Since the start of the pandemic, the words “follow the science” have been uttered so many times by so many people on so many facets of so many issues, the directive has all but lost its meaning. On the mask/no mask issue alone, following the science means one thing one day and another the next.

Still, when it comes to how many walleyes a Minnesotan should be allowed to own, the science, so to speak, seems pretty clear.

The current threshold of six is ​​strong because on the rare occasion that an angler catches and retains that many walleye from a given lake or river, the walleye remaining in that water will not suffer the loss.

Why?

One reason is that very few anglers catch six walleye. In a 1996 study of Lake Winnibigoshish, for example, 14,000 anglers were interviewed and only about 140 claimed to have caught limits of six walleye.

Second, the daily fish catch limit in Minnesota is also the fish possession limit. This means that if you were lucky enough to catch six walleyes in one day, you wouldn’t be able to own six more until at least the next day, and only if the original six were eaten, given away, or legally disposed of.

This restriction is designed to deter anglers from catching multiple limits of six walleye when a lake experiences a “hot bite”, which occasionally occurs.

Also consider that the state’s 10 largest walleye lakes, which produce about 40 percent of the walleye caught by Minnesota anglers each year, are already almost exclusively governed by four walleye limits.

These include Cass, Kabetogama, Lake of the Woods, Leech, Mille Lacs, Pepin, Rainy, Upper Red, Vermilion and Winnibigoshish. On all of them, except “Winnie”, where the limit remains six, the limit is already four, as it is on about 100 other smaller lakes in Minnesota.

So if the state’s six walleye limit doesn’t hurt anything, why are some lawmakers, including Senator Carrie Ruud, R-Breezy Point and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) itself, back in favor of this legislative session cutting the limit from six walleyes to four?

Good question.

In fact, the limit would probably need to be reduced to three or maybe even two—which no one is in favor of—to have a measurable and positive impact on walleye populations.

DNR fisheries chief Brad Parsons acknowledges the lack of scientific justification for a change, but says the proposal reflects a growing feeling among many anglers that four walleyes is a sufficient limit.

So, rather than science-based regulatory adjustment, Parsons and other proponents of change say the idea is society-based.

In other words, the lower limit is what the angling public, or a supposed part of it, feels good about.

Yet regulatory changes like these represent a slippery slope that most fish and wildlife managers dare not tread.

Fishing, hunting and trapping seasons, as well as bag limits and participation times, are generally established by scientific means so that only the surplus of a population of game or fur-bearing animals, or a part of it is harvested, leaving its breeding stock to reproduce year after year. .

In some cases, social considerations enter and even dominate this matrix.

Wolves are an example. Within limits, they could be hunted and/or trapped in Minnesota without harming their population. To the west, grizzly bears could also be hunted within certain limits without harming their population.

Yet social considerations (until now) prevent the hunting of these species.

“Another reason to go walleye four,” Parsons said, “is to be proactive. We know our fisheries are under increasing pressure and angling methods, including the increased use of l electronics are improving all the time. So why not do something before the problems arise?”

In 2005, a group called the Minnesota Walleye Advisory Committee, founded by former MNR fisheries biologist Dick Sternberg, was formed to advocate for intensified walleye management. The group still exists and plays an important advisory role to the DNR.

Most board members are in favor of going to four gold, said committee member Jim Justesen. The reasons are varied, but chief among them is the belief that increasingly sophisticated walleye anglers are too often putting pressure on the resource.

Justesen is one of “two or three” members of the committee who oppose a change.

“There is no scientific evidence to support it,” he said. “It’s walleye stocking and our stocking strategies that can affect our walleye populations, and that’s what we should be focusing on, not the limit.”

Council member and fishing guide Tom Neustrom of Grand Rapids disagrees.

“Look at the electronics in use today and the number of anglers on our lakes who are very good at fishing,” he said. “There’s a lot of pressure on the resource, and not just in the summer, but also in the winter, with the advent of wheelhouses. If we don’t do something, it’s just going to deteriorate. Do we wait five years or do- We now? Let’s do something before it becomes a problem.

Henry Drewes, retired DNR Director of Fisheries in the Northwest Region, counters that if a walleye limit change is made, it should be done honestly.

“We (the DNR) usually make regulatory changes that are meant to make a difference,” Drewes said. “We identify the issues and define the goals we want to achieve with specific regulatory change. Going from six to four walleye, except perhaps on 1% of Minnesota’s walleye lakes, won’t change anything. It won’t make any difference. People should know that from the start.”

Retired Star Tribune outdoor columnist and “Minnesota Bound” television host Ron Schara acknowledges the lack of scientific justification for a change. But the proliferation of social media can swamp anglers in a heat-stricken lake, he says.

“I’ve seen lakes where walleyes were biting left and right and the next thing you know there are hordes of boats on those lakes,” he said.

Maybe, agrees Gary Korsgaden of Park Rapids. But if individual lakes need reduced limits for walleye, MNR already has the power to act.

“Four walleye is a feel-good thing that has no scientific backing,” Korsgaden said. “I fear we are heading to a point where it will be politically incorrect, or socially unacceptable, to keep fish and eat it. And that bothers me.”