Mille Lacs Fishery Input Group Meeting

Next week we have our meeting discuss our options for harvest for the upcoming season. The safe Harvest level has been set at 600,000 pounds for 2006, which is higher than 2005 primarily due to stable spawning stock biomass and the anticipated contribution of the strong 2002 & 2003 year classes.

I would appreciate everyone taking a little time to offer their suggestions for slots as well as what they think of the current slot in place and also how the fishing has been. This information is very important and I certainly appreciate everyone staying on topic

I’m no walleye bioligist, but I think the current slot and limit for eyes is just fine and seems to be working quite well on the pond.. I would like to see one “tweek” to it. I would like seeing a lower end size limit. I would like to see a 14″ perhaps 15″ minimum size on the pond. This may be a year late, but I think it would help now and in the future. So a limit of 4 with a slot of 14 or 15″ up to 20″. I also don’t mind the increase to 22″ after July 15, when fish can get a little tougher to find and catch. Just my $.02

I would be interested in hearing other peoples points and views on this subject.

Rob, that is a great point and that minimum size limit comes up every year and the DNR biologists are never in favor of it. They have two reasons for it:

One, small fish hooking mortality is very high and if you deep hook one they want you to keep it.

Second, females reach 14 inches before males do and you end up with adverse selection, more females harvested over males.

Those are the two reasons they give each year but I am still in favor of a minimum size. Maybe this will be the year

As far as the limit I think it’s great where it is at, 4 fish is plenty. For the slot I would agree that a lower limit should be put on, doesn’t make sense to me to keep 10″ eyes. From what I saw last year the lake is very strong and there are plenty of fish in the keeper slot. Again I agree with Lip that the 22″ slot after july is good with some of those fish not making it in the warm water anyway. I would not change a thing from last year except maybe a minimum on the slot.

I will third it. It seems to be working. Maybe 12″ or 13″ is a better lower end with the growth rates Scott mentioned.

EJ

I’m famous for NOT catching Walleyes. The Walleyes could be jumping up on shore and dragging people off to their death and I STILL wouldn’t catch a Walley. So the fact that that I can go up there and catch a 25 inch Walleye shoud be plenty of proof to everyone that something is working right .

Rootski

I think that your average angler doesn’t keep many fish under 13 or 14 inches. Having the option to keep anything under 20 is great. These fish are the ones somewhat responsible for forage levels in the lake. I would like to see the smaller fish taken in the 14 – 20 inch range for now. Those fish are eating machines. I also think that the current slot is much more appealing to anglers. So I think the current size limits are effective and should remain as is. I say this based on the research that I have done about walleye and perch cycles.

Not to argue with an expert, but last summer while staying at a resort on Mille Lacs, I was cleaning a 13″ perch and noticed that the gut bucket was half full of walleyes that size or smaller. It really made me sick. Your average ML anglers probably don’t keep those but a lot of the one-timers do. I have to agree with cousin Lip on a 14″ minimum.

I really like where the slot limit is at right now. There are and should be plenty of fish to keep. Here is one suggestion: How about 19-27 go back and then it gets bumped up to 20 or 21 inches in July. When I fish unprotected lakes, I usually release fish over the 19 inch mark anyway. My reasoning with going to 27 inches is that some people believe that is a trophy and also to help the tournaments out. Have you seen a 27 inch Mille Lacs walleye in late October? I have released 5 fish over 28 inches with no regrets. I also have never fished a tourney on Mille Lacs, so I am not suggesting 27 inches for my personal benefit. I know changing the regs by an inch doesn’t seem like much, but it could have some very good benefits. I won’t or even if the regs stay where they are at, but I am just offering some food for thought.

Oh yeah, we need to protect the big green carp too. I am referring to the the smallie in my avatar that I caught out there in 2004.

I like the walleye regs as they are as well. I think it allows people to select the proper group of fish based on the available biomass that the lake is supporting. If they feel that the abundance of smaller fish could use some thinning, so be it. Or more accurately, if the the fishery can withstand the barage of launches that routinely keep these fish, then so be it. We listened to a number of captains bragging about how many fish were in their livewells. We found out later how big..’er I mean little these fish were! I think the resorts will complain about implementing a lower limit.
I do like the opportunity to keep a “Just under 20″” later in the season for guide clients in the fall.
My $.02

Scott what was the total angler harvest last year? I had been trying to pay attention but never saw a late year total.

The current size slot and limit is pretty good and I suspect it will not change much. I would like to see the top be pushed to 30″ or really 31″ and make this a real trophy fishery, but I know that idea doesn’t have much support.

This is sorta backwords but I am one of those guys wo keeps those 12″ and 13″ when ever I want a meal. They are perfect size for the pan and best eating! My philosophy is to keep a few little guys since they are very aboundant right now and release the 16″-20″ since they are a year away or already important spawners.

I also am on the Input committee and have decided that I was going to ask for the 14″ minimum.

I want to ask for some feedback on something I believe we should try. On July 15th, we’ve opened the slot up 20-28″ to a 22-28″ protected slot. I would like to instead see the slot changed to a 20-26″ protected slot on July 15th. I asked about this last year and was told that we might take too many pounds of fish out if we lowered the upper end of the slot,….but I just DO NOT BUY IT! The DNR even provided us with survey results that they put together that shows that very few anglers EVER keep fish over 26″, and that that the trend for people to release bigger fish starts at about the 24″ size. On top of that, science has also shown that a female walleye’s prime spawning is until they reach a length of 26″, and after that their spawn is not nearly as viable, plus they don’t tend to spawn in beds (nests) as they did when they were younger. They more or less tend to just drop their spawn as they swim along, and most of it never gets fertilized, so what are we saving by keeping the upper slot at 28″?

Another fact that isn’t well known is that in the last few years since the year of the “suicide bite”, we haven’t harvested 60% of our alloted “Harvest Quota” in any given year, so why not try something new and mybe increase the publics desire to come and fish a lake where you could possibly “keep” a trophy if you decide you want to. After all, with “Treaty Managment”, ” Fisheries Managment”, IS all about public perception!

Another point I’m planning on revisiting is increasing the legal muskie minimum to 48″ on Mille Lacs.

Let us have your thoughts!!

although I do agree that the fish over 26″ are no longer prime breeding stock I don’t like the idea of keeping bigger fish. My opinion would be the other way and increase the top end if anything. These fish may not be prime breeders, but they are not prime eaters either by any strech, and although a 26″ fish in a nice catch, it is not considerred a trophy by most so I don’t see any point in keeping these fish. As far as tournaments, I fish several at Mille Lacs and this wouldn’t help because we all catch 26″er’s. Sorry JLD, but I have to disagree with a lower top end. If we start keeping 26″ fish our chances of breaking that 30″ mark go down even further.

I would vote for keeping things just the way they were last year with the exception of a 13-14 minimum. By the looks of this winter, there will still be lots of fish to be cleaned in the slot of 13/14 to 20 come may and june. I saw alot of LOTW specials being cleaned last year.

I agree with T-bone, Jack. I don’t see any reason to keep a 26 or 27 inch fish. Too big to eat, too small to mount. I’d actually like it see fish need to be 29 inches to keep. I know more fish will die of natural causes this way, but it is just my selfish plan to aid my quest for my first Mille Lacs 30+ incher.

EJ

Let me explain something I didn’t say above.

Many, if not most, of those fish that are between 20-22″ are females. They still have more than a few years of productive spawning ahead of them.

Right now in the lake, according to the data we just recieved, all the year classes of fish between 16″ and 21″ are very low compared to the median for the lake thru history. Those sizes are the exact sizes we all are targeting for harvest every time we go out fishing, so those numbers are going to keep getting smaller until those fish that survive long enough to grow over 22″ are saved from harvest.

Why should we keep the harvest pressure on that already largely depleated segment of fish any longer than we need to by allowing additional harvest from 20-22″?

Imagine if you will a bar graph, and in the middle of it there are 7 lines that are anywhere from 25%-80% shorter than the rest of the bars on the graph. That is a valley in the year classes of walleyes in Mille Lacs today. That valley is sitting on the graph exactly whare the highest peaks for the population SHOULD be. That valley is going to get even deeper and wider if we don’t make some adjustments NOW!! In a couple years, that deep wide valley is going to be the primary spawning classes of that lake, and with those greatly depleted numbers, we might end up with little if any spawning in that lake for several years because there just won’t be enough spawners to sustain the population. Even the DNR biologists last year expressed some concern about the number of spawning year classes we have in the lake. They say we need to keep a minimum of 7 for safe natural reproduction. Right now we have 13, and expect to loose 5 over the next couple years, which would bring us down to 8. What if those 8 year classes in numbers are only a faction of the numbers we need to sustain the lake?

Another problem with keeping too many large fish in the system is forage. We all remember the suicide bite a few years ago. That happened because there wasn’t enough food in the lake. That can easily happen again. If the population of the lake is “top heavy” with all these larger fish, it could be a major problem. Those larger fish eat more, and are considrably more aggressive than the smaller fish, so the first casualties of any food shortage will be the smaller year classes, if not for starvation, then because they became the food for the larger walleyes.

FYI, 2005 was the best harvest state anglers have had since the suicide bite in 2002, and that total was still 51% below what we were allowed to harvest. In 2004 we were -79%, and in 2003 we were -85%. Also, DNR data shows us that walleyes between 22″ and 27″ are all well above the historical medians, anywhere from 30%, to as high as 200% in some cases!!

I like the 20 – 28 goes back. With a lower end of 13 inches.

I’d rather not see the top end of the slot go down to 26.

Alot of us have caught a 28 inch fish on Mille acs but few have caught a 30 incher. Let 26 inchers go to grow to the true tophy size.

I saw alot of people early in the year keeping little dinks. Even a 13 is too small for me, but I can understand the gut hooked issue.

I’d rather see someone keep a 13 incher than a 22 incher.

A 22 inch fish is a prime breeder. That’s a 4 pound fish. They don’t taste as good anyway.

Jack,

I agree with the 20″, I just don’t think many people will keep 26-28 inch fish so why allow it? With your data, am I then correct in thinking that we should not have a lower limit since keeping these fish will allow more of the 16-19 inch fish to remain in the sysytem?

EJ

No, we need to protect the smaller fish so that they will come up in the system in good numbers.

As for the larger fish, IMHO we need to almost treat the lake like Lake Erie, and encourage the harvest of some of these larger fish. Its obvious that we will have a hard time ever coming close to our allocated quota of pounds. Also keep in mind, most people won’t keep fish that size anyways, so if a few are kept, it is not a bad thing, plus, if you gut hook one that size, wouldn’t you rather keep it as opposed to watching it flop around on the surface and die?

I think the slots that are in place now are working very well. I too would like to see a minimum of 14 or 15 inches. I have seen some anglers keep the small 10 -12 inchers. this seems odd to me because there are larger perch in the lake, but people seem to want the walleye. The fishing seems to be well right now so if it ain’t broke don’t fix it is my theory.

Although I’m overall happy with the slot, I would agree that some of the smaller fish need to be protected. However if the biologists say that it would be detrimental to the balance of the lake then we shouldn’t.

I also wouldn’t mind seeing the slot dropped to one over 26″. I like the idea of a true trophy fishery (which I believe it already is).

JLDII,

I agree that the Muskie legal limit should be raised, but why not 50″? Most of the Muskie fisherman are CPR only. And for the people that want to keep one, a 50″ is worthy on the wall. Your thoughts?

There is some…arguements… about protecting muskies over that size. I’m not totally versed on those arguements, but from what I’ve come to understand, there is concern of stock piling too many male muskies which could upset the balance in the lake and effect the forage base. Most muskies over 46″ are females.

Maybe Gary will see this and respond. He probably can shed more light on that question than I can, after all he is a certified MUSKIE NUT!!

Great thread guys. I like Jacks intent here. We all know the lake is doing well right now. but Jack is also looking into the future. Like I said, I’m no “eye” biologist. But, reading the information above, I would like to make a few comments or changes to my opinion. I like the high end 20″ slot and change my mind and would like to see it stay 20″ after July 15, to protect those prime spawners (20-22″) for the future. I understand the heat and mortality, but my guess is more 20-22″ are kept than would be lost to hook mortality. I guess I’m on the fence, on the lower limit issue. I understand the DNR’s concern, but like Putz and few others the amount of 10-13″ fish that I saw kept and cleaned last year had to have an impact on that/those year class populations also. Kind of what Jack was eluding to of having a low 17” class population. These fish are the aggressive/dumb fish in the system and are the first ones to hammer a bait. If we incorporate a lower end size limit, we would save a lot of these fish. I know we won’t save all (ie mortality and deep hooked fish), but again we would save more than if we would just let everyone harvest these “smaller” fish. So that being said I’m still in favor for a 14-15″ inch low end limit.

I would like to see the upper limit stay as is. Cause I have seen the size of a 28″ fish in Spring, Summer and Fall. I think a 28″ is perfect (IMO). I believe this would be good for both tourneys and every day fishing. I think 28″ fish is still pretty rare and would still be a bonus fish in a tourney, but also a 28″ fish could still be a trophy for some. Yet, I can attest that last year there was a ton of 27″ fish in the system, which will be pushing 28″ this year. We all know that not all 28″ plus fish caught are kept. I think that there are a few that are, but a few will no hurt the system, in fact will probably help the system with the forage issue. So I vote to keep the upper limit in place as is.

I still vote on the 4 fish limit for walleyes.

Muskies, I have less knowledge on this fish, but would like to see what ever is good for the “Muskie” fishery as a whole done, what ever that may be. My “uneducated” opinion would be 48-50″ minimum size. I hear the statement about only males are 46″ and under and worry about the imbalance of male to female ratio and think that is “bunk” in my opinion. First of all if there were a 48″ or 50″ minimum, the actual harvest of a 48″ fish or greater would still be very minimal in my opinion and Not many fish would be kept. I’m not saying that a 48-50″ fish is never caught up here, but how many people are actually keeping this fish??? Very few. These guys that pursue these things are very methodical and religious to the species. Yes there is weekend angler that catches a 50″ fish that will keep it. But chances are, that angler would also keep a 40-48″ fish also if he caught it. I’m just trying to protect that “Smaller fish”. That is my thought and my “uneducated” opinion.

Can I ask where the magic 20″ size came from? I always thought that the females started reproducing heavily at 19″. Winni has a 17-26 inch slot and it is working well. I have no problems with it and I love going to winni. My vote for a protected slot would be 19-27 inches and keep the limit at 4. No minimum because I get sick of seeing floaters. I don’t think the top end will really make a difference on the number of fish reaching 10+ pounds. I am 22 and I caught my first Mille Lacs walleye at age 3. Between my dad, his buddies, and me, I have witnessed or seen pix of 6 walleyes over 29.5 inches. Since experimental regs, that same group of anglers has not caught anything over 29 inches. All of the larger fish came atleast 7 years ago when I think the regs were one over 20 inches. I guess I just can’t explain why we caught more big fish when the regs were less restrictive. I think JLDII made some very good points on why the cap should be at 26 inches.

Good stuff guys.

the musky thing gets to me because what if you get a big tiger musky? They do not reproduce anyway. I have caught a 46 in tiger and released it ,but have had many thoughts of should of kept it. Should ther be a different reg for tigers since they don’t reproduce and are not suppose to get as large as a regular musky? I know ther is always a repo fish that can be done but still that is more expensive than the real fish. do not want to start a battle just stating facts. I strongly believe in CPR for all fish,b but not everyone does.

Ok, I am a little late but someone asked for more Data:

Last years Safe Harvest was 505,000 and total kill was 278,023 pounds (these figues include netting)

Last years State Allocation was 405,000 and actual harvest was 196,910 (this the state harvest only including hooking mortality)

In 2003 we only harvested 15% of the fish we were allocated
In 2004 we only harvested 21% of the fish we were allocated
In 2005 we only haveested 49% of the fish we were allocated

You can see the direction harvest is moving as the lake becomes more balanced. The limit has not changed the last two years but harvest is increasing. As the 2002 & 2003 year classes mature, our harvest will go up substantially. Even if we continue to harvest the same number of fish, the poundage will increase as these two dominate year classes grow.

With that said, this may be the time we can get a minimum slot in place. The really good news is we are looking really good towards the 5 year harvest numbers because of the last few poor years in terms of harvest.

Quote:

---

Muskies, I have less knowledge on this fish, but would like to see what ever is good for the “Muskie” fishery as a whole done, what ever that may be. My “uneducated” opinion would be 48-50″ minimum size. I hear the statement about only males are 46″ and under and worry about the imbalance of male to female ratio and think that is “bunk” in my opinion. First of all if there were a 48″ or 50″ minimum, the actual harvest of a 48″ fish or greater would still be very minimal in my opinion and Not many fish would be kept. I’m not saying that a 48-50″ fish is never caught up here, but how many people are actually keeping this fish??? Very few. These guys that pursue these things are very methodical and religious to the species. Yes there is weekend angler that catches a 50″ fish that will keep it. But chances are, that angler would also keep a 40-48″ fish also if he caught it. I’m just trying to protect that “Smaller fish”. That is my thought and my “uneducated” opinion.

---

I think Ripper makes some good points. There isn’t any reason for anybody to kill a Musky anymore. The repo mounts look great and don’t cost any more Take a nice picture, a few measurements, and then let it go.

I find it strange to hear the argument that we are taking the “wrong” fish out of the lake. Ask yourself this: What if NOBODY fished Mille Lacs? I’d have to think that Mother Nature would set up the population distribution in the best way possible. If people fish the lake but don’t kill any Muskies, don’t we end up with the same thing? If we need a size limit then lets make it big to keep rookies from killing sub-trophy fish. Let’s grow some monsters! Make it 56 inches or something.

Rootski

Personally I dont keep anything under 14 or anything over 20 unless it is in a tournament.I would like to see a cap on the lower end as I think more small fish get taken just to eat than than do because they were foul hooked.I would also like to see the slot stay at under 20 all year or if they do open it up to under 22 in July consider cutting it back to under 20 in September before the fall bite kicks in.These 20-22 inch fish are just to big to throw in the grease and are prime breeders.I dont think they realize how many of these fish ended up in livewells last fall.As far as the upper end I would like to see it stay at over 28 as that is a true trophy and anything less is just to fun to catch.

After reading all these posts I am still in favor of at least a 14″ minimum. The hook mortality to me is more of an issue of all of us educating fisherman how to release fish. If it’s a small fish that is hooked deep, cut the line and sacrafice that 25 cent hook, get the fish back in the water quickly and gently and more of these fish will survive. As for the upper end of the slot how can we decrease this to 26″ because these fish aren’t big reproducer and eat a lot of forage, but then move the keep size for musky up to save more of those. Those big skys eat a ton of forage..way more than a 26″ eye. I say keep the top eye slot at 28″ and keep the musky size the same. Very few muskies are kept anyway. Just my 2 cents.

Ok, what the heck, I’ll chime in. I am in favor of leaving things the way they are right now. If your going to change anything, illiminate the 22″ keeper’s that start in July, leave it at 20-28″ protected thru the entire season. In fact I would have no problem in dropping that to 19 or 18″. To me, a 16-17″ walleye has got to be the tastyist meal god put on the planet. Leave the lower end open, I think the DNR has good reason to do that, for one thing when that lake has a good hatch, the sheer numbers of those sizes cannot be hurt by anglers taking 13″ers, and it is one less thing the wardens have to worry about when checking anglers. If the old rule is still true “90% of the fish are caught by 10% of the fishermen” I’m sure the 10% are not keeping much at all under 14″. Another point to ponder is that the DNR has stated in years past that it would be nice to have some rules that are consistant year after year and I think we are very, very close to that right now.