Download
1 / 8
80 likes | 88 Vues
This article compares the angling regulations in Minnesota and Wisconsin in 2012, focusing on walleye, panfish, bass, and other species. It discusses the different size categories, slots, minimums, and bag limits in each state, as well as the overall management approach. The article also highlights the differences in simplicity, local control, and response to AIS (Aquatic Invasive Species).
E N D
Minnesota vs. Wisconsin Comparison of Angling Regulations 2012
Walleye-Special Regs. Minnesota Wisconsin 7 Size categories 3 slots ( 14-18”, 1>14”, 20-28”)-126 waters 4 minimums* (0,18, 20,28”)-94 waters 5 bag categories (0-3)- many waters, yearly-dependant on Treaty Harvest *default min. = 15” **default bag = 5 • 12 Size categories-37 waters • 9 slots- 33 waters • 3 minimums* (15, 16, 17 inch)- 4 waters • 3 bag categories -(2-4)**-16 waters • * default min. = 6” • **default bag = 6
NP-Special Regs. Minnesota Wisconsin 3 Size categories-all min. (26,32,40”)- 50 waters No slots 1 bag (0= C/R)- 1 water • 7 Size categories- 99 waters • 5 Slots- 89 waters • 2 minimums (30, 40”)- 10 waters • 2 bags (0,1)- 4 waters
Panfish-Special Regs. Minnesota Wisconsin Aggregate* 3 bag categories (10, 15, none)- 31 waters and 1 county 2 size categories (8, 10”)-3 waters • By species- 60+ waters • Sunfish- 3 bag categories (0, 5,10)- 50 waters • Crappie-2 size categories(10,11”)- 13 waters • Crappie-3 bag categories (0,5,10)- 28 waters • Perch- 1 bag category (10)-2 waters
Bass-Special Regs. Minnesota Wisconsin Aggregate 2 spp. 2 zones- 6 weeks later north ½ 4min. sizes (0,16,18,22”) on 74 waters C/on 3 waters 3 slots on 15 waters C/R water with C/R season north zone Species separate- 3 waters *default • Separate species • 2 zones- 2 weeks later northeast ¼ • LMB- 16 C/R and three 3 bag waters; 3 slots on 25 waters; 21” min. on 2 waters • SMB- 4 C/R; 3 slots on 10 waters; 21” min. on 2 waters • 5 bag aggregate both spp.-1 water only • *default
Summary • Minnesota more progressive on slots, quality panfish by species, bass by species, trophy northern pike and walleye, categories linked to management objectives, ease, timeliness, and local control in the application process. • Wisconsin’s approval process is extremely cumbersome and drawn out. One year turn-around in Mn. vs. 4 -6 years in Wi.. So, Wi. local manager has a less than adequate tool box and cannot easily or quickly access it.
Summary, continued • Wisconsin led the way in category system concept in late 80s. Minnesota took our ideas and ran with them. After our 1996 Reorganization, we slowed way down, hardly developing any new categories and putting few waters in them. • Although Wisconsin managers can be faulted for their process they have been quicker to recognize the importance of OPPORTUNITY, along with the myth of value added for LMB-Walleye. Both states are still influenced by “protect moms and babies dogma” relative to bass zones and seasons. • Minnesota is nowhere near as reactionary to the threat of AIS as Wisconsin. The Minnesota. Pamphlet emphasizes what you can do, as opposed to Wisconsin’s “thou shalt not..!” • Minnesota managers can be faulted for not using their diverse and easily accessible tool box, enough. If I had had the Mn. Rules tool-box as easily accessible to me, there would be many more diverse angling opportunities in Sawyer County than there are now, and maybe even more than there are in the entire state of Minnesota, now. • Wisconsin managers and sportsmen can be faulted for not recognizing and not working hard enough to correct the top-down central control process, and replacing it with one more responsive to their needs. Sportsmen have consistently voted for candidates who are cabinet-friendly. Managers have allowed politics to cloud their biology. Neither has lobbied for angling as Big Business. Nowhere else is angling such Big Business as in these two states. • Having analyzed the two state’s regulations, side by side, I am now even more confident in my basic recommendations for rules reform: 1. Maximize opportunity be getting rid of all zones and seasons, and most gear restrictions. 2. Manage by species and lake categories of size/bag to provide diverse angling opportunities (not in one lake, but a geographic area). 3. Put the local control for rule selection back with the local biologist. 4.Refocus the democracy onto deciding all the Management Objectives. 5. Refocus the angler peer pressure ,which fueled the catch-release ethic, towards a mentorship network to pass the sport on to future generations. “Fish are biting- So exciting!” Frank Pratt (aka “Angler Bill), Feb. 12, 2012
Other-Effort/Gear/Simplicity • Effort- Mn. 1/2 lines vs. 3 lines. Gamefish season is 1-2 weeks shorter in Mn. Bass season is 3-4 weeks longer in Mn., though. • Fewer zones, refuges, and special seasons in Mn. • Motor Trolling- Legal statewide in Mn. But only in about ½ of Wi. • Can still spear NP in Mn. And tip-up for ice fishing has only been legal for less than 20 years in Mn.. • AIS in Mn. much more reasonable and less reactionary. • Both are “complex” and both pamphlets could be judged confusing. (I don’t think so). Tone is more “can” positive in Mn. pamphlet. • I do not include trout or muskellunge here. Wi. Trout regs. are better developed with more options. Wi. Musky regulations have more options but are way more liberal.
