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
hhguide

State Wide slot

32 posts in this topic

Hey guys I just wanted to get everyone's opinion about a slot limit on walleyes and daily limit dropped down to 4 instead of 6...what do you guys think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I never catch any anyway one here two there on a good day for me so I never have to worry about it, except when am on LOW or Red and they have there own rules. That's my two cents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree with Grand Dad, I never keep more that two 16-18 inchers to make a meal anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are two important and substantially different questions. Let me give you my opinion on Slot Limits first. I personally think that we already have too many unenforceable slot laws right now. No way do we have enough CO's to adequately enforce the current, confusing, slot rules. In my opinion, I like the current "only one walleye over 20 inches a day". I think this was put in place to protect the breeding stock. If a few (and I stress a few) lakes need a tighter slot because of certain biological reasons, then the DNR should do that. But imposing a narrow, statewide slot is going to turn off the occassional fisherman. The key is education, not regulation. If my 84 year old dad goes fishing once a year and catches one 23 inch walleye, who among us would not want to let him keep it and cook up a meal? You put on a statewide slot and that fish is going back. Let's be honest, most of the fish are not being caught by the every once in a while fisherman and that is who would be challenged by a statewide slot limit. Almost all of the regular fisherman I know already impose a slot limit on themselves and these are the folks that are catching the majority of fish.

With regards to the possession limit, I really don't think there is any evidence that a 6 fish limit is depleting our fish population. Unless you are on a lake that has fish jumping in the boat it is darn hard to get six keeper walleyes. If the average fisherman has no trouble catching six fish, there is probably a pretty good population anyway. Besides, if four is good for the fish population wouldn't 2 be even better, or how about one. I think fishing ability and populations on the lake of choice is more limiting than changing the rules for no good reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted this on the Alex forum, but since this lake is by Dalton i figured this would be a little closer to home. I agree completely with a 4 fish limit, the concept that some people dont understand is that when our prairie pot holes turn on they turn ON!! People do not show any responsibilities, they catch there limit and go back later that day for more. So in an essense the lake would be saving 2-4 fish per day from 1 fisherman. The lake we stay at got hit last year. The walleyes were biting, but there was not much size, 12-14 inches, we cruised the normal spots and yes we caught em' but we threw them back. But when you see 3 guys in a 14 foot boat trolling the prime spots, it leads me to one conclusion. Now this lake is only 400 acres, and for a week straight there were at least 20 different boats through there a day. How bad do you think this hurt the walleye population??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The said 84 year old dad, wouldn't he have more fun catching 3 of these fish and still keeping one? I wish people would throw em back when they are on the bite. I have seen it to many times. I fish from Alex to Morris to Clitheral to Hawley and I have seen such cases in every area. The worst I have seen is in the Morris area where a 200 acre lake will get hit every 3 years by 50 boats a day. To me that does not make sense but I guess if they are following the rules it is allowable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The said 84 year old dad, wouldn't he have more fun catching 3 of these fish and still keeping one? "

No doubt about that, but I am pretty sure a statewide slot limit would be lower than 23 and if implemented he could not even keep the one, which in MHO would be unfair.

Be careful what you wish for. This may not be your ox that is being gored, but I guarantee you that once we start down these emotional, non-scientific roads it won't be long and they will be goring your ox, too.

I ask again, why four? Why not five, why not three, why not total catch and release? There is no scientific proof, only emotional opinions, about four verses six.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maverik, you think like me. We already have a statewide slot with 1 over 20. That is enough. Lowering that or creating something different and more restrictive will just make honest people into outlaws.

Regarding 4 fish limit, Unless you can show me Biological evidence that this will make a sustainable difference, this is nothing but Beaurucrats screwing with our quality of life.

My family likes to eat fish, and we can eat 6 walleyes in the blink of an eye. If the limit goes to 4 then I'd have to go fishing twice just go get a meal, or else break the "law".

This is just like the Lead Shot thing. We let them get away with that one, Let's not let them get away with this, or who knows what will be next.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think some of this goes back to the beating of chests and bragging at the pub, "yeah I caught my limit today" I think they would be just as proud with there 3 fish limit as there 6 fish limt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fishin58,

"I think some of this goes back to the beating of chests and bragging at the pub, "yeah I caught my limit today" I think they would be just as proud with there 3 fish limit as there 6 fish limt."

That is exactly what the fools at the capitol think. Fishermatt's comments are right on for most of us. I love to eat fish, my family loves to eat fish and it doesn't have anthing to do with me bragging about catching a limit. I don't know why they came up with a six fish limit many, many, years ago, but I would guess it had something to do with what you needed for a meal. That really hasn't changed. If it's just you and the wife, then stop at two or three, but don't deny my family of six a full meal unless you have a good biological reason for it.

The more we keep politicians and politics out of our sport, the better off we will all be. None of us should ever forget the broken promises of the State Lottery funds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what you are saying is that your family can eat 36 walleyes?? That seems like quite a bit to me, but I guess I could be wrong. The bragging still exists, you cannot honestly tell me that it doesn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"So what you are saying is that your family can eat 36 walleyes??"

I believe you know that is not what I meant, but the continuation of emotional reasons for changing things seems to be the solution for the day. Who cares if they brag? That has nothing to do with a common sense approach to the subject. Changing the limits because someone gets a big kick out of simply catching their limit is similar foolishness as changing the date of the opener because it might conflict with Mother's Day. Minnesota DNR, at least in the past, has made most of their decisions based on study and research. I will admit that the Mille Lacs deal is pretty political, but that is much more the exception than the rule. I have been fishing on my lake for 17 years with a six fish limit. The quality and quantity has not changed significantly. If anything the fishing has improved over the last 5 years. There may be lakes where that is not the case, but do some research and find out what is causing the problem and deal with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not attacking your beliefs, you have a good grasp of the subject, the ones in question, are the other 85% of people that are not reading this debate. They are the ones in question, this does not have much to do with you or me, it's simply the guys abusing the resources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, I appreciate that. Let's hope they can come up with a common sense solution that will entice people to follow good conservation practices. I personally watched the legislature and governor make laws for over 10 years and I can assure you that they are not equipped to make new laws that are well thought out and would be in the best interest of sportsmen. I fear they are only trying to get re-elected with suggestions like moving the opener.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Originally Posted By: Bluegill1510
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

and you think this would be easier to enforce than a statewide limit drop?????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I wouldn't mind seeing them lower the limit to 4. If my wife OR son are with me that still leaves us at a limit of 8 and I'd never keep that many walleyes.

However, I do think some people may rethink their fishing trips if the limit gets lowered. Thus it could have somewhat of a negative impact on the economies up north...

When I was younger, I used to fish Mille Lacs about 4-5 times a year. In the last 20 years I think I've fished it four times. Like others said I like to keep a couple fish to eat. I got a little frustrated on not being able to keep anything on 3 of the trips even though the fish were biting. Now I go elsewhere.

Just my $.02 worth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just an opinion here....

Dont we all think the tree huggers are extremests???

I see no difference with some points of view here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think all tree huggers are extremists just like I don't think all fisherman are conservationists. I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion and if they want to take the time to try to change things to match their opinion that would be their right. I also believe I have the right to fight off any lame brain idea that doesn't fit with my lame brain ideas. Unless someone possesses the power to change things unilaterally there will always be discussion and possible compromise. I know of no one in the state that has that level of power (with the possible exception of my lovely wife). So, we keep talking and putting our ideas out their and hopefully if there is a change it won't be so radical that it hampers our ability to enjoy our sport. I have already written to my legislators about my opinions on these two subjects. I suggest everyone do the same. It is how business gets done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the state does need to take a good look at how our fishing resources are doing in the state. There is a reason that the limit is 6 and a reason that perch sunfish and crappie limits have all dropped over the years. To me i would rather be able to go out and catch alot of fish while never keeping any. I of course love to eat fish as an occasional meal but i believe that the states walleyes get to much pressure and that to many are caught and kept. Why do you think its so hard to catch a 6 walleye limit these days besides the big lakes? Its because people have kept so many fish out of those lakes. Personally i also think the state slot should be 1 over 28", keeping our breeding fish in the water is very important to the population of all lakes. We are in a age with more new technologys aimed at catching more fish everyday and we need to be careful with our states most valuble resource.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maverick and Fishermatt,

I hope you guys are kiddin me? Look at the premier walleye lakes in MN; Mille Lacs, LOW, Red, they all have limits to keep them a premier fishery! Why would you not want every lake in MN to be a premier walleye destination? Both limits would extremely help that. With every lake in MN experiencing extreme fishing pressure (compared to years ago), technology more advanced than ever, what do you honestly think is going to happen to our lakes? Get a clue! Its not all about your freezer! Whats going to be left for the kids? NOTHING!

PS: Some people enjoy fishing! Like myself. I don't go out to catch my limit of walleyes. If it happens thats great. But I wont keep them all. I have fished Mille Lacs since I was a little kid. Even through the years of a 2" slot limit. It was tough for a while but look how it bounced back. It still took a couple years and that is a "walleye factory." What do you think is going to happen to lakes that can't produce walleyes like Mille Lacs? Its going to take well more than a couple years. It may take decades! something needs to be done now! Even if the DNR cant enforce every lake, the Limits would still deter people from breaking the law. Even if you have to feed your family, and you have a couple kids, and a wife who has a license, you could still have 16 walleyes (with a four fish limit). Whats the big deal? Plus we keep taking fish before they can spawn. I see nothing about walleye fishing heading in the right direction right now. If you cant see that we need a change.......OPEN YOUR EYES!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eyehunter,

Comments like: "You guys are the most self centered, ignorant people I have seen on this site yet." are way out of line and contrary to the guidelines of this site. I realize it is hard to respect other people's opinions when they don't line up with yours, but you really need to take a breath and re-read what Matt and I are saying.

I'm not sure about LOW, but both Mille Lacs and Red have the limits they have because of negotitations with the tribe and determining the poundage that can be taken in a year. This may have helped the fishery, and that's great, but the decision on the limits and slots each year is based on the estimated amount of fish alloted to the tribes.

Like Matt says, we already have a statewide slot with only one over 20 inches. I have a cabin on a lake with a very healthy walleye population and it gets very little pressure. Changing the rules in a "one size, fits all" manner will not magically change our fisheries.

You have your opinion and I have mine, keep it civil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is always going to be arguments on these touchy threads about future fishing, but thats good it shows that people care about the future of our lakes, but its immature to start calling eachother names on the internet. Learn something from eachother instead of disagreeing, there is alot of smart fishermen who use this site so choose your words carefully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Originally Posted By: gritsnham
To me i would rather be able to go out and catch alot of fish while never keeping any.

Couldn't agree with you anymore...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personaly I don't want every lake to be a premier walleye lake, they eat my crappies. And I don't care what you do to catch your limit of eyes around here the stars the moon and all the planets have to align to have a shot at that. Not saying it dosn't happen. But it is going to make much of a diffrence around here. if there is a hot bite around here with a lot of the small lakes you talking about the diffrence of buying the lake an extra month from being fished out, because it will get fished to death untill they are all gone weather they are taking 4 6 or 8. And then my crappies will take over. Just my 2 cent.

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

    • Rancid Crabtree
      I scored a set of Striker Hardwaters for 25% off   bibs+coat. I fish early ice alone, decided to pull the trigger on a warm suit that can float if I end up breaking thru.  That crowd was insane. Happy to see the big turnout. All of the TV dudes were roaming around too, talking with ppl and taking pics. Had a great time and I'm happy to see how big the ice fishing community is getting. Just stay away from my holes!!!     jk. Looks like we could be gaining up to an inch of ice/day in metro lakes if this forecast holds. 
    • Big A
      That ion x does look sweet! Not sure if I can justify the switch from my current ion... what was your out the door cost?
    • vanwalleye
      I was thinking the same thoughts, I saw the pond by my house locked up, figure someone will be sitting in front of the courthouse before you know it..
    • Jim Uran
      I have to add that my buddy has had the Eskimo propane auger and loves it, he has a season and half using it and it hasn't given him any problems. 
    • Jim Uran
      I've had an Eskimo Shark for a few years and I love it, I'm not a fan of the aluminum handles on it, they have given me an issue or two but customer service is outstanding. Can't comment on the EVO, other than  I think they are gimmicky, but I love their six sided insulated hub. Works great for my family trips or just going out by myself. Sets up easy and there is a ton of room.