The DNR works for us. They are trying a new approach to give the anglers what they want.
Except when it comes to Mille Lacs, where it’s the exact opposite.
Uh oh…did I just bring up a contaminated subject again? 
Uh oh…did I just bring up a contaminated subject again?
Not at all…it’s because that’s a THREE RING CIRCUS. So to speak.
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Brian Klawitter wrote:</div>
The DNR works for us. They are trying a new approach to give the anglers what they want.Except when it comes to Mille Lacs, where it’s the exact opposite.
Uh oh…did I just bring up a contaminated subject again?
Apples to Oranges. The MNDNR has far less control over what happens on Mille Lacs than they want people to realize. If there are issues with Mille Lacs that people have beef with, blaming the MNDNR is similar to “shooting the messenger”
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.
That is 100% Correct.!! An in the last 1000 yrs. The Sky Still hasn’t Fallen.! . . rrr
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.
Yes Sir ajw.!
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.
OUCH.! I just got hit in the butt by a piece of falling sky. . Unethical fisherman are poachers. No matter what the rules are these poachers won’t stop poaching.!! . There has been year around fishing for over 60yrs. Research shows Zero ill effects to harm the fish pop.! . . rrr
Unethical fisherman are poachers. No matter what the rules are these poachers won’t stop poaching.!! .
You and I stand on the same ground with this Randy. Also, I’m looking way past tomorrow with my comments.
I now that both of us have seen some unbelievable fishing in many years past….pre-nuke plant….especially in the winter. I’m hoping we can share a boat again sometime before we can’t remember who we are.
I wonder who kills more fish in a year – the group of guys that fish 2 or 3 times a year and keep their limit if they can or the guys that fish 3 or more times a week most of the year and go full on social justice warrior about not keeping fish or maybe keep one here or there if it’s hooked deep.
Pretty near impossible to quantify hooking mortality unfortunately
Old age will take more fish from the river the the sum of the two examples above. (Speaking only of our river fish).
Mississippi River Regulations Implementation
I’m going to bet I could catch 15-20 people per day this Spring who are well over the new limit on jumbo perch. There’s an annual slaughter that goes on in some of the pool 4 and 5 backwaters that these regulations should address.
Now let’s hope there’s enforcement and education to go with the new regulations.
CO Brittany will be out there!!
We were check last Sunday…yes in February! (although it was and awesomely nice day)
One thought. If a person knows where there’s a lot of over limits being taken (poaching) or any other infraction, it doesn’t take long to call the local DNR office and have them pass along the info to the Co’s. It might be a place they wouldn’t of checked without being made aware of.
Just a suggestion.
CO Brittany will be out there!!
We were check last Sunday…yes in February! (although it was and awesomely nice day)
One thought. If a person knows where there’s a lot of over limits being taken (poaching) or any other infraction, it doesn’t take long to call the local DNR office and have them pass along the info to the Co’s. It might be a place they wouldn’t of checked without being made aware of.
Just a suggestion.
I have their number saved and plan to be more vigilant. Hopefully others will do the same.
It will be interesting to see if new signage or postings go up at accesses on the river. In the year 2020 the responsibility is firmly on the anglers to know the regulations in the area they are fishing. However, there are a lot of people who will plead ignorance. Let’s hope “warnings” are not in the local CO’s vocabulary
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>grubson wrote:</div>
How many fish do you think you need?As a Wisconsin resident, I prefer my freezer has 12 walleyes ready for a big fry.
Big part of the reason WI inland waters walleye populations are crap. “All you can catch plus one” mentality still prevails here, while complaining about how good it used to be. SMDH
Big part of the reason WI inland waters walleye populations are crap. “All you can catch plus one” mentality still prevails here, while complaining about how good it used to be. SMDH
LOL its almost like you can’t read.
First page i reference Inland MN being about the same as You describe WI, except it was followed with flaming torches 
And BTW, this is entirely about Mississippi, not Inland WI or MN.
Also, 12 fish is legal (possession) limit. With 12 in the freezer…The rest go back …No PLUS ONE happening here bro
What’s done is done. Reduced possession from 12 to 8.
This won’t increase or decrease the populations the river. I expect the poor fisherman to complain just the same when they can’t catch the ones swimming below the boat. Caught and released 45 this weekend. Word on IDO was a tough bite 
Biggest 11.5 LBS.
Old age will take more fish from the river the the sum of the two examples above. (Speaking only of our river fish).
Walleye is the harvest fish. Hardly a sport fish as far as the general public is concerned. Also, this isn’t about ‘the state’. Almost all MN lakes are crap in comparison to the great fishery that pool 3&4 are.
You can do what you want with the state… This is a unique fishery not to be compared or managed similar to 10,000 junk lakes.
I was wondering about the reduced possession limit after reviewing the changes to the WI DNR regs. I see where it shows the daily bag going to 4 fish in pools 3-8 however if the rest of the state is 6 daily and 12 in possession how would/could they expect the pool 3-8 fisherpeople to be limited to 8 fish in possession (and how could they prove that)?
“Mississippi River Fishing Regulation Changes Effective April 1
In Pools 3 through 8 of the Mississippi River, the daily bag limit for walleye and sauger will be four in total, with a 15-inch minimum length limit for walleye and none for sauger, and only one walleye or sauger over 20 inches allowed for harvest. In Pools 9 through 12, the daily bag limit for walleye and sauger will be six, with a 15-inch minimum length limit for walleye and none for sauger, a protected slot limit of 20 to 27 inches for walleye and only one walleye over 27 inches allowed for harvest.”
I don’t see any changes mentioned for the states to come to common ground on the other regulation differences either. i.e. 3 lines/baits versus 2, 2x daily bag limit in possession….
I don’t see any changes mentioned for the states to come to common ground on the other regulation differences either. i.e. 3 lines/baits versus 2, 2x daily bag limit in possession….
These meeting were for daily limits only (which would flow into possession limits for WI). As you can see, just tackling daily limits was a pretty big bite.
The only reason I haven’t (along with others I suspect) is if we’re going to get together with WI on the number of hooks, WI would need to drop to two. No one wants that.
But since you mentioned it, I do find it odd that “fishermen” wanted lower bag limits but also want 3 lines in MN. I understand that the limit is the limit no matter how many lines are used…
PS my comments are my own and may or may not reflect either DNR’s thoughts.
But since you mentioned it, I do find it odd that “fishermen” wanted lower bag limits but also want 3 lines in MN. I understand that the limit is the limit no matter how many lines are used…
Brian, I can see this and understand why fishermen would ask for the above.. I did not read all the post here but would like to add my opinion to the mix..
I don’t know about 3 lines but two lines would be nice during summer months. It is a different generation of fishermen out there today and not many are out for a limit of fish anymore. They are out to catch fish and chase trophy’s. This is very common now and sure many on the site here would agree.
To adjust the rules and allow less fish knowing we will see a higher hook mortality is what is going on or am I seeing this wrong. I believe this is how it is viewed on Mille Lacs as well if you look at it this way. I laugh at it when people Bit** about not being able to keep fish on Mille Lacs. Then go somewhere else!!!!! The fishing is great and the resorts will cook you food.. Enough about that…. Sorry.
Today we see more recreation fishing. Subsistence fishing is in the past and to reject this change is just stubborn. I believe this is why fishermen request what Brian stated above.
Myself… I believe that keeping fish is a tradition that has to be treated as a tradition and passed down to each generation but there has to be some understanding that if we want everyone to enjoy a resource it also has to be respected/regulated to keep it there. Today there are a lot more boats on the water than there was when the rule books and limits were wrote down. Add in the technology that we have now and it can leave a resource exposed. I know the Mississippi may be able to handle it. “SHOULD BE ABLE TO?”. This is an assumption and I fall on the side with the guys that would rather be safe than sorry. I would even say I am happy to see it.
Not being overly loaded with money when I spend some of it to fish I usually take home some fish.It offsets a little bit of the cost of buying a dinner,lunch,breakfast or two.I guess if I want more fish it boils down to fishing an extra day and having some shorelunch/dinner on day 1 then leaving with my limit day two.Normally Id just fish for a day and likely take home my 6,now I may fish for two days eat 4 and leave the next day with 4.This results in more fish being taken overall.I would bet I wouldnt be the only one participating in this manner either.Still legal but more fish being taken overall.Is this a social issue kind of like gun control or free healthcare?Ram what some want down others throats to make some FEEL better about themselves?Are the guys that want a 4 fish limit better than me,because I want 6?Nobody needs 6 fish,like nobody needs an assault rifle?Im all for protecting a resource if need be but that isnt what this was about.Just another feel good law
Not being overly loaded with money when I spend some of it to fish I usually take home some fish.It offsets a little bit of the cost of buying a dinner,lunch,breakfast or two.I guess if I want more fish it boils down to fishing an extra day and having some shorelunch/dinner on day 1 then leaving with my limit day two.Normally Id just fish for a day and likely take home my 6,now I may fish for two days eat 4 and leave the next day with 4.This results in more fish being taken overall.I would bet I wouldnt be the only one participating in this manner either.Still legal but more fish being taken overall.Is this a social issue kind of like gun control or free healthcare?Ram what some want down others throats to make some FEEL better about themselves?Are the guys that want a 4 fish limit better than me,because I want 6?Nobody needs 6 fish,like nobody needs an assault rifle?Im all for protecting a resource if need be but that isnt what this was about.Just another feel good law
If you want to argue limits based on economics, fishing is never something that offsets expenses. I can take someone else out and get a two person limit of walleyes and it still doesn’t offset the wear and tear on equipment, gas usage, snacks, tackle, bait, and most importantly my potential earnings I’m passing up by being on the water versus working. Harvesting fish in today’s world is not economically advantageous on the average outing.
If you want to fish two days on the river instead of one to have a shorelunch and take some fish home, go right ahead. That’s legal, a net gain for the local economy, and seems like a great idea. If you’re arguing people will harvest more fish because of a lower daily limit…I’m going to blatantly disagree.
As far as comparing the reduction of fishing limits to some type of social issue…you may want to step away from the television set for a bit. Linking political arguments to a reduction to daily fishing limits seems like a stretch for even the most uninformed people. A majority of people who provided their public opinion (as was advertised multiple times on here with hearings, surveys, etc.) supported this idea and the change is happening. I have a close friend who did not like the changes either and he spends a ton of time on the river like myself. He ultimately has the same options as everyone else: Live with it, or fish someplace else.
Never said it would be a gain or even a break even,just offset a bit.Fishing an extra day wont help the locals anymore than just staying a day,at least not for me since I would not be going to frequent any of their establishments other than possibly the gas station.Lol I dont watch much tv,even the dnr has said reduced limits is a social issue.Yes its kind of the same thing as a political issue,passing some sort of law to make some people feel better for no real reason other than feelings.Feel good laws and regulations just add to the continued loss of Freedom.Did a lot of guys feel bad when they could only catch 4 and the neighbor came home with 6?It makes no real difference to me either way I can manage to bring home what I want or I decide I need.Im just picking on those that think we continue to need more rules,laws,and regulations, a very large majority of which are based on feelings.I have seen it said many times nobody needs 6 fish,ok ya won!So whats next?No one needs sidescan?Gps?livebait,depthfinders,electric motors?Some are so lazy they cant even toss an anchor out anylonger so they need spotlock.Which one should be regulated next?Sure would make me feel better to see some of these lazy mans tools removed or regulated even if it didnt improve fishing or the resource.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
