The DNR is going to have a public forum on the Mille Lacs situation at the New Brighton Community Center Thursday night. Here’s your chance to voice your questions or concerns with the MNDNR. I think I will be heading up there from the south metro if anyone wants to tag along.
http://www.kare11.com/story/news/local/2014/08/27/dnr-meeting-lake-mille-lacs-walleye/14674413/
There are a few of us planning to attend. See this thread
>>> http://www.in-depthoutdoors.com/community/forums/topic/mille-lacs-reproduction/
I would expect they will want to keep on topic and tell their story. I’m interested in what they have found out and what plans they have going forward.
-J.
Lord I’m glad I’m not the DNR personnel that’s attending that meeting.
Found this on the Mille Lacs Messenger website. Looks like a similar meeting was held on August 21. (No location mentioned)
http://www.messagemedia.co/millelacs/outdoors/article_4f67db28-2d37-11e4-8b3e-0017a43b2370.html
The Department of Natural Resources held a public meeting on Thursday, Aug. 21 on walleye reproduction in Mille Lacs Lake.
The purpose of the meeting was to share biological information and answer citizen questions related to past, present and future walleye reproduction.
The meeting format was designed to offer information, and take questions from those in attendance. According to Tom Jones, treaty coordinator for the DNR in Aitkin, future meetings will be held on timely Mille Lacs topics and offer a chance for public interaction.
As treaty coordinator, Jones assesses data taken from Mille Lacs Lake. His job is technical, he deals with biology of the lake, not policy issues. He was the large lake specialist from 1998 until about a year and a half ago.
Jones led the meeting with data on walleye reproduction and recruitment. Jones said the first fall measure of the year class is a good measure of reproduction. “Reproduction is the number of eggs that hatch. Recruitment is the number of fish that survive to a specified age or size,” he said.
He brought up elements of a strong walleye population, including: 1) Abundance – are there enough walleye? 2) Size – is there a strong population of all sizes and ages of fish? 3) Harvest – can we harvest fish?
And he talked about a weakened population of walleye possibly caused by: 1) Fish mortality, too many fish in one or more segments of the population. 2) Natural mortality. 3) Poor recruitment, there must be high enough recruitment of each class of fish to continue a healthy population.
Jones said there is a natural mortality of 45 percent between hatch and 1-year-old walleye. The percentage goes down each year a walleye lives, to about 4 or 5 years old.
The big question was, “Is there a problem with walleye reproduction in Mille Lacs Lake?”
Jones said the DNR looks at changes in the assessment from gill net catches over time. They look at survival rates and conclusions.
Jones had a slide show of data to support what he said. His data concluded an annual reproduction of walleye seems much higher after 2000 than before 2000. Therefore there is no problem with walleye reproduction.
His next statement was that survival rates of juvenile walleye have declined. The decline involves sizes that wouldn’t be affected by angling, tribal netting or spearing.
Jones then posed the question, “Why is juvenile walleye survival lower?” He offered a few options to consider including: unintended effect of netting, cannibalism, predatory loss, altered forage, more large female and fewer male, increased competition between small and large walleye, bioenergetics, reduced productivity of the lake, climate change and its effects on the food chain, invasive species of Eurasian watermilfoil, spiney waterflea and zebra mussels.
What the data supports is the survival of walleye from their first fall to their second fall is much smaller than it used to be, and there are five times as many age 0 now.
The DNR will look at protection of remaining walleye, alternate harvest opportunities, improvements to creel surveys, improvements to population models, population estimates bioenergetics study, invasive species monitoring and a “Blue-ribbon” panel. The Blue-ribbon panel will look over the data the DNR has gathered to this point and look for anything they have missed or misinterpreted, Jones said.
Jones said years ago he never saw a smaller walleye in the stomach of a large walleye. He said he sees that now.
Questions
Jones was asked why the DNR doesn’t stop netting during spawning. He answered that netting during the spawn is not a problem because of the number of walleye taken. Data shows reproduction isn’t affected by netting, he said.
Though there are a high number of males that have been taken, there are enough to fertilize the spawn, he added.
He also said some Band members have gone to spearing to control the size of fish they take. Jones said he feels netting mortality is not that big of an issue, there are bigger issues.
Jones was asked about the DNR’s electrofishing activity and how that affects fish. He said in a very rare instance, a large fish could have its spine broken by electro-fishing. While electro-fishing, they are close to shore and the area that gets the current is 8 to 10 feet wide. “We don’t encounter 90 percent of the fish,” Jones said.
When the DNR puts out their creel nets, they try to keep the nets in the same habitat from year to year to get a consistent count. If the water is high, they may have to move the nets to get a consistent depth.
Jones said the population of fish in the lake is about 30 percent post 2000 than it was before 2000.
Regarding predation, Jones said he found walleye were a very small part of muskie diet. They prefer tullibee, which is a high energy fish that is easier to eat. After the meeting Jones explained that walleye are a spiney fish. They have the ability to stick up their dorsal fin and make themselves unpleasant to eat. Jones also said yellow perch are an exception. According to Jones, there aren’t many muskie out there, maybe 2,000 to 3,000. They aren’t that much of an issue to the walleye.
Jones said that he thinks there isn’t just one thing that can be changed, but a combination. But the management should be consistent. Options should be given a chance to make a difference.
See next week’s Messenger for comments from the audience. If you would like to comment, email [email protected] or call Diane at (320) 676-3123.
I asked the author where the meeting was held.
The Aug. 21 meeting was held at the high school in Isle.
folks here is your chance to see first hand how all the questions get answered.
write them down ahead of time and be prepared! I attended the meeting held last week in Isle. They shared some well prepared graphs that showed the decline of the walleye in the lake.
Make sure and have the time to attend this meeting and ask your questions………
please report back!
Just a heads up. Keep your questions to reproduction matters. They won’t take questions regarding treaty, netting, expectations.
Isle was a dry run for the DNR on what to say and how to handle the questions and most importantly how to avoid embarrassing and controversial subjects. New Brighton will be a much more polished and pointed presentation.
So who went and what are your thoughts?
I agree with u Bk.
that guys going to get a ear full.
I went. First off it was disappointing to see the low turnout especially after reading on various forums about the number of people that said they were going. The presenter did a good job and I found the information very informative. There was a question brought up about stocking and he did a good job of explaining why it wouldn’t make sense for Mille Lacs. He also talked about why stripping eggs from tribal netted Walleyes doesn’t make sense and I agree with him. The most alarming data they showed and it’s well documented that there are not enough male Walleyes and fish in the 15-20″ range. The entire walleye population is down, but there seems to be a higher number of 20″ fish than the historic average. From all the data I saw, my proposal is to encourage people to harvest Northern Pike and allow some harvest of 20″+ Walleyes. Netting should be stopped for atleast a year and anglers should not be allowed to harvest any Walleyes under 20 inches. I think this would go a long way towards balancing the lake.
To stop the netting would require shutting the lake down to all fishing for a year.
That’s it???? Fife was the only guy from the site to go? Very disappointing.
Thanks for the update Fife. Brian, I know for myself just about any other week and I’d have been there but we were out of town for the long labor day weekend… Judging by traffic quite a few others were doing the same.
Will
I was fairly interesting in seeing the presentation until I found the info on the meeting in Isle. I expected this one to be a re-run. Also, pretty disappointed (Also a little ticked off) at this statement from the Isle meeting:
Jones was asked why the DNR doesn’t stop netting during spawning. He answered that netting during the spawn is not a problem….
I’m really beginning to believe these people have no clue what is going on and really have no interest in admitting they have it wrong.
Edit – adding the following thoughts on this.
Let me elaborate on my last comment.
First, every DNR official who has made that comment has no real data to back it up. I always ask this question every time any DNR official makes the statement. Including Don Pereria who I asked this question to twice. No reply. Don’t believe me, try sending him an email or leave him a message on his voice mail. He will not respond to the question.
“Ok, if tribal netting has no detrimental effects on the walleye population, why do we have special regs on the lake? Remember, special regs were implemented due to tribal netting. “
You will never get an answer to the question. Why? Because the DNR will never admit failure to do their jobs. In other words, if tribal netting is really not a problem, then the ever changing special regs are indeed the root of every single problem in the lake today. Constant pounding on specific year classes into near extinction solely to comply with a court ordered harvest limit. This goes against any and all biological thinking in my book. So for years now, the DNR has not done their job in lake management. They failed to recognized an impending collapse was headed our way. All due to tribal netting. All due to DNR mismanagement from the top down. There will be no fix anytime soon if this process continues.
-J.
I’m one to be as critical of the netting and DNR as any, but the presenter Jones made some great points. I’m going to assume the question meant tribal netting during the spawn. The DNR information shows that the nets primarily catch males and that the number of eggs harvested with the females caught in the net is insignificant to the overall picture. All the data shows that the eggs are hatching and the lake is at record highs for reproduction, so it’s safe to say that netting females during the spawn is not likely the issue. Do the nets disturb spawning activity? Maybe, but the data shows reproduction is great right now.
In the second meeting I posed the question “Your data shows that the number of males from 15-20″ has dropped off dramatically and way below the historic average. Could this be caused by males being over harvested by tribal netting and angling because they grow slower than females at that age and therefore remain in the harvestable slot longer?” He answered it very straightforward with a simple yes. He went on to say that females generally go from 15″ to over 20″ in a couple years compared to males that stay in that range for atleast 3 years.
The DNR knows that the nets target males and they know that the slot limits in the past targeted males. No matter if tribal netting occurs in Spring, Summer, or Fall, the size of the mesh on the nets is designed to catch fish in that 15-20″ range. It’s easy for the DNR to tell anglers not to harvest a certain size fish, but I’m not sure how they could regulate size of fish caught in the nets.
I am going off of information that was presented by the DNR. If someone else has data showing why tribal netting DURING THE SPAWN is hurting the lake I would like to hear it.
Simply put, many of us believe the DNR tribal netting data is wrong. Grossly understated by possibly millions of pounds. I would love to see the DNR turn over the tracking to a private firm and have every tribal netting access point monitored 24/7. Use actual weights and measurements for EVERY SINGLE fish taken by the nets. Until that happens, the DNR has a long way to go in changing my mind.
-J.
I don’t have data but common sense tells me that……..
If over the last 15 years ANY females have been netted ( and we know they have ) those netted females are not laying eggs. None, zero, zip , nada. Now why is that so hard to understand? Netting female walleyes BEFORE the spawn in effect is killing thousands if not millions of fry.
Also, this YOY crap they are feeding you is a new term they developed last year when they realized the AIS scare wasn’t going to work.
I was at the Isle meeting. I saw first hand that not even Jones could translate the graphs so they made sense.
Ask yourselves this….. For the 20 years prior to netting the fishery was healthy with a slot of one over 20″.What changed?
Go into the meetings understanding that there is a agenda. Be open minded and use common sense and logic and the kool-aid becomes a bit clearer.
I agree that netting needs to stop because it is unfair for one small group to harvest way more fish than they need and then have it negatively effect the general public. I also agree and know for a fact that more fish are harvested by tribal netting than what is being reported(it could be happening with angling too). For these reasons I would like to see the netting stopped.
In response to playing the netting during the spawn card, I have thought it was a bad argument from the first time I heard it. Now after going to the meeting I feel the same way. There is just no data to show netting during the spawn as opposed to other times of the year has an effect on the population(talk about drinking the kool-aid). We can be skeptical of the DNR and their numbers but those graphs were easy to understand and each graph backed up the same findings. The presenter Jones is a scientist not a politician. I find it hard to believe that he would stay at a job that required him to play with fake data all day.
There is something wrong with the lake and it was caused by slot limits, netting, and environmental factors. Let’s figure out how to get the lake back in good shape.
How can netting during the spawn not be detrimental to the lake? These are female fish that will NEVER spawn, ever! How can anybody say it doesn’t effect the population?
Why do the bands need to netting during the spawn? Push the netting and hook & line back 2 weeks.
You are correct that netting isn’t the only issue facing the lake. But until that issue is faced the others don’t matter either.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
