit is 36 walleyes in your freezer..Ya your going to starve...I think 12-16 walleyes is a heck of a meal for that many people..And as far as the resorts go I don't think people are going to stop fishing because they can't keep as many fish...Anyone who thinks that is being very short sighted..I think a heck of alot more people will go to these resorts if the fishing gets better..

[fishin58]

That is the ONLY reason I want to travel to MIlle Lacs, all I hear is great things about that fishery. I would love to have a shot to catch multiple 20+ fish. I would not be there to see how many I could fit in my freezer. I love fishin, and guys that are killing the sport and many fish along with it, do not love the sport.

[Trainman]

I hate slot limits. It seems like everytime you catch a fish its always 0.5" below the min or 0.5" above the max. I've got not problem with reducing the limit from 6 to 4 and keeping the one over 20". Walleye fishing is better now than it was 20 years ago as far as I'm concerned.

[Bluegill1510]

I've read both forums from the ottertail and the alex one and both have good view points, and I can see where both views are coming from. In defense of Maverick you guys misundersood his view of keeping the state limit at 6. From what I understood is he likes to keep a limit of 6 for himself to feed his family, so basically thats one fish per family member and not the 36 that you guys are saying he could take....and legally he could if each member is a legal license holder and no walleyes where present in his freezer. So I can see where he is coming from as to keeping only "his" limit of 6 to feed his family of 6.

I guess when I think "state" wide I actually think statewide, from the BWCA to LOTW, Bemidji area to Brainerd, to St. Cloud to Alex to Willmar, to the cities and down to mankato and winona and rochester lakes. I don't think statewide as to how it affects only my "local" area lakes, because in the last 5 or so years I've fished all over this state and prolly will continue to fish all over the state. And having a state wide slot like that, and covering that MUCH area scares the heck out of me! Because some lakes I fish have no slot, limit of 6, and the one over 20" doesn't apply, which is nice because you can keep a limit of 20-24" walleyes and not hurt the lake one bit. While I also have fished, Red Lake, Mille Lacs, Winnie, various lakes around northern minnesota, and central minnesota, and if all those lakes got a state wide slot I could see alot of poaching going on or people totally not going for walleyes all together, and just stop fishing. I know I wouldn't drive 2 or 3 hours to go walleye fishing, especially if gas gets to be $4 a gallon it just doesn't pay. They call it fishing, and not catching, and to me fishing is being able to catch & keep fish (up to my limit) to eat and possibly put some in the freezer for later, whatever size they are, in a peaceful, quiet, and non crowded lake that doesn't look whole city of New York moved out there. If you want to "catch" a bazillion 20+ inch walleyes then do a fly in trip to Canada, or make the treck over to the "Pond" and have to deal with half of the Twin cities area on that lake. Because really thats the only places where you will experience on a consistant basis....even though there are other lakes just like Mille Lacs in this state, but aren't as publisized as Mille Lacs.

Also in defense of Maverick and his buddy over on the Ottertail board....if we pass a state wide slot and bring the limit down to 4....where does it end in the future? Why not bring the limit down 3 or 2 or dont keep any and make it catch and release only...boy that would be the day! In relation its like the Boundary Waters, which Im sure none of you guys fish regularly or know the politics about it but the environmentalists are always trying to make new rules (no motors, no electronics, etc.) and always trying to take more land and put it into the B-Dubs. Where does it end, until the environmentalists are satsified? Do have to have the BWCA cover the whole arrowhead or how about from Mille Lacs east to Wisconsin all the way north to Grand rapids to the canadain border? So I can see where they are coming from, and maybe instead of a statewide slot limit or dropping the limit down.....maybe they should make a conservation license where if you don't fish that often or want to keep less fish you don't pay as much, but if you want full limits for your license you pay few dollars more like in canada. Or have a permit system like the BWCA has and only allow so many people on certain pressured lakes so people who want to double take or who go day after day after day taking their limits can't do that....because basically that is what the legislature is trying to elminate with the state wide slot and dropping the limit down to 4, and basically trying turn our lakes into what Canada is doing, which "might" work on some but won't work for all.

[PikeHook]

Well everytime I've been to Canada it's been amazing Walleye fishing so I'm ok with that seem to work just fine..If we as sportsman don't do something to protect these resources then your right the environmentalists will step in and I don't want that to happen..Thats why I'm saying do something now before they go nuts and turn it into a BWCA...We don't need to feed our families with our catch Nobody is going to starve if they can't keep 6 fish...We can't let tourism run our sport either by keeping laws the same just so maybe a few more people come here to fish..People are not going to quit fishing how many people go to Red for what is it 2 walleyes LOW for 4 seems to me that there as popular as ever and Red probly could have been saved a long time ago but narrow minded thinking costed millions and years to fix...So do we wait until it's to late or do something while we still have a say in it... And yes there are lakes that can take the pressure and maybe don't need a slot but there are way more that do need it in those cases they can make special regs for that lake...I'm open to anything except not doing something because when it's to late it's to late.......

[BobT]

Where will it end? Hmmm. Well, limits went into place once. They are modified all the time. Crappie limit was recently reduced. If it wasn't for limits we wouldn't have a fishery at all is my guess based on photos you see at historical societies. Deer populations were all but decimated until limits were imposed. Limits are necessary to preserve what we have because we humans are inherently greedy and will consume there's nothing left unless we impose limits on ourselves.

Bob

[32 degrees]

Recently during a fishing outing this topic came up. The question was asked, "What is a fair way to impose limits and keep everyone happy?" We were having a few cocktails so let's just say some of the answers were very creative. A buddy of mine came up with a very good idea. Limits based on volume, not numbers of fish for each species. His idea was actually very well thought out (He is a DNR biologist). His idea was to give every fisherman-woman a fish container in which to put thier catch. There was debate on the actual container, could be a pail, cooler, etc. Once this container is full you have your "limit". His logic is that each fisherperson would have to decide in what way to fill thier container. Whether it be with several smaller fish or fewer large fish. This would allow the smaller, more expendable fish to be harvested in larger numbers while the larger, less expendable fish would be more and more protected as the grew in size. Yeah, I know this is not the answer but it got us thinking about ways to protect the resource.

We also discussed the lake Osakis situation. From what I understand the DNR recommended a 19" minimum. According to my sources the people attending the meeting wanted nothing to do with this possible regulation. So a 15" minimum was decided upon. Our question was, "Who knows more about our fisheries, the DNR fisheries biologists or your average citizen?" Everyone agreed that we need a better system for getting new regulations that will protect our resources. In the future hopefully this system allows the fisheries biologists to make decisions without influence from outside sources.

[bigbucks]

I've fished Osakis all my life & know a lot of people involved in the Osakis community. I've never heard anything about a recommended 19" minimum, nor for that matter have I ever heard of a 19" minimum anywhere else either. I guess I have to question the accuracy of that info.

To me a 19" walleye is getting right in that area where I'd just as soon put it back & let it reproduce. Will I keep a 19"? Yes, will I keep several that are much over that? No sir.

[PieEyed]

Well I’ve read through all five pages of this topic and some of you had very good posts. As for the guy that thinks fishing for fun is wrong or the guy that claims people will stop fishing if the limit goes down, you guys are crazy.

Fishing is for fun and meat has to be secondary. There are too many people to keep up with our old ways. I consider each any every fish in a lake as property of all of us. What I mean is just because I catch it doesn’t mean it’s mine. I can only keep a couple if I want there to be enough fish for you guys when you go out next time. There was also a comment made about if one guy goes out and catches his 4 fish limit that’s not enough to feed his family. My view on this is, if 4 isn’t enough then why doesn’t his wife, son or daughter come out with him? Teach them about fishing and god forbid spend some quality time with them. That’s what fishing is about anyhow.

I also don’t agree with gifting of fish. If you’re giving fish to someone that’s not capable, that’s one thing, but when people are feeding their neighbors and friends, that’s wrong! You are steeling fish from your fellow sportsman. It’s just morally wrong and you might not be breaking the law the way it’s worded but, it’s the same as shooting a deer for someone else that just bought a tag. People always ask me how fishing is, so when I tell them I caught a bunch but I let them all go except one for supper, they usually tell me why don’t you bring me some next time. All I say is come with me or I can show ya where to go. 9 times out of 10 they never ask me again. If they can’t put in an once of effort why should I give away a walleye that might be your kids first ever the next time you go out?

I hear some of saying you should turn in people you see taking over there limit but how does one go about this? you never know what they’re doing with them. What if they get home clean them and run them over to the neighbors? It’s legal right? I want a lower limit and a slot limit as much as the next guy but we need to change the way the law reads on gifting of fish. That way when you see the same guy out on the lake everyday for two weeks keeping fish you could turn him in with a clear conscience. I know some of you won’t agree with me but then I ask you, under what circumstance do you think it’s ok to gift fish to someone who isn’t handicapped?

[PikeHook]

I love the volume idea...But way to complex...At least It gets a thought process going and thats what is needed ideas because things change and if you care about this sport at all you want to be involved in bettering it not just act like parasites using it tell it's gone and moving on....Anyhow you all have fun I'm going fishing

[BobT]

Trust it Rodd. I was at that meeting and there were many good ideas suggested. The fact is, most of them were NOT in favor of keeping things as they were. From the suggestions I heard, most felt an increase in the slot size was in order and a lowering of the 1 over minimum as well because the records also showed that the population of walleyes across the board continued to decline but of real interest was that the population of fish over 15" had declined even faster.

It surprised me to say the least when the new regulations came out with no change. I believe the reason for that was that there is an effort underway to rebuild the spawning beds and Lake Osakis has been listed endangered, which qualifies it for state backing of restoration projects. In the mean time I suppose the DNR is trying to keep eveyone satisfied.

Bob

edit: Oh yeah, 19" was suggested.

[goose89]

Pie,

Great post. I'm with you on everything you said. I don't think there's a clear answer to your first question regarding "how does one turn in people taking over their limit?" Except by calling TIP on your cell (#TIP) to have someone waiting on shore for them, if you witness the poaching / over-harvest right on the lake. I don't believe that's going to happen very often. You're right, after they leave, who knows what's happening to the fish?? Pretty tough to make or enforce a law stating you can't gift fish or accept fish from someone. Interesting concept though.

For the last 2 falls, I've fished Minnewaska for a week in the fall and caught and released a fair number of walleyes. Both times I kept 2 for an older relative that wouldn't make it in a boat in October (he's not handicapped), but has shared with me stories of the old days on Waska. He loves em. It's enough for a couple meals for him. Is it wrong to do?? I don't think so.

A recently stated view of "fishing" vs "catching" is interesting. Someone stated that it's called fishing, not catching, and fishing is being able to catch fish and keep them to eat.....

I understand that, but in the same breath, to say you wouldn't drive 2-3 hours to fish walleyes because it's too expensive, I don't understand that. If fisherman were really worried about how much they spent on a pound of fillets, we'd all have quit along time ago.(Boat, motor, gas,bait, lures, bait, rod's & reels, ect.) I'd be scared to honestly know what my 2-3 meals of fish a year cost, IF that mattered to me. My money is spent because I enjoy fishing. How many I'm going to keep isn't a factor on how much I'll spend.

And to be "scared" of a state-wide slot limit because you couldn't keep a limit of 20-24"ers. That I don't understand. Thinking this is not hurting the lake one bit, is a dangerous belief, IMO. That's what fisherman of old used think. IF a statewide slot limit is something that is in the future, it would be easy to exclude Red, Mille Lacs, LOTW, ect. and keep their's separate. They're seperate from the rest of the state now....

Fishing is for fun, like PieEyed. Having a good time eating a few of them with family / friends is also fun. But to keep fish like our forefathers did, and think it's our right, I don't believe is right, today. Time's have changed. Fishing, and maybe it's culture, is changing.

Mille Lacs is a prime example. Yes, alot of people out there on w/e's. But the "fishing experience" is way better now than when I grew up. We've all seen the old black & white pix of the old "glory days". I used to think they were the glory days, but I think I was wrong. That kind of fishing mentality led Mille Lacs to a pretty low spot for many years. I also believe our forefathers honestly didn't know the negatives of overharvesting. It must have seemed fish were an inexaustable resource. And, for many of them, it mmay have been a way to provide for their families. That's not the case today. We should let the lesson's of our forefathers teach us something. We now have responsibility, having knowlegde of what over-harvesting can do.

With more careful management and different attitudes regarding "fishing vs. catching", I'd say Mille Lacs is in it's glory days now and so could alot of other over fished lakes. I'm all for some tightening of regs, for the good of the future. IMO. Keep this thread going, both sides. I think alot of "good" is being shared.

[Mlaker3]

This has been an excellent discussion. The main point of the discussion has been mostly about peoples views on changing regulations to protect walleye fisheries. I am not so sure the St. Paul headquartered DNR folks are as interested in that as we might hope. I really feel the DNR spends a lot of time making sure natural resources are an ECONOMIC engine for the state. Look at how they manage WMA's and allow aquaculture, lakeshore for development, state forests for OHV use, deer management for quality, I could go on and on. Whenever something comes along that is good for the resource, the legislature/govenor make sure the DNR commisioner knows jobs and development are #1.

[eyehunter01]

I believe Mille Lacs is a prime example of over harvesting. Even though they have a limit it still can be over fished. If the DNR nets were correct in the fall.. we could be in trouble for a couple years. With walleye tournaments popping up all over the lake, the word spreading about the hot bite, everyone and their mom made a trip to mille lacs this summer. As the DNR continues to cut jobs, and legislation unable to pass any sort of bill to protect the environment, It will be tougher and tougher to enforce a statewide slot limit. I think the statewide slot limit would be a great idea, but politics and business is ruining the scenery.

[ROOKSTER69]

Well, I believe those net findings were a bit skewed. Having said that, I believe it's time we get a "standard" slot and limit for all lakes. Currently, you need to have an extra cabinet in the boat to store the walleye regs for this state. Make it simple, 4 total fish and establish a 15-17" keeper slot on all lakes. Simple and easy to understand. As far as enforcing the slot. We as sportsman need to police our own. Use the TIPS line. When I go fishing, at least one of us has a cell phone. Having fished this state for over 40 years, I believe the establishment of the slot has been for the good of the fishery.

[BobT]

I was in a discussion about this yesterday with a friend and he brought up a point. He felt that if the daily limit was lowered to four then the possession limit should remain at 6. This way a person that goes on a once-a-year weeklong fishing trip is able to return with enough for a meal or two, especially if he has a larger family. Suppose you live in extreme southern MN. You have to drive some pretty good distances to get to decent walleye water. From my experience going into Canada where the license I purchase only allows me to return with two fish, I can tell you it kind of sucks to go so far and not be able to bring back enough to have a meal for my family. Oh ya, we make up for it with the fish fry(s) at the lake.

Bob

[PikeHook]

I agree the possession limit could remain 6 with a lower limit like 4 or 3...This would still make it harder for the double dippers..Slots is another story though..I don't think everybody will ever agree on that...I'm a big fan of the under 18-19 and 1 over 28..I think the 1 over 20 we have now with a lower limit would be fine also...I guess with the possession limits remaining the same the resorts would have little to complain about to..I do think that the penalty for the fish over the limit is a joke and should be doubled at least and out of state people should never be aloud to fish hear again...Heres a few stories that I think sums that up.. u..http://news.dnr.state.mn.us/index.php/2007/10/16/out-of-state-anglers-face-heavy-fines-and-restitution-for-overlimit-violations-turn-in-poacher-tip-hotline-helps-enforcement-effort/

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/volunteer/janfeb07/tip.html

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/news/releases/index.html?id=1157481322

These are a few of the many..Maybe some new laws will help keep these kind people from fishing in our state

[PikeHook]

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/news/releases/index.html?id=1163536041

This one just makes me sick.....

Any how heres an old article that I think relates some of the points I have been trying to get across http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/publications/fwt/1996/exp1.pdf

I think we all need to work together to speed up changes this is from 1996 and it's not happening fast enough...

[grousehunter]

I think we need to come down harder on people who do break the fishing regulations too. Especially when you are over limits by 200 plus fish. WOW I think it cost more then $4000 dollars in tax/license money to replenish that kind of overhavesting. Make the offender not want to break the law again. I'm sure you could make decent money off that many fish and if you only get caught once in a long long long while what is to stop you from doing it again. I am definatly for reducing the limit to four and even further setting up some kind of state wide slot limit. I think a majority of the people enjoy fishing for the number of fish and size of fish they catch and not how many fish they can stuff in their freezer. The lakes with these lower limits and slot restrictions are some of the busiest lakes in minnesota. I agree if people want to feed thier families that they should go along and buy fishing licenses to provide the dnr more money to manage our resources. I love a nice fresh fish dinner, but definatly love the fishing part more then the eating part.