catch and release last night on Lake mIlle Lacs…??

Can someone answer these simple questions….? When did all the “special regulations, slots, decreased limits” become important in trying to “manage” Mille Lacs ? 2nd part….. why “then”… ?

WinnebagoViking wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>steve-fellegy wrote:</div>
Yet the DNR’s OWN people clearly concluded it was the predation caused by the slot limit that is the “MAIN” reasoning behind the YOY demise. Now?

They did? Please point me to the exact text where you claim they supposedly concluded this?

“Predation is the most likely culprit because there have been no signs of widespread disease and the fatness index of the fish suggests that they have remained healthy.

The current hypothesis is that adult walleye are responsible for most of the predation. Northerns, bass and cormorants are also on the rise for predation, said Venturelli.”

http://www.messagemedia.co/aitkin/outdoors/fishing/mille-lacs-blue-ribbon-panel-results-presented-to-public/article_c1ff658a-bc42-11e4-8577-97733ee756a7.html

BigWerm wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>WinnebagoViking wrote:</div>

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>steve-fellegy wrote:</div>
Yet the DNR’s OWN people clearly concluded it was the predation caused by the slot limit that is the “MAIN” reasoning behind the YOY demise. Now?

They did? Please point me to the exact text where you claim they supposedly concluded this?

“Predation is the most likely culprit because there have been no signs of widespread disease and the fatness index of the fish suggests that they have remained healthy.

The current hypothesis is that adult walleye are responsible for most of the predation. Northerns, bass and cormorants are also on the rise for predation, said Venturelli.”

http://www.messagemedia.co/aitkin/outdoors/fishing/mille-lacs-blue-ribbon-panel-results-presented-to-public/article_c1ff658a-bc42-11e4-8577-97733ee756a7.html

Gee…LOL…I didn’t “dream” this info did I?

Did I dream that I saw on ALL the TV channels yesterday that it is now a “mystery”?????? Sad and laughable all at the same time…

nhamm wrote:

So what hurts more, couple dozen guys chucking spears at night, or a mass of anglers pounding 2-3yr old eyes on the mud all winter?

Well considering the speared fish are most likely predominately large females with millions of eggs in them, and every 2-3 year old walleye I caught this winter was very healthy and swam right back down after I caught it I would say the spears.
A couple dozen spearers x # fish speared x # of eggs prevented from spawn = impact.
For the winter # of fisherman x # of fish caught x # of hooking mortality (in my experience it was 0%, but I’m sure a very miniscule % died) = impact

big_g wrote:

Can someone answer these simple questions….? When did all the “special regulations, slots, decreased limits” become important in trying to “manage” Mille Lacs ? 2nd part….. why “then”… ?

Yes…. I know you know… but I will sing to the choir anyway…lol

1. When the Tribal Regime harvest became part of the equation. Not before and to after. Started the FIRST year…of the Treaty Harvest era/management.

2. “to accommodate the Tribal harvest/related court mandated quota”.

BigWerm wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>WinnebagoViking wrote:</div>

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>steve-fellegy wrote:</div>
Yet the DNR’s OWN people clearly concluded it was the predation caused by the slot limit that is the “MAIN” reasoning behind the YOY demise. Now?

They did? Please point me to the exact text where you claim they supposedly concluded this?

“Predation is the most likely culprit because there have been no signs of widespread disease and the fatness index of the fish suggests that they have remained healthy.

The current hypothesis is that adult walleye are responsible for most of the predation. Northerns, bass and cormorants are also on the rise for predation, said Venturelli.”

http://www.messagemedia.co/aitkin/outdoors/fishing/mille-lacs-blue-ribbon-panel-results-presented-to-public/article_c1ff658a-bc42-11e4-8577-97733ee756a7.html

The Messenger is not the report. Please point me to the exact text where you claim they supposedly concluded this in the report? Do you know the difference between a hypothesis and a conclusion?

WinnebagoViking wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>BigWerm wrote:</div>

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>WinnebagoViking wrote:</div>

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>steve-fellegy wrote:</div>
Yet the DNR’s OWN people clearly concluded it was the predation caused by the slot limit that is the “MAIN” reasoning behind the YOY demise. Now?

They did? Please point me to the exact text where you claim they supposedly concluded this?

“Predation is the most likely culprit because there have been no signs of widespread disease and the fatness index of the fish suggests that they have remained healthy.

The current hypothesis is that adult walleye are responsible for most of the predation. Northerns, bass and cormorants are also on the rise for predation, said Venturelli.”

http://www.messagemedia.co/aitkin/outdoors/fishing/mille-lacs-blue-ribbon-panel-results-presented-to-public/article_c1ff658a-bc42-11e4-8577-97733ee756a7.html

The Messenger is not the report. Please point me to the exact text where you claim they supposedly concluded this in the report? Do you know the difference between a hypothesis and a conclusion?

Venturelli is the PHD. that “chaired” the Blue Ribbon study. LOL Do you actually believe he of all people on the same day HIS report came out that he would convey anything but what the report concluded?

So you don’t understand plain English? nor science?

here’s the report.. show me the text.
https://www.d.umn.edu/biology/documents/Ahrenstorff2_000.pdf

Venturelli, Cornicelli….we have way too many “celli’s” working for the dnr.

Read the whole thing, and what Steve says becomes pretty apparent imho.

“3. Low survival from first to second fall (High)
We found that the survival of age-0 walleye from first to second fall has been relatively low (and declining) since ~2000, and that this may be due to cannibalism by larger walleye in both winter and summer”

Page 5-6 in the Blue Ribbon Report. But if you keep reading the report the next pages all discuss the predation issue.

Page 8:
“4. Low survival from age-1 to fishable ages (High)
We found that the survival of age-1, -2, and -3 walleye has been declining since ~2000 (especially for age-1 and age-2 walleye), and that this decline is potentially due to cannibalism by larger walleye and, more recently, predation by northern and cormorants.”

Page 9:
“Discussion of underlying mechanisms
Our review of the available data suggests that the decline of Mille Lacs walleye, which began around 2000 and may have accelerated around 2010, is a result of decreased survival from the first winter (age-0 fish) to approximately the third fall (age-2 fish). This decline in survival may be due to an increase in walleye cannibalism and, with increasing numbers in recent years, perhaps predation by northern pike, smallmouth bass, and cormorants. In this section, we discuss possible explanations for why walleye cannibalism would have increased in Mille Lacs. We stress that these explanations are speculative because data are generally lacking, multiple factors are probably in play, and natural variability is high.”

https://www.d.umn.edu/biology/documents/Ahrenstorff2_000.pdf

WinnebagoViking wrote:

So you don’t understand plain English? nor science?

here’s the report.. show me the text.
https://www.d.umn.edu/biology/documents/Ahrenstorff2_000.pdf

THat’s not very nice, perhaps an apology is in order. See above ^^^

science………..where have I seen that before?

Learn the difference between a hypothesis and a conclusion and you’ll understand the reason for the study covered by KSTP. The only apology that is in order is from the barstool biologists to the DNR.

WinnebagoViking wrote:

Learn the difference between a hypothesis and a conclusion and you’ll understand the reason or the study covered by KSTP. The only apology that is in order is from the barstool biologists to the DNR.

You’re fighting a losing battle my friend…RR

roosterrouster wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>nhamm wrote:</div>
In an attempt to get re-railed on topic….. I’d like to know where all this complaining was in the middle of winter when anglers were dragging lil eyes up from 25-30′ water?

So what hurts more, couple dozen guys chucking spears at night, or a mass of anglers pounding 2-3yr old eyes on the mud all winter?

You’re kidding right?:???: The difference is they were released. How many with 2 holes in their back are released?

My guess is he is trying to argue the mortality rate of walleyes taken at those depths. I have always heard that at 25 feet it’s less than 50% survive and at 30 feet or more it is less than 25% survive.

WinnebagoViking wrote:

So you don’t understand plain English? nor science?

here’s the report.. show me the text.
https://www.d.umn.edu/biology/documents/Ahrenstorff2_000.pdf

Listen and LISTEN good!! I sure as hell do NOT have to come on here and help explaining reality but I do my best–backed up with hard science backed facts!!

Now–IF YOU HAVE TROUBLE CONCLUDING–IN PLAIN ENGLISH MIND YOU—THAT THE WRITTEN REPORT CONVEYS EXACTLY WHAT VENTURELLI IS CONCLUDING IN THE MESSENGER’S QUOTE–EVEN MY PHD.IN ENGLISH SISTER CAN’T HELP YOU UNDERSTAND. IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT–THEREFORE SAYING HE IS NOT SAYING WHAT IS REFLECTED IN HIS VERY OWN STUDY –THEN CALL HIM. TELL HIM HE IS A LIAR.

NOW—JERK—WHO QUESTIONS MY LITERACY ABILITY—SHUT THE F—- up! AND SIGN YOUR FULL NAME BEHIND YOUR MOUTH!

WinnebagoViking wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>steve-fellegy wrote:</div>
Yet the DNR’s OWN people clearly concluded it was the predation caused by the slot limit that is the “MAIN” reasoning behind the YOY demise. Now?

They did? Please point me to the exact text where you claim they supposedly concluded this?

Debate all you want whether it was what the DNR said or “concluded”. At a committee meeting, I asked Don Pereira, DNR fisheries chief point blank, in person what they believed was happening to YOY walleyes. He said straight out “they’re being eaten”! I did not record this, you can call me a liar but this is what he/they..the DNR has being saying. The point Steve is making is that now they are claiming it all to be a mystery??

Jonesy wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>roosterrouster wrote:</div>

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>nhamm wrote:</div>
In an attempt to get re-railed on topic….. I’d like to know where all this complaining was in the middle of winter when anglers were dragging lil eyes up from 25-30′ water?

So what hurts more, couple dozen guys chucking spears at night, or a mass of anglers pounding 2-3yr old eyes on the mud all winter?

You’re kidding right?:???: The difference is they were released. How many with 2 holes in their back are released?

My guess is he is trying to argue the mortality rate of walleyes taken at those depths. I have always heard that at 25 feet it’s less than 50% survive and at 30 feet or more it is less than 25% survive.

…The difference between winter and summer fishing on Mille lacs (from what I have seen over 35 years…). You have to look at how the fish are caught and the temp of the water…

Summer: WARM water and many many many of the floaters we see are from throat hooked fish. People are fishing them with leeches under bobbers or with long leaders. When the fish hits fisherman do the “count to 10” before setting the hook and by that time fish have slurped the bait down their throats and fisherman end up either cutting the line or worse trying their damndest to prey that hook out of the throat and end up doing more damage. Fish is released into warm water only to become another of the far too many floaters that we all see on top of the water…

Winter: COLD water so the fish have a much easier time of surviving when released. Also look at how the fish are fished: jig fishing most of the time so they are rarely throat caught (mostly in the hard part of the mouth…) so the release is much easier on the fish. Are their fish that die? Sure but no-where near what is lost in the summer…

Again this is my take after 35 years only…RR

I understand the report well. Obviously you don’t. If you’re not competent enough to distinguish between a scientific hypothesis and and a scientific conclusion maybe shouldn’t comment on the subject.

WinnebagoViking wrote:

I understand the report well. Obviously you don’t. If you’re not competent enough to distinguish between a scientific hypothesis and and a scientific conclusion maybe shouldn’t comment on the subject.

NO NAME…lol No more of my time wasted on the likes of YOU! Sounds like YOU are good at picking fly sh$t off a tin roof!!

You obviously don’t. Unfortunately I have a feeling your trolling skills are much better online, than on the water or you’d have something better to do. Nitpick (conclusion vs hypothesis) all you want, but they stated (and the FACTS Show) the young of year walleye are not surviving.

BagoViking Please post 16 reports where the DNR concludes anything. Get a clue.

Riddle me this, what did we pay the Blue Ribbon panel to put out ? Best guesses ? (hypothesis) Were any of these findings tested/investigated ? If you have any of the scientific conclusions, please share them here. How it can go from the DNR pretending they are managing the lake, to a complete mystery ? That is a mystery to me ?

I don’t have any scientific conclusions and the DNR never said they did either. They put forth a bunch of hypotheses in the Blue Ribbon report and they also put forth a series of recommendations for further study to test those hypotheses. It is very obvious to anyone that passed 10th grade science class and actually read the report that KSTP report of the DNR study is clearly related to the Blue Ribbon Panel’s call for further research to test the hypothesis. The criticism levied at the DNR based on the KSTP story is either a) dishonest or b) ignorant.

..and my on the water trolling skills are in top form, thanks. We’re having fresh walleye dinner tonight and I’ll be back out tomorrow to catch another limit.

Steve, does this guy remind you of a guy from another site? All he ever did was toss crap around trying to get threads locked. The only time we ever saw anything from him was when he took his lips off the DNR backside long enough to try and get a thread locked. Otherwise he had zero to say about anything.

To be CLEAR I don’t think these two are the same guy, although there certainly are similarities.

WinnebagoViking wrote:

skills are in top form, thanks. We’re having fresh walleye dinner tonight and I’ll be back out tomorrow to catch another limit.

You have limits??

Walleyestudent Andy Cox wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>WinnebagoViking wrote:</div>
skills are in top form, thanks. We’re having fresh walleye dinner tonight and I’ll be back out tomorrow to catch another limit.

You have limits??

Good point Andy! Dude needs to stay on his lake/river/pond and stay off of Mille Lacs-a lake he obviously knows nothing about!

Bago, with all that said… one question. Have the gill nets contributed to the decline in walleye in Mille Lacs ? And if so, do we need another Blue Ribbon panel to guess that also and tell the DNR ?

What is interesting, is that the present planned study can NOT “conclude” anything, relative to the YOY survival issues, for the past 8-10 plus years. In fact, about 80-90 percent of the big walleyes that dominated the scene during those years due to the slot limit are no longer in the picture ( most disappeared during the summer/fall of 2013). So whatever the outcome of the ongoing new present day studies to create a “concluded” answer to the past, is not possible. Unless, the glut of 13-14″ fish in the picture now, are considered, maybe rightfully so, as dominant eating machines as they get older –as the mass of “over 20” fish were, obviously, in the 2003-2013 era–after all of them were released due to the never ending slot limits.

And THAT scenario makes it impossible to ever come up with anything but an educated guess–which has been the norm in fishery studies (unlike studies in the world that one can actually use consistently, controlled environments to reach “conclusions”) forever. And that “norm” has been pretty darn successful and found to pretty darn consistently right. (Sternberg’s “study” was a predicted “guess”-was he right?)

It is not uncommon for “after the fact” fishery studies to take place and have only educated guesses to work with.

This isn’t about studies by any group. Its not about a lake. Its not about the dnr. This is nothing more than a “I can do it and I will do it just to urine you white people off” thing. These Indians that are spearing or netting…look at what they drive and get on the water with. Look at the equipment….do you suppose they “HAVE” to eat fish to live? Nada. The Indians are doing this because they know they can urine on your feet and you can’t do a thing about it. The problem lies in Washington with a panel of high court judges who won’t do anything to end this discrimination and who consistently re-interpret the laws and treaties. They’re [judges] evidently paid well by the tribes. And if these same judges insisted on having the laws and agreements that existed when the treaties were sign enforced we wouldn’t be seeing the issues we see today.

If people want to make a difference with this Mille Lacs issue, the problem has to be properly addressed. “G” has pretty much figured this out in that the netting, or spearing, goes on un-checked and that the problems did not begin until the tribes started to pull their cute crap. Since the dnr has its hands tied by the federal government and high courts we can’t blame them and its not fair to do so even though they have made some mistakes. Everyone who has voiced a thought in any of these threads should also be contacting their legislators at the federal and state level urging them to drag up these treaties and seriously study how “valid” each is in today’s way of life. I doesn’t do any good to attack or blame the dnr. Go for the real throat….the meanings of those treaties today as determined by actual “need” of the Indians. If they want to run around a fire and squack like a stepped on duck in the name of tradition and then go spear a fish, fine. But they sure as heck do not NEED to take truckloads and kill tons of other fish just to take walleyes. The problem is getting these high judges to listen to some modern ideas and to go back and tell the tribes they can’t do what they currently do because there is no “need”. Tradition and NEED are a world apart.

Good points Tom. I will add one thing: Too many people say that the Indians are due these fish (the treaty…) because of what their ancestors went through. Try to find a nation of people that didn’t go through hell at least once in their existence. You won’t find any. Two wrongs don’t make the situation right and that is what this treaty is trying to do. It needs to stop…RR