| Use this catch all page for
items of general interest to anglers in Minnesota. Updates about fishing
regulations, politics and angler concerns. Please help, submit items of
interest to you, any topic is okay as long as it pertains to fishing in
Minnesota. Click Here To Post Comments |
|
Walleye Bag Limit Reduction 2008
Original Post by Jeff Sundin 3-6-08
Well folks, I just came home from a meeting of Walleye enthusiasts who
were originally formed in 2005 as the "Walleye Advisory Council", now more
casually referred to by the DNR as a "Walleye Workshop". Something about
the term "advisory" must not sit well with the folks who organize
these meetings, but that's a story we'll go into another time.
Most of the agenda items are things you'd expect to hear about, Walleye
stocking plans, fishing seasons, tourism, bag limits and lots of
statistics and charts. But wait, hold on a minute...Bag Limits? Where's
the chart? What happened to the statistics?
Apparently the proposed statewide Walleye bag limit reduction from six
Walleye to four is being brought about because it's "time for change".
No charts, no statistics, just whistle three times as you roll through the
train crossing and it's all over. No public hearing process, no public
meetings. You see, none of the normal rules apply because this change is
being introduced through the legislative process instead of "officially"
through the DNR.
Based on polling in a couple of popular metro area publications, anglers
appear to support the legislation. The problem is that the polls are based
on opinions of what I'm calling "elite anglers", the ones who devote
enough time and resources to learn how to actually catch six Walleyes.
Most folks who visit Minnesota don't fall into that category and for them,
a reduction in the bag limit is a signal that somehow we think our
fishery is in trouble. Why would anyone want to send that message when
statistics show that our fishery is at least stable, if not improving?
For the record, this was the only topic that was brought to an informal
vote among the workshop members. There were nine members opposing the bag
limit reduction and three in favor. The most passionate argument in favor
of reducing the bag limit came from a man who is upset by what he believes
is undue fishing pressure on his particular lake and wants the limits
reduced to encourage folks to fish somewhere else. Why not just work
toward improving the fishing on other lakes in his area so that folks will
want to fish somewhere else?
There's not enough space in this report to really go into all the details,
but for those of us who depend on tourism, it's time to take a closer
look. I'm asking the question; What's the big rush? If we need it, we need
it, but lets have a look at some real statistics and make a real decision.
I'm working on a more definitive article right now and I'll get a link to
that as soon as it's finished. If you want to add
your 2 cents worth
click here
to drop us a line.
|
|
3/6/08 Comments on Walleye Regulation
Hey Jeff, I heard your input on KAXE Radio
this morning about the fish limit reduction. Several weeks back, I
read all about that in the Outdoor News and called as many fishermen
friends as I could think of and gave them senator Saxhaug and rep
Solberg phone number to cast their "no reduction" vote. It must of
worked because I found out that by noon that day, 35 people had called
in already. I called Senator Tom Saxhaug's office today for a update
on that bill but his Aid said he'd have to get back to me after
talking to Tom. But he did say they've had a huge volume of calls
against this reduction. Greg Abbott |
|
3/7/08 Comments on Walleye Regulation
Jeff, Just read your
article. (I usually live vicariously through your fishing reports.)
The question I have is "Where is the management science (data) that
would support this move?" If the data points us in this direction -
fine. That is what we need to do to maintain or increase the fishery.
If not, what is the point? I would like science to drive the fishery
as much as "the art of compromise" ie. politics.
Just how I feel about the situation. I understand the need
for the public to feel confident we have a good fishery so that folks
continue to utilize different areas of our natural resource for
recreation ($ to keep us alive and the roads open).
In this time when $ for fisheries is stagnant and interaction
with the outdoors in general is trending negatively, does the 4
walleye bag limit help that? Will it increase activity? In any case I
too would like to see data to support a move before we make the move.
Thanks for listening. - Ralph Nyquist |
|
3/7/08 Comments on Walleye Regulation
Jeff, As a tourist
fisherman, the reduction in bag limit may have me think twice about
whether or not to drive 13 hours in order to walleye fish. It seems
irresponsible to me to impose a reduced bag limit when there are not
any statistics, data, etc. to support such legislation. I guess you
folks find yourself in the same situation as the tavern, restaurant,
etc owners found themselves in here in Illinois regarding the no
smoking legislation that was passed – so much for “We the people”
getting to vote on such items.
I agree with you, if it
is necessary, then it is necessary, but where is the data to support
said “necessity”? I am sure all of folks that support the reduction in
bag limit have data to show that the economic impact to individuals
such as you, and to the state, will be negligible. And where is your
DNR on this issue? Or as state employees are they afraid to make a
stand for fear of their jobs? Alternative “solutions” such as a
shortened season shortened hours, off-limit days, increased license
fees, etc would also have a direct impact on your income. Either way
Jeff, it looks like you are hosed – less fish = less clients = less
$$$. You may want to consider a drive to Baudette – take your fork
with you – because it looks like Willy Walleye is done. - Rick
Willaredt |
|
3/13/08 Comments on Walleye
Regulation
Hey Jeff, You make your living on the
water and harvesting fish. I always trust your judgment as to what is
best for the sport. You have guided me and my family for years and are
a very good caretaker of waters of Mn. Thank you for taking your time
to represent us as clients. Sam Fonner, Indianapolis, IN |
|
3/15/08 Comments on Walleye Regulation
Hi Jeff, ...I read your note about the bag
limit going to 4 from 6. Has it actually gone down yet, or is their
still time to send protests to your fine government in Minnesota about
this? Mike Wirtz - Chicago IL |
|
3/15/08 Comments on Walleye Regulation
Jeff...visited your site this AM...I've
talked with Chaudhary's staff. They won't keep very good track of any
phone calls. I would encourage the many people who visit your site to
E-mail their comments regarding Chaudhary's imposing notions to:
Sen.atveer.Chaudhary@Senate.Mn Talk to you...soon. Best Regards -
Jim (Sand Lake) |
|
3/17/08 Comments on Walleye Regulation
Hi Jeff, Just read your article and it
looks like political smoke is again making a push to change
regulations. I agree there is importance for statistics and surveys.
There are lakes that would benefit from a change in limits but lets
look at them. Not just a wholesale change that does what you
say-making it look like our fish population is struggling. I like the
slot limits. It has provided a nice opportunity to get some fish and
have fun with a bonus of being able to bring a few home. It is an
answer to providing for a good population for years to come.
What is needed is a group like you are a part of that provides a blue
print for all lakes determining just what guidelines are needed for
the available fish habitat and population. It could include fishing
pressure, predation as well as water quality and habitat needs. Guess
I have rambled enough on stuff that you probably have thought of a
long time ago. Jim Tarbell |
|
3/19/08 Comments on Walleye Regulation
- A new twist?
Jeff, I heard you
talking about the reduced bag limits the legislature was considering
on your early bird fishing program. I have an alternate option I
wanted your opinion on.
Reduce the walleye limit to 4 as suggested. But in addition
to this you would get special fishing tags, bringing your limit back
up to 6. You would get up to 3 summer tags and 2 winter tags. These
tags would be good for up to 7 days. To get these tags you would buy
them for $5.00 each similar to bonus tags for deer.
This would allow people going on fishing trips to get the
larger limit, but stop the people who do have a chance to fish weekly
from taking larger limits continually. Also it would gain the DNR some
additional funds.
The guys who fish a lot are the ones who have a better chance
of catching limits because they are generally better fisherman and
know the fishing patterns better. (They would still get their bonus
tags like everyone else.) Many people who do go on a few fishing trips
a year probably don’t get their limit every time anyway. I think this
would also help resorts and guides businesses from being affected by
the new lower limits. Let me know what you think. - John Klosterman |
|
3/24/08 Grand Rapids Chamber of
Commerce Survey on Minnesota Walleye Bag Limit Reduction
Hello Everyone - Thanks
to everyone who participated in this informal e-mail survey. The
result of the e-mail survey on changing the Walleye Limits from six
fish to four fish is as follows: YES- 27, NO- 79, Undecided- 7 While
the Chamber Board does not have a formal policy on this issue, it is
fairly evident that the majority of chamber members answering the
survey do not favor reducing the limit to four fish. Thanks again to
everyone who participated. Having feed back like this for our
legislators in such a timely fashion is valuable to them. Bud (Stone)
Grand Rapids Chamber of Commerce. |
|
3/31/08 Link to Senate Committee
Hearings on Walleye Regulation
SF3621 has been "laid over", meaning
that it is dead for this session. The most onerous section, bag
limit reduction plus "slots" has been appended to the omnibus game &
fish bill SF3385. The exact reference, Article 3, Section 75, page
63.12 is contained in the attachment to this. Please consider an
E-mail to Chaudhary with a CC to Payer asking him to strike this
portion of the bill. As Written gives the rule-making authority to
the DNR Commissioner, ergo Ron Payer. As I mentioned on your show
Payer is seeing a 60% approval rate. So, what will he immediately
do?
Please do not reference me on any
correspondence. We can use everyone's help on this. Best Regards -
Jim
|
|
3/31/08 Link to Senate Committee
Hearings on Walleye Regulation
Jeff – look at this tape (3:13 into it) to
see Chaudhary’s remarks on bringing his reg. changes back (on the
floor) even though it was tabled
Friday March 14, 2008 Environment and Natural Resources Agenda:
S.F. 3243 (Olson, M. A.) Leech Lake walleye stocking appropriation.
S.F. 2811 (Lynch) Permanent school fund lands management authority
modifications; advisory committee reporting requirements
modifications.
S.F. 3621 (Chaudhary) Game fish season and limits modification.
S.F. 3576 (Rest) Viral hemorrhagic septicemia control provisions.
S.F. 3690 (Chaudhary) Wildlife management areas local ordinances
exemption.
S.F. 3385 (Chaudhary) Monument designation authority change; state
park names and permit requirements modification.
Real Media format (You need the real media player
installed to view these) 05:59:00 - Dick Sternberg |
|
Hooking Mortality of Walleye in Mille
Lacs Lake, Minnesota |
Keith A. Reeves,
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, P.O. Box 138, Aitkin, MN 56431;
218-927-7505; FAX 218-927-4121
Catch-and-release walleye fishing is common in
Minnesota, in part due to mandated harvest restrictions. At Mille Lacs Lake, the
State is obligated to include mortalities from catch and release in its treaty
managed walleye harvest. The State formerly estimated hooking mortality at 6%
for walleyes > 13 inches and 10% for walleye <13 inches. Large catches at Mille
Lacs in 2002 yielded high hooking mortality estimates. This catch-and-release
study was initiated to determine a Mille Lacs-specific walleye hooking mortality
estimate, and to determine what factors most influence this mortality. Walleye
were sampled via angling throughout the open water season in 2003. Anglers
included volunteers and DNR employees who used live bait and various types of
terminal gear. DNR employees retrieved angled walleye and placed them in holding
cages, generally within five minutes of their being landed. Collected walleye
were held in holding cages for five days, examined, and released. Angled walleye
in this study averaged over 20 inches. Prior to 24 June, at water temperatures
less than 20 0C, only 1% of the angled walleye died. Mortalities occurred in
walleye caught from at least 7 m depth and at water temperatures near 20 0C. In
May and June, no fishing method was highly correlated with walleye mortalities.
Catch and release may be a very effective tool in recycling walleye, and
reducing harvest without substantially increasing the kill. |
|
