MN New Regs 2006

[threeway]

2006 New this season, one walleye over 20" instead of 24"... Trying too make all lakes have trophy fish. Next will be four walleye limit.

[BarTender]

Whats the problem??

How many 3-4# fish do you need to keep?

I hardly ever keep any over 20-21"

[deacon]

I agree with not liking all the regs. I really cannot keep track of what I can and cannot do with all the lake specfic regulations. 20" on all lakes is okay but lets face it in some lakes just do not have any reproduction and if someone would happen to catch and keep a couple of 20" walleyes is that worth a regulation. What about a minimum, guys keeping lots of 13-14" walleyes on opening weekend that hurts a fishery more.

Just my $.02

[floating minnow]

I have no problem with this but I don't know how great the effect will be.We need to get to the point where most anglers will release these fish on there own.

[poutpro]

What do you do on lakes where all fish you catch are over 20 inches? They are just left to die on their own and never be harvested at all? You can't tell me that that is healthy.

[shae1986]

Not only do i love this rule they put in. I would like to see a miminum of 14" put into to rule and a 4 walleye limit. This wouldn't bother me none, but i know i will hear some hate on this one. Just my .02 cents.

Andrew

[BigTen]

Yep the stricter the better, I would also like to see a 4 fish limit, one over 20 to allow for injured fish, and 14 or 15 inch minimum. It's unbelieveable how many people can't save themselves from throwing it on the stringer if its legal. Don't believe me, ask a C.O.

[threeway]

BarTender,,,

I love the new rule. If it was up to me, we would not be able to keep any fish. I don't like eating fish, but I sure love catching them.

[Ufatz]

Generally speaking, regulations are developed to respond to a perceived problem. In modern, sophisticated states these regulations are developed by Boards or Commissions, primarily made up of sportsmen. In less contemporary states they are simply inflicted by a regulatory czar. This looks like a reaction to what appears to be a chronic problem in the midwest: blatant overharvest of gamefish. Regs are just another management tool. To reduce more regulations begin using the TIP line more this summer.

Your welcome.

[MAJ1966]

I do think a 14 or 15" minimum should be on walleyes. Maximum size? I dunno. I don't general keep anything over 20 inches anyway, unless its bleeding. But then again, Im only speaking for myself. I know in South Dakota they really have cut their limits, 3 walleyes on some waters I fish, 2 on others. Plus they have both min and max size limits. I do know the newer restrictions have cut down the anglers that fish these area's, which cuts into the bait shops, motels revenues. I take what I will eat. Sometimes I fish for just catching them and turn them back. But then again, Im probably in the minority of on this. But just my 2 cents worth.

[ccarlson]

I'd like to chime in on the minimum size requirement that people are proposing. As the co-founder of the Brainerd Lakes Area Chapter of the Minnesota Walleye Alliance, I've spent the last 7 years talking to fisheries experts and biologists trying to come up with ways or to encourage ways to improve walleye fishing. What I have learned and definitely become opposed to over those years is that we need a minimum size restriction for walleye in Minnesota.

Here is why. Smaller walleye are overwhelmingly the most numerous of the entire walleye population. Removing numbers of smaller walleye through angling affects the overall population balance far less than removing the same or less numbers of medium to larger sized walleye. Having the larger fish the population helps to keep the lake in balance and provides a healthy fishery.

Having too many small walleye in a lake slows growth rates and can damage the forage base of a lake. You want to find a healthy balance of size distribution rather than loading up on and protecting the smaller fish which nature has already intended to be the most susceptible to attrition.

One of the best examples of why not to go with a minimum size restriction for walleye is right next door in Wisconsin. What we have learned from Wisconsin is that the best way to grow lots of 13.5" walleye is to have a 14" statewide minimum.

By letting everyone use their own discretion on what they view as a keeper distributes the pressure over several year classes of walleye therefore maintaining a healthier balance of the entire fishery. It's kind of like if we all liked the same girl, it wouldn't be good for the girl and it wouldn't be good for us. We all have different opinions or taste in how big of a walleye we like to catch or keep and that is good for the fishery.

As one post (Uffatz) said, most regulations are created due to percieved problems rather than basing decision on sound biological evidence. If the fishery managers in your area are doing their job with stocking (in stock managed lakes) then having plenty of young walleye coming up in the system should not be the problem. But rather how do you create a balanced walleye fishery that will provide numbers of fish that people want to eat and still provide trophy potential for anglers seeking that experience.

Sorry I got long winded.

ccarlson

[John Mickish]

Quote:

---

What do you do on lakes where all fish you catch are over 20 inches? They are just left to die on their own and never be harvested at all? You can't tell me that that is healthy. [/quote)

If we release them right then this really isn't an issue. A Walleye dosen't reach sexual maturity intil it is over 20" (almost all walleye over 20" are female) so keeping one over 20 is like keeping hundreds of 14"ers.

You know guys, like these regs or not they are here to stay. The days of our dads and grandpas fishing limits are long gone. We are either going to have these slot limits, pay thru the nose in stocking fees or just not have any fish to catch. I also think there should be a minimum length also, as long as a hefty fine for wanton waste in killing a releasable fish to get your 30 cent hook back.

[HC Eye Hunter]

CC is right. They tried minnimums on both Lac Qui Parle and Bigstone with the result of stunted fish and and loss of the forage base.

I also question the one over 20" rule. Fish this size and bigger become eating machines so how is the forage base going to react more bigger fish?

I also realize many of these sized fish are the good spawners but what happens in lakes where there is little or no natural reproduction? Is there a certain amount of control that is needed to balance out these bigger fish?

I normally don't keep eyes over 20"s anyway but I question the validity of one over 20" rule

[BarTender]

Like everthing els in the world there are way too may regulations and too many people who like to abuse the resorces. On the lake I fish most, there is a max lenght of northern you can keep. tryingf to make it a trophy northern lake, unfortunately the northern that were stocked way back when were the subspecies that doest get all that big. so now we can catch all the 14-20" northerns you want. and there are plenty.

keep enough to eat and a couple for later when the fishing slows down. Just eat what you keep and keep what you can eat.

[Mark Christianson]

My opinion:

We dont really know what will happen until we try it. There is probably plenty of info to support both sides of the argument.

I am all for it.

Heck, if it proves to be a bad idea, I would think it could be altered or reversed down the road.

If it works out good, then we can celebrate.

Status quo isn't the answer IMO.

[poutpro]

In this lake I am talking about, I have never caught a fish under 20 inches. The lake is a stocked lake and there is no sign of natural reproduction. If I can go out and catch 5 or 6 a night, think how many are in the little lake. None of them fish are going to be able to be harvested and they will all be wasted.

[Mark Christianson]

Tell us the lake name. Its a catch and release lake now by the sounds of it, so we cant hurt it.

For every one lake like that Pout, there is hundreds of others that dont share that same size distribution.

To say this change is bad because there is one lake like that, isnt right.

[poutpro]

Did I ever once say that it was bad? NO. I was just bringing up a point that this might not work as well for the lakes that do have this type of distribution. There is no sense in making those fisheries suffer. Why not make limits on lakes not the state.

[crappace]

What is the optimal size for a male/female walleye to spawn?? About a year ago I asked a representative of the DNR and they said the bigger fish were pretty much done spawning at a certain point anyhow. I forget what that size is now. The reason I inquired was a lot of guys take big walleyes out of a lake I fish from first ice till about January. The lake has limited reproduction and I let the big ones go to get bigger. When the DNR told me the big ones weren’t reproducing anyhow it eased my mind to see the 5-10#rs leave the lake every weekend.

Two weeks ago I caught a 20.5 in on Mille Lacs and it would have been like cutting up Moby Dick to me.

One over 20 will be the one that can’t swim away on its own in my boat. I don’t mind the new change.

[Mark Christianson]

My bad Pout.

I read too deep into what you were trying to post.

I do agree, that micro managing lakes is the optimal way to get the most bang for our buck.

What I mean is that each lake is unique in its own way. To generalize every lake and say this will improve every one, is false.

But I do believe in the grand scheme of things, this is something try out.

If it doesnt work good on a broad scale, lets fine tune it.

[poutpro]

I agree

[ccarlson]

Poutpro,

Remember that the DNR has the right to move any lake into a Special Regulation status. If you notify them that there is a particular lake that you feel may biologically suffer from this one over 20" blanket protection, then you need to call the DNR fisheries supervisor for your area and discuss the concern with them. They will probably take a look at the studies on the lake or do a new one and adjust the lake for what is best for the lake regardless of the state law.

Remember communication with your fisheries staff is a good thing. It helps us understand the many different aspects that go into managing a lake and it helps the DNR know our concerns.

My guess is you are on a temporary hot bite or you are just a heck of a good fisherman

Good luck and have fun at that lake.

ccarlson

[BigTen]

Even though I stated earlier that I wouldn't mind seeing a minimum length, I by no means think its the answer, I just get sick of people not thinking of anything larger than their livewell on that particular day. The people who go fishing and actually have luck a handful of days in a year, I could accept it if they kept every legal fish they caught because they will have little or no impact on the lake or river. The people who really bother me are the people who go every day while fishing is hot, and keep their limits, regardless of how big they are.

I can also vouch for lakes that have had a minimum set, and it resulted in smaller fish for one reason or another, I'm not a biologist. These lakes (which HC Eyehunter listed above) are different scenarios from most Ottertail area lakes, would the result be the same, I personally would like to find out...

I feel that our fishing currently is nothing to brag about. I'm not saying it is terrible, but we have all these lakes, yet we have nothing on the fishing in SD, ND, or Canada, as a matter of fact, they may all have better opportunities than us, but that is a whole other debate. It can't hurt to try and improve things.

[First Ice-Mike]

It doesn't make any difference if the DNR doesn't enforce the new law. In the Morris area I saw no evidence the 24" maximum was enforced. I've only been checked once by a CO while I was fishing walleyes in the last five years for sure. I have a friend that has fished Minnewaska at least 60 times a year for the last 2 years and he has been checked once! I always here locals bragging about all the 3-4 pound walleyes they caught during a hot bite. I had to put the TIP line on my speed dial so much of this is going on. I even saw one guy post 2 walleyes on the biggest fish board at a local gas station - One 9 pound walleye and one 8 pound walleye caught by the same person on the same date - tell me how stupid that is - those big fish constest should be outlawed. A lot of these older fisherman are finding it difficult to catch up with the new age of angling - Keeping everything they catch is all they know and the only way they will stop doing it is by getting fined and getting their stuff taken away or if they kick the bucket- The DNR just doesn't have enough man power to enfore the laws and some of the COs they do have aren't exactly the hardest working guys around.

FI

[Mark Christianson]

Quote:

---

and some of the COs they do have aren't exactly the hardest working guys around.

---

ow. I will pass that onto the CO's I know.

[ChuckN]

Owe is right. I wouldn't pass blame on the CO's.

I contacted our local CO over an issue via email last week. In just a few days he cared for the situation and got back to me with the end result.

In fact, all the CO's in my area I have dealt with have been excellent in enforcement and follow-up.

Not to mention I have been checked by CO's several times throughout the years.

Otter Tail Co area just put on 2 new CO's in the area recently.

Personally, I enjoy the fishing and have no complaints. I do like this proposal and I wish the limit would be around 4, maybe 3, like northern pike.

[fishermatt]

What's coming next is that you can only go fishing 2 times per week, and only for 4 hours at a time, and you have a camera at the access that takes a picture of your livewell when you leave the lake. All this over-regulation is going to hurt us in the long run if we keep giving in... Mille Lacs is the perfect example where the big fish cleaned out the forage base and fishing went down the toilet. This will cause way more sporadic fishing over the long run due to forage base die offs.

[jerkin'm]

We better get a bunch of us together and get over there before the new regs take effect so as not to waste em...Would hate to see a bunch of 20+ inch fish floating due to lack of food....Just tell us where and we will all bring friends

[smallie_hawgin]

Quote:

---

All this over-regulation is going to hurt us in the long run if we keep giving in... Mille Lacs is the perfect example where the big fish cleaned out the forage base and fishing went down the toilet. This will cause way more sporadic fishing over the long run due to forage base die offs.

---

So you know exactly how to manage every fishery in the state? You know the modeling process that takes into account the harvest by the recreational anglers, the bands, also using the all gill net and electrofishing data and can within reason predict a quota for Mille Lacs.... That would be a freekin hoot! Remember that natural fish populations are just that. They have natural variability, period. The fact is that there are far more, and more effective anglers these days. There has to be some way to make sure the "public" resource is managed for the common good.... Not just for one individual. It's common sense.

The new regs are definetely a good thing, although, a further reduced bag would even be better. Think about it, the average age of a 20" walleye is between 5 and 20 years... How much mercury do you want in your system anyway....

[threeway]

All the new regs will help, I believe... Look at Big and Little Pine. The fishing has never been better. 18-26 slot, this has made fishing absolutly fantastic. Anglers may not be able to keep those big fish, but when anglers go out they can sure have fun catching big fish. Mille Lacs is an exception, there are different variables that go into that lake. Like the spearing. Native Americans are monitored for there limits, but they are not taking small fish. BIG,big, fish are being speared. I'm not blaming this on that, it has been one of those deals where the bait fish diminished then the perch were the main forage and so on. With the equipment and electronics and technology that we have produced this day and age is a huge factor. I'm just as guilty as everyone else, aqua view, great graphs,GPS's and so on. Fish really don't have a chance. Yes, I do believe that they increase your chances for a better day on the water. These regs have to be managed, CO's and everybody involved make these decisions for the well being of our future and fishing and hunting... The CO's in my area do a great job trying to stop the anglers and hunters that violate our future in the outdoors. There may be a few lazy CO's, but name a job where you have everybody give 100%!