Reducing Bag Limits:
Who wants it? Who needs it?
by Vern Wagner
Is the current six fish bag limit a problem? It is time to
ask if bag limits really need to be changed.
And what are the rationales
for this? With the current slot and bag limit restrictions on many of our
lakes it is almost impossible to catch or harvest, even just one or two
fish. Will limiting us from catching two less fish; have any redeeming
biological effects? Or is this just an opportunity to put feathers in a
hat? If we went from a six to four fish limit I suppose that visitors
coming to Minnesota would more easily claim that they “Got their limit”
but does this warrant the change? I assume one rationale for reducing the
bag limit is the "Social Conservation Ethic", but if you want to promote
Conservation Ethics, put a fish pole or shotgun in the hands of a young
person. True conservationism in Minnesota comes from being afield, not
from reading research papers or changing dates and adjusting limit sizes.
On the other hand the DNR’s Budget Oversight Committee has stated that:
Social trends show declining interest in fishing, hunting and other nature
type activities. An example is in the 1970s, 40 percent of Minnesotans age
16 and over went fishing; today that number is at only 29 percent.
Problem: If these trends keep at their current levels, there is a chance
that by 2015 there will be 100,000 fewer anglers which will result in
fewer licenses being sold and in turn may result in lost of U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service funds.
(Citizen Oversight Report on Game & Fish Fund
Expenditures FY 2006)
So, the questions that need to be asked, is how does reducing bag limits,
changing opener dates and reduced license fees address our actual
problems?
Perception is big in politics, “sound bites” get more media and radio talk
show press then complicated problems and solutions. We need to ask if
lowering the price, limiting the bag, or changing the dates really has any
scientific or biological basis for better fish management. Personally I’d
be willing to pay more each year for a Fishing Conservation License that
would allow me to practice catch and release year round.
We need to find more ways to keep young people interested in our hunting
and fishing traditions. Recently a national kids fishing program made this
announcement: Due to changing corporate priorities and market conditions,
our key partners have chosen to devote their resources elsewhere and our
efforts to secure new alliances have been unsuccessful. Unfortunately this
seems to be the future for fishing if our numbers continue to decline.
Loss of aquatic habitat has much more to do with sustainable fish
populations, then fishing limits might. While the hook and bullet groups
want to argue about who is getting more of the hunting/fishing license fee
dollars, the elephant in the living room is public access to lands and
waters.
Minnesota has generally three types of lakes, classified by the amount of
habitat in them and then reclassified by size. A one size fits all
approach may not address the aquatic diversity present.
Another issue that may come up again in 2008 is lead fishing tackle. And
while the focus seems to be on its toxicity, our many fish consumption
advisories come from mercury pollution, not from ˝ oz spinnerbaits stuck
in trees. For the last few years, I’ve been switching over to non-lead
tackle, and find that it is actually better made and I seem to catch more
fish with it. Should lead tackle be banned, or should we do a better job
selling the advantages of the other materials?
It is good that we are looking at surrounding States and asking if we are
missing the boat with some of our fishing programs. Maybe we do need a
public debate on these issues? However declaring new rules by legislative
edict can be a slippery slope. I hope as anglers, our voices are heard and
that our fishing and hunting regulations aren't just window dressings in a
legislative conference room. .
Vern Wagner
vwagner_mnbf@hotmail.com
Vern,
Your real punch line is this: "So, the questions that need to be asked
are how does reducing bag limits, changing opener dates, and reduced
license fees address our actual problems?"
Does anyone really believe that eliminating license requirements for
kids 16 to 18 will have any significant impact? Are there 100,000 new
'n eager 16-year-old "recruits" to fishing just waiting out
there--ready to descend on our lakes and streams, straining at their
leashes to become future license-buying "consituents" and
"stakeholders," for the few bucks that a license would cost? Do you
know anyone who turns her or his back to fishing and hunting because of
the license costs?
And who, inside and outside state agencies, worked with Sen. Chaudhary
to come up with this package?
Joe Fellegy
I think its safe to assume that the following will likely be
set in motion at the Roundtable.
The bag limits issue will come up again and a committee will be formed. Despite
the fact that specific Fishing Advisory groups have been meeting with the DNR
this year and these are not their recommendations.
If the Walleye bag is reduced, you can almost be assured that they will also
reduce the Bass limit to four.
While changing the Walleye opener to match Wisconsin’s may not be a bad idea,
the chances of changing the Bass opener are more risky, since it is widely held
that Bass spawn later. We would need to prove that it wouldn’t reduce the
population. Other Northern states have reached the conclusion that a closed
season is not biologically sound and made season changes that support catch and
release.. The MN DNR has been adamant to consider it.
Vern Wagner
vwagner_mnbf@hotmail.com
If you would like to comment on the above, send us an email at
Classic Bass.
