You make some great points Rob. However, the majority of the people on the Mille Lacs Lake Fisheries Input Group are thinking more of a long term plan. They state that changing the slot so many times over the years have intimidated many people. The slot has changed 7 times in 10 years and that does not count any mid season changes. I believe that is reactive management versus proactive management. The group is simply trying to develop an alternative management strategy.
Last year we went from a protective slot of 20-28 that was supposed to move to 22-28 and instead went from 0-14, 16-28. This move made many people very unhappy.
The total allowable walleye harvest this year for Mille Lacs is 430,000 pounds, down from 549,000 pounds last year – a dip of about 28 percent. A poor showing in the fall gill-net assessment played a large role in the reduction. The near-shore net catches, “were as low as they’ve ever been” in the 25-year history of the survey.
This happened under our current slot management program!
The department hasn’t been able to determine why walleye numbers were down, but some things lead them to believe it may have been somewhat of an aberration.
The DNR sets gill nets around Mille Lacs, usually in mid-September. Starting at the south end, biologists systematically work their way around the lake, checking the nets for fish. At the south end, the overall catch rate was down about 25 percent; at the north end – where typically more fish are caught – numbers were down about 75 percent. It was an across-the board (size-wise) decline, indicating angling likely hadn’t taken a toll on any particular size category.
It’s usually a bad sign for the fishery if one particular size range of fish takes a hit during a particular year. That’s what results from possible over-fishing. That didn’t seem to be the case in Mille Lacs. Again, how accurate are these estimates? The DNR still doesn’t know why (the decrease occurred) or what it means, but are operating like its real.
The low catch dropped the fishery’s condition (there are three levels) from Condition 1 (the best) to Condition 3 (the worst). What that means is this: In the past, state anglers were allowed to surpass – by a certain percentage – the allocated harvest. Now, the harvest must not exceed what is allowed.
If harvest reductions are necessary to preserve the health of the fishery, those cutbacks should be borne by both the State and the Bands. Under the present allocation system the tribal harvest may take no more than 50 percent of the allowable harvest this year, or up to 122,500 pounds. (For example, the tribes would be allowed 50 percent of the harvest is the allowable harvest were 245,000 pounds of walleyes.) Tribal harvest, while previously capped at 100,000 pounds of walleyes since 2002, hasn’t surpassed 90,000 pounds. In fact, only twice has tribal harvest exceeded 80,000 pounds of walleyes – last year and in 2005. (State angler harvest peaked in 1999 at 582,000 pounds, followed by 479,000 pounds in 2006).
Slot regulations should stand as long as they make biological sense. But the guideline should not be the sole basis for evaluating regulations. A one-year spike in the catch, for example, is a natural occurrence and should not trigger a regulation change. Even if the catch is slightly above the guideline after three years, a change may not be necessary unless the gill net index shows an obvious downward trend. If the nets show a serious population imbalance, however, length limits should be adjusted accordingly. Instead of setting a precise angling quota derived from a fictitious population estimates; recommend an approximate long term harvest guideline based on historic creel-census numbers (adjusted for all types of angling kill). Taking into account a Band harvest of 100,000 – 125,000 pounds, the long term plan guideline should be in the 400,000- to 450,000-pound range. The main concerns should be the overall health of the walleye population and the predator-prey balance rather than strict adherence to a computer-generated quota.
? This thing is by no means “in stone”. They will go back to that goofy 14″-16″ limit 2 thing for the rest of the summer 
…RR
I was begining to think so. 