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  
Dan L

What happened to Pelican walleye regs?

Recommended Posts

Dan L

I found out that the attempt to implement walleye regs on Pelican lake was soundly defeated. I herd a petition was started against the regs. I guess there were about 1300 signatures on the petition. I also heard there were very few people that supported the regs. With all the talk on this board about conservation and releasing the bigger fish I was surprised at the results. I think the Brainerd area is behind the times when it comes to slots and missed a golden opportunity to improve the walleye fishing in the area. Is there a reason there was so little support that I am not understanding?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paul S

I personally believe this is a clear case of politics winning out over science. There seems to have been alot of behind the scene pressure to defeat this.

Paul S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
walleyedan

This is a pretty deep subject and shallowdan won't get into it to much. My feeling is that once the regs start up here it will be the domino theory!! It will happen, sometime.

Walleyedan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hawghunter

Paul, I see where you are coming from with the politics over science statement but your next statement about behind the scenes pressure to defeat the proposal couldn't be farther from the truth. The people that were strongly against the proposal (educated or not with their opinions) were at the front lines from the beginning. And that’s why it did not happen.

The DNR held a public meeting to answer any questions about the proposal, and heard any comment or suggestions from those in attendance and collected votes when it was all said and done. Both sides of the debate hade some very good points, others you could tell were totally uninformed. But the one side that speaks loudest wins I’m not saying that the decision made was the wrong one because its not. Pelican is improving on a yearly basis and continued accelerated stocking should fill the void of larger fish in the system but at a much slower rate (that is the main reason this was brought to the table in the first place)

Dan you maybe right about the domino effect but let’s not count on that. I know that you are not counting on that because you were one of the attendees at the DNR meeting

I guess what I’m getting at is, all of us that feel strongly about conservation regulations need get involved. Learn all you can about the DNR and what they are doing to manage your lakes for the future. When opportunities come along to let your opinion be known, help make an educated decision. I’m pretty sure, just from keeping an eye on this forum, that allot more conservation minded fisherpeople are out there but they chose to, or don’t take the time to voice an opinion. With that attitude we will never get anything done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ccarlson

Let's be clear about this. The Pelican Lake Conservation club killed this proposal. This is not a slam to them, in fact, they were proud to have accomplished the defeat. They generated the petition that, in my opinion, was so vague in its statement it was funny except to the people who, for the most part, were uninformed as to the circumstances and signed it.

As Chris said, the Walleye Alliance (myself as part of that group) took part in the discussions. We felt that perhaps the "tool box" proposal was a little tight for the vast majority of the public. Specifically that the 17" end of the protected slot was too restrictive to be accepted. We attempted to negotiate a comprimise of perhaps a 20-28" protected which the DNR seemed open to but not the PLCC.

They (PLCC) do have a valid point that the current plan of accelarated walleye stocking is working so why change it, but they failed to understand that there are many anglers who are interested in quality fish as well as numbers and that a protected slot would speed up that recovery process for the lake.

The good news is that I hear talk of a state wide change of lowering the "one over" portion of the walleye regs to a smaller size such as say 19" or 20". I think that would be step in the right direction.

Lots more to be said but that's for another day.

ccarlson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this