Last weekend and Limits

[Barbelboy]

First I just want to thank Jonny and Kelly P. I know the fishing was slow, but we still had an awesome time. 20 walleyes and 3 crappies is plenty for me. Jonny, you should remember me. I had all the electronic rattle reels and Kelly forgot to collect my $. Thank you, we had a wonderful weekend.

Secondly, Is anybody else tired of explaining the limits and which fish you can keep and eat. I can't even begin to tell you how many people are confused about this. Is it really that hard to understand that ALL walleyes between 17"-26" must be immediately released?

[mnhunter 3815]

yes all walleyes 17-26 must be released immediately

[Barbelboy]

I know, but why do so many people find that hard to understand. Man it's frustrating.

[Roughneck17SC]

Unfortunately 7 out of 10 people fall into the "confused" catergory.

I know I have my "special moments" and overall fall into the previously mentioned catergoy.

[Kyle Sandberg]

Yup, my dad is like that. You can tell him something a million times but when faced with an actual situation he freezes and second guess's himself.

[mnhunter 3815]

i realy dont see whats so frustrating about the slot limits.just gotta read the rules of the lake that your going to and understand them.whats confusing is when the lakes have diff limits for summer and winter like lake of the woods for example, and red lake they both have diff limits for summer and winter.

[Random guy]

Barbelboy, those where some pretty slick rattle reels!

As for the limits it is confusing although I know the DNR, law enforcement and fisheries is working with local guides, business owners and assocations to try and simplify the regs and limits, trouble is most of thiss stuff comes straight from a polished desk at St. Paul.

It is a time of change for Upper Red Lake and change never comes easy.

[Fish Monger]

UNFORTUNATELY, IT IS THE DNR AND THE LAWMAKERS THAT DO THE "CONFUSING." HERE IS THE REGULATION CHANGE CAUSING CONTROVERSY:

ICE FISHING MEAL PREPARATION

While on or fishing waters with size restrictions, all fish for which the size restriction applies must have their heads, tails, fins and skin intact and be measurable except when a person is preparing and using such fish for a meal.

NOW WHY COULDN'T THE STUPID LAWMAKERS MAKE THE LAW LESS-AMBIGUOUS BY ADDING, *NOTE* "FISH THAT ARE IN THE PROTECTED SLOT HAVE TO BE RETURNED. THE ONLY FISH THAT CAN BE EATEN ARE FISH OUTSIDE OF THE PROTECTED SLOT LIMIT."

THE WAY IT READS NOW, ONE MIGHT INTERPRET IT TO MEAN THAT "FISH FOR WHICH THE SIZE RESTRICTION APPLIES (17-26 WALLEYE @ URL) MUST HAVE THEIR...WHEN A PERSON IS PREPARING AND USING SUCH FISH FOR A MEAL." THIS WOULD SEEM TO INDICATE THAT ONE CAN EAT A PROTECTED FISH AS LONG AS YOU ARE ON THE LAKE AND IN THE PROCESS OF CLEANING OR EATING IT.

THIS, I THINK, IS WHAT IS CAUSING THE CONFUSION. THEN THERE IS THE RETIRED CONSERVATION OFFICER THAT HAS BEEN VOCAL ABOUT THE NEW REG CHANGE PUBLICLY CALLING IT A DUMB IDEA; DUMB BECAUSE ONE COULD STILL KEEP,CLEAN,EAT A PROTECTED FISH WHILE ON THE ICE, BECAUSE IF ANOTHER CONSERVATION OFFICER KNOCKS ON THE DOOR, ONE STILL DOES NOT LEGALLY HAVE TO LET HIM OR HER ENTER TO MEASURE THE ENTRAILS OF THE 25" WALLEYE JUST EATEN.

ANYHOW, SOME FOOD FOR THOUGHT...

FISHMONGER.

[CraigM]

I don't see where this is confusing. To me, common sense tells you that protected slot fish can't be kept wether you plan to eat them on the lake or not. What would be the point of the slot?

[Note from admin: Edited. Please read forum policy before posting again. Thank you.]

[Fish Monger]

i am saying the law is ambiguous, that is why people are confused by it, respectfully. the only lake that the lawmakers say one has to keep the head and carcass of an eaten fish until one gets to shore is on Upper Red Lake. this came right from an article on jan. 12, 2008 from the star tribune. now why would they do this? the dnr officer said that the Upper Red Lake provision was the only one they had time and foresight to add to the law. now answer me this -- why what sense would it make to only have to keep the head and carcass of an eaten fish from one lake with length restrictions and not all of the lakes with restrictions.

it is not over-thinking, it was under-thinking by the people writing the law, and i think we all realize the loop-hole.

[mnhunter 3815]

While on or fishing waters with size restrictions, all fish for which the size restriction applies must have their heads, tails, fins and skin intact and be measurable except when a person is preparing and using such fish for a meal.

to me its not confusing.but its just common sense throw back the 1's that r over the slot size that simple.

[JollyT]

Any lake with a slot has to have the remains kept intact. LOW etc.