New Regs?

[shae1986]

I dont know if this is off topic or not, but i think another thing that needs to be looked at is tougher penalties for people that do break the law if over in over limit of fish and size restrictions. I know that there are variables in that but people that punish the resource need to be made an example of.

A. Shae

[Rodbldr4fun]

Ray, Outdoors, and Hitman,

Thanks for your thoughts.

My feeling is that there has not been a lake around here with a documented overfishing problem with a 6 fish limit. There is no biological reason to change the limits. Also, in order to be effective, a much greater reduction in the limit would be necessary. Why should we do something when there isn't a biological problem and it wouldn't be effective? If we have a problem with fish hogs, then a public campaign should be an ongoing strategy.

I would be the first to argue for a lower limit if there was a true biological reason for the limit reduction and it would have a positive result. Even on the classic lakes, a 7% reduction is pretty darn small. Can we notice a 7% change in populations? Heck a 7% difference in natural year class success variation happens all the time without us noticing it without fish surveys. Take a look at most fish surveys for natural lakes and I bet you will seen a pretty wide range in population fluctuation.

Fish surveys themselves have a substantial error factor. Will there even be a discernible difference with a purported 7% reduction? Maybe so if people are pulling 2 less fish out day after day where we have serious guided fishing. Think about how many fish a guide boat can take out when it is doing two charters/day. Under those conditions, there may be an observable difference.

Ask professional fisheries managers (including college professors). They will tell you that the biggest single factor in fish density is year class success. The reasons are varied including water levels (like Big C) the climate and habitat along with unknown factors. Other factors have much less impact.

Netting certainly can be a major impact. We have seen that on Red Lk. Also, once the the commercial fishing licenses were removed from LOW, its populations have increased significantly, even with the major sport fishing industry. A long time LOW resorter (and passed commercial fisherman) recently said that last summer was the best he has ever experienced.

In terms of limits vs fish size, I believe you would also have to have a slot limit. When a person has a number of fish of various sizes in his limit, you are reducing a number of year classes rather than the one. My thought is that I would rather have someone take 6 smaller fish than 4 spawners. A lake can only sustain a certain poundage of a species. Reducing the smaller fish allows for more spawners if the spawners are protected by a slot limit.

My number one concern is that, to allow a feel good unproductive strategy, takes the pressure off decision makers. It is very easy for them to say they reduced the limits and walk away without addressing the real problems such as water quality and habitat destruction. Changing limits is an easy out for legislators. But, who pays the price for limit reduction? Sports people. We are the ones who have paid for years. It is time for others to do the same. Reducing our limit is simply an unproductive bandage for a much larger problem with our lakes.

[ZOOM]

 Quote:

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.

I'm Just wondering how one would go about inforcing this? I mean how would you be able to make someone that caught 4 Eyes everyday, pay more for that privilage? Would you think of a registration like deer hunters have? Just wondering how one could determine who is taking what fish and how many they are taking? Honest, boy scout's honor, pinky swear????? I'm not trying to be a smart A#$ I just was wondering how this could be put in place with all the remote lakes in the state and such little DNR to go around to keep an eye on them all. You know theres always a sour apple that tries to get away with something.

[DEADhead]

 Originally Posted By: Dahitman44

I, for one, would enjoy catching and throwing back a lot of 20-25 inchers trying to weed my way toward getting 3-4 16-18 inch fish to bring home for the pan.

I think you would gladly catch any walleye that's over 10"es

There's been some good points brought up in this discussion. It's been interesting reading others' opinions on the matter.

[shae1986]

 Quote:

I'm Just wondering how one would go about inforcing this? I mean how would you be able to make someone that caught 4 Eyes everyday, pay more for that privilage?

Its very simple, the people who break the law will continue to break the law, its sad and its unfair. Some of these lakes are so far in the back that the only way a conservation officer would hear about the illegal activity is from another law abiding sportsman.

To worry about the enforcement of laws isn't our problem. Our job is easy, we just have to follow them.

A. Shae

[Dahitman44]

 Originally Posted By: ZOOM

Just wondering how one could determine who is taking what fish and how many they are taking? Honest, boy scout's honor, pinky swear????? I'm not trying to be a smart A#$ I just was wondering how this could be put in place with all the remote lakes in the state and such little DNR to go around to keep an eye on them all. You know theres always a sour apple that tries to get away with something.

I think that is a great point. It is kinda like the shooting in Virginia -- there were at least four people that could have put the gunner down, but did not and could not. They were following the rules. There were not supposed to be any guns on the grounds and these people had conceal and carry permits and followed the law and left their guns at home.

I am NOT standing up on my NRA soap box at all but these people followed the rules and the shooter did not. That was an example of following the laws.

All that we can hope to do is that people follow the rules and possession rules as well and if the cheat the system, they should get dinged pretty hard.

Not a perfect system, I know, but something must be done, IMO.

[ScoutII]

[To worry about the enforcement of laws isn't our problem. Our job is easy, we just have to follow them.]

With that attitude the rule breakers will always win. As sportsman it is our obligation to help the few officers we can afford to have out in the field. The TIP line works ,use it, it will make a difference. Just ignoring something will not make it go away.

[gonefishin11]

In the DL area, I think people should be more concerned with crappies. The walleye fishing can be good but there isn't a MAJOR walleye lake in the area, as Rod stated. The crappies tend to get fished out when a hot tip spreads and this occurs at a much faster pace than the walleyes.

I used to fish the Red River on walleye opener to avoid the crowds on lakes so this is just for arguments sake...

...Change the opener to a week later. This would get rid of the Mother's Day issue, there would be less worry about spawning issues and the weather would be better. Thoughts??

[Dahitman44]

 Originally Posted By: gonefishin11

The crappies tend to get fished out when a hot tip spreads and this occurs at a much faster pace than the walleyes.

Very true -- Crappies need to be protected.

[Dahitman44]

[quote name='gonefishin11.

...Change the opener to a week later. This would get rid of the Mother's Day issue' date=' there would be less worry about spawning issues and the weather would be better. Thoughts?? [/quote']

Now you are going a little crazy. Wait a week -- It is bad enough now to wait till the regular opener.

My guess is resort owners would NOT allow it, just to name a few. Bait owners etc.

The income loss would be pretty big, IMO.

[Paul]

OK, just to toss out another off ball idea. Set limit to 4, slot of 16-22 with one trophy over 19". And keep season open year round. ND has 3 of the best walleye waters in the country with Devils Lake, Sakagawea, and the Missouri River. THey have a limit fo 5 year round, season never closes. Plus they can all fish with 2 rods each. MN is one of the few states that sadly only allow rod/person. Heck in Oklahoma were I was born raised, I remeber fishing Crappies on Lake Ten Killer with 60 cane poles in the boat. THe boat looked more like a space ship than a boat but with 3-4 people and 60 cane poles was a blast. YOU could only use that many when you were fishing crappies. Bass and Catfish you were limited to 4 lines each unless fishing a trot line for cats.

So what say everyone about open season year round, that way there is no opener, and the resorts can quit complaining about being slow for 3 months.

[DEADhead]

then businesses will complain about losing the big boost in spending during the few weeks before the opener. Either way, someone will complain about changing the season.

[gonefishin11]

Thats what I figured the argument would be but wouldn't this big push for businesses just occur a week later? The resorts could make up some of the money with another week of ice fishing.

If it is generally a nicer weekend, more fair weather fisherman would go out and try their luck thus bringing more revenue for resorts and businesses.

[DEADhead]

 Originally Posted By: gonefishin11

Thats what I figured the argument would be but wouldn't this big push for businesses just occur a week later? The resorts could make up some of the money with another week of ice fishing.

If it is generally a nicer weekend, more fair weather fisherman would go out and try their luck thus bringing more revenue for resorts and businesses.

my reply was in response to Paul's argument about not having a closed season. Like I said before, no matter what you do, somebody is going to walk away not happy.

[gonefishin11]

Dead,

I agree with you. Someone will complain no matter what change happens. People are resistant to change but eventually adapt. The first couple years for any major regulation change will be tough but people will get used to it.

[DEADhead]

I see there is a new bill being introduced in the Minnesota Legislature by State Senator Tom Bakk, DFL-Cook, and State Representative David Dill, DFL-Crane Lake, regarding the conservation license. Similar to my idea, except the "conservation license" would be cheaper than a regular harvest license.

Bill would let anglers buy cheaper licenses but there is a catch

Alexandria Echo Press

Published Wednesday, February 20, 2008

How would you like a cheaper fishing license?

But there’s a catch: You couldn’t keep as many fish.

That’s the idea behind a new bill introduced in the Minnesota Legislature by State Senator Tom Bakk, DFL-Cook, and State Representative David Dill, DFL-Crane Lake.

Their bill would create a new, reduced-fee fishing license called the Conservation Fishing License.

The license would cost two-thirds the price of a standard fishing license. Anglers who purchase a conservation license would be allowed to take one-half the daily and possession limits of a regular-price license.

“This lower-priced license will not only provide more people with the opportunity to get out fishing, but it will also help conserve our fish populations,” Bakk said.

Bakk said the bill would create a win-win for both the environment and anglers.

“Catch-and-release is great, but a lot of people want to take a few home to eat, too; this would accommodate both,” he said. “Why should anglers who voluntarily want to conserve fish populations be forced to pay for a full-priced license?”

The current situation provides no incentive to conserve, Bakk said. There’s also been discussion by the Department of Natural Resources about increasing the cost of fishing licenses.

“If that happens, sportsmen will feel a familiar frustration – pay more, get less,” said Bakk.

Dill noted that a similar license is available and popular in Canada.

“The Canadian license is the genesis of our idea to lower costs and conserve fish stocks,” Dill said.

The idea of decreasing walleye limits throughout the state has the potential to hurt tourism businesses, Dill and Bakk said.

“A reduced-limit, reduced-fee fishing license would give the Minnesota DNR another option in conserving fish populations and could help avoid statewide limit reductions,” said Bakk. “With fishing license sales going down every year, a conservation license could have the potential to change the culture of fishing for the better.”

[Rodbldr4fun]

North Dakota doesn't have the population of Minnesota, I suspect that is the case for Oklahoma and I'm not immediately aware of world class walleye lakes there either.

The season closure is to protect spawning fish. The largest state walleye was taken from Big Sag in the BWCAW while they were still spawning. I, myself, would not like to see that happen again any time soon.

[fisherdog19]

Ah, but there are, it's just not a popular fish to angle for down there. There are quite a few deep resovoirs in OK that have walleye's and saugeye's. It's warmer down there so the growing season is longer.

Paul, I hope you're not a Choklahoma Sooner's fan as I went to college in Stillwater

[eskimo9]

this is a little off topic but I was just wondering if anyone knows if the proposed slots for maud, eunice, and middle c went through. I would like to see maud get that slot for bass. I think it was something like 14-20" have to go back.

[fisherdog19]

There were reduced bags and minimum size limits assessed for Eunice and Maud with crappies, I don't know about Bass.

[eskimo9]

in the proposal it was for crappies(10+), bass (14-20" slot), sunfish (5 fish), and northerns (24-36" slot) on maud. Not sure about the other lakes.

[Dahitman44]

Dead --

Thanks for that post. I don't think it will help much, IMO.. I think we need to have across the board reduced limits and have the ability to get a management tag, if you will, if you want to take the current six.

I think this will increase revenue more, IMO.

BTW -- what happened to all that money we were supposed to get from the lottery? I heard the state twitched most of that over to the general fund when they aw how much money was being spend on the lotto.

[DEADhead]

the DNR gets some of the lottery money, though it's like $0.03 for every dollar spent, after you figure the payouts, advertising, printing costs, etc. I know, because most of our project money is spent using lottery funds.

[Paul]

 Originally Posted By: fisherdog19

Ah, but there are, it's just not a popular fish to angle for down there. There are quite a few deep resovoirs in OK that have walleye's and saugeye's. It's warmer down there so the growing season is longer.

Paul, I hope you're not a Choklahoma Sooner's fan as I went to college in Stillwater

Eskimoe Joes all the Way huh?, My Aunt is the Graphic Arts Design Director the the OK ST School of Osteopathice Medicine. I have spent many hours haning around OSU Cowboy Territory.

[fisherdog19]

I'm glad to hear that you're not a sooner, I didn't want to never talk to you again

[ontheice4eyes]

Deadhead I think your right about the minimum size reg, I fish used to fish Ottertail quite a bit for eyes and it really bothers me seeing some of the fish that people are taking out of their. Its kinda ridiculous that some people that fish that lake think that 10-14 inch walleyes are "good eaters". I think there are too many little walleyes being kept out of that lake and that if a minimum size reg was adopted you would see a lot more quality walleyes there.

[DEADhead]

 Originally Posted By: ontheice4eyes

Deadhead I think your right about the minimum size reg, I fish used to fish Ottertail quite a bit for eyes and it really bothers me seeing some of the fish that people are taking out of their.

The only minimum size reg I made on this post was for crappies. I don't fish for walleyes. so I didn't make much input on the subject regarding slots or size limits. But I do believe it is worthwhile protecting some of the brood stock in a lake (fish over 20").

[lhk53]

Lets get a committee to help in the decision making with the DNR. In my 62 years I have seen some real questionable decisions made by some politicians, and the head of the DNR. There are some real intelligent sportsman who take better care of our natural resources than some of our officials. thanks lhk53 DL

[DEADhead]

 Originally Posted By: lhk53

Lets get a committee to help in the decision making with the DNR. In my 62 years I have seen some real questionable decisions made by some politicians, and the head of the DNR. There are some real intelligent sportsman who take better care of our natural resources than some of our officials. thanks lhk53 DL

There are already several committees and advisory panels that meet with the DNR to discuss management regulations. No offense but it's some of those "committees" that hash out some of the questionable decisions. Anytime you take the decision making powers out of the management professionals hands, you are bound to end up making decisions based on "gut feelings" and "feel good tactics" than based on sound science. IMO there is already too much political and outside influenece into some of the management making decisions. Too many committtees and advisory panels dilute the management process. People get frustrated with all the beaurocracy involved in management decisions, adding more committees does not solve this problem. Do you tell a neurosurgeon how to perform brain surgery? No?, then leave the management to the professionals. Sure there are some intelligent sportsman out there, but I have seen more than my fair share of bar-room biologists out there in the field, and in no way would I trust putting the management of our resources into their hands. This group includes several of my good friends. Good intentions don't always mean good biology.

[icehole10]

In Manitoba they have what they call a conservation license and a full license. With a conservation license you are allowed four walleye/saugers and with a full you can take 6. That is also your possesion limit. I would like to see that kind of an option here. I have never bought a full license, but I think the price difference for taking the extra two fish is about 20 dollars.

When you break down the price of a license over the course of the year it really isn't all that much.

When it comes to a slot limits I'm all for them. I know that some of you say there is no reason for a state wide slot and maybe your right, but I fish a few of the local lakes with slots on them and the fishing just keeps getting better year after year. It's nothing to go out on these lakes and catch 20+ inch fish, and some days alot of them!