New Statewide Walleye Limit?

  • Eelpoutguy
    Farmington, Outing
    Posts: 9822
    #2248345

    DNR explores a weighty walleye change: reducing the state’s daily bag limit
    The proposal failed at the Legislature, but the DNR might try to cut the take-home limit from six fish to four using its own rule-making authority

    By Tony Kennedy Star Tribune JANUARY 18, 2024 — 5:29AM
    Changing the walleye limit doesn’t appear feasible this year, a state official said, but is possible for the 2025-26 fishing season.
    DAVID JOLES, STAR TRIBUNE
    Changing the walleye limit doesn’t appear feasible this year, a state official said, but is possible for the 2025-26 fishing season.
    A movement to slash Minnesota’s statewide walleye bag limit from six fish to four is percolating once again inside the Department of Natural Resources, more than a year after the Legislature tossed the idea overboard.

    Certain to shake up emotions within the state’s universe of anglers, resorts, fishing guides, cabin owners, bait shops, fishing clubs and millions of homespun fish fry lovers, DNR leaders are pursuing the possibility of a major walleye regulation change without going to the Capitol.

    DNR Fisheries Chief Brad Parsons said in a recent interview that the agency can reduce the daily take-home limit of walleyes through its rule-making authority. He said the DNR is considering launching such a bid.

    “The department is interested in exploring it,” said Parsons, who supports a reduced walleye bag limit.

    Serious legwork already has begun. The latest public opinion survey on the matter, still under wraps, will be shared soon with the 19-member state walleye committee. Over about the past five years, the citizens advisory group has repeatedly touched on the walleye bag issue — with discord. On Feb. 21, the committee will discuss the idea in detail. Is it reasonable to require license buyers to keep fewer walleyes? Will it help preserve or grow walleye populations?

    Parsons said changing the limit isn’t feasible this year, but it’s a possibility for the 2025-2026 fishing season, or later. A shift of such magnitude would require substantial public input, he said, probably involving open meetings around the state.

    “Stuff has gotten heated in the past,” said Nate Blasing, a walleye committee member who works as a fishing guide in the Brainerd area. “We need to take a stance. … Give us the data on how the public is feeling and then let’s make a recommendation that either, yes, we’re in favor or, no, we are not.”
    Blasing and most members of the advisory committee stand squarely in the “yes” camp. Many of them aligned themselves with former state Sen. Carrie Ruud, R-Breezy Point, when she carried a bill at the Legislature for three consecutive years, starting in 2020. Eventually backed by DNR, she championed her proposed reduction in the walleye bag limit as an important tool to proactively protect walleye populations from modern-day threats like aquatic invasive species, climate change and intensified year-round fishing pressure from anglers armed with advanced fishing electronics.

    Ruud’s bill was repeatedly shot down, once by a powerful member of her own caucus and once by a DFL House committee chairman whose home district is lined with fishing resorts that were opposed to a smaller bag limit. The senator’s campaign died in 2022, when she exited the Legislature.

    Ruud said last week that she’s aware of the DNR’s rule-making focus on possibly lowering the daily catch limit from six to four. “I sure hope we get there,” Ruud said. “We pound the heck out of our walleyes.”

    Parsons said that the statewide walleye possession limit could come into play as discussions continue. Possession limits, unlike daily bag limits, cap how many fish a licensed angler can possess — regardless of when they were caught. Since 1966 in Minnesota, that number for walleyes has been six.

    He said DNR creel clerks have been asking anglers if they would favor an increase in the possession limit if the daily bag limit were reduced.

    ‘Not even a shred’ of evidence
    Jim Justesen is the self-proclaimed “data dog” on the state walleye committee. An avid fisherman who lives in Brooklyn Center and maintains a lake cabin up north, he steadfastly opposes a reduction in the walleye bag limit. There’s simply no scientific justification to make a change, he said. “Not even a shred,” he added.

    Justesen keeps tabs on DNR lake survey data, obtained in part from fish-netting surveys on about 1,000 lakes actively managed by DNR’s fisheries staff. “I’m seeing in my own reviews that walleye counts are going up,” he said. “If you take this [bag] limit down, you are just going to reduce opportunities” for people who buy fishing licenses.

    At least two other committee members share Justesen’s view. One of them is Karry Kyllo, a global positioning satellite specialist and fishing enthusiast who lives in East Grand Forks. He’s told fellow committee members he won’t go along with a reduced walleye bag limit until the DNR’s own lake and fish biologists say it would help walleye populations. So far, there’s nothing close to a consensus for any change.

    “We have some of the best walleye biologists in the country,” Kyllo said. “Let’s let them do their jobs.”

    Paul Radomski, a DNR research scientist who wrote a book on walleyes in 2022, has said that global warming and shoreline destruction are the walleye’s primary threats. Cutting the bag limit would do nothing to address those problems and wouldn’t save a measurable number of fish, he has said.

    He and other scientists have said most walleye fishing outings result in two walleyes per angler or less. Catching a limit of six is out of the ordinary across Minnesota and remains a badge of honor, at least for one day.

    Justesen said a 1996 creel survey of anglers leaving Lake Winnibigoshish recorded an astonishingly low success rate. Of 14,000 people surveyed, only 143 caught their limit of six.

    Walleye committee member Gary Korsgaden of Park Rapids, who writes a fishing column, said it was frustrating to watch DNR executives support a change in the walleye bag limit at the Legislature. If they now try to cut the bag limit via administrative rule-making, the agency will neglect its pledge to “follow the science” on fish and game matters, Korsgaden said.

    “I’ve asked at three of our meetings … what walleye fisheries are in trouble? What lakes are in peril? Where’s the problem?” Korsgaden said. “I get no comment.”

    Parsons and Blasing say it’s risky to stand pat in the increasingly dynamic world of fishing. Zebra mussels and other invasives are degrading more and more walleye lakes; anglers are improving their success rates with the use of underwater imaging equipment; winter fishing pressure has grown along with sales of camper-like wheelhouses; and continuing research is raising concerns that climate change is squeezing walleyes out of ideal habitat.

    “We want to be proactive,” Parsons said. “You can sit and study it to death.”

    Except Lake Winnibigoshish, all of Minnesota’s biggest walleye lakes have been assigned lower walleye bag limits based on lake-specific research. Parsons said it’s not feasible to duplicate the research on hundreds of additional lakes, so why not go to a more uniform approach. In doing so, he said, Minnesota would follow in the footsteps taken by neighboring states and Ontario.

    He said the DNR didn’t rely on science when it established the daily bag limit of six more than 50 years ago and it’s had recent success enhancing crappie fishing by cutting the daily bag limit in half.

    If the DNR takes a stab at changing the walleye bag limit, Parsons said, public feedback will be critical. In previous opinion surveys, a third of respondents have favored a lower limit, a third have opposed it and a third have no opinion.

    “When you make a major change on something high profile … it takes a lot of effort,” Parsons said. “Are anglers ready for it? Are they supportive of it?”

    Parsons noted that discussions about a lower walleye bag limit have been going on inside and outside the DNR for about seven years. He remembers presenting the idea in 2017 or 2018 at the annual DNR Roundtable. This year’s Roundtable will be held Friday in Bloomington.

    “This hasn’t happened overnight,” Parsons said.

    gimruis
    Plymouth, MN
    Posts: 14853
    #2248349

    Honestly I’d be more inclined to reduce panfish limits. I feel like they get more pressure because of a continuous year round season.

    TillrLife
    Cold Spring, MN
    Posts: 509
    #2248351

    He and other scientists have said most walleye fishing outings result in two walleyes per angler or less. Catching a limit of six is out of the ordinary across Minnesota and remains a badge of honor, at least for one day

    This is a comical statement. And IMO shows how disconnected some of these people are with fishing. There are many lakes in MN where catching a (6) fish limit can be done before noon.

    Lower the bag limit and put a statewide minimum and slot limit and call it a day.

    Increasing the possession limit sounds like a decent idea.

    Netguy
    Minnetonka
    Posts: 2444
    #2248352

    Justesen said a 1996 creel survey of anglers leaving Lake Winnibigoshish recorded an astonishingly low success rate. Of 14,000 people surveyed, only 143 caught their limit of six.

    They cite a 27-28 year old survey. rotflol

    Walleye limit on LOW is 4 and on Upper Red it is 3-4. People still go fish those lakes. My guess is those restrictions were put on to protect the walleye fishery. Recently the LOW sauger limit was reduced to protect the sauger fishery.

    Being a retired scientist I would say follow the data. If the data shows it would improve the walleye fisheries, then do it. Plenty of other fish to keep for a fish fry.

    biggill
    East Bethel, MN
    Posts: 11297
    #2248355

    I’m so tired of this argument when it always completely ignores the fact that a huge percentage of walleye lakes in MN cannot support a viable walleye population without aggressive stocking. Why should limits be reduced when it wouldn’t provide a shred of benefit to those that can’t even support natural reproduction? In those cases the health of the walleye population is solely dependent on the survival of stocked fish.

    I’d support reducing limits on lakes where natural reproduction is the primary source. Otherwise, a reduction of limits on put and take lakes is ridiculous.

    TillrLife
    Cold Spring, MN
    Posts: 509
    #2248356

    Honestly I’d be more inclined to reduce panfish limits. I feel like they get more pressure because of a continuous year round season.

    Heck, I thought they already lowered the limit on gills. I just looked it’s still 20. I guess they just limited it to specific lakes. The lake my cabin is on, is at (5). Honestly, I wish they would also put some sort of slot on gills as well. My neighbor keeps every fish he catches, regardless of size, 6″-10″+.

    CaptainMusky
    Posts: 19317
    #2248357

    I’d support reducing limits on lakes where natural reproduction is the primary source. Otherwise, a reduction of limits on put and take lakes is ridiculous.

    Im not so sure about this scenario. The lakes that are stocked with walleyes are considered by many to be “put and take” lakes where you put them in and take them out. Natural reproduction lakes I dont think are the same and things are never taken into account are success rate of the spawn because we all know that each year isnt the greatest for reproduction. I will have to ponder this more.
    Personally I havent kept a limit of walleyes (except from LOW) in decades so it wouldnt affect me at all.

    phoyem
    Minneapolis
    Posts: 341
    #2248358

    Wouldn’t affect me, but I just think of those guys with young families that get to go on 1 or 2 fishing weekends a year. It’d be nice to bring home 6 fish if you’re gone fishing for 2-3 days.

    I think 4 fish would make more sense if MN made your possession limit twice your daily limit like WI does.

    John Rasmussen
    Blaine
    Posts: 5341
    #2248365

    Will this mean we can keep 4 on Mille Lacs? Then I’m all for it. whistling

    ganderpike
    Alexandria
    Posts: 997
    #2248379

    Reduce limit to 4 per person and remove possession limits.

    The common saying “10% of the anglers catch 90% of the fish” just is not true. If I can go catch 15 walleyes in a night (I suck), I can only imagine what the better anglers are doing with their LVS.

    I’m a big follow the data guy, but 6 walleyes is just a wild amount for one person.

    buckybadger
    Upper Midwest
    Posts: 7237
    #2248391

    0 impact on me. I fish Pool 4 where the limit is already 4. When I do fish other places I have no issue with the reduction either. I can see the argument that science should be involved in the decision, but realistically there’s no feasible way to do in-depth studies for every lake that holds walleyes in MN.

    I don’t buy the BS from resorts or politicians saying the reduction would hurt business… as LOTW, URL, and Ontario have people paying top dollar to go there and fish at resorts or with outfitters for 4 or less fish per day. People pay money to go places where they can catch fish, period.

    I would be fine with the possession limit being doubled as the daily bag goes down (but highly doubt it will happen).

    Hoyt4
    NULL
    Posts: 1164
    #2248393

    Red was 5 before winter fishing. I would be fine with dropping to 5 and upping the posession limit in freezer.

    Rodwork
    Farmington, MN
    Posts: 3783
    #2248400

    Eelpoutguy wrote:
    Justesen said a 1996 creel survey of anglers leaving Lake Winnibigoshish recorded an astonishingly low success rate. Of 14,000 people surveyed, only 143 caught their limit of six.

    They cite a 27-28 year old survey.

    Live scope came out in 2018 if I remember correctly and has helped many anglers increase their catch rate. Heck in 1996 many boats didn’t even have GPS.
    I said this before. I am in favor for dropping the daily and double possession limit.

    They should do a new survey.
    6 walleye with one line in the summer or 4 walleye and you can have 2 line in the summer.

    BigWerm
    SW Metro
    Posts: 10221
    #2248401

    Are we not following the science anymore? whistling chased Personally I don’t really care, 4 or 6 fish is more than enough to feed my family of 4. And a big fish fry at the cabin would just need a couple anglers limits, and tbh those usually are comprised of panfish, northerns and walleye. And as of yet, I haven’t had anyone be able to tell the difference when they are all chunked up to panfish size pieces.

    Ripjiggen
    Posts: 10527
    #2248406

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>gimruis wrote:</div>
    Honestly I’d be more inclined to reduce panfish limits. I feel like they get more pressure because of a continuous year round season.

    Heck, I thought they already lowered the limit on gills. I just looked it’s still 20. I guess they just limited it to specific lakes. The lake my cabin is on, is at (5). Honestly, I wish they would also put some sort of slot on gills as well. My neighbor keeps every fish he catches, regardless of size, 6″-10″+.

    I have a feeling he would still do the same with or without a slot.

    big_g
    Isle, MN
    Posts: 21845
    #2248409

    Will this mean we can keep 4 on Mille Lacs? Then I’m all for it. whistling

    No their scientists have that all figured out already ! waytogo doah

    John Rasmussen
    Blaine
    Posts: 5341
    #2248410

    Was the Karry Kyllo mentioned in the article the one on here?

    mnfisherman18
    Posts: 348
    #2248413

    Fully support the shift from 6 to 4, should have been done a while ago.

    10klakes
    Posts: 384
    #2248419

    Support reducing Walleye limits and panfish limits state wide.

    Stanley
    Posts: 804
    #2248422

    Like Bucky I don’t buy the BS about how it will hurt the resorts. If it’s a statewide limit people will go to places that have the best catch rate if they are truly after limits. For me personally I could care less about coming home with limits and care more about catching fish. I would rather fish a lake like mille lacs and catch 50 fish in a day and come home with 0 or 1 fish than fish a lake I can keep 6 and struggle to get my limit just because I can keep 6.

    fishthumper
    Sartell, MN.
    Posts: 10723
    #2248423

    Like others I ‘m fine with a daily lower limit as long as the possession limit is at least double the daily limit. The only problem I’ve seen with lower daily limits is that often then people target an keep larger fish to make up for it. Say for example people who would have keep 6 14″ fish now will focus on 4 17-18″ fish instead. I see that all the time now on lakes with lower panfish limits.

    wormdunker
    Posts: 530
    #2248424

    100% in support of reduced bags to 4. I am also good with the bag being possession as well.

    Brian Klawitter
    Keymaster
    Minnesota/Wisconsin Mississippi River
    Posts: 59940
    #2248428

    4 eys state wide along with 2 lines! Wait! I think the DNR is seeing that coming!

    3Rivers
    Posts: 940
    #2248432

    Regardless of what the final number is, I would rather support aligned regulations statewide in an attempt to make it less confusing for the weekend angler. The confusing regulations is actually hurting angler recruitment and I’ve heard from many first hand that they are very frustrated trying to figure out the regulations for every lake they try to fish. Instead, they just won’t go.

    Micromanaging every pond and stream with their own set of rules is not helping.

    Jon Jordan
    Keymaster
    St. Paul, Mn
    Posts: 5595
    #2248433

    DNR Fisheries Chief Brad Parsons said in a recent interview that the agency can reduce the daily take-home limit of walleyes through its rule-making authority. He said the DNR is considering launching such a bid.

    The DNR either has the authority or it doesn’t. I’d be interested in the facts here.

    Give us the data on how the public is feeling and then let’s make a recommendation that either, yes, we’re in favor or, no, we are not.”

    So they are making decisions based on the publics feeling? How about a study to see if the change is biologically needed?

    -J.

    Ripjiggen
    Posts: 10527
    #2248434

    Regardless of what the final number is, I would rather support aligned regulations statewide in an attempt to make it less confusing for the weekend angler. The confusing regulations is actually hurting angler recruitment and I’ve heard from many first hand that they are very frustrated trying to figure out the regulations for every lake they try to fish. Instead, they just won’t

    I find the recruitment part hard to believe, even though I agree there are to many restrictions. This however will not change slot sizes on lakes. So I guess if it is too confusing for those NEW fisherman to google a lake then I am fine with them staying home.

    4 or 6 doesn’t really change much for me. I honestly doubt it changes things much overall.
    It probably just makes the regs more uniform.

    biggill
    East Bethel, MN
    Posts: 11297
    #2248435

    So they are making decisions based on the publics feeling? How about a study to see if the change is biologically needed?

    -J.

    This. Although, I actually don’t have a problem reducing the limit based off public preference. The issue I have is that we keep getting told it’s to preserve the walleye fisheries for the future without any scientific support for that whatsoever.

    Again, lakes with walleye populations supported mainly by natural reproduction, great! Otherwise, stop misrepresenting the reason for the change as something scientific when it clearly isn’t.

    Make 3 classifications for walleye lakes. 1. Lakes with natural reproduction. 2. Lakes supported mainly by stocking. 3. Special regulation lakes.

    #3 will always be changing based on recent surveys. #1 & #2 would have different regulations and remain static.

    BigWerm
    SW Metro
    Posts: 10221
    #2248437

    Paul Radomski, a DNR research scientist who wrote a book on walleyes in 2022, has said…Cutting the bag limit…wouldn’t save a measurable number of fish.

    BigWerm
    SW Metro
    Posts: 10221
    #2248439

    Regardless of what the final number is, I would rather support aligned regulations statewide in an attempt to make it less confusing for the weekend angler. The confusing regulations is actually hurting angler recruitment and I’ve heard from many first hand that they are very frustrated trying to figure out the regulations for every lake they try to fish. Instead, they just won’t go.

    Micromanaging every pond and stream with their own set of rules is not helping.

    100000% Darren.

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 88 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.