Posts 1 through 10
for Reducing Walleye Bag from 6 to 4
|
| Reducing Walleye Bag from 6 to 4 - - -
13 messages.
Showing 1 through 10.
|
Go to page:
1
2
|
|
|
|
Daily Subscription |
Msg 1 Posted: 09:55 AM 03/07/08 (CST)
|
I went over and testified against this bill. There is a summary of my comments. If you would like to make a comment, please e-mail or call Senator Satveer S. Chaudhary (DFL) District 50 , 651.296.4334 sen.satveer.chaudhary@senate.mn
S.F. No. 3425, as introduced - 85th Legislative Session (2007-2008) Posted on Mar 03, 2008
14.24 Sec. 31. RULE AMENDMENTS.
14.25The commissioner of natural resources may use the good cause exemption under
14.26Minnesota Statutes, section 14.388, subdivision 1, clause (3), to amend Minnesota Rules,
14.27part 6262.0200, subpart 1, item G, to establish a daily and possession limit of four walleye
14.28and sauger in the aggregate. Minnesota Statutes, section 14.386, does not apply to the
14.29rulemaking under this section, except to the extent provided under Minnesota Statutes,
14.30section 14.388.
Seventeen is what percent of 10,000?
The DNR wants to reduce the statewide bag limit for Walleyes from six to four. They defend this by stating that anglers need this clarification. In review of the 2008 Fishing Regulations it appears that only seventeen lakes in Minnesota have reduced 4 fish walleye bags. This leaves more then 9,983 or more lakes that have the normal six fish limit. Wanting to drag the limit down to match 0.0017 % of the lakes is much more confusing to me. (We actually have many more then 10,000 lakes and hundreds of miles of fishable rivers and streams)
The DNR isn’t citing a biological, environmental or economic rationale for this change. The statewide walleye population is not in trouble nor does anything indicate that it will be. With angling interest seemingly in a decline, is this the right time for the DNR to be sending a negative impression about fishing in MN?
Tourism and economic prosperity need to be major considerations when messing with Walleye fishing. Just ask the Mille Lac’s Lake resorts, restaurants and anglers their thoughts on how the current management of the walleye population is affecting them. Hopefully a 33% reduction in possession won’t mean a 33% drop in visitors coming to Minnesota to fish.
Sportfishing in Minnesota creates an economic impact of over two billon dollars a year ( $2,636,975,002) we need to find ways to keep hunting and fishing in Minnesota vibrant.
Annually a DNR Roundtable is held to bring anglers and DNR fisheries staff together. Out of this came “fish (bass, walleye) workshops” And while the concept of a reduced walleye bag was discussed, this group did not endorse or come to a consensus on the regulation. Yet the DNR is proceeding. And what about public meetings, none were held or are being scheduled. Why ask the MN House and Senate to make fisheries management decisions when we have a qualified staff of DNR biologists and researchers to consult with?
Reducing bag limits has a very limited conservation effect. Angling success or failure doesn’t do much to affect fish populations (but angling can be a factor when combined with wholesale and wanton netting: Mille Lacs, Upper and Lower Red Lake). The DNR’s so-called “Fish Management practices based on Social Conservation issues” might have as much potential to turn off new anglers to fishing as it does to be an educational opportunity.
An argument for the reduction is that most anglers don’t often catch six fish, so they must not need more then four. But by making it four only, won’t this encourage anglers to keep the larger fish. With all our efforts to re-educate anglers to harvest to small fish, doesn’t the reduced bag contradict this?
Most anglers are conservation minded, you can’t spend time in the Outdoors without it becoming part of you. Tweaking bag limits to create an impression of Conservationism doesn’t address our major fishing problems. Habitat loss and youth recruitment needs to be our first priority.
Vern Wagner
Angler, River Rats Bass Club
5221 42nd Ave So
Minneapolis MN 55417
612-756-3474
Vwagner_mnbf@hotmail.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
Daily Subscription |
Msg 2 Posted: 11:19 AM 03/07/08 (CST)
|
14.18 Sec. 30. Minnesota Statutes 2006, section 97C.401, subdivision 2, is amended to read:
14.19 Subd. 2. Walleye; northern pike. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a person
14.20may take have no more than one walleye larger than 20 inches and one northern pike
14.21larger than 30 inches daily in possession.
14.22(b) The restrictions in paragraph (a) do not apply to boundary waters.
14.23EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective March 1, 2009.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Daily Subscription |
Msg 3 Posted: 11:33 AM 03/07/08 (CST)
|
I guess I need to ask you the question...
Why do you need to keep 6 walleye instead of 4?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Daily Subscription |
Msg 4 Posted: 11:50 AM 03/07/08 (CST)
|
Hey Bassville_Usa,
Welcome to My Fishing Pals. Glad to have you aboard!
I moved this over to the Contorversial forum, eh?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Daily Subscription |
Msg 5 Posted: 08:36 PM 03/08/08 (CST)
|
for me its hard to take either side. i took a trip to mille lacs this winter, and most of the resort owners had sad that the walleyes just werent biting, we didnt catch anything, and most people i talked to hadnt caught much either especially 6 per day. isnt the whole point of fishing besides having a good time to eat the fish you caught or go for the trophy. ive never eaten 6 walleyes in one sitting let alone 4, it seems now that people go fishing just to see how many more fish they can catch than their buddy. if you can catch 4 walleyes everyday that should be plenty enough to feed your family.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Daily Subscription |
Msg 6 Posted: 10:30 PM 03/08/08 (CST)
|
|
what will this do? it will do nothing, so why even have this bill. is there a lack of walleyes in this state they are trying to protect. I think not. they could use our money better by increasing the stocking if they are so wouried about the lack of walleyes. another stupid bill, by some dumb a.s.s. that knows nothing about the outdoors. let the biologist in the fisheries make that decision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Daily Subscription |
Msg 7 Posted: 10:01 PM 03/16/08 (CST)
|
|
Reducing daily bag limits should be left to the DNR. Slot limits have been successful on various lakes through the years. Eagle Lake in Ontario has seen a tremendous rebound in the walleye population since slots were instilled a number of years ago. The DNR can make the evaluation as to where and how to set a slot limit, not some politician looking for some kind of vote from the anti-hunt & Fish voting sector. It's not about numbers, it's about the size of the fish in those numbers that can affect fish populations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Daily Subscription |
Msg 8 Posted: 02:49 PM 03/17/08 (CST)
|
I agree with having the DNR do this. Isn't that what they are supposed to do? Please do not let any type of political hacks into the decision making for our lakes.
I can see it now... there will be paddleboats (mass transit) to get the fishermen out on the water because of boating congestion.
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Daily Subscription |
Msg 9 Posted: 09:34 PM 04/12/08 (CST)
|
A related story...
"There's no need for state to reduce six-walleye limit. The proposal that has moved closer to a floor vote in no way will benefit Minnesota's fishing resource."
More...
Moved closer to a floor vote? I guess they are taking this seriously.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Daily Subscription |
Msg 10 Posted: 09:38 PM 04/12/08 (CST)
|
I am really on the fence on this one. If it is going to help with the fisheries... why not? If it is our legislators just flexing their muscles to appease the tree huggers... what for?
Once again the oublic will never get the straight ****.
|
|
|
| Reducing Walleye Bag from 6 to 4 - - -
13 messages.
Showing 1 through 10.
|
Go to page:
1
2
|
|
|
