Well definitely don’t try to engage in an actual discussion, that wouldn’t be constructive at all.
I think Will was looking for a few more pats on the back though, got any more creepy dude worship up your guys’ sleeve?
Note: Will was not looking for pats on the back.
Ok Phil, I worked the night shift and just got home a little while ago and was reading through this thread and you have been posting all kinds of unusual responses since just before noon yesterday, almost continuously. I don’t know…kinda strange. I know this is getting off topic but geez…
real-life-people-obsessed-people-paint-someones-popularity-online-ado.jpg
I’m not solely blaming anglers for the situation(and never was), just suggesting they could be part of the problem and that most refuse to be part of the solution. 99% of people fishing Mille Lacs aren’t interested in long term management/longevity of the lake, they are interested in limiting out the x# of weekends a year they fish there. This is your cue to misinterpret this as ‘everyone here is in that 99% even though I never suggested that and most are obviously in the 1%’.
THIS!!
Sure, the regs were part of the problem but they wouldn’t even be a problem if every person didn’t leave with a limit of fish (back in the early 2000’s).
Its the same thing as blaming the DNR for your deer area now being a lottery for doe tags when 3 years ago it was intensive harvest, now there are “no does”. Well, I WONDER why? Just because you CAN, doesn’t mean you SHOULD.
And we blame the millennials for “entitlement”. Hmm, I wonder where they learned it…
Phil, I completely agree with your assessment that anglers take alot of fish, and this really strikes to RR point as well that anglers go to lakes to bring back fish.
Fact-people like fish and keep fish to eat
Fact-over the years some threads have been started on those “over limiters”, and most all agree its such a small percentage that it’s negligible, so when it comes to the “fish taking” it comes down to how many people can legally take
Fact-the DNR has control of those limit/harvest numbers, and control of the slots if associated with them. Whether that harvest is hook, net, mortality, whatever, we are talking about the number of fish no longer existing in the lake.
Nobody is saying Mille lacs could be the lake of old. Perhaps it was more fertile without zeebs back then, perhaps the warmer water doesn’t allow for some of the preyfish, etc etc BUT the argument is it could be a heck of alot better than it is now(in regards to walleye harvest) because people want fish, even if it’s a few, and that’s what brings people to lakes and spend money on resorts, bait, dinner drinks etc.
You are attempting to blame the mass of anglers for a situation that they were given the legal ok to.
Not sure why you seem to have a bone to pick with Will, he doesn’t seem like the guy but did he bully you as a kid or what 
Nailed it Nhamm. So Will throws out a common sense approach and we are all kissing his arse’??? Shame on you Phil. The fact that you said that speaks volumes…RR
What am I supposed to do when I agree with RR, Will, and Phill?:???:
me: yeah, I don’t disagree, but I believe anglers have had an impact now and in the past as well
me: yeah, but there was large population drops in the past before the netting or dnr mismanagement how do we explain that?
Phil, the problem with this is pretty evident in the historical harvest rates. In the last 17 years since the netting and DNR slot was implemented the harvest levels have exceeded the historically worst years (1994, 1985, and 1981), 3 times in 1999, 2006 and 2007. So 14 of 17 years post netting/slot have been on par or below the historically worst years ever. In the prior 37 years there were just those 3 outlier low harvest years at or below 200k pound harvest. At the current rate, we may never see another +200k harvest from a lake that previously produced that 34 times in the prior 37 years. Not sure how the blame can fall on anglers for that, especially when the limit has been 2 fish or less with a very tight slot since May 11th 2013 (page 17 of the Blue Ribbon report)…
What am I supposed to do when I agree with RR, Will, and Phill?:???:
Easy answer…Flip a coin! If it lands on heads I am right. Tails Will is right. If it lands on the side Phil is right! RR
IMO, everyone who speaks with this issue amongst anyone, should not mention nets, ever. Once nets are brought up it turns people off to the real issues, and that’s the slot. Who feels Leech is headed in the same direction? Going off my fishing and others reports box fish are harder and harder to find.
I’m completely for angler responsibility, but common sense would argue we can’t puke rainbows on every fisherman out there and hope for the best, its a silly notion. Regulations do its job pretty well, minus the outcomes of such regs.
Don’t think anyone has a magic bullet for the slot. What would a lake look like with only fish over 23″ be kept? One over and one under? It’s a freaking handful for the DNR to try and figure out. They need to be held accountable for what they’ve done though, only so in the future they attempt different things and make forward progress with their ways.
Seems like the only way to get things done is hold a candle under someone’s ars. I feel Will and the like are attempting just that.
Leech: I’d hate to see what happened to ML’s happen to Leech. (Too many big fish due to the slot…). If they are going to have a limit of 4 (which personally I am OK with as the lake seems to be sustaining well with that limit…) I’d like to see 3 fish under 18″ and 1 over 18″ for the limit of 4. That way we keep some of those larger fish in check and avoid what happened to ML’s years ago…RR
You are attempting to blame the mass of anglers for a situation that they were given the legal ok to.
I think I get it now, either your gimmick is that you don’t actually read my posts or you are just refuse to actually comprehend them. I’ll try to add bold letters and italics in hopes that you might actually read those portions of my posts.
I have never once said that anglers are solely to blame for the mess that is Mille Lacs, in fact I’ve said numerous times that netting and DNR have had a large part to play in this mess. I’ve just said that I don’t think they(anglers) are guilt free. Is that so hard to understand?
BUT the argument is it could be a heck of alot better than it is now(in regards to walleye harvest) because people want fish, even if it’s a few, and that’s what brings people to lakes and spend money on resorts, bait, dinner drinks etc.
In order for something to be an argument, two sides have to disagree on it. I haven’t argued for or against this at all, so um, okay? Agreed?
Will threw out some graphs and some commentary, which I mostly agree with and which do give evidence to the impact the treaty and DNR had on Mille Lacs. I had some legitimate questions/conclusions about the data and was hoping people would look at and think about regarding the effect anglers have had in the past, and some pretty reasonable questions about the reasons behind the tulibee decline. I know now that logic, discussion and reasoning is far beyond the barrier for entry on this forum.
You guys acted like his analysis completely debunked my point of view, which is 100% does not, in fact it actually reinforces my point.
Every year of intensive harvest of walleye pre-treaty on Mille Lacs is followed by a significant drop in harvest for the following couple years. Which reinforces my point: When fishing is good, people have and will continue to abuse the resource, which negatively impacts the harvest for the immediate future. In other words, anglers have had and will continue to have an impact on the walleye population.
It’s classic ‘don’t care as long as I got mine’ philosophy. Has always been that way, will always be that way.
IMO, everyone who speaks with this issue amongst anyone, should not mention nets, ever. Once nets are brought up it turns people off to the real issues, and that’s the slot. Who feels Leech is headed in the same direction? Going off my fishing and others reports box fish are harder and harder to find.
I’m completely for angler responsibility, but common sense would argue we can’t puke rainbows on every fisherman out there and hope for the best, its a silly notion. Regulations do its job pretty well, minus the outcomes of such regs.
Don’t think anyone has a magic bullet for the slot. What would a lake look like with only fish over 23″ be kept? One over and one under? It’s a freaking handful for the DNR to try and figure out. They need to be held accountable for what they’ve done though, only so in the future they attempt different things and make forward progress with their ways.
Seems like the only way to get things done is hold a candle under someone’s ars. I feel Will and the like are attempting just that.
12 years I have fished leech. No pro/expert/scientist but 85% of the fish my group of 16 caught this year was in the slot. I have thought for a few years now they should open it up so you can keep at least 1 fish in the slot.
Phil you need to stop trying to make anglers feel guilty like we are robbing resources from the lake. Seriously man just stop typing. You dig a deeper and deeper hole every time you type…RR
What am I supposed to do when I agree with RR, Will, and Phill?:???:
I think you’re supposed to pat yourself on the back because you realize that they aren’t actually arguing with me? They are just re-hashing the same “dnr and treaty was bad!” arguments that are totally valid and that I never actually argued against(in fact I keep saying I agree with both of those points)?
Phil, the problem with this is pretty evident in the historical harvest rates. In the last 17 years since the netting and DNR slot was implemented the harvest levels have exceeded the historically worst years (1994, 1985, and 1981), 3 times in 1999, 2006 and 2007. So 14 of 17 years post netting/slot have been on par or below the historically worst years ever. In the prior 37 years there were just those 3 outlier low harvest years at or below 200k pound harvest. At the current rate, we may never see another +200k harvest from a lake that previously produced that 34 times in the prior 37 years. Not sure how the blame can fall on anglers for that, especially when the limit has been 2 fish or less with a very tight slot since May 11th 2013 (page 17 of the Blue Ribbon report)…
Again, I don’t disagree at all. Harvest levels post treaty are obviously worse than pre. I’m just saying look at that harvest graph for a second, in 1992 over 1 million pounds of walleye were taken out of Mille Lacs! ONE MILLION.
I’m not saying that a sustainable harvest in the 200s or whatever is unreasonable to ask for or whatever, I’m saying that the data shows in the past that anglers abused the crap out of the resource and they will likely do the same again should the lake recover and should limits be more lenient.
In the past the anglers were lucky that there wasn’t netting and poor management of the lake, the lake would recover after a few years. Is that the model of sustainability though? Wait til fishing is good then deplete the resource and hope mother nature bounces back? Unfortunately we have a lot of other stuff in the way of that natural recovery now, DNR, netting, global warming(?), zebra mussels(?), SMB population(?), etc.
Someone else mentioned earlier in here one problem that will never go away and it was just right on point, Mille Lacs will never solve the problem of being 1.5 hours from the Twin Cities.
Phil you need to stop trying to make anglers feel guilty like we are robbing resources from the lake. Seriously man just stop typing. You dig a deeper and deeper hole every time you type…RR
He is simply stating that we as anglers play a part in this. He isn’t putting percentages on it. And to think we don’t, is just naive, even if it is a very small percentage.
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>roosterrouster wrote:</div>
Phil you need to stop trying to make anglers feel guilty like we are robbing resources from the lake. Seriously man just stop typing. You dig a deeper and deeper hole every time you type…RRHe is simply stating that we as anglers play a part in this. He isn’t putting percentages on it. And to think we don’t, is just naive, even if it is a very small percentage.
Wow…So so blind. RR
how about we all head to the Y Club and finish this conversation over a beer and some steak bites
Phil you need to stop trying to make anglers feel guilty like we are robbing resources from the lake. Seriously man just stop typing. You dig a deeper and deeper hole every time you type…RR
Sounds like maybe this hits a little too close to home? Sorry if it ruffles your rooster feathers. I appreciate your concern though, it really means a lot to me.
There have definitely never been any cases of anglers abusing a resource and harming fish populations in MN! That’d be ridiculous! All anglers are absolutely above reproach and as long as they follow the guiding light of the DNR then they have no responsibility in a lake going under.
In that case, next time I find a hot panfish bite within an hour of the metro this winter I’ll be sure to post exact gps coords. The DNR says I can keep 20 sunnies so as long as everyone only keeps 20 sunnies there is no harm that can come to the lake and if anything does happen, welp, DNR’s fault!
I’m not trying to make anyone here feel guilty, in general the members on this board are normally big proponents for C&R and the sustainability of our resources. Unfortunately, the rest of the angling population/business owners don’t always share that same philosophy.
Phil you need to stop trying to make anglers feel guilty like we are robbing resources from the lake. Seriously man just stop typing. You dig a deeper and deeper hole every time you type…RR
Wow…So so bad at reading comprehension. PT
My turn for fancy coding 
Which reinforces my point: When fishing is good, the DNR allows people
to people have and will continueto abuse the resource, which negatively impacts the harvest for the immediate future. In other words, the harvest totals and slot the DNR sets forth upon the anglers have had and will continue to have an impact on the walleye population.
So the expectation is that the DNR should set complex and sophisticated limits for all species in all lakes and that if they don’t then any over-fishing of any species on any body of water is the DNR’s fault?
Some awesome logic there.
how about we all head to the Y Club and finish this conversation over a beer and some steak bites
Ssshhh…It’s over Phil. Let it lay…
Quick question about the steak bites. Huge fan of the one’s that the Axel’s in the Twin Cities sells. Tell me about the Y’s. For as often as I get there I have never had em’…RR
“Well we have a limit of 1 deer per person so I brought 1000 of my closest friends to hunt my land and we all harvested a deer! Unfortunately, hunting has been really slow since then, I’m blaming the DNR for allowing each of us to harvest 1 deer, that was so irresponsible of them”
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>crappie55369 wrote:</div>
how about we all head to the Y Club and finish this conversation over a beer and some steak bitesSsshhh…It’s over Phil. Let it lay…
Quick question about the steak bites. Huge fan of the one’s that the Axel’s in the Twin Cities sells. Tell me about the Y’s. For as often as I get there I have never had em’…RR
haha ive actually never had them. the menu description makes them sound damn good though:
“Cajun dusted sirloin steak with mixed greens and covered in a gorgonzola cream sauce.”
Why are you overreaching what was said? Of course it’s impossible to hit every lake, but absolutely, the top angler destination lakes can be managed closely, as they already are.
There is no magic bullet on management as stated earlier, but having a lake all CPR for eyes, and then actually close is a pretty poor example wouldn’t you agree?
Just like this thread you are personifying anglers with something they shouldn’t be. Anglers as a whole is simply a factor in a mathematical equation of fish. They harvest X amount of fish that’s allowed to them from the DNR. If X is too much and not sustainable, why would they be liable for that?
“Cajun dusted sirloin steak with mixed greens and covered in a gorgonzola cream sauce.”
Cannot wait for two weeks from now! My mouth is watering!
Quick question about the steak bites. Huge fan of the one’s that the Axel’s in the Twin Cities sells. Tell me about the Y’s. For as often as I get there I have never had em’…RR
Axel’s is pretty good, do you go to the one in Woodbury? We never think of that place when we want to go out to eat, but we should…
Btw, you should go to Danny’s Bar and Grille over at Stoneridge golf course if you haven’t before, top notch.
… you had me at STEAK BITES … heading to the Y this weekend to check them out!
Why are you overreaching what was said? Of course it’s impossible to hit every lake, but absolutely, the top angler destination lakes can be managed closely, as they already are.
There is no magic bullet on management as stated earlier, but having a lake all CPR for eyes, and then actually close is a pretty poor example wouldn’t you agree?
Just like this thread you are personifying anglers with something they shouldn’t be. Anglers as a whole is simply a factor in a mathematical equation of fish. They harvest X amount of fish that’s allowed to them from the DNR. If X is too much and not sustainable, why would they be liable for that?
Don’t think I was overreaching, the implication of your earlier post is that the DNR is 100% responsible for fish populations in MN because they set the regulations. I’m saying anglers are responsible too.
The bolded part is exactly what I’ve been saying this whole time, anglers are a factor in the equation. We can argue about how much or little or when or where, but fact is anglers play a part and that part probably shouldn’t be to keep every legal fish they catch of every species every time they go fishing.
Check out this quote from the DNR:
It’s not such a bad thing that anglers don’t always or even regularly catch their limit. There simply aren’t enough fish. For example, we estimate that Minnesota has roughly 18 million walleyes over 14 inches long (general keeper size). Approximately 27 million angler days are spent fishing each year. If every angler caught and kept just one walleye on average per outing, the state’s entire keeper-sized walleye population would be wiped out before the year was over.
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/fisheries/management/myths.html
Face it, Mille Lacs has always been treated as a meat market. Did businesses encourage people to C&R in the Mille Lacs heyday to help sustain fishing for the future? Or only keep 2-3 fish as that’s plenty for a meal? Seriously asking this here because I never went to any of the resorts back then. My assumption is that they brought as many people as they could cram on the boat to maximize their earnings.
How many times have you watched an IDO episode where James or someone only keep a couple fish and mention “that’s plenty for me and my wife to eat”, or Joel(I think it’s Joel) say, “a couple walleye/handful of panfish is the perfect amount for fish tacos for my family.”
That is an angler being responsible and protecting a resource. Harvesting 1MM+ pounds of walleye in one year(that’s almost 5% of all keepable walleye that exist in the state!) to me shows that a lot of anglers and or businesses were greedy and took advantage of a resource.
It’s a cooperative effort, if the anglers don’t play ball then it doesn’t work. You could have a limit of 5 sunnies instead of 20, but if you posted a hot spot within a half hour of the cities, walkable from the road, in the winter, that lake would be depleted of good sized sunnies within the week. How can the DNR be responsible for that?
“Cajun dusted sirloin steak with mixed greens and covered in a gorgonzola cream sauce.”
Cannot wait for two weeks from now! My mouth is watering!
Let us know how they are!!
The topic ‘An FYI for Mille Lacs resort owners’ is closed to new replies.
