Slot set for this spring

Quote:

---

Slot regulations should stand as long as they make biological sense.

---

Quote:

---

If the nets show a serious population imbalance, however, length limits should be adjusted accordingly.

---

Exactly…

Those quotes further prove that these slots can and will be changed when need be. So, can we quite using the terms “locked in”, “ten year plan” and “long term”??

Let’s just say that we presently have a 18″-28″ protected slot with one over and a total of 4 fish. This can and will be changed if need be!

Nothings changed, as far as being “procative”, no. Your quotes show that they’ll be “reactive” as soon as the lake shows a imbalance. So much double talk…nothings changed, read between the lines, it’s simply worded differently.

BIRDDOG

It should of read “irritated” not intimidated…

I agree with many of your points Rob, but I just think we make too many knee jerk reactions in regard to the yearly changing of the slot. It’s kind of like we micro manage the lake. How many times have we heard, “Mille Lacs anglers will be able to take more walleyes this year” and then we increase the slot. Now this year, “Mille Lacs anglers harvested too many walleyes in 2007″ and then the slot decreases. It’s like a yo-yo. And as we all know it’s more around politics. Right now we are managing the lake for next year and not for the long term stability of the lake. I believe we lose sight on the long term picture.

We have enough historical data now that we should be able to put in a longer term plan. I realize that managing Mille Lacs lake is one of a kind due to all of the variables. However, other large lakes are being managed with more of a long term slot mentality with success (Rainy).

If the current plan (managing the slot year by year) is working, why are the fall gill net assessments the lowest we’ve had in 25 years? Personally I’m not too “confident” in those numbers, but I guess it’s the only data we have. Maybe the slot (20-28) was too liberal when we started out last year? Maybe it should have been the same as this year (18-28)? Maybe if we had implemented a consistent slot over the past few years the fishery would be in better shape today.

The 18-28 slot has a possibility of working out long term if they allow for some over harvest some years and we have some under harvest years and they average things out over a period of time.However the big issues on ML is the QUOTA and fish mortality.We are at the point now with the quota it will be hard to stay under it most years and if they reduce it any more it will be almost impossible.Also with the amount of large fish in ML on a good year the fish mortality really adds up.I believe if they threw out the word quota and the natives only harvested 80-100,000 pounds of fish each year the 18-28 slot would be doable long term and the lake would sustain itself.However I dont see the quota going away and our share has a possibility of getting reduced even more.Im sure most people would like to see a long term slot but I wouldnt bet on it.

Brad – There is no doubt that having a stable slot would be better for the Mille Lacs area economy. I would be interested to hear how you believe long term slot limits and safe harvest quotas can work together? How do we share the harvest with the band without adjusting the slot or causing long term damage to the balance of the fishery?