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
Dahitman44

New Regs?

70 posts in this topic

Let's start a big post regarding the changing of the State Regs. Some of the members of the State Leg. are considering some changes.

I understand that the DNR watch these sites so let's let them know what we think and maybe it will help.

I would like to see a state-wide slot limit. I was thinking up to 20 inches and and one over 28. This will make the lakes get bigger fish and allow for more natural breeding. Let's be honest, guys, we don;t need to each a 24-inch eye.

Next I think we should drop the state limit to 4 eyes per person.

I think the opener should be a week earlier except for way up north to protect the late spawn. That would make all of the moms happier and would be a good for business state-wide in many areas.

Any other thoughts? Let's hear them and get a BIG thread going.

Thanks

Hit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

opener a week earlier no way.if that happends i'll have to bring my ice auger with me.as for the 20 inch slot.all inland lakes you can only take 1 over 20 inches.most of the great walleye lakes in minnesota already have the 4 limit on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MN --

Yeah, but most of the lakes by us are not that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are looking for a big discussion on management techniques and regulations, it would probably a good idea for most users to read the forum policy before posting. Thank You. I'd like to keep this discussion civil, or the topic will likely get bumped over to the Outdoor Discussion forum.

Hitman, I'm a lot more progressive than you are. There are a lot of issues right now facing the state of our fisheries. first and foremost is funding. Right now, special interest user groups are demanding that fisheries and wildlife get funded based on the amount of revenue that they generate. What that means is that currently, fisheries is spending $4 million more than the revenue they generated through license and stamp sales. The overage came from funds derived from hunting license sales. Groups want that money returned to wildlife immediately. Ironically enough, it is quickly overlooked that funding from fish license sales supported the low revenue earning wildlife section for decades. It was not until recently with the increased sales from "bonus" deer tags, that wildlife revenue began to exceed that of fisheries. Bottom line is, unless we generate more revenue for fisheries through increased license sales, or more likely, increased license fees, fisheries will start to see serious cuts to their budget next fiscal year. The cuts will basically affect most programs statewide, especially when it comes to staffing. This could be another reason to support constitutional funding, if our legislators propose a clean bill, with no goofy riders like funding for the arts.

Here's my solution. Let's adopt what Ontario has done for years. Cut bag limits in half. Adopt a management license, which would essentially double your bag limit for the price of another license. Most fair-weather anglers would likely not be affected as they typically do not take a limit home with them on every trip. This would still allow resorts and other anglers on a "trip" to take a limit home with them. This would also give the opportunity for the meat-hunter angler to take home their limits to "feed their family". This would help increase revenue; the highest-use anglers that would put the most strain on the resource would be contributing more $$ towards the management of the resource. Kind of like a progressive tax, the more fish you take, the more you pay to replace them. I realize that there will be all sorts of arguments from "it's my god given right to keep as much as I want", to "I can't afford a license increase". Let's face it, the current system in place cannot go on forever. With modern electronics and equipment, it is much easier to deplete a resource to a point where fish populations can crash. Equipment has changed, so must the management techniques.

Here's my final rant: Contact your legislators. Tell them that you do not want them making natural resource management decisions, and that it needs to STOP NOW! They are not resource management experts, so they should leave the decision making process of resource management to the professionals. Think of it this way, if you needed to get brain surgery, would you rely on your legislator to perform the procedure? Likely not, you would utilize the services of a neurosurgeon. The same principle should go for natural resource managemnt. Some of these legislators have good intetnions, other have quite selfish ones. There is currently WAY TOO MUCH political influence in regards to our current management guidelines. That needs to stop, let our resource professionals make the call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This really gets to be a complicated issue. You can't establish one set of rules that work for every body of water. On the other hand, you need to be a lawyer with your regs book to understand what you can and can't do on any given lake.

Could they classify lakes into, say, four catagories? Each catagory has it's specifications that are relative to that lake classification. All bodies of water would have to fit in one of these.

I'm all for the reduction of walleyes to four. If you need more than four to feed your family, take a kid fishing.

I'd be in favor of a fifteen minimum size limit. I know this would encourage cropping off the population at that size, but I think the benefits of having them get to fifteen inches would make for better quality fish.

The issue brought up by Deadhead is interesting. I can see the point of the bonus license thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Originally Posted By: Cicada

The issue brought up by Deadhead is interesting. I can see the point of the bonus license thing.

This was discussed as an option in the past by fisheries management. It may be time to evaluate and reconsider the idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also liked Deadhead's idea's. I think the bonus thing would bring in some extra revenue. I would like to see the limit lowered and also a minimum size with one over 20 for Walleyes. I would also like to see a minimum size on every species. I see too many people keeping little dink fish and then bragging about catching their limit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you guys are serious about the "management licenses", or any other management regulations, please contact Area Fisheries Supervisor Dave Friedl, Detroit Lakes Fisheries @ (218) 847 1579.

New phone number After 2/12/2008: (218) 846-8340

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What can we do for bigger slabs, them eyes get all the glory grin.gif .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

adopt the minimum size regs like several of the lakes on Otter Tail county. Slabs can't get to 15"-16" if people keep cropping off the population at 8" or 9"ers...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with deadhead. Lets put a slot on them slabs at 11 inches. A 10 inch crappie isnt that big and there is hardly any meat there. The walleye limit should go to 4 and you should have to throw back everything from 20-28 inches. Just my .02.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Ray as well.

How do we get this to happen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I agree with Ray also, and with f-dog. I like my crappies and keeping them 8-10"ers is MADNESS... HA HA. They should have a statewide 11" minimum on them. Man that would be cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the 11 inch minimum on Crappies. That is one of the reasons I like fishing on Lida. You may get a few small ones but the chances of getting some very nice slabs is that much better. A crappie under 11 inches isn't worth messing up the cutting board in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of a minumum size limit and a smaller catch limit. There are positives and negatives of both. I personally know of one lake were the 15" mimimum was in place for more than 10 years. ALl it did was great the worlds largest cigar factory. There were so many 12" eyes, that it would be like catching bull heads or sheepheads all day. They actually axed the minimum size and went to a 4 fish limit. That has helped, but people like da Hitman were sad because the 12" started to grow and disapear.

I would support the 4 fish limit and a 2 fish limit on snot rockets with a minumum size of say 24" for snot rockets.

I would support a decrease in crappie limits from 10 to maybe 6 with a 11" minimum.

As far as a our wonderfull elected officals are concerned. I don't want them making any rash decisions based on political payola.

ANd sorry Mom, but the fishing opener should stay. and for 2 reasons. One is that any earlier would screw up the spawn in many areas. IF it were one week later it would create an over harvest of eyes. We all know that the best time to catch eyes is usually the week after opener. So if we sent 500,000 boats out one week later imagine what that would do to all the hungry female population.

Just my .0000000003784 cents worth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of a minumum size limit and a smaller catch limit. There are positives and negatives of both. I personally know of one lake were the 15" mimimum was in place for more than 10 years. ALl it did was great the worlds largest cigar factory. There were so many 12" eyes, that it would be like catching bull heads or sheepheads all day. They actually axed the minimum size and went to a 4 fish limit. That has helped, but people like da Hitman were sad because the 12" started to grow and disapear.

I would support the 4 fish limit and a 2 fish limit on snot rockets with a minumum size of say 24" for snot rockets.

I would support a decrease in crappie limits from 10 to maybe 6 with a 11" minimum.

As far as a our wonderfull elected officals are concerned. I don't want them making any rash decisions based on political payola.

ANd sorry Mom, but the fishing opener should stay. and for 2 reasons. One is that any earlier would screw up the spawn in many areas. IF it were one week later it would create an over harvest of eyes. We all know that the best time to catch eyes is usually the week after opener. So if we sent 500,000 boats out one week later imagine what that would do to all the hungry female population.

Just my .0000000003784 cents worth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Originally Posted By: Paul

Just my .0000000003784 cents worth.

Times 2 grin.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as crappies go -- there was a goofy guy from Hawley-wood that kept everything he caught on Lee Lake. That is one of the reasons there are so few and small crappies. He was out every day keeping 8-inchers. Kinda sickening.

A min. of 11 inches would b best, IMO. Limit of 8-10?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hitman you have really been on the front end of alot of 10" jokes lately whats up with that??? either some hard feelings about outfishing somebody or has it just become easier as the season has gone on???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously it is jealousy they wish they could be DaHitman!

As far as the 10-inch deal, well at least I don't spend all day "Milkin' the Big Females" like Deadhead does. ;\)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Originally Posted By: Paul

ANd sorry Mom, but the fishing opener should stay. and for 2 reasons. One is that any earlier would screw up the spawn in many areas. IF it were one week later it would create an over harvest of eyes. We all know that the best time to catch eyes is usually the week after opener. So if we sent 500,000 boats out one week later imagine what that would do to all the hungry female population.

I don't think that moving the season later will effect anything. It's basically a gamble on weather and timing. Some openers are really good and others suck. That can even change just by going to a different part of the state. Moving it earlier during the spawn I do believe that would effect it. I don't think it would screw up the spawn so much, you just have a better potential of harvesting major breeders that haven't done their "business".

As far as lake classifications, I don't think you could classify them down to just four types. It would probably be more like 20-30. I think there are just to many factors to say 4. Unless you just decide to use depth and water clarity that right there gives you four types of lakes. Thats just not practical. Depth, bottom content, water clarity, water quality, inlet/outlet, fishing pressure, current condition/population of fish..... just to name some.

I am not trying to rant here just trying to put some ideas out there.

Has any one else noticed if there is a coralation with a minnimum size and ending up with small fish in that lake. Just curious??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Quote:
Has any one else noticed if there is a coralation with a minnimum size and ending up with small fish in that lake. Just curious??

No actually i've seen the opposite. I"ll use Big Pine as an example and why not Upper Red Lake. Both these lakes have slots and both have, in my mind, helped these lakes develop into great walleye fishing opportunities. Are they needed for every lake, probably not, would it be easier if it was imposed on all lakes for the people that complain there are too many regulations, then the answer is yes.

Changing the limit to 4 is one management change that i would greatly support. Too the people who state that it doesn't matter because its hard to catch that many, then i guess this change wont affect you.

This could change our fishing for our kids, and if the MN DNR believe that it will change it for the better, im all for it.

A. Shae

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2-Shae is right on the money. The limit moving to four would be no big deal. Also, why not have a "management" tag available for purchase. Would help out the DNR as well. The people that take the most fish should help in the restocking effort.

As far as the slot -- I think a statewide deal would make it easier to tell what the rules are on a given lake. Should help in the natural reproduction as well.

hit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the idea of the management tag. I go to LOTW every year and that is all I buy because we fish in Canada but stay in Minnesota so we can take our possesion limit home for MN. I personally don't take fish home that often and if I do they are usually to be cooked right away. If I want a meal of fish I can usually catch fish just about anytime of year so I don't need to stock up on fish. I agree make the people who consume the rescource to pay more for it.

As far as the slot goes I don't know why people need to take home small fish anyway. First off they are a lot tougher to clean and for the effort what do you get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but some people are not too bright. It will help those folks. ;\)

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