from 6 to 4 for walleye limit

[can it be luck?]

WI. has a WIDE VARIETY of limit laws. The ceded territory, which is almost all of N. WI. has postings at launch sites as far as limits and size restrictions. Depending on the harvest by Native American's under spearing and treaty rights, bag limits vary year to year. Many lakes have a 2 or 3 fish limit. The last few years the DNR has implemented laws which allow anglers to keep only 1 fish over 14"s and the other 1 or 2 fish under 14"s. Prior to the new changes WI. used to have a pretty much state wide 15" minimum on walleye. I don't know if the fishing will improve or decline since this is all in it's infancy yet, but I do know that decent walleye fishing can be real tough as far as size, numbers can be very good though. I'm not real big on the new size restrictions, but if it improves the quality of the walleye fishing.....I'm all for it! It's frustrating to catch 100 14" walleye in a day year in and year out without hardly ever catching any legal 15"ers. I'd always think, "Well, next year those 100 14" walleye will grow and I'll catch 100 15"ers"....I've waited many, many years and have yet to see them "grow", hopefully the new regs will start to make a differance.

------------------
http://groups.msn.com/canitbeluck

[crankineyes_1]

Well actually in your case of the deer, they can shoot more deer in an area with higher populations. You can get double-doe tags, or they run depredation hunts in areas with higher numbers of deer. Not sure about MN, but in SD the number of tags available in each county are directly related to the population of the deer in that area.

I realize your points on a hotbite and such, but MN has the luxury of having more waters than we do in SD, but if you think that it will not catch up to your fisheries, I feel you are wrong. Just my opinion. As for the number 4, I was just using that because that was the number that was posted in the original post. In my opinion, each fishery should be better monitored and regulated independantly, not as a whole. Some lakes may be able to easily handle a 6 fish limit, while some can only handle a 2 fish limit.

[jparrucci]

I'm just trying to make the point that a statewide 6 fish limit is not the right thing to do. If there are bodies of water that need special regs to protect the walleye, I am all for it. But a 4 fish limit is going to hurt more than it will help. All it is going to do is keep people like me from getting a couple of meals, and its not like the people who are keeping more than their limit are going to stop no matter what number you make it. These hot bites you guys talking about, and people pounding the same lake day after day have to be over their possesion limit. Even I can't eat 6 fish a day for a week straight. How about serious Draconian punishment for those caught with excessive fish? If somebody intentionally keeps more than their limit, and it is excessive (say like 30 walleyes in the freezer), how about we do some mandatory year in prison, then another year spent working for the DNR, doing community service working with the stocking program? I think HUGELY sticter punishments for poaching would help the fish populations much more than a 2 fish limit reduction. I could go down to the river right now, drop in a gill net and get 1,000 walleyes, and I would only get a slap on the wrist, but stricter punishments are a thing of the past in a liberal state like this, we would rather "rehab" someone.

[Rost]

No, a lot of us are not over our possession limit. Actually, I give atleast 1/2 of the fish I keep away.

Bottom line here: Some people may only catch and keep a few limits per year. But that does not mean others aren't catching and keeping much more than that. It is very simple, if I go to the lake and can only keep 4, that means I am leaving 2 fish in that lake that would otherwise be dead. This concept multiplies as Jigga explained. (You da man jigga!)

[crappie jigga]

DaveB
Wouldn't it be cool if you could go out fishing and catch 3 fish/hour vs 1/hr.. I'd bet if there were a few more fish in the lakes your chances of catching 3/hr would increase.. Force the limit takers too take less and leave more..
What do we fish for? I'm guessing the answers here are going to be, for fun, to relax, spend time friends/family, etc., etc.

What would be more fun? Catching 10 fish in an afternoon and only being able to keep 2 or catching 3 fish and keeping 3...
Well were not going to see those 10 fish afternoons anytime soon in this state because, we don't have the numbers of fish other places do, because they keep getting yanked out of the lakes faster than the DNR can restock them...
Why is that? You ask...
I'll tell ya, because the motto here is keep anything ya catch, but please only take 1 over 24"'s, Thank you for the money, have a nice day... :confused

Not sure how it works in other parts of the state, but most of the fisherman wether they are great, avid, or terrible fisherman do NOT release 95% of their fish..
If that were the case you'd be fishing 34 consecutive 12 hour days/ to keep 5 fish...(6 fish/24 hour time period) Maybe, but NOT likely...

I don't mean to be a smart A$$ here but
As for the deer example:
The last time I hit a walleye w/ my pick-up it didn't do much damage..(my insurance man was happy).. The last time my neighbor farmer Joe, caught that sneeky little, corn and bean eating walleye in his fields, he wasn't to upset..
I don't remember the last time I saw a school of walleyes starving and dieing of diseases because of over population...

As for my favorite lake being pounded..
There are 8 lakes with'in 20 miles of my home town.. I remember with'in the last 10 years it happening to Wood, Benton, Coon, East Twin, and Shockatan... That's 5 out of 8... It happens more than ya think.....

Sorry for venting...
Maybe I'm wrong here, but something should change...

[otterman]

I'm for it. Lowering the limit will help keep the population up and make people think a little more about what they keep. So the little ones can go back

[backlash 1]

I am 100% for a 4 fish limit, or basically whatever it takes to improve the walleye fishing! The reason I go fishing is I kinda like it when something gets on the end of my line!! And if there are no more fish, they're really gonna be hard to catch. As far as the meat aspect of it goes, it's a lot cheaper to go to Moreys.
I live about 5 mi. from the gov access on Gull lake, last summer there was at least 3 times on weekends that I couldn't find a parking place, had to leave and go to another lake. Way to much tournament pressure(but that could be another topic)

[Guido]

screw the limit and get a slot!

[can it be luck?]

I agree with most here. I'm all for changing the limit from 4 to 6. Not only do fish taste great, but I like to catch them too! The DNR does a fine job maintaning the fisheries with studies, surveys, stocking, habitat improvement, regulations, license fees, etc., etc., etc. Hats off to the fisherman that help out with over population and stunting the waters by maintaining a balanced fishery.
......Hey wait, it's already 6 fish! Well then, on some of the more productive lakes the limit should be 8!
If it's all about feeling the pole bend and the fight of many fish........Take turns with your buddy in the front yard, pulling his line and jumping around like a crazed fish! That way you can save LOTS of money for your commercialy netted, trash tasting, walleye that lay around on some nasty store shelf for God knows how long. That's right, support commercial fishing by giving them YOUR money for new boats and nets. I say all fisherman should catch their own fish and BOYCOTT COMMERCIAL NETTING!!!! Pitch in guys! Save the fish!!!
PS: I wonder how many other fish die just so you can have your fish dinner.
Loaves and Fishes to all.

------------------
http://groups.msn.com/canitbeluck

[rockhardinmn]

Leave the limits alone ,, Manage the lakes that need it. Manage others as trophy lakes. All cutting limits will do is Give the CO"S more tickets to hand out.
I have a real problem with how some are useing numbers in there arguements for lowering the limit. I feel there is a couple of numbers that were left out.The first one is " How many eggs does 1 prime female produce?" The other is the number of fish were stocked.Granted there is a mortality rate in both numbers.Remember that you can make about any set of numbers say what you want them to .
I feel that the main thing that needs to be taught is better fishing ethics.
First one would be the pratice of "culling".I feel you Make the choice of what you Keep right when you catch it. YOu dont go thru the live well after you got your limit and toss the smaller ones back. By fishing this way you are taking fish of different year classs and not hurting a single one .
One other would be to take care of the fish you just caught. This means cleaning them too. If you were lucky enough or good enough you have your limit. So now you have some choices: Eat the ones you just got. Shore lunch Anyone? Giving Fish to the little ole lady or man down the street says alot about a person also.
If we are all being honest about what we are realy catching on here, then there certainly is some lakes in trouble.I know there is not many who fish even remotely close to the number of hours that i do.My wife has learned that it is common for me to be 5 or six hours( sometimes alot) later than the expected time i told her i would return. I know the body of waters i am fishing well.I do do very well for the types of fish i target.Friends and people who live around me get pleanty of fish to eat.I never have over what my households limit is (which is 4).I do have certain sizes of fish that i prefer to keep on certain lakes(remember smaller fish have lower toxin levels). If there is a bait everyone else is useing , i will switch baits to see what else they will hit.I have been accused of being a roaming tackle store before
Bottom line is that fishing is supposed to be enjoyable and fun.Going out to put a meal on the table is to much like work for me

[davemeyer]

I have caught a limit of walleyes maybe 15 times in my life and I fish alot(I'm not that skilled). I don't see people taking a limit with them, so it is not that big of deal if they did change it. The biggest impact i have seen on keeping fish in the lake instead in the freezer would be slot limits. I am surprised how many fish I catch that are in the 18-24inch range.I don't think that anyone needs to take home more than four walleyes with them. Plus if they lowered it, maybe our goal of consistantly catching limits would actually be achievable.

[Dave B]

I want to clarify something, I am not fundamentally against lowering limits. However, lowerering from 6 to 4 has been studied and determined to have no noticable affect on harvest. To be effective, you need to lower the limit to one or two. And even that would only lower the harvest by 20-30%.

Remember something else-if you want to double to triple the biological mass of walleye, what fish are you going to remove from the fishery? Crappie? Bass? Northern?

[Havin' Fun]

Crappie Jigga,

Realistically, not much could have been done for Lake Benton. There are lakes from time to time that "turn" on. But they do this for a reason. These fish bite better than any other time due to:
1. lack of bait
2. overabundance of fish...which leads to lack of bait

Both of these are signs of an "unhealthy" fishery. Example was Mille Lacs the past 4 years. Several years of no bait fish=lots of fish biting. Now too much bait fish=no fish biting.

If you had a four fish limit, yup your daily limit would go down, but people would be back the next day, and the next....and the next...and so on until the bite dies off. This is the case with every "hot" lake in Minnesota. Lake Benton, Mille Lacs aren't the only lakes this has happened too.

The DNR can't and won't manage each lake year by year, or month by month like Mille Lacs because they can't do it.

Instead of putting so much into another law, or another restriction on the fisherperson....we all need to work to educate each other the importance of selective harvest and catch and release. This is the future of our sport.

[crankineyes_1]

Ok, we could go round and round on this subject, but I guess I am happy that most of you see that something needs to be done...whatever that might be. Personally I think a slot and lowering limits would help. To those that stated they hate to see using numbers like myself and Crappie Jigga did, I have to believe you don't like seeing those numbers because you simply cannot argue them. Dave B, it has been studied extensively in South Dakota and has been proven to work. I'm not sure where you are getting your information. Many other states have also proven that lowering limits and/or adding slots is a great way to control harvest rates.

After all that, I know that a few knotheads on a web discussion board are not going to change the world. But it is discussions like these that do indeed educate other people and I think that doing so is extremely important. I do not want to argue with people over the subject, I think we all just want to know what the best way to preserve our resources is. Hope to see some of you on the water.

[This message has been edited by crankineyes_1 (edited 04-08-2004).]

[B. Amish]

Just another quick question. For those of you who are debating this topic, how did you feel about the reduction of the panfish limits? Do you think that reducing the panfish limits helped fishing or hurt people who were trying to get out once or twice and get a meal.

DO you think that comparing panfish to walleye is possible when talking about limits?

[This message has been edited by B. Amish (edited 04-08-2004).]

[Fisher Dave]

Nothing like trying to * re-stir * the pot.

I'll be out catching limits before you guys quit debating this.

[musky hunter]

Neutral: I say it's dependent upon the particular system you are fishing on and the pressure upon it. Fish limits should be set based on science, not polls. Perosnally, I like the slot limits. Folks are getting used to the 15-18" walleye as the ideal eater. If lowering a limit makes my fishing better, I'm all for it. I usually release most of my fish unharmed.

[beaverlakeman]

dont know if this has already been said, but here goes.

the changing from 6 to 4 is a great idea. Not only will there be more fish left to breed, but also will give those 2 extra fish a chance to get much bigger. Plus, 6 walleyes?? come on, that is 2 much fish for a meal.. i have a family of 3 and i have yet to cook more than 3 walleyes for a meal.

catch yer 4 fish, filet them up cookem the same night cause we all know fresh fish is the way to go. then those other 2 fish aint in the freezer gettin freezer burnt.

thats just my 2 cents. if you want another meal or your gonna have company over and want a big fish meal, take 2 days and catch 8 eyes, and your good to go...

I personally think the reduction is a very good idea. set the limit to 4, then with the lake with outrageous numbers of eyes, which are very few in mn, then raise it to 6 on that particular lake, or whatever.

I also believe there should be a slot that goes with the reduction.. I remember stories my grandpa told me about how unbelievable the fishing used to be in his younger days. Why is it not like that today? Maybe the limits have been to high. Maybe if the limit would have been 4 many years ago we would have a much better fishery?

I remember when a person could keep 6 pike also, and no one hyped about it when they reduced that to 3. why is that? Could us newer generation of fisherman/women be greedy? Who NEEDS 6 walleyes a day? i certainly dont. what if they say we are going to put a law in effect for 1 season that every lake is c&r?? There has been a great reduction in the quality of walleyes than they were 30 years ago. And with the a reduction to 4 walleyes from 6 we might see the great fishing in 10 years that there used to be 30 years ago.. Maybe i just dont get it?

enough of that..
keep your lines wet and tight

[This message has been edited by beaverlakeman (edited 04-09-2004).]

[rockhardinmn]

Crankin, the only problem i have with you useing the numbers is that i feel you didnt use them all.What does a prime spawning female fish have for eggs in them? A million? I realy dont have a clue myself,but you cant leave out a number that is so large from just one fish is my opinion Crankin.
Oh And Fishin Dave i been getting my Craps allready the whole while this has been talked about

[crankineyes_1]

rockhardmn -

I left out spawning females because you have a closed season in MN during the spawn. It shouldn't be an issue. Now, the walleyes will start to generate eggs again in the late fall and winter, but the angling pressure is not as high as in the spring and I believe that MOST people are getting the concept of releasing females when possible.

It would be impossible to protect every fish, but limiting the harvest rates either with smaller limits, or better slots would seem a sensible idea.

I am impressed with people on this board compared to others. People "attack" an idea and not the person that shared their idea. Makes for some fun discussions.

[rockhardinmn]

Crankin,,, this is not ment as an attack upon you. Why is it if you dont agree with someone they feel it is an Attack upon them?.All i did was toss in what i seen as a fault in your numbers.There is an old Phrase about opinions i am sure you have heard before that i wont put on so it needs to be edited
I dont see how you cant use the numbers spawners produce.Lets Say that out of a million eggs 1 female produces,250,000 hatch.Out of the Hatch 1/2 of those get to fry size= 125,000.Then 1/2 again that will make it to a catch able sizes for a number of 62,5000. I will State again that these numbers are made up cause i dont know any actual numbers
I do agree with you on protecting spawning females.On the other hand that does add to the number of fish being puit back into a lake.

PS> Crankin,,, After Reading what you said about attacks in your last paragraph i hope you dont think that i was attacking you at all. i do think i may have misunderstood it when i wrote the above

[This message has been edited by rockhardinmn (edited 04-09-2004).]

[crappie jigga]

rockhardinmn
I read that a female walleye produces somthing like 50,000 eggs, NOT positive on those numbers but it's close.
Anyway, out of all those eggs not many survive to be a catchable fish, somthing like 20 or thirty.. Very few actually become adults..
The problem is, in MN very few lakes will naturally reproduce the amount of fish it needs to sustain itself with current fishing pressure... That's why the DNR has to stock, stock, and restock year after year...
That's why I think if we dropped the limits and imposed a slot it will protect the smaller fish, AND the bigger piggy's...
We would be forced to keep better quality fish...

[jparrucci]

Beaverlakeman..I still can't believe that 3 walleyes feeds a whole family. This issue is the one that really gets to me. I CAN EAT 3 WALLEYES BY MYSELF. And saying that if you cut the limit to 4, and then went out the next day and caught another limit for a big meal, that would put you over the current possesion limit, which is 6. Do all of you think we should reduce the possession limit also? How about cutting the daily limit to 4, and increasing the possession limit to 8? I think I could live with that. If the limit drops to 4 and the possession drops to 4, maybe I'll just fish everday and eat walleye everday. That should make some of you happy. Eat all the walleye I can to protest this stupidity. This is insanity thinking we should be dropping this. The sky is not falling. Me keeping 6 walleyes from ONE fishing trip a year is not going to hurt the walleyes in a large northern lake. If all of you want to keep less fish, go for it. Not much fun for me when I put in a week of fishing and only have one meal of fish to show for it the rest of the year. I'm sure most of you who want to drop the limit also wouldn't mind letting the Native American tribes net more fish. Protect the lakes that need it...otherwise leave the rest alone. Most lakes in this state are very health. Check the DNR netting reports, many say in the most recent reports that its the highest levels they have ever seen for walleyes...those lakes sure are in trouble....

[Diggs]

What about this idea? Lakes that are not naturally reproducing we put a heavy restrictions on, say two fish for instance. Then for those natrually reproducing lake,that sustain there own population we leave it at six.
I personally feel that the dnr should do more lake by lake limits. I also would not be opposed to closing lakes from time to time to let them find there natural balance. Which im sure you all have seen there are alot out of balance. In addition the dnr also puts walleyes in lake that are not really walleye lakes. Wouldn't that money, time and effort be better used to promote the proper fish in that lake. Just some ideas. Feel free to slam them or promote them...

[Dave B]

Some info from the DNR, read this and see if you believe that lowering the limits to 4 will have an impact. Now lowering the limit to 1-sure. But to 4, I dont think so.

First:

Limits of fishing success
Didn't catch a lot of walleyes last Saturday? The fact is, most anglers don't catch even on keeper-sized game fish on a typical day of fishing. That's not because the fishing is poor; it's just the nature of fishing.

On any given day, 95 percent of walleye anglers harvest two or fewer walleyes. This generally hold true on every walleye lake in Minnesota and across the U.S. For example, 1992 was considered the best year in modern history for fishing on Mille Lacs, one of the top walleye lakes in the United States. Yet even during that banner year, 76 percent of anglers there on any given day did not catch a fish.

It's not such a bad thing that anglers don't always or even regularly catch their limit. There simply aren't enough fish. For example, we estimate that Minnesota has roughly 18 million walleyes over 14 inches long (general keeper size). Approximately 27 million angler days are spent fishing each year. If every angler caught and kept just one walleye on average per outing, the state's entire keeper-sized walleye population would be wiped out before the year was over

Second:

In the 1990's, in an effort to stock more efficiently, we scaled back our walleye fingerling stocking. These reductions convinced some anglers that walleye populations in Minnesota's stocked lakes were declining.

On average, walleye populations in stocked lakes have actually been increasing (see chart). But walleye numbers on some lakes did drop, raising public concern. In 1999, using additional funding from the state legislature, we began the Accelerated Walleye Program. Over the past two years, local fisheries managers have carried out the program to:

increase acreage for natural ponds used to produce fingerlings by roughly 5,000 acres
increase by 23 percent (88,000 lbs. In 1999 to 108,500 lbs. In 2000) the pounds of fingerlings produced from state rearing ponds, despite poor rearing conditions caused by mild winters
increase walleye fingerling stocking quotas on 90 lakes
increase walleye population abundance goals on 58 lakes
solicit public input on 141 lake management plans
purchase walleyes from commercial growers to supplement our production.
Issue: We are committed to finding lakes that will benefit from increased stocking and to stock more walleyes there. However, years of evaluations and research have proven that increased stocking won't improve fishing on every lake. That's why a main component of the accelerated program is to evaluate the stocking we do.

Fisheries managers will continue to review historical lake survey information and meet with local anglers to determine which lakes have the best potential to produce more walleyes. And fisheries managers will evaluate how well increased stocking works on those lakes to see if its worth continuing to stock at higher levels

[crankineyes_1]

rockhardinmn -

I was saying that I was glad to be able to have a discussion when only the topics were argued, not attacking the person. I am not offended in any way.

Dave B -

Ok, couple things i disagree with... 95% of fisherman catch 2 or fewer??? I am not saying the DNR didn't really say that, but I don't believe it. Besides, they tend to lump all fisherman into their studies. Ex. your post says 27 million angler days. I gaurantee you that this is a total number, not specific to walleyes. There are many other species that a large portion of fisherman target. We would be ignorant to believe that everyone out there is fishing walleye.

Crappie Jigga made my point on the other subject I was going to cover. The natural reproduction (in SD where I know the facts, not sure on MN) is very very poor. In fact, the results are listed out on their website for many lakes. Very few of them have satisfactory natural reproduction. They are restocked vigorously to keep up with anglers. Taking a spawing female will have less effect than taking 6 fish out of a lake in my opinion. (I still restrain from doing so).

Take a minute and check out the net/creel results for some of your favorite waters, I really think you will be surprised at the information. It also will give you a great resource for helping predict good waters to fish and help eliminate others.

[This message has been edited by crankineyes_1 (edited 04-09-2004).]

[This message has been edited by crankineyes_1 (edited 04-09-2004).]

[Dave B]

You can argue that people lie on creel surveys if you want, but I would say that most probably boast. They cant lie when the DNR sees an empty livewell.

If you include all the novice shore fisherman, people that rent boats w/ out electronics or any skills, casual fisherman, I would be surprised if it was any LESS than 95%. Put 2 guys in a boat for 6 hours and you think that 10% or more take home 3 or more walleye? Sit at a landing somewhere and ask them.

Now it might be only 30% of the people here that take enough of an interest to go to a website to gather info before hitting the water, but not the average fisherman (of which we have over 1 million in MN). There are maybe 10,000 MN users online tops? That is 1% of the fishermen in the state.

[honker23]

There has been a lot of interesting things said here....many numbers, but it's the numbers we are debating, so that's good.

Changing it to 4 in my opinion will not affect much more than making people aware of this issue, which would be good.

I agree many people fish without ever catching 6 eyes a day. The exceptional fisherman that do are for the most part responsible anglers and release many they catch. The natural reproduction issue is also important. I've been told by CO that most if not all lakes south of mille lacs have 0 natural rerpoduction, so the only reason to release a female vs male would be at a chance of catching her again.

All in all I think each lake should be managed separately, but we often don't have the resources for this, so drop it to 3or4.
By the way I am impressed if jparucci can eat 3 16-18 walleyes himself, I can't hold a candle to you!

[walleyehawk]

How about this for a solution.

Those that think the limit should be four, keep four. Those that favor six, keep six. Since so many appear to favor four, they will be making an impact on the fishery

I think alot of people throw back a number of fish. I know I try to.

But I agree with the folks that say rarely do they hit their limit. And since hitting the limit is rare, the real effect of the change would be minimal.

The only time a limit is an issue for me is weekend trip. But I like the option of bringing home siz if I want to.

[crappie jigga]

crankineyes1

I know you might find this hard to believe but, in MN it isn't uncommon to go out and NOT catch a thing in an entire day of fishing... I realize it sounds like hogwash but, indeed it is true....

I don't expect you SD folk too understand what were talking about over here in MN because, you live in SD and you can close your eyes, point to a lake on a the map, go there and catch fish into the double digits...

Wonder why that is????
Oh yah, that's right!!! SD has a 4 fish limit and slots on their fish!!!!! (Too protect them of course)

There is always that excuse, that there's not near the fishing presure in SD, well I have to disagree on that one too, everytime I fish in SD, the lakes are swamped with people from MN and SD, and YET! everytime I fish there, I catch more fish in 1 day than I would catch in a week of fishing in MN...

I have an idea!!
Anyone that disagrees with the lowering of limits and slots on fish... Take a trip to SD and do some fishing on just about any body of water...
Check out the presure it recieves, and remember all the fish you catch, than come back to this forum and tell us what ya think... There just might be a change of heart on this topic....

If you see it first hand, then you'll be able to see the potential that MN and all of her lakes have to offer, but just can't muster the way things are currently managed...

[This message has been edited by crappie jigga (edited 04-09-2004).]