MINNEAPOLIS — Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) fisheries section chief Brad Parsons supports reducing the statewide walleye limit from six to four. The agency is accepting public comment until March 5, and an administrative law judge ultimately might decide whether the change should occur.

In another major change affecting Minnesota anglers, which started Feb. 23, year-round catch-and-release bass fishing is legal in Minnesota.

Parsons discusses both issues in the interview below, which has been edited for length and clarity.

— Q: The public comment period on the DNR proposed statewide walleye limit reduction from six to four ends March 5. But the DNR has shopped the lower-limit idea to walleye anglers for years.

— A: We have. From 2021 to 2023, we conducted more than 4,000 on-the-water interviews with anglers about the proposal. We also did a statewide angler survey in 2023, and an online survey last year. In each, the majority of anglers favored the idea. This official comment period that ends March 5 is different, however. It’s a legal requirement of our rule-making process.

— Q: How many comments have you had so far, and how do they break down?

— A: More than 1,000 people have commented (as of last Thursday). We haven’t categorized the comments yet, but we will.

— Q: Commenters can also request a hearing on the idea. If 50 commenters make that request, the DNR will have to take the proposal before an administrative law judge.

— A: We’ll have to present to the judge a statement of need for the proposal and explain its reasonableness. We’ll have to demonstrate that we followed the rules to make the change and that we have the science to support it.

— Q: There’s little doubt enough commenters will request a hearing and that the proposal will end up before a judge, right?

— A: It’s likely. But again, we haven’t looked at all the comments yet.

— Q: Critics, including some retired DNR fisheries managers, say there’s no scientific justification for the walleye limit reduction. Their basic argument is that the six-walleye limit isn’t harming Minnesota walleye populations and that a cut to four won’t help them.

— A: We disagree. Minnesota’s walleye limit hasn’t changed since 1956, and just about everything regarding fishing has changed in the years since. Winter anglers have better cold-weather gear and more mobile fish houses, allowing them to fish longer. Electronics have obviously changed. Our fisheries and lake systems also have changed and continue to change. Climate change is affecting lakes, as are invasive species. There’s a lot of good, peer-reviewed literature that talks about the effects of these changes on walleyes, and it’s not positive.

— Q: Some critics also argue that walleye management differs from, say, bluegill and northern-pike management, where the issue is size, not numbers. For walleyes the challenge more often isn’t size but recruitment, or adding to a population. And, the argument goes, because increased walleye recruitment can sometimes be sparked by increased angler harvests — counterintuitive as that might sound — removing local fisheries managers’ options to increase anglers’ limits might hurt walleye populations in certain lakes.

— A: Local fisheries managers have never made those decisions without others in the section weighing in. We believe a statewide limit of four walleyes won’t affect our ability to manage individual lakes as needed.

— Q: Of Minnesota’s 10 large walleye lakes, only two, Winnibigoshish and Cass, have six-walleye limits, and those would go to four if the change happens. The other eight large walleye lakes — with the exception of Mille Lacs and Upper Red, which we’ll get to in a minute — already have four-walleye limits. Winnie in particular seems to be doing OK with a six-walleye limit. Have you heard from resorts there whether they support the limit cut or not?

— A: Some don’t like the idea. But when we went to four walleyes on the state’s other large lakes it didn’t hurt resort businesses.

— Q: Some resorts, along with some anglers, are OK with the cut to four walleyes, but would like to have a possession limit of six. What do you think about that idea?

— A: It will get consideration in the process. Our belief, though, is that most people who visit Minnesota resorts are coming for the overall experience, and less so for the number of fish they can keep.

— Q: Why aren’t Upper Red and Mille Lacs affected by the proposed rule change?

— A: Both are managed by us in cooperation with Native American bands and as such are governed by what we call “commissioner’s orders.” In each lake, walleye harvests are determined by population assessments we do with the bands, and we can’t exceed certain harvest quotas.

— Q: The regulation change wouldn’t affect Minnesota border waters. Why not?

— A: Minnesota and Canada have cooperative harvest regulations that both have agreed to for shared waters. The existing Minnesota walleye and sauger combination limit on Lake of the Woods, for example, would stay at six, with no more than four being walleyes. Walleye regulations on waters that Minnesota shares with North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa and Wisconsin also would stay what they are now. Common regulations established in cooperation with bordering resource managers reduce confusion for both managers and anglers on those waters.

— Q: If the walleye limit is cut, when will it take effect?

— A: March 1, 2027.

— Q: On another fisheries topic, as of Feb. 23, for the first time, catch-and-release bass fishing is now open year-round in Minnesota — though the bass harvest seasons remain the same.

— A: When the idea of having year-round bass fishing was first proposed a couple of years ago, I wasn’t a big supporter. But I’ve talked to a lot of bass anglers, and most support the idea. Opening bass angling to catch-and-release fishing year-round, while keeping harvest seasons the same, won’t hurt the fishery, while increasing opportunity for anglers.

— Q: In support of the idea, Minnesota bass anglers have complained for a long time that they’ve had to go to other states to fish before the season opens in Minnesota.

— A: Wisconsin is a good example. They have continuous catch-and-release bass fishing, and I know a lot of our anglers fish there in early spring. Now they won’t have to.

— Q: The Mille Lacs smallmouth fishery is world-class and is visited by anglers from throughout the Midwest and South, in addition to Minnesota. The new season won’t affect it?

— A: Protecting that bass fishery is critically important, and this new regulation shouldn’t affect it negatively.

____

©2026 The Minnesota Star Tribune. Visit at startribune.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.