The HARSH reality?

http://www.mnlakecams.com/Mille_Lacs_Input_Group_letter_10-16-2012.pdf

Pretty pi$$ poor job at handling one of the best lakes this side of the Great Lakes and by pi$$ poor job of handling I mean letting the netting continue with no regard to anyoen else.

What a shame… Maybe there will be a crappie explosion like URL.

By all means. Keep netting. Expand netting. Makes me want to puke. Is it going to take another civil war to unify this country again!!!!!!!

I guess there is the proof for all the people who say “oh mille lacs is in great shape we are just pounding the fish”

Now the big thing is to see how they handle this situation with the data at hand!

Historical Walleye Net Catches at Lake Mille Lacs, 1983-2012

Thats a pretty devastating chart. While it appears the net catches are pretty consistent in the 10-15 fish range… the trend line is absolutely going down.

Would be interesting to see bar graphs of total harvest, angler harvest, and netting harvest compared alongside the net catches.

I don’t consider myself as a hard core Mille Lacs angler,
but I would say this is not a surprise to me.

You could see it coming.

In the news today…

http://www.startribune.com/sports/outdoors/175269061.html

Fact is…the same walleyes biting this past spring/early summer were caught SEVERAL times a day! (we caught one THREE times in an hour!–once we caught one 400 yds. away from where we caught it the first time–15 minutes earlier—many had multiple hooks in them!) ALL of this “fast”, “great” fishing was a mirage. NOT reality of the shape the fishery was and is in…it is a mess–to say the least.

As far as the 80,000 Tribal pounds this year goes that was counted as of 4-1-12 because the Tribal season goes till last day of march.
Ice out on ML was prior to the “Tribal 2011” closure so even though fish were netted in 2012 they counted towards the 2011 limit.

IMO the long term solution to fix this is to avoid getting to caught up (pun intended) with our emotional response to netting (until Steve is successful) and start using biologically sound data to manage the fishery. [Rather than to try and make sure that everyone goes home with fish] The current approach has caused an extremely large percentage of bigger walleyes versus what typically would happen in nature. Since larger fish eat more (not to mention the increase of smallmouth due to the 21” and over slot basically allowing a competing population of predatory fish to grow unchecked) this continues to put more pressure on the forage base so when the natural cycle of baitfish hits a low we end up with what is happening now – less walleyes AND less bait. A lake management plan should never have been set up based on pounds of fish in the first place. Let’s hope that the solution going forward is based on biological principles, not trying to continue a sense of entitlement for both anglers and the bands.

Will, never try and bring common sense into a political discussion.

It’s like water & oil.

FYI–the DNR comparing now to ’72 is not apples to apples. The surveys did not cover deep water/open water areas back then as they do now. If the same set of survey models would have been in place in ’72 and years after, the numbers would have been much better than they reflected back then. I suspect the actual population numbers have NEVER been close to the low they are now………

Well said Will

The unfortunate thing politicaly, is nothing gets done untill there is a crisis. Are we there yet? I don’t know.

You can see the change in the health of the walleye population itself, the low numbers of slots all year and now this fall the larger fish seem a bit unhealthy for this time of year.
One of the other things that seems odd is the low numbers of Muskie that have been caught, there seems to be something going on with the muskie population also.

New protected slot… all walleye between 0″-18″ and 22″-30″ must be returned to the water immediately. Limit of 2 walleyes and 1 can be kept over 30″

Quote:

---

New protected slot… all walleye between 0″-18″ and 22″-30″ must be returned to the water immediately. Limit of 2 walleyes and 1 can be kept over 30″

---

That sounds about right….

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

New protected slot… all walleye between 0″-18″ and 22″-30″ must be returned to the water immediately. Limit of 2 walleyes and 1 can be kept over 30″

---

Unfortunately, the current “quota system” would not sustain the 2 fish limit of anything between 18″ and 22″. That limit would mean one could have as many as 6-8 pounds per person. No doubt, MOST would bring in(harvest) the “limit” each day. 2-3 people per boat adds up to over 14-24 pounds per day–potentially.

Now–compare that to what you had this year. We harvested over 300K pounds putting ALL fish back over 17″. Very few boats averaged–over the whole course of the summer–more than 4-5 keepers per day. 4-5 keepers at the present rate add up to about 6, maybe 7 lbs.

In other words, the lake, per the current court ordered quota system, would have to close by mid-summer–if we have fishing similar to 2012. And there is no reason to think it won’t be?

My idea of how to fix the lake? Shut it down to ALL walleye harvest/fishing for 4-5 years. Do this before it crashes further to a level such as Red did. And during the 4-5 years….do a similar stocking as was done at Red and most recently at Leech.

In my opinion and view of things–up close and personal…that is another harsh reality.

Quote:

---

Unfortunately, the current “quota system” would not sustain the 2 fish limit of anything between 18″ and 22″. That limit would mean one could have as many as 6-8 pounds per person. No doubt, MOST would bring in(harvest) the “limit” each day. 2-3 people per boat adds up to over 14-24 pounds per day–potentially.

---

Exactly why it does’t make sense to manage a lake by lbs versus number of walleyes… The annuial survey counts the number of walleyes per net not lbs per net so why on earth would the quota for managing the lake be set in pounds. (I know, the courts… Just a rehtorical question)

I wish I had time to do a little research this morning but I remember reading somewhere (Dick Sternberg’s study?) that the percentage of walleyes in Mille Lacs over 20″ is something like 3 times more than a naturally occuring distribution of walleyes by size. The way to fix this needs to be to manage the number/percentage of walleyes by size. We need a slot that allows keeping larger walleyes until a certain number (not pounds) is reached. The difficult question is how do we avoid keeping to many small walleyes to bring that population back…

My solution, which I actually think is a bit extreme, would be to enact a 2 fish limit with 1 fish over 24″ being kept and 1 fish under 18″ being kept. Which gets me to my second point…

Quote:

---

My idea of how to fix the lake? Shut it down to ALL walleye harvest/fishing for 4-5 years. Do this before it crashes further to a level such as Red did. And during the 4-5 years….do a similar stocking as was done at Red and most recently at Leech.

---

I understand how knowledgable you are on this topic and fully endorse the CASST work that you are doing so I truely hope you are joking/exagerating to try and make a point… Shutting down the lake?!? You know as well as I do that shutting down walleye fishing for even one year would absolutely crush the local economy and put out of business just about every resort and many other small businesses around Mille Lacs. Aren’t those the exact people who’s livelyhood we’re trying to save here??

Will,

Obviously, no one is and never has been more concerned about the Lake Mille Lacs related economy than I/Fellegy’s.

No doubt, without a simlar “bail out”/”subsidy” put in place by the Government that shuts it down, it would wipe out everyone in a year or less. Surely, my suggesting a total shut down includes the same $$ scenario that the Red Lake area economy lived through while the Government shut that fishery down.

When I agonize over how to fix this mess, in a time-frame that makes the quickest sense for the fishery and the economy, I see no other way….. because if you allow some sort of fishing and it is poor (destined to be with almost zero keepers in the future–this past summer was a prime example as a “normal/slower bite” with no keepers wiped out the crowds)–business will be very bad anyway–without Government help–which would come from a total shut-down. I think a BIG stocking program during the shut down at a Red Lake level would be a must too. ZERO harvest on all fronts for 4-5 years….or is there a better option that gets equal results in a timely fashion?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

New protected slot… all walleye between 0″-18″ and 22″-30″ must be returned to the water immediately. Limit of 2 walleyes and 1 can be kept over 30″

---

Unfortunately, the current “quota system” would not sustain the 2 fish limit of anything between 18″ and 22″. That limit would mean one could have as many as 6-8 pounds per person. No doubt, MOST would bring in(harvest) the “limit” each day. 2-3 people per boat adds up to over 14-24 pounds per day–potentially.

Now–compare that to what you had this year. We harvested over 300K pounds putting ALL fish back over 17″. Very few boats averaged–over the whole course of the summer–more than 4-5 keepers per day. 4-5 keepers at the present rate add up to about 6, maybe 7 lbs.

In other words, the lake, per the current court ordered quota system, would have to close by mid-summer–if we have fishing similar to 2012. And there is no reason to think it won’t be?

My idea of how to fix the lake? Shut it down to ALL walleye harvest/fishing for 4-5 years. Do this before it crashes further to a level such as Red did. And during the 4-5 years….do a similar stocking as was done at Red and most recently at Leech.

In my opinion and view of things–up close and personal…that is another harsh reality.

---

What if THEY keep netting while our nation attempts this strategy? Do the current laws allow for THEM to practice a “scorched earth” campaign purposely destroying the fishery? Or with just netting, and no sport fishing, will it rebound just as fast?

Good question Suzuki. The Red Lake group agreed to the shut down. Will the GLIFWC act in the best interests of the fishery or their “rights”? Will they net it (the lake) in this kind of shape–being “care-takers” of the resources?

Good question…..

Shut down the lake?

I trust the DNR numbers, but I’m not ready to believe that the sky is falling. My last trip to Mille Lacs, we caught Walleyes ranging in size from 6 inches to 27 inches and almost every size inbetween. Not everyone fishes to fill up their livewell. Even if there is a tight slot limit, why can’t people be allowed to go out and catch and release trophies? There will be hooking mortality, but it sounds like there is an excess of large fish anyway. If fishing is as bad as you believe it will be, people won’t come to the lake. It will hurt the businesses but not nearly as bad as shutting down the lake.

One problem with a total shutdown is the far reaching ramifications. A shut down of Mille Lacs would be broadcast nation wide. It would be years and years before that news would wear off. Lets remember, Mille Lacs is no Red Lake. Nobody (nationally I’m speaking) cared that it got shut down. You shut Mille Lacs down for a year and you might as well buy everybody up there out. They will never survive or come back from a shutdown. As far as the band supporting a shutdown?? What could possibly make them happier???????

Lets see what the DNR proposes before turning this into another AIS like issue.

if there is a shut down property prices decline, the tribes swoops in and purchases what ever they can get their hands on. Guess who is big g’s new neighbor.

I think a lot of enterprising people would swoop in. The perch and other fishing will likely thrive and in time the lake will come back to its glory.

Quote:

---

Shut down the lake?

I trust the DNR numbers, but I’m not ready to believe that the sky is falling. My last trip to Mille Lacs, we caught Walleyes ranging in size from 6 inches to 27 inches and almost every size inbetween. Not everyone fishes to fill up their livewell. Even if there is a tight slot limit, why can’t people be allowed to go out and catch and release trophies? There will be hooking mortality, but it sounds like there is an excess of large fish anyway. If fishing is as bad as you believe it will be, people won’t come to the lake. It will hurt the businesses but not nearly as bad as shutting down the lake.

---

So–keep doing the same old same old and watch the graphs(DNR charts) slide further?

I surely don’t like the idea of shutting things down!! But if you don’t think it is a good or the best solution to an inevitable crash beyond what already has happened…then come up with a sure thing or at least a better idea. I will gladly go long with anything to bring it back that doesn’t prove to be futile in the end. I simply can’t think of one plan/proposal that would do better than a shutdown…….

You need to realize your/mine catch rates mean nothing to the health or size of the fish population. That is easily proven…..

Quote:

---

One problem with a total shutdown is the far reaching ramifications. A shut down of Mille Lacs would be broadcast nation wide. It would be years and years before that news would wear off. Lets remember, Mille Lacs is no Red Lake. Nobody (nationally I’m speaking) cared that it got shut down. You shut Mille Lacs down for a year and you might as well buy everybody up there out. They will never survive or come back from a shutdown. As far as the band supporting a shutdown?? What could possibly make them happier???????

Lets see what the DNR proposes before turning this into another AIS like issue.

---

I believe we have no choice. No matter the cost! (if every angler paid a $10-$20 bill each year ( and the Feds give same $$ they paid to bring back Red) toward the cost of the shutdown–during the shutdown–wouldn’t it be worth it?)

I also believe the fishing would be good enough( probably fantastic across all year classes) after the shutdown in this internet based message board era, that the anglers would be back IMMEDIATELY–just as they act now. (good bite–they come–bad bite they are NOT here!)

Again….come up with a plan that impacts things here in a timely fashion–with as much positive results as a total walleye shutdown.

I love that idea of shutting it down. For simply selfish reasons of course. When the Red Lake walleye fishery was shut down the land prices tanked up there and you could buy lake front with building for nothing (literally in the real estate world). If you could pull this off I would be shopping for a new lake place.

A different approach would be to do the exact opposite of closing down fishing for 4-5 years. Allow more harvest of walleye, in a way that results in a remaining population of fish of all age categories. Reduce the Walleye abundance – which will allow the forage base to return to levels that will support a walleye population.

The walleye populations are a symtom of the problem, the problem is there is nothing for them to eat. Let the forage base grow, and Walleye populations will rebound. Forage base won’t grow until there are fewer Walleye. Perhaps the current lower gil net tests reflect that is already happening, and we’ll see a better forage base in the near future?

Mille Lacs has natural reproduction levels that are almost twice as big as the ENTIRE MN Walleye stocking program – statewide. Stocking more walleye is not going to work for Mille Lacs – the natural reproduction capabilities of Mille Lacs is incredible, we just need to allow it to be successful, by having a healthy forage base.

All that completely ignores ZM’s. ZM’s eat phytoplankton, which is the sole food source for zooplankton. If Walleye fry don’t find zooplankton to eat within the first 2-3 days of life – the fry die of starvation. Supporting an approach that says the ZM’s have no effect on Walleye populations is hard to swallow.

If there’s 2 trillion zooplankton and 1 billion Zeb’s will there be anything left over for the fry?

Wonder how much one of those litter stinkers eats in a year?

I would worry more about law/decision makers then the little crustacean that comes and goes.