New Statewide Walleye Limit?

Most of the commercial walleye comes from the big lakes in Manitoba with some possibly being harvested on Lake Erie. Not sure about Ontario …

I go to restaurants with out of state friends and corporate visitors on occasion and walleye is often selected if we are at the right place. I usually have something else, but on a rare occasion I indulge too. There are a couple places that do an excellent job.

I have not seen any grocery store packaging or a statement at a restaurant that is noting the walleye being served is from Minnesota (or the ML Band or Red Lake Band). If the natives are dispersing or selling walleye outside of their tribal membership – I have not seen evidence of it.

Is the native harvest occurring in Minnesota anywhere beyond Lake Mill Lacs or Red Lake ?

Brittman wrote:

I have not seen any grocery store packaging or a statement at a restaurant that is noting the walleye being served is from Minnesota (or the ML Band or Red Lake Band). If the natives are dispersing or selling walleye outside of their tribal membership – I have not seen evidence of it.

Sorry, don’t want to get too far off topic, but….

I’ve seen Red Lake walleye in stores here in the TC. You can order Red Lake walleye on-line at >>> http://www.redlakewalleye.com/product/walleye-5lb-fresh-frozen/

(When in stock of course)

-J.

fishthumper wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Bearcat89 wrote:</div>
In that case I should have shot 15 deer because I like to give it to friends and family.

There is no current possission limit on deer. So if you want to keep a deer in your freezer from one year to the next to give to Friends and family go ahead.
I don’t see a problem of having family and friends over for a meal off of 1 deer, I do see a slight problem with doing so on a possession limit of 4 <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>walleyes or 10 Panfish.

Maybe take a family member or friend fishing……..

We have a grocery store that sells Red Lake Walleye and Mille Lacs Wild Rice and a few other large local manufacturing things. They looked farm raised to me with every fillet being the large filets you see in restaraunts. I think we even have a restaraunt that has their walleye labeled as Red Lake Walleye on the menu.

Lindner brought up our current technology as being something that has made overfishing a real possibility. I’d be fine with a simple flasher being the only tech tool allowed on the ice, including augers and the fancy wheelhouses. Many anglers have simply gotten too lazy to actually think of how to catch fish. I know people today who would travel 200 miles to ice fish and pack up and come home if a battery died in one of their many conveniences. Too many people have lost touch with what ice fishing should be about.

Brittman wrote:

If the natives are dispersing or selling walleye outside of their tribal membership – I have not seen evidence of it.

Is the native harvest occurring in Minnesota anywhere beyond Lake Mill Lacs or Red Lake ?

Look up Operation Squarehook. Tribal members net many lakes in northern MN, but the big ones Mille Lacs, Leech, Winnie, Cass, Vermillion get the lions share of it. These are not supposed to be for commercial sale only subsistence and to share with elders, but some are sold commercially to at least some degree. The only licensed commercial sale of walleye in MN is from the Red Lake tribe, and my understanding is those walleye are taken from Lower Red Lake.

3Rivers wrote:

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.

I’ve long been in favor for reducing the walleye limit for exactly the reason Darren lays out here.

If they implemented a 4 fish limit with one over 18″, they could toss out 90%+ of the special walleye regs statewide. KISS

And I’m glad no one has mentioned minimum length requirements either, those only encourage targeted harvest and actively damage class structures in fish populations.

Gimme two lines state wide while we’re at it, too!

3Rivers wrote:

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.

I know this guy, he is the same guy that lives on Facebook, jumps on Chat rooms to ask random people questions but cant figure out how to search google for an instruction manual or fishing regulation.

Pro tip; Google.com – search “insert lake name here” fishing regulation. The Minnesota DNR reg. book PDF version will pop up. Then god forbid the guy will have to read it.

Jimmy Jones wrote:

Lindner brought up our current technology as being something that has made overfishing a real possibility. I’d be fine with a simple flasher being the only tech tool allowed on the ice, including augers and the fancy wheelhouses. Many anglers have simply gotten too lazy to actually think of how to catch fish. I know people today who would travel 200 miles to ice fish and pack up and come home if a battery died in one of their many conveniences. Too many people have lost touch with what ice fishing should be about.

And the industry as a whole would slowly die. Including Mr Linders business.

Thanks for sharing.

Red Lake Reservation is certainly an independent “nation” compared to the other reservations in MN.

I rarely look at walleye at a grocery store, but on occasion have bought some … usually when we are making fish tacos. They seem to be fine for that purpose.

Ripjiggen wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Jimmy Jones wrote:</div>
Lindner brought up our current technology as being something that has made overfishing a real possibility. I’d be fine with a simple flasher being the only tech tool allowed on the ice, including augers and the fancy wheelhouses. Many anglers have simply gotten too lazy to actually think of how to catch fish. I know people today who would travel 200 miles to ice fish and pack up and come home if a battery died in one of their many conveniences. Too many people have lost touch with what ice fishing should be about.

And the industry as a whole would slowly die. Including Mr Linders business.

I’m really starting to get the sense that many really only desire fishing, hunting, or what have you, to be for themselves, and that they would be perfectly fine being literally the only ones allowed to partake in those activities. I mean thanks there Jimmy, cuz of the auto-immune arthritis I just got diagnosed with I can’t turn the hand auger? (spoon? Not sure how you are getting through the ice without any sort of implement but sure) so I guess no ice fishing for me then, huh? Guess we should go back to handlines and chisels. Honestly, if I had the power to set the law, I’d designate rules for naturally reproducing waters, and laws for stocked waters and clearly designate which are which and why. C/R guys, or those that don’t really care about harvest go to one type, and people interested in fish to eat to the other. Protect trophy quality and prioritize habitat creation on “natural” lakes and liberalize harvest on those lakes that cannot support native populations, while stocking them to a level that can support increased harvest. Enough of this being everything to everyone and enough of the stupid bickering about who’s the “true sportsman” and “how many fish do you need”? Accept that others don’t necessarily share one’s views about what ice fishing, or fishing in general, are “supposed to be about” and move on with one’s life.

Sorry about the diagnosis Wildlifeguy. So you know, I do not ice fish. Haven’t for about ten years.

Jimmy Jones wrote:

Lindner brought up our current technology as being something that has made overfishing a real possibility. I’d be fine with a simple flasher being the only tech tool allowed on the ice, including augers and the fancy wheelhouses. Many anglers have simply gotten too lazy to actually think of how to catch fish. I know people today who would travel 200 miles to ice fish and pack up and come home if a battery died in one of their many conveniences. Too many people have lost touch with what ice fishing should be about.

So you know, I do not ice fish. Haven’t for about ten years.

Irony.

In that Linder video, all of the guest speakers seemed to imply all of this additional or new fishing pressure from Wheel Houses and FF Sonar will ruin fishing as we know it today. And therefore we need to reduce limits. I still don’t get the message. The limit is the limit, no matter how many fish you catch or how many hours you are spending fishing. I would like to hear an expanded discussion on this topic. Are fish dying from C&R at an unacceptable rate? Is there some “Wink and a nod” notion out there that most just disregard the limits? If that is the case, lowering limits will change nothing. Seems like if wheelhouses and FF Sonar is the problem, regulate the problem!

Also seems to me “The good old days” of fishing are happening now. Is a lower limit needed? Again, none of us have seen any studies supporting the idea. Seems like this is simply a feel good thing to do. And again, I’d really like to know if the DNR actually has the authority to change state wide limits or does this indeed need to go through the legislature as has been done in the past.

And for all of you guys “OK with a 4 fish limit” at the whim of the DNR. Then what about a 2 fish or 1 fish limit? What about tight slots? I point this out as a long time Mille Lacs angler. I watched the regs go from 6 fish limit in the 90’s to a one fish limit with a tight slot today with no biological facts to support the changes. Think it can’t happen state wide? Think again!

-J.

Jon Jordan wrote:

And for all of you guys “OK with a 4 fish limit” at the whim of the DNR. Then what about a 2 fish or 1 fish limit? What about tight slots? I point this out as a long time Mille Lacs angler. I watched the regs go from 6 fish limit in the 90’s to a one fish limit with a tight slot today with no biological facts to support the changes. Think it can’t happen? Think again!

-J.

Pretty solid point. This is about where I stand. On Mille Lacs, they’ve drastically reduced the limits only to claim that hooking mortality is taking the majority of the fish. Wut?

Then they go and say that there’s a forage problem. There’s an ecosystem problem with the introduction of zeebs. There’s a climate problem affecting reproduction. These are all DNR claims as to why the population is declining yet the solution is to reduce limits? Sure it’s a logical assumption but show me how the take home harvest is actually affecting the lake.

Same here. Show me how it’s going to improve fishing.

Jon Jordan wrote:

Seems like if wheelhouses

At least this winter, mother nature will regulate that one on its own.

biggill wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Jon Jordan wrote:</div>
And for all of you guys “OK with a 4 fish limit” at the whim of the DNR. Then what about a 2 fish or 1 fish limit? What about tight slots? I point this out as a long time Mille Lacs angler. I watched the regs go from 6 fish limit in the 90’s to a one fish limit with a tight slot today with no biological facts to support the changes. Think it can’t happen? Think again!

-J.

Pretty solid point. This is about where I stand. On Mille Lacs, they’ve drastically reduced the limits only to claim that hooking mortality is taking the majority of the fish. Wut?

Then they go and say that there’s a forage problem. There’s an ecosystem problem with the introduction of zeebs. There’s a climate problem affecting reproduction. These are all DNR claims as to why the population is declining yet the solution is to reduce limits? Sure it’s a logical assumption but show me how the take home harvest is actually affecting the lake.

Same here. Show me how it’s going to improve fishing.

Great points by both of you, and it’s my stance as well. Also for anyone thinking the wheel houses are ruining the fishing world. Most of the guys I know must just suck at fishing because we are not taking limits of fish on most if not all outings. I catch more fish running around with a portable, but I’m getting lazy and enjoy my time in the house.

I finally had time to watch the Linder video. Here’s the tally:

People in Fishing Related Business – 3

Fishing Guides – 5

Fisheries Manager – 1

Looks like they’re just looking out for the own industries. We’ve had all the high tech stuff for how many years now. I don’t think lakes are being drained of walleyes.
I wouldn’t care if the limit changed because I keep <20 walleyes a year. But if it does change, do it for the right biological reasons.

Netguy, so the ones who have been benefitting the most off a public resource for decades what a change? Hmmm. That makes a lot of sense. Goes back to what I have said for a LONG time, tax the guides and other similar people who profit off it and then use that for stocking efforts. I know there are a lot of good guides, some even on here, who take money out of their own pocket and stock the lakes they target. I doubt many of these others do the same. I dont want to name names on who does it, but I know he is here and he seems like a great dude.

For those against reduced limits:

1. Why is the metro area largely fished out / full of stunted fish?(Don’t bother giving me outside examples of your metro success) Talking about panfish and walleye not sport fish.

2. Why is it the further north you go the fishing quality generally improves as there is less people? You can keep going all the way into Canada where they have WAY less people and lots of self-imposed conservation rules which reduce harvest? And freshwater fishing in Canada is about as good as it gets.

Seems pretty simple to me.

lindyrig79 wrote:

Why is the metro area largely fished out / full of stunted fish?(Don’t bother giving me outside examples of your metro success) Talking about panfish and walleye not sport fish.

I’m not against reduced bag limits, as I’ve already stated.

But I would like to point out that Pool 2 does seem to produce some darn good fish, both quantity, and certainly quality. And it lies right in the heart of the metro. We’ve got a thread here devoted to it and its regularly added to with good fish.

Maybe the fact that its fully required C & R has made it what it is, or there is a lot less pressure there than other spots…like Pool 4 where you can keep walleyes/saugers. Aka no meat hunters.

Just an observation. Take it as you want.

lindyrig79 wrote:

For those against reduced limits:

1. Why is the metro area largely fished out / full of stunted fish?(Don’t bother giving me outside examples of your metro success) Talking about panfish and walleye not sport fish.

2. Why is it the further north you go the fishing quality generally improves as there is less people? You can keep going all the way into Canada where they have WAY less people and lots of self-imposed conservation rules which reduce harvest? And freshwater fishing in Canada is about as good as it gets.

Seems pretty simple to me.

Do you have any academic proof of anything your saying or is the hearsay that you don’t want to hear exactly what your saying? I have terrible success up north until I hit the Canada border and pull fish all day long (sometimes) here at home. But I have never heard of a study on fish size in the metro compared to Outstate or Up North.

Rivverat you could always look at the DNR surveys and find out that the size structure on the norm in the metro area is not very good.

Also, not against reducing the limits. My opinion and at least a few others is to stop lying to us by saying it’s going to preserve the future or improve the fishing.

It seems to me some sort of feel-good self promotion on the part of the Linder group and quite a few others. There is literally nothing to support that claim. When it doesn’t pan out, what’s next?

I also don’t think reducing limits on put-and-take lakes is almost completely pointless. They stock 100s of thousands of fry and fingerlings in some of these lakes. The main factor of survival is simply the weather conditions and the ecosystem of the lake. A few hundred or a few thousand more fish taken from a lake like that is not going to have any affect on the future of the fishery whatsoever.

Lets just be logical and honest about it. I know, that’s a big ask.

lindyrig79 wrote:

For those against reduced limits:

1. Why is the metro area largely fished out / full of stunted fish?(Don’t bother giving me outside examples of your metro success) Talking about panfish and walleye not sport fish.

2. Why is it the further north you go the fishing quality generally improves as there is less people? You can keep going all the way into Canada where they have WAY less people and lots of self-imposed conservation rules which reduce harvest? And freshwater fishing in Canada is about as good as it gets.

Seems pretty simple to me.

I would guess lake habitat specifically natural lake shore has just as much if not more to do with it than people.
Since this is about the walleye limit. Not many lakes in the metro naturally reproduce walleye. A fraction of stocked fish make it to adulthood. The further north you go the more natural reproduction happens.
I doubt 6 to 4 fish will make a significant difference.

CaptainMusky wrote:

Rivverat you could always look at the DNR surveys and find out that the size structure on the norm in the metro area is not very good.

Do you think changing the walleye limit is going to change that?
Serious question. Not trying to start anything.

CaptainMusky wrote:

Rivverat you could always look at the DNR surveys and find out that the size structure on the norm in the metro area is not very good.

I did. I’m not strictly trying to be an ass, I would read those papers before bed every night if they were available. Surveys only show fish types. Creel Surveys are more in depth but don’t cover a lot of lakes and they are spread out over various years. I would fish based on this science if it where available. And it would be fun because I would bet it shows that temp and waterbody type have more to do with it than population region taking me all over the state.

I think the DNR should just pay people to buy fish. So when you come off the lake with not keeping any walleyes the creel person gives you a check so you can go to the store and buy your fish.