May 1, 2025 "Reader Poll Gauges Support For MN DNR Walleye Limit Reduction Plan"

For me, knowing what’s on the minds of my fellow anglers and fishing customers is important. In fact, you could say that my livelihood depends on it. I must admit though, I can’t always understand why folks believe what they believe. That’s been especially true during the ongoing 8-year mission to reduce the possession limit for walleyes statewide. I can only imagine that for MN DNR fisheries managers, understanding angler expectations has got to be an important factor in managing Minnesota’s walleye regulations too.

Seeking knowledge, I offered fellow FishRapper.com readers who support the limit reduction proposal to participate in a survey. Over the past week, a total of 189 supporters of the MN DNR proposal to reduce Minnesota’s walleye possession provided their input. The sample size is not huge, but it is meaningful because readers who wanted to participate in the survey were required to jump through a few hoops to opine.

Unlike most click and submit surveys, participants were required to request the poll via email, complete the survey and then return their answers, again via email. The reader participation poll, while not a scientific one, does qualify as an above-average effort to gather meaningful insight into why supporters of the rule change believe that it will help. The response, I believe, exceeded my expectations. Most participants provided well-reasoned and thoughtful comments.

Responding to question 1, “Assuming that if a proposed statewide limit reduction from 6 walleye, down to 4 walleyes in possession passes, do you anticipate an improvement to the quality of walleye fishing in Minnesota?” As the chart, "Angler Expects Improved Walleye Fishing" upper left shows, 57% of the respondents said yes, they expect better walleye fishing if the regulation passed. Saying no, were about 43% of those polled.

Anglers were next asked to rank their future expectations in order of importance to them. To create the accompanying pie chart, results were weighted according to the rank each angler provided. There were 5 questions, so a rank of 1 was give a score of 5 points, a rank of 2 was given 4, and so on.

Looking at the chart, "Angler Expectations Ranked In Order of Importance" it’s clear to see that there is some expectation of better walleye fishing among supporters. But most readers would apparently also be satisfied if the quality of their walleye fishing were simply to stay the same. For them, the expectation of better walleye fishing means that they would continue to catch the same number of fish they already do, but reduce the overall harvest in the hopes of sustained fishing at current levels. Obviously, the orange shaded portion of the chart shows that there aren’t many folks who expect to catch larger walleyes going forward.

The purple shaded section represents anglers who submitted additional comments rather than ranking the options presented. There are common threads running through most of the comments, so I won’t include all of them. The ones listed here are representative of the most often provided input from readers of this poll.

Okay, so reading the poll results so far, a casual observer could easily get the impression that most supporters of the walleye limit reductions are against harvesting walleyes in general. That would seem to square up with a lot of the "us vs them, freezer filler vs release angler" rhetoric that we see on display over the so-called social media pages. However, that Impression, according to this survey, appears to be inaccurate.

Question 3 asks simply, “When I fish for walleye, my primary goal is to: A) Harvest some or all fish that I catch for eating or B) Release most or all fish that I catch for conservation?” A look at the chart titled, “Primary Angling Goal” reveals that only about 24% of respondents report releasing all, or most of the walleyes that they catch. Conversely, a whopping 71% say that they harvest some, or all of the walleyes that they catch. So, if I'm reading the results correctly, most walleye anglers do want to harvest fish for the table; that's the good news.

The troubling idea is one that would square up with certain of those low tolerance "social" media comments. Another interpretation of the high percentage of anglers who harvest walleyes, but support restrictions, could indicate that they want to keep their walleyes, they just don't want you to keep yours. But let's not go down that road right now.

Here are some results that are going to make certain MN DNR fisheries managers a bit uncomfortable. The reason for discomfort is revealed in the accompanying chart titled “Walleye Populations Most Threatened Because?"

Clearly, the widespread availability of “Too Much Technology” was most often blamed for fueling angler's fears about what they perceive to be over pressured walleye populations in Minnesota lakes.

Secondarily, walleye mortality caused by catch and release angling scores high on the list of concerns voiced by backers of the reduction plan. Many believe that fish caught multiple times, mis-handled by anglers, or pursued in deep water are subject to mortality rates that are higher than we realize. Walleye mortality isn't easy to prove, but we do know that it exists. So, proponents of the reduction plan use terms like "proactive" or "preemptive" when they call for reducing limits to mitigate fish mortality.

Supported by additional comments included by poll responders, is a widely held belief that without intervention, a combination of forward-facing sonar and catch and release mortality are pointing Minnesota’s quality of fishing in the wrong direction. Further supported by additional comments included among poll responders, is a widely held belief that without intervention, a combination of forward-facing sonar and catch and release mortality are pointing Minnesota’s quality of fishing in the wrong direction.

Many poll responders appear to agree that there are too many walleyes already being harvested in Minnesota. What they don’t necessarily agree about is who the primary offenders are. Of the 189 participants, about 19% say local anglers catch too many walleyes, while about 16% say that the non-resident anglers catch more than their fair share. Another 13% point the finger at professional anglers and fishing guides as the primary troublemakers.

The section below offers comments from poll respondents. Like I said, these reflect some of the most common sentiments. So, don't be offended if you sent comments and don't see them listed here. They may be used at a later time if follow up articles require additional commentary.

As you may expect, my public offer to supporters of the walleye reduction rules to participate in this poll generated some "alternative commentary" from non-supporters of the propsed rule. While I do plan on sharing some of those comments with you, I think it’s too soon to do that right now. We're still waiting for the official MN DNR walleye limit plan to even be announced and what if it's different than we think? That's why I think we should wait, see what it says, and if it calls for a formal response, do it with clarity.

I imagine too that some of you might share comments generated by this article and the poll results. You already know how to reach me, so don’t be shy. OH and by the way, if you do send comments, please save us an extra email message session and let me know ahead of time if I have permission to share yours in the reports. — Jeff Sundin, The Early Bird Fishing Guide Office Cell Call or Text 218-245-9858 or Email on Facebook on X

POLL RETURN COMMENTS: More Reader Walleye Limit Reduction Discussion

1) "I agree that the limit should be reduced to 4, but I am concerned that the change may restrict biologists/managers from changing future limits up or down. However I think too much emphasis by fisher people is being put on catching and keeping a limit rather than just catching fish and having a good day. I have heard podcast from ND & SD fisheries biologists that they have studies that show fisher people use limit numbers as benchmarks and achieving that benchmark is a success regardless of what that value is.
I am also in support of a 4 fish daily limit with 6 fish total possession limit.
Please feel free to use my name and or comments."

2) "In my opinion, I don't think that you can point to just one factor. We all share responsibility. Local anglers catch their share of fish, both in the summer and winter. Ice Castles camp on the best spots all ice fishing season and people often fish 24/7. Non-residents spend money as tourists and want a return in walleyes for their investment. People hire professional anglers to put them on fish and they, too, often want a return on their money in fillets. Increased technology obviously plays a role, but it is much harder to "draw a line". But, we have to figure out where the concept of "fair chase" lies. I am an "average Joe" and I take immense pride in figuring out where the fish and animals are going to be. I hunted for twelve days last year before shooting a buck I deemed worthy of harvesting. What fun would it have been to have a drone fly over our land and tell me where the deer were holding on day one? It is the same with FFS and walleye fishing, at least for me. Hooking mortality also plays a role."

3) "Couple of my thoughts: I do find it interesting that my trips to Canada with their reduced limits generally has better fishing numbers. Even on connected waters–Rainy - LOW..."

"... I also have concerns about guides that fish daily and have clients with limit expectations. Guides often are “connected” with other guides to hot bites. Many have the latest technology and will fill out the limits for guests in the event the guest isn’t that proficient. I’m even more concerned with the more vulnerable crappie populations and their sustainability to barotrauma."

4) "I do not expect walleye fishing to improve much by reducing to 4 walleye unless the possession is 4 fish also then yes. My opinion would ideally be a 3 fish daily limit. Typically I keep 2 walleye for dinner, and rarely do I freeze fish. In the last 12 months with more anglers using Livescope I would say answer D is almost equal..."

"... If this was a crappie survey D would be my answer. Lots of dead crappie on my lake this year from people "live scoping" in deep water which leads to people releasing smaller fish that die in order to keep 5 larger crappie. FYI , I do have a live scope myself and I would gladly give it up if everyone else did."

5) "I think in the future, as the cost of FFS goes down it will be detrimental to the walleye populations."

6) "The DNR has tried size restrictions and limits on bodies of water with other species and generally found it to have little or no impact on the the overall health or population of what they are trying to restrict. Generally fish walleyes to eat but tend to throw small ones <14/15 inches and >20 back..kinda depends on the body of water. Regarding question 4, I personally do not think any of these options are overlly detrimental to the overall walleye populations, technology has its moments but at the end of the day, if the fish don't want to bite they ain't gonna bite. Like the two line debate..who cares how many lines you have if you can only keep so many?..."

"... I think some people just have to put their jelousy aside, grow up and stop trying to control everybody and stop using the regulations as legislative bargaining chips. Also on another note...I wish the DNR would stop using the state as their little science lab and quit trying to micromanage every aspect of the natural resources..I travel to many other states fishing and hunting and I would have to say we here in Minnesota have the worst DNR and resources in relation to the money that is spent by fisherman and hunters....they try to be everything to everyone and fail at most."