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.

  • Announcements

    • Rick

      Members Only Fluid Forum View   08/08/2017

      Fluid forum view allows members only to get right to the meat of this community; the topics. You can toggle between your preferred forum view just below to the left on the main forum entrance. You will see three icons. Try them out and see what you prefer.   Fluid view allows you, if you are a signed up member, to see the newest topic posts in either all forums (select none or all) or in just your favorite forums (select the ones you want to see when you come to Fishing Minnesota). It keeps and in real time with respect to Topic posts and lets YOU SELECT YOUR FAVORITE FORUMS. It can make things fun and easy. This is especially true for less experienced visitors raised on social media. If you, as a members want more specific topics, you can even select a single forum to view. Let us take a look at fluid view in action. We will then break it down and explain how it works in more detail.   The video shows the topic list and the forum filter box. As you can see, it is easy to change the topic list by changing the selected forums. This view replaces the traditional list of categories and forums.   Of course, members only can change the view to better suit your way of browsing.   You will notice a “grid” option. We have moved the grid forum theme setting into the main forum settings. This makes it an option for members only to choose. This screenshot also shows the removal of the forum breadcrumb in fluid view mode. Fluid view remembers your last forum selection so you don’t lose your place when you go back to the listing. The benefit of this feature is easy to see. It removes a potential barrier of entry for members only. It puts the spotlight on topics themselves, and not the hierarchical forum structure. You as a member will enjoy viewing many forums at once and switching between them without leaving the page. We hope that fluid view, the new functionality is an asset that you enjoy .
Sign in to follow this  

Recommended Posts

hhguide

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
GRAND DAD

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
Pleasant

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
Maverick1951

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
fishin58

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
fishin58

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
Maverick1951

"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
fishermatt

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
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maverick1951

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
fishin58

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
Maverick1951

"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
fishin58

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
Maverick1951

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
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
B. Amish

 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
archerystud

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
sparcebag

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
Maverick1951

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
gritsnham

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
eyehunter01

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
Maverick1951

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
WallyGader

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
WallyGader

 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
GRAND DAD

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  



  • Posts

    • smurfy
      looks like cow bay!!!!!!!!!! nice fish.
    • eyeguy 54
    • Hoey
      I have not heard any reasons for the purported relocation.  Just thinking out loud here - Walker Bay has not had enough ice in many of the past years, so they have to hold the event on shore and not on the lake.  There is limited space for a shore event there.  Maybe Bemidji makes more ice and/or they have more on-shore accommodations.  Walker itself is more of a tourist and family town and the Pout Fest is not that.  
    • Rick
      Hunters are reminded to register deer before processing, before antlers are removed and within 48 hours after taking the animal, according to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.  “Deer registration provides information that is essential to our ability to manage deer populations,” said Steve Merchant, wildlife populations and regulations manager. “Hunters are required to register deer and it’s a fairly simple process.” Hunters register deer with a phone call, online or in person. Before registering a deer, hunters must validate their site tag. The validated tag must be attached to the deer when the deer is placed on a motor vehicle or an ATV, a vehicle or a trailer being towed by an ATV or brought into a camp, yard or other place of habitation. Phone registration
      Register deer via phone by calling 888-706-6367. Directions are printed on each deer hunting license. Have a pen or permanent marker ready. A confirmation number will be given; it must be written on the license and site tag. Internet registration
      Register deer via internet at mndnr.gov/gameregistration. Directions will be similar to phone registration, and a confirmation number must be written on the license and site tag. In-person registration
      When phone or internet registration is not possible, hunters must take their deer to a big-game registration station. The person whose name appears on the license must be present at the registration station with their deer. They will receive a big-game possession tag that must be attached to the hind leg, ear or antler where the site tag was attached. A list of all stations organized by city and county is available at any DNR wildlife office or at mndnr.gov/hunting/deer. During registration, the hunter must use the permit area number where the deer was harvested; using the wrong deer permit area for registration is illegal. Registration instructions for all methods are available at mndnr.gov/gameregistrationhelp. Discuss below - to view set the hook here.
    • BrianF
      Hi Jim, the problem with channels on Tonka is not only the current, which keeps the ice thin all winter, but also due to the effects of road salt/chemicals.  Many of the channels have bridges over them which receive a lot of automobile traffic.  In the winter, road salt/chemicals are pour on the roads during adverse weather conditions.  Cars and especially snow plows cause the salt/chemicals to splash over the guard rails and onto the ice.  When you see new reports of cars going thru the ice on channels, it's usually right under a road overpass, for this reason.  Because of the road salts, channels are just a super dangerous place to be, even during our coldest winters.  
    • Hookmaster
      I'm pretty sure there is still a winter only access on Smith's bay just north of where hiway 51 intersects hiway 15 at the lake.  It's just before the North Shore Marina. You'd have to trailer to there but then you'd have the main lake to fish.
    • Rick
      Pheasants banded in Nobles and Redwood counties Pheasant hunters can voluntarily report roosters that were banded as part of a study being conducted by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.  DNR Farmland Wildlife Populations and Research Group workers captured and banded roosters during a research project. The two study areas involved in the project are the Lamberton Wildlife Management Area complex in Redwood County and the Worthington Wells Project Area south of Worthington, located in Nobles County. Although the study is focused on hen pheasants and their broods, roosters were also opportunistically captured in an attempt to collect survival information on males. A plain metal leg band with a unique identifying number was placed on the right leg of each rooster. Hunters are asked to contact the Farmland Wildlife Research Group to report harvest information. The band number, date of harvest, and location information (WMA name or GPS coordinates preferred) are requested. If hunters want information on when and where the bird was initially captured, they may also provide their contact information so that researchers can return their call. GPS locations and personal data will not be made public. Although Minnesota has a rooster-only hunting season, hunters who come across a dead radio-collared and/or banded hen are also asked to call with information so that researchers can refine their hen data. To voluntarily report birds marked as part of this study, contact Lindsey Messinger, 507-642-8478, ext. 224. Alternatively, people may contact Lindsey by email at Lindsey.Messinger@state.mn.us. This work is funded in part through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act. Additional details about pheasant hunting are available at mndnr.gov/hunting/pheasant. Discuss below - to view set the hook here.
    • Rick
      The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, in conjunction with the Michigan and Wisconsin natural resources departments, will take questions about the Lake States Forest Bat Habitat Conservation Plan at 3 p.m., Tuesday, Oct. 31. The phone conference is for anyone interested in the integration of forest practices with conservation measures to support bat populations.  Forest bat populations are rapidly declining, and one or more species may soon be reclassified as endangered. If reclassified, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provides the opportunity to develop a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). An HCP helps endangered species recover by setting out habitat conservation plans during land management activities. In preparation, Minnesota and neighboring states are developing a forest bat HCP that aims to maintain bat habitat and allow important forest management activities to continue. Input from forest land owners, forest managers, conservation groups and other stakeholders is essential to developing an effective HCP. An introductory video describing the HCP process and how to participate is available at https://youtu.be/46IAHTaqJQE. The DNR encourages participants to watch the video prior to the Oct. 31 question and answer session. To access the session, in the ten minutes prior to the call start time, participants should dial 855-802-6790 toll-free and, at the prompt, enter the conference ID code 93441291. Anyone requiring an accommodation to participate in the phone conference is asked to email bathcp.dnr@state.mn.us or call 651-259-5919 as early as possible. More information is available at mndnr.gov/bathcp.   Contact: Lindsey Messinger, wildlife research biologist, 507-642-8478, ext. 224.   Discuss below - to view set the hook here.
    • Rick
      A video about how to get deer tested for chronic wasting disease is available on the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources website at mndnr.gov/cwd.  “Getting a deer tested for CWD only takes a few minutes and the video takes hunters through steps that make the process go smoothly, such as positioning their deer so the head is easily accessed in the vehicle,” said Lou Cornicelli, wildlife research manager. Testing will be required in portions of north-central, central and southeast Minnesota during the opening weekend of firearms deer season. “We want to thank hunters for cooperating during this sampling process,” Cornicelli said. Precautionary testing from 7:30 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Saturday, Nov. 4, to Sunday, Nov. 5, will determine whether chronic wasting disease may have spread from captive deer to wild deer in central and north central Minnesota. Central Minnesota deer permit areas with mandatory testing are 218, 219, 229, 277, 283 and 285. North central Minnesota deer permit areas with mandatory testing are 155, 171, 172, 242, 246, 247, 248 and 249. Testing in north central and central Minnesota became necessary after CWD was found in multiple captive deer on farms near Merrifield in Crow Wing County and Litchfield in Meeker County. Test results will determine whether CWD may have potentially been passed from these captive deer to wild deer. Deer harvested in southeast Minnesota’s permit areas 343, 345, 346, 347, 348 and 349 also are subject to mandatory testing on Nov. 4-5 because they are adjacent to permit area 603, the only area of Minnesota currently known to have CWD-infected wild deer. All hunters in affected deer permit areas will be required to have their harvested deer tested Nov. 4-5. After field dressing their deer, hunters must take them to a sampling station. DNR staff will remove lymph nodes, which will be submitted for laboratory testing. Hunters must register their deer by phone, internet or in person at any big game registration station. Harvest registration will not be available at CWD sampling stations. For sampling to accurately detect whether CWD exists in wild deer, the DNR needs hunters’ help to collect 3,600 samples in the north central area, 1,800 in the central area and 1,800 in the southeast. Proactive surveillance and precautionary testing for disease is a proven strategy that allows DNR to manage CWD by finding it early and reacting quickly and aggressively to control it. These actions, which were initiated in 2005 to successfully combat bovine tuberculosis in northwestern Minnesota deer and in 2011 to eliminate a CWD infection in wild deer near Pine Island, provide the best opportunity to eliminate disease spread. Hunters not in a mandatory testing area can collect their own lymph node sample and submit it for testing to the Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory at the University of Minnesota for a fee. A video showing how to collect a lymph node sample and a link to the lab’s website are at mndnr.gov/cwdcheck. Complete information about mandatory CWD testing, sampling station locations and a related precautionary feeding ban, which includes salt and mineral licks in all areas and attractants such as estrus urine in southeastern Minnesota, are available on the DNR website at mndnr.gov/cwd. Discuss below - to view set the hook here.
    • Rick
      State wildlife chief addresses upcoming season and future challenges By Paul Telander, DNR wildlife chief When Minnesota’s deer season ends Sunday, Dec. 31, it is quite likely the harvest will be in the 200,000 range.  This Minnesota Department of Natural Resources projection is above last year’s harvest of 173,213, below the 2003 record harvest of 290,525 and similar to the most recent 20-year average of 205,959. Prior to 2000, deer harvests in excess of 200,000 occurred only four times. Deer harvest totals typically relate to the size of the deer population and to a lesser degree to weather conditions immediately before and during the hunting season. On the 2017 season
      This should be a good deer season barring any unforeseen unusual weather. Deer numbers are up following three years of conservative harvest regulations designed to rebuild the population, coupled with three relatively mild winters. As a result, more antlerless permits are available this year, and hunters in many parts of the state will have additional opportunities to harvest more deer because of other more liberal season framework changes. Unfavorable weather, like heavy snowfall immediately before or during the hunting season, is the main factor that would prevent a harvest increase. On putting 2017 in context
      The highest deer harvests occurred during the early to mid-1990s and from 2000-2008. During this latter period, the harvest topped 200,000 each year. The high harvests in the early 2000s occurred at a time when the over-riding harvest strategy was to reduce the deer population so it wouldn’t grow out of control, as had happened in certain eastern states, and to address certain environmental, economic and social concerns. Deer harvests in excess of 225,000 occurred only once in the 1990s. Going further back, the harvests in the 1970s never topped 100,000. The harvests in the 1980s were under 150,000. Today, there’s growing discussion in the hunting community as to what’s a reasonable harvest target, and that’s a good conversation to have. On managing toward population goals
      Our aim is to keep deer numbers at population goals identified during DNR’s periodically occurring public goal-setting processes. There are 130 different deer permit areas throughout the state, and nearly all permit areas have a numeric population goal range. Population goals range from as low as a handful of deer per square mile in intensively farmed areas to 20 to 25 deer per square mile in prime forested areas. A few permit areas are too small or have too low of a harvest to model the local population. Deer numbers are at or have exceeded population goals over most of the state. Some northeast and southwest permit areas are slightly below goal. Parts of central Minnesota and southeastern Minnesota are above goal. From an overall, statewide perspective, we’re not far from where we believe Minnesota should be. On DNR transparency
      Many hunters are curious as to how we make our decisions on antlerless permit numbers and season structure, and that’s something we are trying to more effectively communicate. The process starts immediately after the deer season closes. That’s when area wildlife supervisors and staff monitor deer harvest results in their local areas and collect informal feedback from hunters, conservation officers, foresters and others. In spring, after winter severity has been monitored and deer mortality losses have been estimated, research staff run population models for each permit area based on the last year’s harvest, winter mortality, anticipated fawn births, predation and other data. These calculations are the basis of research staff recommendations for season permit area designations (lottery, managed, intensive harvest, etc.) and the number of antlerless permits that should be made available to hunters in each lottery permit area in order to achieve population goals. Research staff recommendations are sent to all area wildlife supervisors, who then have the option of agreeing with them or modifying them based on their own local observations and informal input. Often, these recommendations agree with each other, but not always. When this happens, differences get resolved at the regional or St. Paul office level. Ultimately, the agreed upon season structures and number of permits to be issued for each area are communicated to hunters through the multi-colored deer map that is part of the hunting regulations booklet and a new, more informative interactive deer map on the DNR website at mndnr.gov/deermap. On managing expectations
      That’s perhaps the hardest part of deer management, and it’s often a function of scope and scale. Our agency’s focus is on the big picture and a half million hunters. Conversely, the individual hunter is most interested in what’s happening within their immediate hunting area, which is often as little as 40 acres. It’s not well-known but among 13 Midwestern states, only Missouri manages deer populations at a finer spatial scale than Minnesota. We are serious about managing expectations and deer numbers in small geographic areas. Still, it is common to have a wide variety of opinions in each area on whether there should be more, fewer or different sized deer. To that point, we recently conducted a hunter satisfaction survey and one of the findings is that today’s hunters have higher expectations than those who hunted just 10 years ago. On communicating with hunters
      When I began my career it was common to interact with hunters at deer registration stations and local field offices. Today with the ease, convenience and popularity of phone and internet game registration, the DNR no longer has staff at deer registration stations. And people don’t visit DNR offices like they once did because so much information is available on the DNR website. Our challenge is finding new and efficient ways to have two-way conversations with hunters. This past winter we received more than 1,400 comments during a three-month long deer management plan public input effort. We were pleased with the response yet those 1,400 comments from an engaged and important audience represent only a minute fraction of the hunting public. There’s an irony in the fact that even though it is easier to be connected to one another these days because of smartphones and other technology, many people feel less connected than they once did. Figuring out how to maintain strong relations with hunters and other stakeholders is something on which we need to keep working. Minnesota’s first-ever deer plan will outline key concepts and crucial, ongoing work needed to manage deer, one of the state’s most popular and economically vibrant natural resources. An important aspect of the plan is how DNR will reach out and communicate deer management needs, necessary actions and reasons for those actions. A draft plan will be available in early 2018. I encourage everyone to read the draft plan, consider DNR’s suggested approach and give us your feedback and ideas through the public input opportunities we’ll make available. Discuss below - to view set the hook here.