DNR report

I got a copy of the DNR’s official report for 2003 and there is some interesting pieces of info that I thought I would share.
Current stock: There is an overabundance of age 6 or older walleye and a high abundance of age 1 and 2 and very low population of age 3 an 4 walleye. The average condition of each fish has increased as a result of high forage populations. Fish sampled in the year 2001 and 2002 were in very poor condition which led to increased levels of cannibalism which weakened the year classes. The 2002 and 2003 year classes are strong and expected to persist.
The 2002 yellow perch year class was very strong with age 1 perch already exceeding 7.5 inches this past fall. Early indications suggest the 2003 perch year class was also strong.

Released Stats for 2003:
The majority of fish released were from May15th-June30th. Which totals 363,000 pound or 97,000 walleye. Thats a 3.7 pound average which is fish in the 21-23 inch class. These numbers do represent ALL fish released meaning fish from 0-30 some odd inches. The total allowed harvest for 2004 is 480,000 pounds with anglers allowed 300,000, the bands get 100,000 and 80,000 will be factored for mortality. The DNR has predicted another bite similar to last year.

From reading through the 20 page report. Even with a slow bite, I don’t see a very large slot happening. It has been stated the 2002 and 2003 year classes must be protected if they are going to produce offspring in 2006 and 2007. I think we will see a slot somewhere between 17-21 inches and the limit cut to three with one fish over 28 inches. The report does not suggest any slot recommendations. Scott, Adam and I did receive an invitation to the input meeting next week and will post what the final decision will be.

As Derek said, this is your chance to post some thoughts and questions. I will be at the meeting and will be happy to raise any reasonable questions or concerns as it is appropriate.

Ideally, I would like to see the one over 28″ changed to one over 26″. I go to Mille Lacs to catch big fish with the chance of bringing some fish home. I think that small slot that we will be able to keep will be a very small number of fish so I am not that worried about what it really turns out to be. I want the one over 26″ because I really enjoy watching tournament weigh-ins. Last year and two years ago I went to many tournaments that had zeros all over the board. Making it one over 26″ would make the tournaments much more fun to watch ($$$), would fill up the tournaments ($$$), and it would be much more fun for the tournament angler. The early tourneys are catch and release so the harvest probably would not be that much. That is just my two cents.

My personal feeling is to leave the 28″ limit where it is at. If anything, do a 4 fish limit, 1 over 19.5″ Protect the 23″ to 28″.

That gives people the opportunity to take some fish home. I could care less about dropping the high end from 28 to 26, so some tounament folks can get their name on the board. If that is going to be done, yet I can’t take a fish home to eat, the lake can go do whatever. Because many people are getting mostly fed up with not being able to take a meal home. You have to feed the majority of the people what they want. Most people I talked to the last few years are PO’ed because they can’t keep anything to eat. If the resorts want people, then they need to cater to what the mass of people want.

It can even be 3 fish. 3 nice walleyes will feed 4 people. If two guys are in the boat and they have 6 fish…………….Now, that is a meal.

Canada only allows 2 fish per day on LOTW. One can be over 18″. People can still eat, because it is generally 2 people per boat.

Having been through this for so many years now, i’ve come to the opinion that no matter what they do we will find fault with it somewhere somehow. My biggest concern is they have all this data and seem to come to at best poor conclusions for the most part political reasons. If the lake has few fish between 14-18″s quit targeting them. If you need to target the largest class but stay within a certain poundage, adjust the limit size to handle it. Protect the small fish for the future and the larger for balance.

Just my 2 sense worth!!!

Thanks for the input guys, keep it coming. Gary I like you ideas. I still think they will do something in addition to protect that 2002 year class of 9-11 inch fish.

Guys: My two cents as a cabin owner and lover of the fishery is that I would rather have too protective a slot which means fewer fish taken out than risking health of the fishery to placate people who want to take a Walleye meal home everytime or every other time. Don’t get me wrong, I love walleye fillets, but am risk averse to loosening harvest to entice more people to fish the lake. I would propose a slot of 18-22″ with a 1 or max 2 fish limit. Just my take on it- a lot of good arguments here on the board and I respect them, but wanted to get mine heard. Thanks.

Leechboy’s brother, there are a lot of people that think the way you do. I don’t mind a tight harvest slot. My only hope is they do what is best for the lake and it seems that is not always the case considering the data they have in front of them. Lots of people to please and no one will ever be totally satisfied. Keep the thoughts coming.

I fish a few tournys on the pond. It wouldnt matter what the slot was for them.I also own a house on the pond and would like to have a meal once and a while 1 over 18inches 1 over 28 inches.is to my liking.Just from what i saw last year alot of the mortality fisb i saw were ih that 20in.or larger catagory

Forget my earlier post, I like the idea of protecting the small fish, nothing under 14″. I agree with covebayguy, one fish over 18″. This will let people take home fish to eat, allow tournament anglers to weigh a fish, and if nothing else will allow people to keep a gut hooked fish. The worst part about the 17-28″ protected slot is that even if you killed the fish you still have to throw it back. I hate to see them going to waste.

Covebayguy’s idea of allowing harvest of 1 fish over 18″ sounds reasonable. Harvest would primarily come from the class of fish that is most common in the lake, but would be sensative to overharvest with allowing only 1 per angler. For large reproduction female fish (22″+), anglers could use their own value judgement as to what was to big to keep, but even if everyone was keeping those fish, the 1 per angler should keep the harvest within the treaty limits.

One thought I have is: what effect would extending the night ban have on the overall harvest totals?
Lets keep the 10pm night ban on till say Labor Day? I know the resorts that run night trips would not be in favor of a change as this……..but we are taking about just a few resorts that take out night trips.

I would like to see them have a slot from 18-21 or 18-22 with a 2 fish limit in the slot and 1 fish over 28 wich means you could have 3 fish max 2 slots and 1 over 28. I would also like to see this start on opener as the fish under 18 definitly need a break and as fat as these fish are they are still going to be targeted by nets. I think this would benefit the lake and also put a couple of fish on the table.I think it would also cut down on the mortality rate if people could keep a fish or 2 they would not be on the lake doing C&R. Im sure we have all seen plenty of fish in this slot floating on the surface.

Tomorrow is the meeting, last chance to get your 2 cents in. I will be printing out this thread tomorrow. Keep the ideas coming.

I could probably live with any of the above short term plans. That said, I’d still like to see a focus on a permanent long term solution. In my mind that would be a 4-fish limit – one over 20. Plus other means of limiting harvest such as night bans and yes, even a closed or C&R season. (Meaning when anglers hit their harvest quota, close the season to harvest and allow only C&R for the remainder of the year.)

Jon J.

How about a limit set up like duck hunting (you waterfowlers will understand this) You are allowed a total number of ducks, but certain species are limited in that total number. For example, Mille Lacs could have a 4 fish limt. Of those 4 fish, only one could be 18-22″ and only one over 28″.
Example: a person could have 3 fish under 18 inches and one between 18-22″. Or they could have 2 fish under 18 “, one between 18-22″ and one over 28”.

You could play with these numbers numerous ways. But I think the general idea would allow a harvest of fish of all sizes and not hammer on certain size classes. Plus it would give anglers a good chance of at least bringing home a fish or two for dinner.

I may way out in left field here, but what about a 14″ minimum with a total length of all fis you keep at say 50″. This would mean from a 2 fish to 4 fish limit.

inches weight
14 1.0
15 1.2
16 1.5
17 1.8
18 2.1
19 2.5
20 2.9
21 3.4
22 3.9
23 4.4
24 5.0
25 5.7
26 6.4
27 7.2
28 8.0
29 8.9
30 9.8

I like your thinking but this is to complicated for some fishermen. Most only have ten fingers and ten toes and beyond that need a calculator. LOL

I would be in favor of any of the above mentioned restrictions or reductions as long as it allows some fish to be kept to eat.

I know this doesn’t sit well with C&R guys but I like to eat fish and Mille Lacs is where I normally spend the bulk of my fishing time.

Mike, the total length one has been brought up before, It won’t work because it will allow someone to keep 2 25″ fish and those pounds add up to fast. The key is trying to allow someone to harvest some of the bigger fish without reaching our quota for the year to fast.

I like the C&R season, perfect for fall. The water is cool and the fish are big. Keep the ideas coming guys.

Just another random thought. How about a boat limit? Say 6 fish per boat? You could still have some sort of slot, but each boat would be limited to the # of fish they could take per day. This would keep the poundage down if a boat got on a hot bite . Basically only one limt would be kept, not two, three or four. I know this wouldn’t work for the launches, but maybe they could do somthing like 6 fish per 3 or 4 customers?
Personally I feel if three of us are fishing in a boat and are able to keep 3 or 4 fish, that is plenty for a meal. Especially if one is 18-22 inches.

Scott,

First off, thanks for taking the time to care!!!!!

This is a touchy subject with anyone you talk to. When I was at Gander, I was very careful to listen to the customers complaints. One thing I always tried to do was challenge them, “what would you suggest we do then?” Often, the answer was not something I agreed with on a personal basis, but found the overall sentiment was to allow more fish to be kept.

I strongly agree with you, we need to protect the fish that have been so badly abused over the last two years. I personally think three fish limits is plenty of fish, but I’m told that limits don’t have the negative or positive affects that most uneducated individuals think(myself being one).

If keeping more fish means a longer night ban, a fall CPR, I’m all for it. The DNR will never make everyone happy, I just hope they can find a medium that will support the local economy(which is more fisherman) and stay in line with the current treaty agreement.

One suggestion to anyone who complains about the current treaty. The next time your state representative comes up for election, ask them where they stand, ask the hard questions. Tell them why you are for or against it, explain to them there is little chance of managing our resources properly when the DNR is politically handcuffed. Tell them you want something done.

Again, thanks for taking the time to represent us!!

John

Thanks for the input guys, I know lowering the harvest limit does little to effect the amount of fish harvested but I am still for it. The last meeting I went to in St. Cloud the Fisheries manager was saying the average person catches like 1.3 walleye per trip out or something like that. It was really low, it may even been .3 What that means is lowering the limit does little good, but I am still in favor of it.

I will print all this off about 2 PM today and will take some time to summarize it all. I will do my best to represent your opinions at the meeting as we all have the same basic thoughts. This is some thoughs I have put together so far:

We want to keep a few fish to eat, even if it is only one over 19 or 20
We want to protect the smaller fish
We want to do what is best for the lake in the long term
We think the hooking mortality factor is TOO HIGH (my opinion)
We would still rather error on the side of caution when harvesting larger fish.

hey scott,

question for you,

can you find out why the DNR is baiting the fish before the lake freezes over, making the ice fishing really slow. I know for a fact that I have spent over 200 hours in my house, and have not seen my bobber move unless the minow swims around. but I mean, even the jumbo perch (that ain’t so jumbo anymore) won’t even bite good during daytime hours. I am curious as to why they think the bite is really slow. also why they do put bait fish into the lake before the ice comes in.

thanks

shane

Shane, the bite has not been that bad this year. The DNR does not bait the lake, it is not possible. The amount of forage needed to feed the eating machine (total spawning bio mass) could not be put in the lake. I would take hundreds of semi trucks to feed those fish for a week. The lake is FULL of baitfish right now, that is the reason the bite is off a bit.