Dumb question…?

There’s no limit to pissin’ and moanin’ on these boards regarding the lack of small walleyes in the lake. And most–though not all of us–are blaming the netting–because it targets, on average, more of the small walleyes in the lake. And that’s what “we”–the non-natives–have been targeting for years and years, too.

But the problem is with the lack of small walleyes NOW. Harvest, in years past, has been on fish that are now, years later, much larger–probably the big fish we’re all catching on the lake. Heck, few years ago, 500,000 pounds were taken from the lake. That’s a lot of walleyes…maybe small then, but the survivors are the ones we’re catching now that are outside the slot–on the big side, right?

Given the current situation–too many big fish–isn’t it a good thing that so many were taken out? Wouldn’t the problem be worse if we’d–natives and non-natives–taken more of them? I mean, there’s no shortage now of big walleyes…why does netting/keeping them years ago exacerbate the problem now?

I don’t mean to be dense, but given the current imbalance on the lake, wouldn’t we be worse off if there were more walleyes? I mean, if big walleyes eating small walleyes is the problem, where would we be if there WASN’T a 500,000 lb. harvest a few years ago?

I’m genuinely confused (I didn’t say I was smart by this problem.

Well if your question is dumb, then I’m a straight dumba$$ BC I don’t know what the ‘ell your talking about.

Current problem = too many big walleyes.
Past problem = too many small walleyes harvested.
But small walleyes = big walleyes eventually.

So…if past harvest was the problem because there are now too many big walleyes in the lake, but past harvest unequally targeted small walleyes (now big walleyes), how does harvesting too many small (now big) walleyes cause the current problems?

Sounds like you are making assumptions on harvest.

The problem seems to be that of forage consumption.
A 6 pound walleye eats more forage than two 3 pound walleyes.
The 6 pound walleye can not be kept as it is about 26 inches long.
So having a large number of walleyes in the protected slot increases demands n the forage.
To make matters even more unmanageable,
the DNR is trying to “grow” not only trophy walleyes
but smallmouth bass
and muskies
and to a lesser extent northern’s
all in the same fishery.

Quote:

---

Sounds like you are making assumptions on harvest.

The problem seems to be that of forage consumption.
A 6 pound walleye eats more forage than two 3 pound walleyes.
The 6 pound walleye can not be kept as it is about 26 inches long.
So having a large number of walleyes in the protected slot increases demands n the forage.
To make matters even more unmanageable,
the DNR is trying to “grow” not only trophy walleyes
but smallmouth bass
and muskies
and to a lesser extent northern’s
all in the same fishery.

---

And to elaborate…the DNR is concerned that the small walleyes of today seem to be on the menu for a large majority of the predators in the lake due to declines in other forage species. “small walleyes aren’t making it to adulthood, and we’re not sure why.”.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Sounds like you are making assumptions on harvest.

The problem seems to be that of forage consumption.
A 6 pound walleye eats more forage than two 3 pound walleyes.
The 6 pound walleye can not be kept as it is about 26 inches long.
So having a large number of walleyes in the protected slot increases demands n the forage.
To make matters even more unmanageable,
the DNR is trying to “grow” not only trophy walleyes
but smallmouth bass
and muskies
and to a lesser extent northern’s
all in the same fishery.

---

And to elaborate…the DNR is concerned that the small walleyes of today seem to be on the menu for a large majority of the predators in the lake due to declines in other forage species. “small walleyes aren’t making it to adulthood, and we’re not sure why.”.

---

Not 100% true. They say there is small Walleye in the fall, however it’s only GLIFWC who does electro shocking in the fall. So, the DNR is taking GLIFWC’s word that the lake has small Walleye in the fall. However, the DNR does their surveys in the spring and they can’t find the small Walleye that GLIFWC says is there. Here are some questions you need to ask…………

1) Why isn’t the DNR represented when GLIFWC electro shocks?
2) How can we prove the numbers GLIFWC claims?
3) What would be the advantage to reporting false numbers of the fall surveys?
4) If the small Walleyes are never there, how can big preditors be the sole problem?
5) If the lake is full of big preditors why is there any forage left at all?

If there was any transparency in the DNR & GLIFWC we wouldn’t be left to spectulate what is happening. The problem is the DNR is afraid to face the issue head on so they are playing a game of cover your a$$.

If you want a more detailed thread go to WC we have more info and theories there.

Quote:

---

The problem seems to be that of forage consumption.
A 6 pound walleye eats more forage than two 3 pound walleyes.

---

I disagree with this statement,1 fish only has 1 system to keep functioning properly,so it doesn’t need to eat as much as 2 fish. A 6 pound walleye will generally try to eat a larger fish for a meal than 2 smaller fish can eat.

As an example I caught and harvested a 21″ walleye that had eaten a 11″ northern pike,if a fish that size eats another fish that big wouldn’t a 26″ fish even eat a bigger meal?

Quote:

---

Not 100% true. They say there is small Walleye in the fall, however it’s only GLIFWC who does electro shocking in the fall. So, the DNR is taking GLIFWC’s word that the lake has small Walleye in the fall. However, the DNR does their surveys in the spring and they can’t find the small Walleye that GLIFWC says is there. Here are some questions you need to ask…………

---

The MN DNR conducts gill net surveys every fall. Are you suggesting some mass conspiracy?

Gill netting is not electro shocking. Small Walleyes can swin through nets.

What I’m suggesting is, GLIFWC says they electroshock lots of YOY Walleye each fall. This is done solely by GLIFWC with no observation or participation by the DNR. The DNR then runs their tests in the spring and the YOY are gone. Leading to speculation that large fish are eating the YOY and there is nothing wrong with the spawn rates.

Now, just who gains with large fall YOY numbers? GLIFWC because the attention shifts from the spring nets where the netted spawning Walleyes shifts to the large predator option. Since nobody from the DNR is monitoring the electro shocking it would be very, very easy to pump up the numbers showing lots of YOY Walleye in the fall when there really is less. So, in the spring the DNR does their tests and concludes that the problem can’t be related to the spring harvest nets because GLIFWC says there are plenty of fish in the fall.

So, the DNR covers it’s butt by saying it’s forage, water clarity, large predators but netting plays no part. GLIFWC says there are plenty of YOY, the lake must have a problem.

So you and I take it as the gospel truth that the nets play no part. WTH? Really? If the DNR wants us to believe anything they say, how about doing their jobs instead of running from your own shadows. Get in the boats with GLIFWC, be at the landings verifying counts during the harvest, open your meetings to the public so we can at least see you make a token effort at actual management.What is going on now is amazing. Why does everybody think the DNR has it right when they won’t offer any transparency to what they are doing? We aren’t welcome to the table now, but you can bet your last dollar when the time comes to foot the bill for this fiasco they will want there money from us. If you are believing this stuff you have much more faith in the system then I have.

Thats what I’m saying.

Brian, thank you for your well thought out and accurate post on this topic. You nailed it.

It all comes back to the nets. Get rid of the nets, huge step in the right direction. The DNR won’t even put the topic on the table for debate.

-J.

The DNR, the State of MN, the US government and the GLIFWC are all responsible. They won’t admit it because that would leave them open for lawsuits from the businesses going out of business.

I find it funny that the UN can order Japan to stop whaling because the practice is out dated. Yet the state of MN and the US can’t get the nets out of Mille Lacs.

Quote:

---

Sounds like you are making assumptions on harvest.

The problem seems to be that of forage consumption.
A 6 pound walleye eats more forage than two 3 pound walleyes.
The 6 pound walleye can not be kept as it is about 26 inches long.
So having a large number of walleyes in the protected slot increases demands n the forage.

---

I am not a biologist, but I believe this statement is incorrect. Two 3 lb Walleyes will eat more than a 6 lb Walleye. This is especially true if you were comparing the amount that 4 1.5lb Walleyes eat compared to a 6 lb fish.

As far as the original post, it left me very confused.

I’m sorry but your assertions are false. The DNR uses gill nets in different sized mesh to catch the smaller fish. They use 5 different panels with mesh ranging from 3/4″-2″. You only have to look at the DNR gillnet reports to see they capture and record the YOY.

Don’t think I said the DNR didn’t use gillnets. I think I said the DNR doesn’t electro shock. Which someone else responded they have seen them electro shock at night before.

So, maybe I’m wrong on all fronts. Or……….maybe I’m not.

You’re wrong in suggesting that the DNR relies solely on the tribe for their fall data and that the DNR’s conclusions are all a big conspiracy by the tribe to falsify information. Your tinfoil is too tight. There are reasons why very few anglers support Save Mille Lacs, perm, and CASST. Even though I do believe netting has contributed in part to the current situation, I would never want to be associated with groups that rely on that kind of loony rhetoric.

My tinfoil is just fine thank you. You rely on your sources and I’ll rely on mine. We both should be sitting in the meetings where policy is discussed between GLIFWC & MN. DNR but I’m afraid that won’t happen.

Ever wonder why most of the lake problems were never made public until this last year? Makes one wonder if A) PEOPLE were hiding something or B) People are trying to shift the attention.

Simple solution to the tinfoil crowd like me who aren’t going away……. TRANSPARENCY. Pretty simple and not much to ask for.

Quote:

---

Ever wonder why most of the lake problems were never made public until this last year?

---

No. The obvious answer is that the problems only manifest in the last few years. I, too, think greater transparency would benefit everyone. However, I understand the desire to hold discussions behind closed doors given the kind of rabble-rousing and failure to listen to the whole spectrum of factors from the peanut gallery at public meetings.

I wonder what will be said when “The Blue Ribbon Panel” finds that the netting is the problem? Will they be allowed to make it known to the public???

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Ever wonder why most of the lake problems were never made public until this last year?

---

No. The obvious answer is that the problems only manifest in the last few years. I, too, think greater transparency would benefit everyone. However, I understand the desire to hold discussions behind closed doors given the kind of rabble-rousing and failure to listen to the whole spectrum of factors from the peanut gallery at public meetings.

---

Glad to see I got promoted to a peanut gallery tinfoil guy.

The problems are created by trying to serve two masters, GLIFWC and the tax paying public. We (peanut gallery) pay the bills around here. We are entitled, yes entitled to transparency by the people we pay. Until they or you for that matter realize this I’m not going away. It’s very simple if the DNR has something to say, say it. Don’t hide and slowly leak it when you think it benefits you. Don’t hide from the net issue, face it, discuss it, combine data AND SHOCKING DUTIES WHERE BOTH PARTIES ARE PRESENT and you might garner some support. For many years there was smoke in regards to the Mille Lacs issue. Now there is flame, the DNR can’t put the horse back in the barn. They are going to answer questions. They are going to listen to the people who pay them. It is no longer optional. Pass that along to your friends who believe all the horse poop being shoveled this winter.

It’s not the nets. 2 years ago we had a 0-18 inch slot on walleye, and every hook an line fisherman in the state showed up and pounded the lake, keeping limit after limit. I live on the lake. I saw it. I caught fish and kept some. I fished the FLW and placed 6th. Awesome walleye fishing! But when a lake is producing a bite at that level, and is visited by more fisherman that typical, who keep everything they catch, the 0-18 inch fish numbers end up in our bellies. Add the launch boats take and you get a walleye crash with “small walleye.” But I’m with you, let’s blame the natives. Anybody but us! And I’m not saying the net’s don’t impact walleye numbers, because they do. But we can’t and are not going to change that; it’s a federal court ruling that will stand as long as the band wants it to so its just another variable fisheries managers have to account for. But the nets didn’t fish out the small walleye. That would be you and me. Oh wait, you only kept a couple, because you are better than the rest of us (wink). Time to look in the mirror, shut the fishery down except catch and release, and let it heal. Thankfully the DNR is doing that for the most part. But get out of your ivory tower blaming the indians for everything. I live here and I see what actually goes on. Come up from your town and visit when they are biting and pound the lake, blame the indians when you can’t get a bite. The first step in fixing it is admitting the real problem.

Kelly, quit reading between the lines and read what’s written.

NOBODY, Jon included has placed 100% blame on the nets. However nobody, you included can say nets aren’t part of the problem. In your mind it maybe a small problem, in my mind it might be bigger, but it is a problem.

What people are tired of is the DNR & GLIFWC doing all their negotiating in private without involvement of the public. Transparency is needed if anybody thinks the taxpayers are believing anything coming from these meetings. Nobody is saying they need to take questions or comments from the public at these meetings but the public sure should be allowed to attend and see what’s going on.

Your comments on a hot bite surely can affect what’s happened, but so can netting during the spawn.

As I mentioned before without the DNR & GLIFWC involving the public to provide transparency this isn’t going away. When you have GLIFWC saying one thing, the DNR saying another, residents yet something else and anglers their opinions you have a mess. Bring all interested parties together to see just what GLIFWC & the DNR are basing their management and opinions on.

Is it to much to ask?