DNR Rulemaking: Taking Fish on Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Waters

Although I agree that keeping daily limits of fish do or do not make a person a sportsman, everyone’s opinion is welcome.

Pfft I don’t (seldom)fish walleyes so I really don’t have a horse in this dog and puppy show?

That is a bunny trail I traveled down a few years back. I asked if keeping fish means that you aren’t a sportsman? What I sifted out of the many posts was that if you’re following the laws, a person could be a sportsman. (that would include following the laws of what’s in your freezer).

Once the laws are broken (knowingly), we’ve turned from sportsmen into poachers.

basseyes wrote:

If biologist say it’s not needed, what’s the point of having biologist or having research done on fisheries, if we deem their research or point of view insignificant?

Ignoring research and biologist is just as ignorant as over fishing a resource.

I wouldn’t say it was “insignificant”. How would we know it’s not needed if there wasn’t research? Over fishing is much more harmful I would think then leaving more fish in the biomass…to a certain point.

FishBlood&RiverMud wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Brian Klawitter wrote:</div>
Now that we see what people want in black and white, we get upset?

Yup.
Of course you know I was upset at the survey.
Was upset with the results.
Now upset with the changes.

Did I see this all coming from a mile away? Yup.
Is this an indication of what is to come in the future. Yes. Am I happy about that. Nope.
Was all this voiced? Yup.

What’s your point brian?
Voice it again? The people have spoken.

Do you support the common man making changes to our resources? Where does that stop.

Yes I fully understand how this all went about. Doesn’t mean I have to love it buddy.

Why is this the fishery where surveys empower change? Why not do it for all lakes one by one…

Downhill slide and yall just lubed the tarp.

X2.

Well Andy, it appears there were more people that embraced change then not.

If there’s enough that disagree with the lower limits, or by the way they are being changed, they’ve given an avenue to change it.

Keep in mind this isn’t just the MN DNR, it’s the Great State of Wisconsin as well.

Everyone is looking at this in a singular way….how it will affect him personally. Stop and think of all the tournaments that the river sees. A guy can’t hardly go to pool 4 but what some yokels are having a tournament and often during high stress times of the year, as in the summer. How much fish mortality takes place during these event that never gets factored into the “research”. Maybe we should allow only one tournament per year per pool.

Could the public opinion that has prompted this possible change be that there is no way to stop the unethical anglers from freezer stuffing so in an effort to assure the future of fishing remaining where it is at today lower limits can help slow those unethical ones? And they most certainly exist.

Things could be far worse than not being able to keep a couple more fish…..there are plenty of people who’d like to see that Red Wing frenzy shut down at Highway 63 during the spring.

Tom Sawvell wrote:

Everyone is looking at this in a singular way….how it will affect him personally.

Bingo. Hence the stupidity of surveying the public…AND enacting based on that information.

I say go ahead and survey the public on what we should or should not do regarding deer harvest numbers per section as well as CWD.
CWD is as much as complex as pool 4.
F’it. What does the public want to do with our deer. Orange army speaks.
Do I mean that. No! But I see no difference in how wrong it is.

Don’t make it “wrong” to have a fishery that can sustain the current limit of 6 walleyes. Celebrate it instead!

Biologists should be supported and treated as experts with regards to managing resources. However, biologists are only one part of the equation.

In 80-90 days a year on Pool 4, I’m lucky (yes lucky as in I want to see them) to see ONE warden or fish surveying team. Their data is important, but limited. My very informal observations would support there being a stable, strong fishery that is vulnerable to some things that could have a measurable, negative impact. There are a lot of unknowns related to Pool 4 (sedimentation at a record pace, increase in tournament permits, invasive species, multiple states managing the same resources, etc.) When unknown variables are in-play, my gut tells me to lean towards the protection of resources…and even more strongly when it is the sentiment of the public using the resources.

Panfish are extremely vulnerable to devastating harvests in the winter. Backwaters are filling in rapidly and because of this, the few deeper areas that exist are literally stacked with panfish. If you know what you are doing, it is relatively easy at ice-out to pull x25 perch 11-14″ long in a couple hours over some areas.

Walleyes and Saugers are also vulnerable in the Spring of the year. All this “data” that everyone against any changes is touting actually does show a measurable DECLINE in sauger populations on Pool 4. If you think there are as many 15-18″ saugers in the system as there was 10-15 years ago you are completely mistaken. Cyclical and stabilizing – maybe? Worth protecting – absolutely.

My truck runs well. Does that mean I shouldn’t change the oil? My football team is 1-0, does that mean we shouldn’t scout our next opponent for challenges and changes to continue winning? Financially my family feels very stable, does that mean I shouldn’t save to protect us against a life-changing event?

buckybadger wrote:

In 80-90 days a year on Pool 4, I’m lucky (yes lucky as in I want to see them) to see ONE warden or fish surveying team

How many of those days are between m&f 7am-3pm? And on those days how many miles of the 46 mile long pool do you observe?

Well said Buckybadger.
I am sorry Fishblood. I see your point. But still feel there needs to be change.

FishBlood&RiverMud wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>buckybadger wrote:</div>
In 80-90 days a year on Pool 4, I’m lucky (yes lucky as in I want to see them) to see ONE warden or fish surveying team

How many of those days are between m&f 7am-3pm? And on those days how many miles of the 46 mile long pool do you observe?

I’d say 60 or so of those days are Monday-Friday as I am a coach and athletic director. My summer work schedule for my second job in construction is very flexible and allows me to fish during the week and take only the gigs I want to be a part of or work half-days. I know where you’re headed with pressure on weekdays and how large the pool truly is. This year I have fished from Bay City to a few hundred yards North of the Alma Dam during both ice and open water seasons (so well over half of the pool). I don’t have all the answers, but I am fortunate enough to see a ton of Pool 4 and target a lot of species in a lot of different areas.

It’s a unique resource that I simply want to be maintained for decades to come. Being proactive definitely isn’t going to harm the resource, rather protect it.

Rodwork wrote:

Well said Buckybadger.
I am sorry Fishblood. I see your point. But still feel there needs to be change.

X2. I agree very well said.

If we govern resources off the public’s feelings, fishing and hunting don’t stand a chance.

Look at wolf hunting and mille lacs. All run off feelings and perception vs facts, reality and science. One of the premier walleye lakes in the country and no fall fishing for walleyes. More wolves than any other state in the lower 48, with a range of basically half the state, yet no hunting season.

And I’m not against erring on the side of caution with regulations. Just question if they are needed for the resource, or to help make us “feel” better.

We don’t have the tribes too deal with and I’m all for a wolf season.

This is so funny.

Time and time again fisherman will complain that the DNR is not listening to the fisherman when they make decisions. They rally against the advice of the biologist unless it fits with what they want.

Just had the end of the year meeting for my tuesday night league. WIDNR biologist came and discussed data. Talked about the impact the current slot has had on the fishery and how it has been mostly positive. Every single person who asked him questions attacked the validity of his and the DNRs data. Argued that the DNR should listen to the fisherman and change the regs to the same regs a lake 20 mins down the road has.

Fish pool 4 with a guy who is convinced the guides have ruined the lake/river. He’s been fishing it for decades and it’s the worst its ever been in his eyes. Huge supporter of these new regs. Mind you the guy does absolutely nothing other than trolling. Never see him fish anywhere other than 3 or 4 main spots.

The DNR can never win. The DNR is just doing what the majority of people told them to do at the public hearings and in the survey. They are doing what the majority of people on fishing forums and social media have been saying since the dawn of the internet. Damn the science and listen to the fisherman. So whats all the fuss about?

Fisherman have zero understanding of carry capacity

If the MNDNR really made changes based on what anglers want, we would have been allowed 2 lines statewide several years ago. I can’t think of any other single topic that 80% are in favor of yet administration continues to stifle it.

There are a lot of social aspects that go into setting bag limits not just biological reasons. I guess the real victims here are the anglers that can only get out a couple times a year. Anyone who fishes several times a month should have no problem getting the fish they need for a meal.

3Rivers wrote:

If the MNDNR really made changes based on what anglers want, we would have been allowed 2 lines statewide several years ago. I can’t think of any other single topic that 80% are in favor of yet administration continues to stifle it.

There are a lot of social aspects that go into setting bag limits not just biological reasons. I guess the real victims here are the anglers that can only get out a couple times a year. Anyone who fishes several times a month should have no problem getting the fish they need for a meal.

It isn’t the job of the MNDNR to be sure people have food on their plate. This argument is archaic.

I never said it was. Just saying the only people REALLY affected by this change are those that rarely fish and want to keep fish (small minority).

buckybadger wrote:

It isn’t the job of the MNDNR to be sure people have food on their plate. This argument is archaic.

No it’s not.

Yet many non outdoors people also think hunting and fishing for sport alone is barbaric and archaic when the food acquisition factor is taken out.

Good or bad fishing isn’t indicative one way or the other of the overall health and wellbeing of a fishery. If fishing is great, predator/prey relationships could be way out of balance, leading fish to devour lures because they are starving. If the fishing is terrible it could be the polar opposite and bait supplies limitless for fish. Both scenarios will skew an anglers thought process towards opposing views that really have no scientific foundation in biologic reality. Just because the fishing is bad, fishing alone is not a singular indicator of the over all health of a fishery. Because it seems the bite has worsened or changed is no need to panic, fear or feel all is doom and gloom. And just because the bite is superb, doesn’t mean all is well either.

Get there is social acceptability in regards to regulations, and agree the 2 line issue is a prime example of how they are just strange in how they pick and choose what to listen to and ignore.

Brian, do you know of a website to view final input that was collected during the open period too provide the input? I cannot seem to find any updates to this topic.

Hopefully they keep on the same path they were going with this. Thanks.

Checking…

There should be something out at the DNR’s Roundtable (I’m guessing).

“The DNR is using an expedited rulemaking procedure to make these changes effective by March 1, 2020, to coincide with Wisconsin’s similar regulation change.”

There was only one request for a hearing in the comment period.
So there won’t be a hearing. (remember this in MN info only).

Tom Sawvell wrote:

Everyone is looking at this in a singular way….how it will affect him personally. Stop and think of all the tournaments that the river sees. A guy can’t hardly go to pool 4 but what some yokels are having a tournament and often during high stress times of the year, as in the summer. How much fish mortality takes place during these event that never gets factored into the “research”. Maybe we should allow only one tournament per year per pool.

Could the public opinion that has prompted this possible change be that there is no way to stop the unethical anglers from freezer stuffing so in an effort to assure the future of fishing remaining where it is at today lower limits can help slow those unethical ones? And they most certainly exist.

Things could be far worse than not being able to keep a couple more fish…..there are plenty of people who’d like to see that Red Wing frenzy shut down at Highway 63 during the spring.

Are you talking about the tournament yokels that hold youth fishing clinics, fund fish cleaning shacks, preach about invasive species, hand out scholarship to future outdoorsman or raise funds for children’s hospitals??? To me it appears these yokels usually support the fishery/community more so than most. I would venture that the organizations running tournaments care more for the fishery than the average angler and give back more than the average angler.. CPR tournaments and tourny size limits have been used for years, not because they have to but because they care about the future of the fishery..

Brian Klawitter wrote:

“The DNR is using an expedited rulemaking procedure to make these changes effective by March 1, 2020, to coincide with Wisconsin’s similar regulation change.”

There was only one request for a hearing in the comment period.
So there won’t be a hearing. (remember this in MN info only).

Thanks Brian. I a appreciate the update.

riverruns wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Rodwork wrote:</div>
Well said Buckybadger.
I am sorry Fishblood. I see your point. But still feel there needs to be change.

X2. I agree very well said.

Chicken Little Says The SKY is Falling.!!

river rat randy wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>riverruns wrote:</div>

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Rodwork wrote:</div>
Well said Buckybadger.
I am sorry Fishblood. I see your point. But still feel there needs to be change.

X2. I agree very well said.

Chicken Little Says The SKY is Falling.!!

And your point is?

RRR’s point is (as we have talked extensively about this) that the limits are fine they way they are. And I have to agree using the DNR’s data. I believe all the river biologist agree the limits are not hurting the populations on our MN/WI border waters.

I’m sure I’ve posted this before, but I think I need to repeat it.

The thought was to ask the public what they want and IF the biology allows it, make the majority of the public happy.

If we would be asking for increased limits, the biology wouldn’t support it. Since it appears most people want lower limits, why not make them happy?

As far as 2 lines IN LAKES goes, the higher powers at the DNR feel the data does not support it. So even though 90+ percent of the avid polled anglers support it, it’s not going to happen.

I’ll never understand the mindset of wanting more regulations and laws when the facts don’t support it. Where does that come from?

Id venture to guess more fish in that river die of old age or natural causes than a knife.

ajw wrote:

Where does that come from?

The MN and WI fishermen that took the survey.

Id venture to guess more fish in that river die of old age or natural causes than a knife.

Totally agree with you and I’ll guess the majority of the P4 biologist will as well (if I can put words in their mouth.

I was talking with a P4 biologist a few years back.

Although he wasn’t in favor of changing rules purely for social reasons, he felt that they could be changed as long as it was clear the change was for social purposes. (not exactly a quote but the point is there)

My point to all of this is, it’s not the DNR that’s to blame if you don’t like the changes, it’s the MN/WI border water fishermen. The DNR works for us. They are trying a new approach to give the anglers what they want. Working together with the next states DNR has to be applauded… whether you got what you wanted or not.