Border Waters Regulations Thank You

Thanks to everyone who attended the recent open houses to review regulation proposals for the Minnesota/Wisconsin border waters of the Mississippi River.

Good discussions both with and between anglers were had at each location.

As of this morning we have a total of 250 responses both in person and electronically.

This is still quite a few less than the 850 responses we had to the initial review of regulations in May. The electronic version of the regulation proposal review will be available until the end of November.

If you or someone you know hasn’t filled out the form and has a desire to do so the link to it is available here: Regulation Proposal Input Form

Thanks again for your input,

Nick

thank you Nick, I didnt know there was an electronic version for this. the limits definitely need to change in my opinion, theres no reason to keep as many fish as you are allowed to with the current limits.

Jake Hendrickson wrote:

thank you Nick, I didnt know there was an electronic version for this. the limits definitely need to change in my opinion, theres no reason to keep as many fish as you are allowed to with the current limits.

Yeah there is, there Fishery can sustain it… For walleyes anyway.

Jake Hendrickson wrote:

thank you Nick, I didnt know there was an electronic version for this. the limits definitely need to change in my opinion, theres no reason to keep as many fish as you are allowed to with the current limits.

Yeah there is, there Fishery can sustain it… For walleyes anyway.
[/quote]

regardless if the fishery can handle having that many fish taken out, which in the recent history hasnt it been a little suspect according to the surveys, why not put a better regulation on something when we can make it even better than it is.

Just because according to you the fishery can handle those numbers being taken out everyday, doesnt mean that it shouldnt be looked at to improve it.

FishBlood&RiverMud wrote:

Yeah there is, there Fishery can sustain it… For walleyes anyway.

Jake Hendrickson wrote:

little suspect according to the surveys

Keyboard biologists…

Have you read the actual studies. All about the spawn.

Jake Hendrickson wrote:

Just because according to you the fishery can handle those numbers being taken out everyday, doesnt mean that it shouldnt be looked at to improve it.

Sippi eyes grow fast and die Young.

Sounds like we had an incredible spawn this year… Good things to come with that year class. They’ll all be dead by 2027.

Too bad y’all will correlate good fishing in two years with the reduced harvest regulations and not the obvious amazing spawing year class of 2018.

Keyboard biologists…

Have you read the actual studies. All about the spawn.

[/quote]

yup you are correct, im not a biologist. I agree with you that the conditions for the spawn play the biggest role in how the next few years will be. But, I still think that with how hard those pools get hit, there should be a better management system, for many species, as that is what the regulations were looking to change. If we have bad spawning conditions multiple years in a row lets say, wouldnt it be nice to have that “backup” plan of a more managed system?

So just for the sake of asking since you have a catfish in your picture, do you not agree with the proposed limit on cats? I’m just curious. Also not really looking to argue about all this. I was giving my opinion on the subject.

What amazes me is that people here think this is only about pool 4. Come on down and fish 8-10 regularly. Not every pool has a “Pepin” on it like pool 4 does. Pool 4 is an entirely different eco-system than the other pools of the river.

So, while I get that maybe 4 can sustain the pressure it gets, the pools to the south haven’t had the same studies done. You may argue that it’s not right the reduce the limits on pool 4 because other pools don’t have the same ecosystem, but I would argue that it’s not right to not consider changes on pools 5 and down because they don’t have the same ecosystem as pool 4.

Jake Hendrickson wrote:

So just for the sake of asking since you have a catfish in your picture, do you not agree with the proposed limit on cats? I’m just curious.

Walleye and catfish are entirely different species in every way.

Yes i enjoy Catfishing.
Yes i voted to reduce those limits.
Though i would rather they be separated because they’re entirely different fish, channel and flathead. I think the DNR is doing a disservice grouping them.

Might as well group the “pickerel” family as a single harvest quantity. Would be just as wrong.

Id also like it if they couldn’t COMMERCIALLY HARVEST catfish either. This is not happening with walleye. Half my reasoning for reduced limits here is to compensate for the netting.

Catfish have a much longer life cycle in the river too, than walleyes. The one in my Avatar is over 50# and likely exceeding 30 years of age. 99% class.

Flathead go dormant in winter and are closed to harvest. Thank you catfish workshop!

Unfortunately, the DNR doesn’t do much for studies on catfish. But, they do a lot of studies on walleye on pools 2&3&4.

Pool 4 is over 40 miles long. Maybe you need to spend more time on the river to realize how little pressure there is! Pool 3 is largely abandoned much of the year! And, protected during the spawn (because majority of fish in p3 are within 3 Miles of dam in winter)

I don’t have enough hands and feet to count the amount of days each year I don’t see another boat. Not conbined, but for each pool individually. However, there are times that you guys crowd the snot outta each other in a very small section of the river, which isn’t even holding the greatest biomass of walleye at that time. Your so crowded you cannot fish the tactics that need be deployed to catch fish, so it must be a doomed fishery.

I literally dropped my camera in the water for no more than 5 minutes last night after dark and quit counting after 20 eyeballs…. Where’s everyone fishing yesterday, same place as the last three weeks… And they’re boats stacked on top each other in a marginal at best area. I’ll bet they want lower limits. Lol.

Each Fishery, as defined by (at this time pools) should be regulated individually if they’re all individuals, biologically…i.e. 5-xx

Well, FBRM, I’m glad you didn’t figuratively drop the camera down there. I wouldn’t believe you if that happened.

If you want to share some of these spots I would like to see if I can adversely affect the walleye population in P4. If not, I’ll just continue to yank baby saugers out of the score hole and leave them for the eagles.

Kidding aside and also setting aside people’s thoughts on limits it’s really nice to see the DNR asking people for opinions and getting participation in the process. It’s creating some thought provoking dialogue which can’t be a bad thing. It’s also across species which opened my eyes up to how little attention we pay to some of them.

Back to sharing those spots, FBRM. How many people have ties to Avoca, MN? We’re like practically brothers and I share all my fishing spots with my brothers. I’m just sayin.’

I spend a lot of time fishing areas of the river that are not the dam or community spots. There’s no point getting in an argument with you,as you clearly don’t know me. Turning what could’ve been a good discussion into a bashing, fun stuff

Whoops

Whoops

Jake Hendrickson wrote:

Turning what could’ve been a good discussion into a bashing, fun stuff

Not bashing.

However, DNR makes a post asking for survey and feedback.

You comment with what you support.

Kind of like standing infront the voting booth saying “vote for me, I’ll make your life great”.

You forced a response.

Matt Moen wrote:

Back to sharing those spots, FBRM. How many people have ties to Avoca, MN? We’re like practically brothers and I share all my fishing spots with my brothers. I’m just sayin.’

Good ol Avoca

Well said wimwuen. Fishing isn’t bad down here but it could be better.

FishBlood&RiverMud wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Jake Hendrickson wrote:</div>
Turning what could’ve been a good discussion into a bashing, fun stuff

You forced a response.

No, not really. You must have missed the “in my opinion” portion of his post. No need to jump down his throat and tell him that his opinion is wrong, based on your opinion.

pete the catfisherman wrote:

Well said wimwuen. Fishing isn’t bad down here but it could be better.

Wimwuen has some great points. I totally don’t understand this survey thing. I didn’t get any survey for the lake my cabin is on. Out of the blue, wham,this is what you get. This lake probably needed the new regs.
So is the dnr going to do this survey thing on all questionable waters or continue to ignore some bodies of water and only focus on “special waters”. Ya I get preventative maintainance but see anyone willing to give up fishing a certain time of the year when it gets pounded to save the rest of the year for others that don’t partake in the annual seasonal pounding.

The title of the thread is “Border Waters Regulations”. If your “lake” isn’t a border water you shouldn’t have to fret.

Now, if there is an argument to be made regarding border waters and using pool 4 as an example, I think Wimwuen has hit the nail squarely on the head if his assessment is using walleyes. Panfish have been exploited for years and the current limits need to be reigned in on those fish.

These guys will take care of it in the best interest of the future generations.

It’s about time they worked with us on this, on the limits of keeping fish.

The surveys and input that you provided, when you attended the meetings, will suffice I’m sure.

Your rant on a forum might as well?

wimwuen wrote:

What amazes me is that people here think this is only about pool 4. Come on down and fish 8-10 regularly. Not every pool has a “Pepin” on it like pool 4 does. Pool 4 is an entirely different eco-system than the other pools of the river.

So, while I get that maybe 4 can sustain the pressure it gets, the pools to the south haven’t had the same studies done. You may argue that it’s not right the reduce the limits on pool 4 because other pools don’t have the same ecosystem, but I would argue that it’s not right to not consider changes on pools 5 and down because they don’t have the same ecosystem as pool 4.

I’m pretty sure if you could find an old post of mine somewhere, Brian K and I may have had the same soft spoken words like this.

These pools below 4 are not the same.
You guys stay up there and when we want fish we will travel there and get our fish.

blank wrote:

No, not really. You must have missed the “in my opinion” portion of his post. No need to jump down his throat and tell him that his opinion is wrong, based on your opinion.

Nobody’s jumping, just providing my opinion. Same as you

LOL! This is amazing!

When I’m listening the the legislature (not so much the DNR anymore) they forget about the border waters!

The one thing I learned very quickly in going to the catfish workshop group is “just because something works were I fish, seldom does it work though the whole state”.

Totally agree with not judging the whole river by P4.

But lowering the limits on Pools downstream wouldn’t be a bad thing right?

Just a bit of history here. I’ve been to more then a handful of meetings (MN/WI Dnr and WI Conservation Congress) where citizens spoke in the comments section or have sent letters to be read, pleading that the limits be reduced for walleyes and saugers. Not just P4. One letter was from a very well known fisherman from PDC I’ll add.

The DNR said there were plenty of fish with current regulations and the meeting moved on. Same when it came to my talk about the excessive flathead limits.

With the two states working together to give the MAJORITY of the fishermen what they want… no not everyone will be happy, but the majority will. Not only will it not hurt the fishery, no one will starve.

The majority of the fishermen that are aware and respond. Not necessarily the majority of fishermen period. Just to clarify.

FishBlood&RiverMud wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Jake Hendrickson wrote:</div>
thank you Nick, I didnt know there was an electronic version for this. the limits definitely need to change in my opinion, theres no reason to keep as many fish as you are allowed to with the current limits.

Yeah there is, there Fishery can sustain it… For walleyes anyway.

fish blood. You are 100% RIGHT.! . .RRR

riverruns wrote:

I’m pretty sure if you could find an old post of mine somewhere, Brian K and I may have had the same soft spoken words like this.

You guys stay up there and when we want fish we will travel there and get our fish. …………….. Perfect.!! Let me know when you are coming up this way. I would like to meet you. Mite even show you a few spots. . . RRR