Nate Blasing is president of the Walleye Alliance, a Brainerd-based group that wants the Legislature to cut Minnesota's walleye limit from six to four. Blasing, 43, is a part-time fishing guide and University of Minnesota Duluth graduate who studied environmental science and communications. In the interview below, he explains why his group wants to lower the state's walleye limit.
Q: Describe the Walleye Alliance.
A: We're a 4-year-old group whose members include resort owners, guides, tournament anglers and others. Our mission is to educate, conserve and promote responsible walleye fishing. We have between 400 and 600 members. We sponsor a couple of tournaments a year and hold a fundraising banquet.
Q: Are Brainerd area lakes your primary focus?
A: We're based out of Brainerd. But we have statewide concerns.
Q: How do you rate Brainerd area walleye fishing?
A: It's pretty good. But a lot of the more popular lakes in the area have zebra mussels, including Gull, Pelican, North Long and the Whitefish Chain. These lakes also get a lot of fishing pressure. Area guides started finding some years ago that it was harder to catch walleyes consistently. So we formed the Alliance and started meeting with DNR fisheries managers. We've since learned we don't have a lot of natural walleye reproduction in area lakes and instead depend a lot on stocking. The DNR has historically stocked most of the lakes primarily with fry. The problem now appears to be that fry are not surviving because zebra mussels are taking away the fry's food source. Fingerling survive better but are much more expensive and can be hard to obtain.
Q: Are fingerlings commonly stocked in area lakes?
A: Somewhat. The DNR started on Gull with some fingerlings and has since worked on Pelican and Whitefish. Lake associations have helped, and our group has purchased fingerlings to supplement DNR stocking. Fall electro-shocking surveys show a decrease in young of the year walleyes in many lakes. In response the DNR has added fingerlings to try to stabilize walleye populations. DNR creel data show these lakes are harvested at unsustainable rates in some years. When the fry don't take there are several gaps in year classes for walleye populations.
Q: What's fishing pressure like on Brainerd lakes?
A: There's significant recreation use of our lakes. Fishing pressure is also high — more than I can ever remember. In midsummer, early morning or evening is when you have to fish to avoid recreation boaters. Years ago, our smaller lakes didn't have much pressure. Now it doesn't matter how early you get there, trucks and trailers are in the parking lots.
Q: Do you guide only for walleyes or all species?
A: Depending on the client, I'll fish for anything. Keeping fish is less important to people than catching them. In that respect, cutting the walleye limit will be a benefit because it will spread out the harvest, helping more people catch fish who otherwise wouldn't.
Q: How receptive has the DNR been to your concerns?
A: As receptive as they can be. But decisions they make have to be biologically sound. On some things we've had to push pretty hard. But overall, we've been happy.
Q; How did you get the limit-cutting bill before legislators?
A: Years ago some of us started talking about how we could get our voices heard. In time, we formed the Walleye Alliance and started talking to the DNR. Shortly thereafter we contacted our state senator, Carrie Ruud, and told her about the walleye problem as we saw it and asked her for help. She agreed to author the bill cutting the walleye limit. We think it's supported by a lot of anglers.
Q: The DNR's Walleye Work Group, which originally was called the Walleye Advisory Committee, has some members who also want a lower walleye limit.
A: Yes, but we weren't aware of them until three years ago at the DNR Roundtable. They wanted the DNR to do it by rule change. We chose the legislative route, supported by grass-roots anglers.
Q: Many DNR fisheries biologists oppose the change, saying it won't improve walleye populations.
A: But DNR management supports it. I met on Sunday with Commissioner Sarah Strommen ...
Q: On Sunday?
A: Yes, by Zoom and she expressed her support. I also appeared on a podcast with DNR fisheries chief Brad Parsons and he supported it. Many current DNR biologists also support it.
Q: What about fisheries biologists who say the limit would have to be cut to two or three to make a difference?
A: Simple math tells us four fish is less than six, so that's a savings. Also, Minnesota's six-fish limit, established in 1956, was based on a mix of social and biological considerations, so there's precedent for our proposal being based at least in part on angler support.
Q: But what if popular opinion argued that no walleyes should be kept, or even that sportfishing should be banned altogether? Isn't it a slippery slope to manage fish and wildlife by public opinion rather than by established standards based in science?
A: Most fishing limits are a combination of social and biological considerations. And our proposal isn't entirely socially driven. When you consider recent changes in water clarity due to zebra mussels and the new, advanced fish-finding technology that is absolutely scary how effective it can be, and other changes affecting fisheries in recent years, there is a scientific component to our proposal. I'll add that part of the DNR's job is to listen to stakeholders. It's not all about the numbers. The DNR has to take into account what the public wants.
Q: Then why not put all Minnesota fish and wildlife management to a vote, or to the whim of politicians rather that professionals? We already have a governor who awarded a teal-hunting season to his friends in southeast Minnesota against the recommendations of DNR waterfowl managers. Why not open it all up?
A: Keep in mind a small percentage of anglers catch most of the fish. I'm one of those anglers. If we're willing to give up some fish that we would otherwise catch so others can catch them, or at least have a chance at catching them, that's a good thing. The bottom line is a four-walleye limit with one allowed over 20 inches won't harm any lake and it might help some.
Q: Do you expect the bill to pass?
A: We're hopeful. When we talk to anglers about zebra mussels and fishing pressure and so forth, the proposal makes sense to them. Our goal is to ensure future generations have walleye fishing like we are accustomed to. It's why we need to be proactive rather than reactive to protect the resource.
Editor's note: To read a previously published interview with retired DNR area fisheries supervisor Gary Barnard of Bemidji, who holds an opposing viewpoint on cutting the walleye limit, go to https://tinyurl.com/46wherxe.
