DNR Tag study

I thought I would post the tag information I received back. I tried to attach the bit maps of where the fish was tagged and recaptured, but I couldn’t get it to go thru, timed out and would not post. It shows it was tagged in Isle bay and captured by Lakeside reef. Notice they busted my chops for being off on measurement. LOL

Subject: DNR INFO

Please see explanation of report below:

Tag Number(s): 88634
Recapture information:
Date Recaptured: 5/18/2002
Length: 21.50
Type of Fishing: BT (BT=Boat,LN=Launch,SH=Shore)
Angling Zone: 31
Tagging information:
Date Tagged: 4/28/2002
Length: 21.7
Capture Method: EF
(TN=Trap net,EF=Electrofishing,LN=Launch Angling,BT=Boat Angling)
Tagging Zone: 20
Sex : M
(M=Male,F=Female,U=Unknown)
serial numbers: 2002100342 10010261

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources thanks you for reporting
the tag number(s) and recovery data. This information will help in the
understanding of growth, mortality, movement, catchability, and
population size of walleye in Mille Lacs Lake. It also provides
critical information useful in the protection of critical habitat.

Above is a report that lists the date and location of tagging, and the
length of the fish when it was tagged. The attached maps outline the
tagging and recapture zones used in this study. If the fish had been
tagged by electrofishing (EF) or trap netting (TN), then the “Tagging
Zone” refers to the “Spring Tagging Zones” Map; whereas, if the fish had
been tagged off a launch or boat, the “Tagging Zone” refers to the
“Summer Tagging and Recapture Zones” map. Please inform us if any of
the recapture information is incorrect. Also, for those of you that
are interested in whether the fish you caught was caught again by
another angler, the DNR will be publishing a listing of all tag numbers
caught more than once in the OUTDOOR NEWS magazine later this fall, and
we will also post the same listing on our website at
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/fisheries/taggedfish.html.

Please note that if the length of the fish when it was tagged does not
compare well with the length you reported, we would greatly appreciate
it if you could double check both the tag number and the length you
recorded in your original notes. If there is a discrepency please reply
to this e-mail with any possible corrections.

Thank you again, DNR Fisheries.

I received my first report also. My fish was tagged in “22” which is north of Cove Bay and I caught it in “17” up by Big Point. This is a few miles from the tagging zone so this fish did a bit of swimming. My length was only 0.1″ different from the tag report. I did have the same form letter that you posted with the notice about the measurement.
Dino

my buddy just got his info back from one of our days on the water. the fish moved from zone 32 to 31. the interesting part was it was initially tagged on 6/6 at 20.7 inches and then 17 days later on 6/23 at 21.5 inches – that is almost an inch of growth in 17 days!!! if that is remotely accurate, i would think its a good argument against the starving fish theory.

I got six of my tags back today and only one of them made sense. 5 of them were smaller when I caught them than when they were tagged. I used the Judge and made careful measurements thinking the information would be useful. Appently thier measuring devices aren’t as accurate. Luckily a CO didn’t stop me this year b/c the 15.5″ might have measured 16.2″.

I’ve too gotten 6 back in the last 2 weeks and all of them showed the fish I caught were shorter than the DNR measured. I was begining to think it was me.

Budget cuts = lower quality instruments? Or do you suppose they’re measuring tons of fish at a time and just rush through? The consistency of inconsistency is quite eye opening though, isn’t it!?!?

I have got a few tag results back (6 or so?) and EVERY one of them had been measured longer by the DNR compared to my measurement. These results usually varied by .2 inches or so. If I said 20.5, they said 20.7. It brought back memories of a couple times I have been checked at the public ramps with fish I have thought were nearly 1/2″ within the slot. I have had to sweat through a couple of them going right up to their 16″ line. Maybe they can’t afford accurate rulers

All of the results I have received are from fish caught this spring up on the north end sand. Some were originally released from launches just a day or two before I caught them but others were released many miles away in April.

I got 2 Fish Tags responses back the other day, the 1st was a 22″ that grew about 0.2 inches in a month, tagged on SE side by the Cedar Creek access and caught in St. Alban’s Bay…long swim!!!

The second actually shrunk 0.5 in from 16.75 to 16.25, caught by the Sha-bosh landing. Maybe theres a discrepancy in measurement technique here??? Just like the DNR does when they’re checking your livewell???

Looking forward to going back up there this weekend.

TL

Maybe they should also report the official DNR measurement method…”ST” for “stretching”…for fish just under 16” and “SC” for “scrunching”… for fish just over 14”

TL