Game and fish bill would allow trophy walleye to be taken on Mille Lacs.

  • Jon Jordan
    Keymaster
    St. Paul, Mn
    Posts: 6019
    #1612833

    Game and fish bill would allow trophy walleye to be taken on Mille Lacs Lake
    By Jonathan Mohr, House Session Daily on Apr 9, 2016 at 10:00 a.m.

    ST. PAUL — Early birds on Mille Lacs Lake may get to keep a walleye this year after all if a provision in the Department of Natural Resources’ annual game and fish bill becomes law.

    A short section near the end of the bill, awaiting House Ways and Means debate after being the House Environment and Natural Resources Policy and Finance Committee approved it, would allow anglers to keep one walleye over 28 inches until the state’s portion of the walleye quota for the year is reached.

    That provision would alter a Department of Natural Resources policy put in place earlier this year that calls for catch-and-release walleye fishing on the lake during the 2016 season.

    Sponsored by Rep. Tom Hackbarth, R-Cedar, the bill includes several policy provisions that some members of the committee oppose and worked during the meeting to remove. But those attempts were unsuccessful and the bill was approved.

    A similar bill by Sen. Matt Schmit, D-Red Wing, awaits action by the Senate Finance Committee.

    Among the controversial provisions is the Mille Lacs walleye language. An amendment offered by Rep. Rick Hansen. D-South St. Paul, would have eliminated that section of the bill.

    “I think it’s important that the DNR be allowed to work, rather than have the Legislature put this in,” Hansen said.

    Hackbarth opposed the amendment, saying the DNR was already “working in the direction of doing what is in the bill.”

    During testimony on the provision at a committee meeting, supporters said it would help the communities around Mille Lacs Lake during the May fishing opener, and potentially for a few weeks afterward, until the quota is met. They have been struggling economically due to the decline in walleye fishing.

    The state halted walleye fishing on the lake last year when the overall catch passed the limit for what was allowed. State officials are looking into ways to restore walleye numbers, as well as to help businesses that have been hurt by the walleye fishing moratorium.

    The DNR earlier said it would only allow walleye fishing if they were released after being caught. The state also said it would prohibit live bait for anglers seeking walleyes, but on Thursday reversed that and said live bait would be allowed.

    Eleven amendments to the overall game and fish bill were considered by the House committee, but the only one adopted was offered by Rep. Rob Ecklund, D-International Falls, that would require a driver’s license or identification card issued by the state to include a designation for those people who had also purchased a lifetime hunting/fishing license.

    DNR assistant commissioner Bob Meier said that while the bill originated from his department, legislators made additions the DNR could not support.

    “We are working with the (bill) author to try and address our concerns, but I just wanted to get that on the record that we do have some concerns with different sections of the bill,” Meier said.

    One of those sections would prohibit the DNR from adopting rules that further restrict the use of lead shot. The agency had proposed banning lead shot on wildlife management areas in certain parts of the state, but the bill would put an end to that effort.

    Opponents of the ban say there is no scientific evidence that lead shot harms wildlife populations as a whole, and are concerned a ban would make hunting more expensive. Supporters believe the accumulation of lead on the public WMA’s will have harmful long-term consequences.

    Rep. Alice Hausman, D-St. Paul, offered an amendment to remove the shot ban prohibition, saying the state needed to act before the problem got worse, but it was defeated on a voice vote.

    The nonpartisan Minnesota House Public Information Office online publication Session Daily is available at http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/SessionDaily.

    puddlepounder
    Cove Bay Mille Lacs lake MN
    Posts: 1814
    #1612844

    I read this the other day in the brainard paper. This state just can’t figure anything out.

    Jon Jordan
    Keymaster
    St. Paul, Mn
    Posts: 6019
    #1612848

    The way things are going, we will have a 6 fish limit – any size by opener! shock

    -J.

    roosterrouster
    Inactive
    The "IGH"...
    Posts: 2092
    #1612863

    This is getting ridiculous and is making our fine DNR look REALLY bad. I just don’t understand why they don’t think this stuff through more thoroughly before making a press release. That commish’ has to go…RR

    roosterrouster
    Inactive
    The "IGH"...
    Posts: 2092
    #1612864

    The way things are going, we will have a 6 fish limit – any size by opener! shock

    -J.

    So true!

    CaptainMusky
    Posts: 22748
    #1612865

    This is getting ridiculous and is making our fine DNR look REALLY bad. I just don’t understand why they don’t think this stuff through more thoroughly before making a press release. That commish’ has to go…RR

    This isn’t being introduced by the DNR so I don’t see how this makes them look bad.
    Just another page in the Saga of Mille Lacs Lake. I fail to see how the opportunity to keep a fish over 28″ will have any appreciable impact on people coming to the lake as the verbiage suggests.

    steve-fellegy
    Resides on the North Shores of Mille Lacs--guiding on Farm Island these days
    Posts: 1294
    #1612869

    The way things are going, we will have a 6 fish limit – any size by opener! shock

    -J.
    [/quote

    I hope so!! It’s part of my heritage to eat Lake Mille Lacs walleyes! My ancestors in 1837 did not shop at Cub. It’s a part of my traditions. I need the protein source. It will be a way for me to keep my cultural traditions in place…

    roosterrouster
    Inactive
    The "IGH"...
    Posts: 2092
    #1612871

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>roosterrouster wrote:</div>
    This is getting ridiculous and is making our fine DNR look REALLY bad. I just don’t understand why they don’t think this stuff through more thoroughly before making a press release. That commish’ has to go…RR

    This isn’t being introduced by the DNR so I don’t see how this makes them look bad.
    Just another page in the Saga of Mille Lacs Lake. I fail to see how the opportunity to keep a fish over 28″ will have any appreciable impact on people coming to the lake as the verbiage suggests.

    It still goes back to making sure something is going to be OK with all of our government before making a press release. Now we may have two changes to the original plan. They need to communicate before setting this stuff in motion. Ya, it makes our DNR look bad when things they do have to be “corrected”…RR

    CaptainMusky
    Posts: 22748
    #1612942

    It shouldn’t be the role of government to set laws, etc in the first place to govern fishing limits, etc. That is what the DNR’s job is supposed to be. Now, running something past the “Advisory Committee” perhaps, but I don’t see how this law change is going to do anything in the way of helping the lake OR the businesses. There aren’t many walleyes over 28″ in ML in the first place. Lots of them approaching that, but there are a dozen or so other lakes I would go to first to look for one over 28″.

    Bass Pundit
    8m S. of Platte/Sullivan Lakes, Minnesocold
    Posts: 1772
    #1613052

    I think it should be a 30″ walleye for it to get a special exemption. I personally have caught numerous 28″ fish in Mille Lacs. I’ve never gotten a legit 30″ fish.

    Dutchboy
    Central Mn.
    Posts: 16650
    #1613055

    Capitol sticking their noses in stuff that’s not their business. Heres a novel idea, how about they tend to ways to lower taxes. Ways to create full time jobs. Ways to ensure we don’t fall into a pot hole and disappear from the earth. How about they go collect unpaid loans from mining companies. Deal with the issues they were hired to do. Nobody voted them into office to set DNR policy.

    Mille Lacs is the easiest way to get their names in the paper and on TV.

    Want to impress the voters? Introduce a bill that no more then 1/2 of a state surplus can be spent. Bank the balance. Then you might get some support.

    steve-fellegy
    Resides on the North Shores of Mille Lacs--guiding on Farm Island these days
    Posts: 1294
    #1613064

    I think if EVERY 28″ walleye was removed from the lake, the lake/walleyes could be better off. What is the positive effect in a system from a 28″ plus walleye? No–it is NOT genetics nor spawning success/impact? At this stage of the game, ZERO potential for predation is the best case scenario for the future–for walleyes/perch/ tullibees/shiners etc. That all said, the amount of 28″ walleyes in the lake is a drop in the bucket. And a few less of them could mean next to nothing one way or another.

    Kyhl
    Savage
    Posts: 749
    #1613067

    I used to agree that the DNR should be left to manage the natural resources because they should be the best capable of doing so. More recently I have been questioning the motives of the DNR when it comes to ML.

    Today, I say, let the legislature take a look at what the DNR has done. Maybe a little scrutiny will motivate the DNR to act in the best interest of the lake instead of politics and appeasement.

    Dutchboy
    Central Mn.
    Posts: 16650
    #1613071

    I used to agree that the DNR should be left to manage the natural resources because they should be the best capable of doing so. More recently I have been questioning the motives of the DNR when it comes to ML.

    Today, I say, let the legislature take a look at what the DNR has done. Maybe a little scrutiny will motivate the DNR to act in the best interest of the lake instead of politics and appeasement.

    Looking into the DNR and setting policy for one of the states lakes are two different things. Legislature IMO is not hired to set policy for the DNR.

    steve-fellegy
    Resides on the North Shores of Mille Lacs--guiding on Farm Island these days
    Posts: 1294
    #1613081

    I used to agree that the DNR should be left to manage the natural resources because they should be the best capable of doing so. More recently I have been questioning the motives of the DNR when it comes to ML.

    Today, I say, let the legislature take a look at what the DNR has done. Maybe a little scrutiny will motivate the DNR to act in the best interest of the lake instead of politics and appeasement.

    RE: Lake Mille Lacs–the Mn. DNR’s BIGGEST fault was/is NOT strongly opposing the forced treaty harvest management scenario onto the lake–agreeing to a predictable and inevitable failure. The Mn. Attorney General and other “influencing” parts of the government kept and continues to force the DNR from keeping Lake Mille Lacs healthy–past present and future. Yes–that take is contrary to what the DNR says as they say “nets and relative management direction make no difference” etc….but as the head of fisheries Don Pereira said publicly–“if I argued against Tribal rights /harvest, I would get fired.” Proof enough….no doubt!

    So–YES, the DNR has made and continues to make very BAD decisions regarding Lake Mille Lacs. But I strongly believe the DNR reps know right from wrong but choose not to buck their bosses. THAT is WRONG and therefore the DNR heads should and need to roll….as they say and do nothing to manage via sound biology VS. accommodating political influences.

    FishBlood&RiverMud
    Prescott
    Posts: 6687
    #1613092

    I think if EVERY 28″ walleye was removed from the lake, the lake/walleyes could be better off. What is the positive effect in a system from a 28″ plus walleye? No–it is NOT genetics nor spawning success/impact? At this stage of the game, ZERO potential for predation is the best case scenario for the future–for walleyes/perch/ tullibees/shiners etc. That all said, the amount of 28″ <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>walleyes in the lake is a drop in the bucket. And a few less of them could mean next to nothing one way or another.

    This whole Mille lacs thing among most walleye population gripes make me laugh with hypocrisy.

    Because once we rebound the lake… THEN we can go back to filleting fish after fish.

    Let’s pause on harvesting so we can later harvest away again… And repeat.

    Ain’t nothing managed properly if we can’t all continuously take limits lol. Just seems doubled edged.

    The basis of walleye fishing isn’t about catching it’s about filleting. Whereas the basis of bass, muskie, sturgeon, is catching.

    I hear the bands sell fillets…

    CaptainMusky
    Posts: 22748
    #1613096

    I think if EVERY 28″ walleye was removed from the lake, the lake/walleyes could be better off. What is the positive effect in a system from a 28″ plus walleye?

    I don’t disagree with this statement, but that is not the reason this bill is being brought forward, they are saying its to benefit the businesses which I do not think allowing harvest of 28″ + fish will help that in any way.
    Will it help the lake? Probably, but I don’t believe there are enough of those large fish to make a huge difference. Now if you were talking targeting fish over 24″ or something, then that would most certainly have a beneficial impact, but clearly the quota would be hit in record time.
    The best spawners are under 25″ anyway.

    Kyhl
    Savage
    Posts: 749
    #1613102

    Ain’t nothing managed properly if we can’t all continuously take limits lol. Just seems doubled edged.

    The basis of walleye fishing isn’t about catching it’s about filleting. Whereas the basis of bass, muskie, sturgeon, is catching.

    There is truth to that but not all fishermen are “guilty”. I can count on one hand the number of walleyes I keep per year.

    I think there may be something to C&R walleye fishing. Just maybe. grin Take a look at Pool 2. It is the best walleye fishery in the metro. I enjoy fishing it and releasing everything. No skillet required.

    roosterrouster
    Inactive
    The "IGH"...
    Posts: 2092
    #1613103

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>steve-fellegy wrote:</div>
    I think if EVERY 28″ walleye was removed from the lake, the lake/walleyes could be better off. What is the positive effect in a system from a 28″ plus walleye? No–it is NOT genetics nor spawning success/impact? At this stage of the game, ZERO potential for predation is the best case scenario for the future–for walleyes/perch/ tullibees/shiners etc. That all said, the amount of 28″ <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>walleyes in the lake is a drop in the bucket. And a few less of them could mean next to nothing one way or another.

    This whole Mille lacs thing among most walleye population gripes make me laugh with hypocrisy.

    Because once we rebound the lake… THEN we can go back to filleting fish after fish.

    Let’s pause on harvesting so we can later harvest away again… And repeat.

    Ain’t nothing managed properly if we can’t all continuously take limits lol. Just seems doubled edged.

    The basis of walleye fishing isn’t about catching it’s about filleting. Whereas the basis of bass, muskie, sturgeon, is catching.

    I hear the bands sell fillets…

    I respectfully disagree with well, everything you just said. Love how you knock people that eat fish. LOL. Unless you have fished the lake and know the history you really need to not click on anything about Mille Lacs and stick to your conservational ways of C&R. It’s never been about “limits of fish”. LOL…RR

    Walleyestudent Andy Cox
    Garrison MN-Mille Lacs
    Posts: 4484
    #1613114

    This whole Mille lacs thing among most walleye population gripes make me laugh with hypocrisy.

    Because once we rebound the lake… THEN we can go back to filleting fish after fish.

    Let’s pause on harvesting so we can later harvest away again… And repeat.

    Ain’t nothing managed properly if we can’t all continuously take limits lol. Just seems doubled edged.

    The basis of walleye fishing isn’t about catching it’s about filleting. Whereas the basis of bass, muskie, sturgeon, is catching.

    I hear the bands sell fillets…

    I respectfully disagree with well, everything you just said. Love how you knock people that eat fish. LOL. Unless you have fished the lake and know the history you really need to not click on anything about Mille Lacs and stick to your conversational ways of C&R. It’s never been about “limits of fish”. LOL…RR

    And I respectfully agree with, well everything you just said RR. Allowing one over 28″ will hardly qualify as “filleting fish after fish.” A limit of one? Last year and this past ice season allowed the one over 28″ along with the 18″-20″ slot. But just one fish. Anyone fishing the lake this past winter would know how hard it was to get one in the 18-20″ slot, not to mention one over 28″ that was actually kept. This proposal is more of just a publicity stunt to generate the public perception that walleye season is “open” on Mille Lacs for harvest while effectively not changing anything. Andy

    Sorry..I did kind of muck up the “quote label” sequence.

    FishBlood&RiverMud
    Prescott
    Posts: 6687
    #1613155

    So, what would satisfy the “mille lacs fisherman” in regards to a goal of walleyes all regulations should be trying to obtain?

    I.e. what is Mille lacs ideal state for walleye?

    Just guessing, but Is it…Sustainable harvesting of 6 fish limits for all fisherman as well as trophy fishing potential?

    Or…?

    Clue me in.

    I hear all kind of reasons why this and why that and how this and that won’t help blah blah blah… What is the ideal state? The goal?

    Will Roseberg
    Moderator
    Hanover, MN
    Posts: 2121
    #1613175

    What Steve is referring to is that prior to being with restrictive slots Mille Lacs used to be able to sustain harvesting 500,000+ lbs of walleyes on a somewhat frequent basis. There also was a large population of jumbo perch.

    After regulations were enacted the population of large walleyes 20″ and above skyrocketed. These larger walleyes ate larger baitfish and resulted in changes to the ecosystem and baitfish shortages… The perch population was depleted and then the larger walleyes were cannibalizing the smaller walleyes which lead to the the issue of low recruitment, ie. walleyes not surviving to maturity. Now we are to the point where 40,000 (or something in that neighborhood) actually is the safe allowable harvest limit.

    The problem on Mille Lacs was not caused by over-harvest but rather by a non-biological management system that was enacted after the court ordered treaty decision.

    Will

    EDIT – Shutting down the lake this year will create a temporary recovery by allowing the young fish in the system now to survive to spawning maturity; however, doing so without addressing the management system that got us here in the first place meets the definition of insanity that I’m sure we’ve all heard before – Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results.

    EDIT #2 – My personal opinion is that allowing 28+ to be kept downs impact things at all adding riders like this into bills is adding to the management insanity not helping to fix it.

    roosterrouster
    Inactive
    The "IGH"...
    Posts: 2092
    #1613184

    So, what would satisfy the “mille lacs fisherman” in regards to a goal of walleyes all regulations should be trying to obtain?

    I.e. what is Mille lacs ideal state for walleye?

    Just guessing, but Is it…Sustainable harvesting of 6 fish limits for all fisherman as well as trophy fishing potential?

    Or…?

    Clue me in.

    I hear all kind of reasons why this and why that and how this and that won’t help blah blah blah… What is the ideal state? The goal?

    I’ll bite even though I can’t believe I have to explain this to a fellow fisherman…

    Speaking for myself it is pretty damn simple. Let the lake run itself WITHOUT one race of people netting and others not. The program 30 years ago on Mille Lacs was pretty darn good. Fish to eat. Fish to release. Fish for kids to catch. And here is the funny part…The lake was governed by the same limits that the rest of the States waters were governed by! Imagine that! The lake took care of itself. No slots and no netting…

    Get off the filleting fish bandwagon. Walleye are caught for the sport and the fry pan. Nothing wrong with either of em’…

    Joe Scegura
    Alexandria MN
    Posts: 2758
    #1613191

    Everyone is talking about the good old days 30 yrs ago when the fishing was so great and the lake took care of itself… I’ve heard a lot of stories from the good old “Dead Sea” days. We are talking about getting 2-5 bites a day on a regular basis and that was with a guide.

    Obviously it wasn’t because of netting so what was it from? I truly know little about this time period other than it existed without nets. Anyone care to elaborate?

    roosterrouster
    Inactive
    The "IGH"...
    Posts: 2092
    #1613193

    Joe…I can only speak from my fishing 30 years ago (both summer and winter…) and rarely did we get just “2-5 bites per day”. Here is the biggest thing I noticed 30 years ago compared to today: You would catch all classes of fish not just a few classes. The lake fixed itself constantly and that was all on its own (without the ‘help’ of our DNR’s slots…) RR

    Walleyestudent Andy Cox
    Garrison MN-Mille Lacs
    Posts: 4484
    #1613198

    Everyone is talking about the good old days 30 yrs ago when the fishing was so great and the lake took care of itself… I’ve heard a lot of stories from the good old “Dead Sea” days. We are talking about getting 2-5 bites a day on a regular basis and that was with a guide.

    Obviously it wasn’t because of netting so what was it from? I truly know little about this time period other than it existed without nets. Anyone care to elaborate?

    An article some years back by Joe Fellegy a renowned launch operator explains the “dead sea” syndrome here;
    http://www.messagemedia.co/millelacs/sports/joe-fellegy—years-ago-and-the-dead-sea/article_a86d595e-653f-50ad-bd4d-68f9b8bc1c69.html

    Will Roseberg
    Moderator
    Hanover, MN
    Posts: 2121
    #1613199

    Everyone is talking about the good old days 30 yrs ago when the fishing was so great and the lake took care of itself… I’ve heard a lot of stories from the good old “Dead Sea” days. We are talking about getting 2-5 bites a day on a regular basis and that was with a guide.

    Obviously it wasn’t because of netting so what was it from? I truly know little about this time period other than it existed without nets. Anyone care to elaborate?

    I think there are two main reasons Joe… The first and obvious reason is that in years where baitfish are plentiful it made the fishing very difficult. Although there are fewer fish in the lake now it often seems like there are more because they’re hungry.

    The second reason which I think is also has a large impact on the perception 30 years ago is back then when a majority of fishermen had small boats and didn’t have gps most of us (me included) didn’t understand and/or were not able to properly fish mid-summer patterns.

    However, if you look at the DNR harvest data it clearly shows even in down years that harvest numbers were still comparatively high versus the current 40,000 lbs.

    Joe Scegura
    Alexandria MN
    Posts: 2758
    #1613201

    Thanks Guys, I’ve seen a lot of lakes go through the too much bait cycle. If this was the case back then that would explain it.

    big_g
    Isle, MN
    Posts: 22454
    #1613202

    And quite honestly, 30 years ago if I caught 12 walleyes in a day on the water, I referred to them numbers as the dead sea. crazy

    A sturgeon catcher looking down his nose at walleye anglers… doah jester moon rotflol

    TripleA
    Blaine
    Posts: 655
    #1613207

    Well Steve-Fellegy AND Will Roseberg both responded to this thread. I feel no need to research this anymore, they are both Mille Lacs Lake advocates and do the research I am not going to waste anymore time doing. Steve always chimes in with sound facts etc on the subject, but when I finally see Will take shots on this PC website I am sold… Hopefully Mille Lacs recovers, no adjustments to the netting season or slots will ensure it turns into another Red Lake story. See you on the water in 2026 or so.

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 55 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.