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

Joe Scegura wrote:

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?

Brother Joe’s article in the Mess explains the term well. But the “dead sea” term was not a part of many vocabulary’s until StarTribune Outdoor writer –Ron Schara–put the “dead sea” into a headline an inch high across the Sunday edition of the sports page. This was in the early 70’s–maybe ’73? Anyhow–he had fished with the Roll-Inn Lodge launch a day or two before and got skunked. FYI–that same day–Fellegy’s two launches had 105 for the day…. Brother Joe and Mr. Schara sparred in the letter to the editor section in following days.

Most launch trips by most launches on the lake, in the 50’s/60’s/70’s and daytime trips in the ’80’s, averaged 0-5 walleyes for the whole boat load per day. THAT is a fact! It was RARE for groups or families to go home with a limit of walleyes for the weekend…RARE all those years!

Reality is, like Brother Joe’s piece said, there was MANY more days at Lake Mille Lacs pre-1990’s, that “slow/dead sea” was the adjectives used by most after a day at Lake Mille Lacs. Then times changed fast. Among other things in future years, some dumb ass made a video ( 90 minutes long with zero fish caught in it–ALL detailed instruction) in 1990 called ” How To Catch Mille Lacs Walleyes”–produced by ” The Mille Lacs School Of Walleyes”. ( 19 K copies sold in two years and many more copied off of those)Add GPS maps etc. in the following years and the “dead sea” adjective became a thing of the past…

Just trying to understand the goal, I’m only 31 yrs old and don’t have that many years experience as some of you have stated which is why I ask what the expectations are.

Clearly, and than you for humoring my questions, those expectations are to sustain 500K lbs of harvest accompanying some darn good fishing. Not an unfair expectation by any means given the history of its success.

I however wonder what kind of fish management strategy sustains that fishery.
I’m not as interested in how to get it back to those numbers.

I’m curious as to what it would take to sustain that fishery immaterial of which party takes the 500K#.

I’m not a fish fillet nazi, I just point out our individual impact while trying to sustain these types of fishery’s.

Yeah, I choose to target sturgeon, and at one time all i knew was walleye. I’m on your side, a fellow fisherman of a different type. Guilty of replying in my boat and catching a 32# fish, and liking it.

Just trying to understand the goal, I’m only 31 yrs old and don’t have that many years experience as some of you have stated which is why I ask what the expectations are.

Clearly, and than you for humoring my questions, those expectations are to sustain 500K lbs of harvest accompanying some darn good fishing. Not an unfair expectation by any means given the history of its success.

I however wonder what kind of fish management strategy sustains that fishery.
I’m not as interested in how to get it back to those numbers.

I’m curious as to what it would take to sustain that fishery immaterial of which party takes the 500K#.

I’m not a fish fillet nazi, I just point out our individual impact while trying to sustain these types of fishery’s.

Yeah, I choose to target sturgeon, and at one time all i knew was walleye. I’m on your side, a fellow fisherman of a different type. Guilty of replying in my boat and catching a 32# fish mid reply, and liking it.

FishBlood&RiverMud wrote:

Just trying to understand the goal, I’m only 31 yrs old and don’t have that many years experience as some of you have stated which is why I ask what the expectations are.

Clearly, and than you for humoring my questions, those expectations are to sustain 500K lbs of harvest accompanying some darn good fishing. Not an unfair expectation by any means given the history of its success.

I however wonder what kind of fish management strategy sustains that fishery.
I’m not as interested in how to get it back to those numbers.

I’m curious as to what it would take to sustain that fishery immaterial of which party takes the 500K#.

I’m not a fish fillet nazi, I just point out our individual impact while trying to sustain these types of fishery’s.

Yeah, I choose to target sturgeon, and at one time all i knew was walleye. I’m on your side, a fellow fisherman of a different type. Guilty of replying in my boat and catching a 32# fish, and liking it.

Off the record the biologists agree that IF and WHEN the forced Treaty Harvest management goes away and AFTER the forage base is brought back to capable levels( capable of sustaining a healthy/BALANCED walleye population), and after several year classes of walleyes back to back are in place…”– the one over 20″ rule with a 3-4 fish limit” as an annual harvest scenario is “sustainable”. The “3-4” number is less than the days of 6 per day/in possession but that makes up for the added “potential” of more “consistent” angler annual success in modern times.

TripleA wrote:

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.

I’ll be the first to say that Steve is much more knowledgable than I am on Mille Lacs history prior to treaty management as almost all of my angling career has been spent since the treaty decision. I can also say that we don’t always agree on everything but I think his assessment of how quickly the fishery can recover is dead on IF we change the management approach.

My own personal stance on the whole situation is that we are never going to solve the problem unless it is admitted out that the management system in place doesn’t work. This exact scenario was predicted years ago by dick sternberg but yet the DNR refuses to accept that the prolonged slot approach was partially to blame. Definitely there have ecological changes also partially to blame (clearer water, increased smallmouth/pike populaions, etc) but the overall management system needs to change.

It was reported on WCCO radio tonight that there are 2 million pounds of Walleye in Mille Lacs right now. Think about that number.

How many pounds in the lake are needed to support the goal fishery?

Will Roseberg wrote:

My own personal stance on the whole situation is that we are never going to solve the problem unless it is admitted out that the management system in place doesn’t work. This exact scenario was predicted years ago by dick sternberg but yet the DNR refuses to accept that the prolonged slot approach was partially to blame. Definitely there have ecological changes also partially to blame (clearer water, increased smallmouth/pike populaions, etc) but the overall management system needs to change.

I agree with this and that was my initial point in this thread. If the management decisions exasperated the situation and the management is not changing then I welcome any extra scrutiny of the management. It seems like the DNR is not changing their ways so maybe the DNR will take notice when the people that set their funding, congress, starts poking around, asking questions, and forcing their hands. Then maybe we can get somewhere.

Until then, it is insanity.

Kyhl I agree the Mille Lacs situation is insane I just don’t want our representatives setting policy such as limits.They are no more qualified to do that then I am to perform brain surgery. If they want to set up a over sight committee to investigate the practices used by the DNR that’s OK. I really don’t see that happening as it will show the DNR taking it’s marching orders from GLIFWC in regards to Mille Lacs and nobody in St. Paul wants that black eye.

I don’t want the legislature involved either. In a perfect world the biologists would make decisions based on biology. But that hasn’t happened for years.
How else will it change?

Kyhl wrote:

I don’t want the legislature involved either. In a perfect world the biologists would make decisions based on biology. But that hasn’t happened for years.
How else will it change?

When economic pressure gets applied to GLIFWC to stop the netting during the spawn. Once that is accomplished the DNR can work on limits to sustain the over-all health of the lake. Nets are the elephant in the room and many, many sportsman won’t back off the DNR until they do something. There is zero reason to have gill nets in the water during the spawning period. As Steve Fellegy has asked a 1000 times “why is Mille Lacs the only lake this is done on?”

I’m not going to hold my breath for that to happen when they have a money tree called Grand Casino. It doesn’t just stop in the ML area, Meleen’s, Big Sandy Resort, Subway, but also in St. Paul.

Per this article, the ML Ojibwe own half of the hotel rooms in downtown St Paul.

What financial pressure? If anything, public funding could be reduced.

Thats the zillion dollar question. They are so dug in financially that it’s nearly impossible to fight them. Somehow they will need to make a mis-step to cause a public revolt against their core business which of course is the Casinos. You will never reduce funding through the BIA for the fact that those politicians are also bought and paid for. And besides there are still tribes in the country that need our help because they aren’t running Casinos and their brothers aren’t helping them either.

It really is mind boggling to me that GLIFWC can sit still and watch Mille Lacs go down just to prove a point. Somewhere you would think their is a guy in GLIFWC that would see the positive PR that can be generated with this issue. It’s not like GLIFWC really needs the fish for any reason.

In the meantime all we can do is keep the issue alive and controversial. Maybe huge billboards showing the wanton waste of the gut piles in the woods during the B.A.S.S. event on Mille Lacs this year? I’m not sure GLIFWC can be embarrassed at this point because I don’t think they care. I’m also not sure the DNR is embarrassed although they certainly should be.

Kinda funny that the taxpayers of Minnesota would contribute in excess of 2 billion dollars to build stadiums yet most feel the monetary cost of hauling GLIFWC back to court would be to costly? What is the true value of a public resource worth?

Kyhl wrote:

I’m not going to hold my breath for that to happen when they have a money tree called Grand Casino. It doesn’t just stop in the ML area, Meleen’s, Big Sandy Resort, Subway, but also in St. Paul.

Per this article, the ML Ojibwe own half of the hotel rooms in downtown St Paul.

What financial pressure? If anything, public funding could be reduced.

I would tend to think that State Run Casinos would be a good starting point and a great bargaining chip.

Dutchboy wrote:

It really is mind boggling to me that GLIFWC can sit still and watch Mille Lacs go down just to prove a point. Somewhere you would think their is a guy in GLIFWC that would see the positive PR that can be generated with this issue. It’s not like GLIFWC really needs the fish for any reason.

Well actually they have, although not the GLIWC. Last summer the M/L band announced they would abstain from netting the lake this spring. (There’s your positive PR). Of course the M/L band has the majority of the vested interest than the rest of the GLIWC. Furthermore, they announced that they were negotiating with the WI bands to not net and there is rumor (don’t want to spread anything false) that they may have convinced WI tribes to release their quota’s back to the M/L band. Of course they’re still spearing but it’s possible there may not be nets in Mille Lacs this spring? We will all know in the next few weeks…..

The ML band IS netting perch and “incidental walleyes” are allowed– of course– and NOT counted toward the main quota as each Band has a 1000 lb. “incidental” walleye quota also–over and above the main quota total. The ML Band will able to take the entire 11K lb.s this year spearing PLUS “incidental” walleyes with nets while “targeting” perch. (The other Bands have given their entire share for 2016 to the ML Band–as the ML Band has already reached the 3000lb. 2016 quota as of a few days ago via spears and now is issuing permits toward the spearing of the other Bands quota’s by ML Band members) Last year for example, while “targeting” perch with nets, the same mesh size was used as has been the size for walleyes. Guess what? Now this year, if they would decide to lower the mesh size to “target” perch, then the easy “target ” would be the 2013 precious walleye class. Go figure…

GLIFWC & Mille Lacs Band to leave Mille Lacs alone in 2016.

Now that would be a positive headline followed up with interviews & articles stating they are as concerned as the Minnesota DNR about Mille Lacs lake.

Don’t hold your breath for the announcement.

t

steve-fellegy wrote:

The ML band IS netting perch and “incidental walleyes” are allowed– of course– and NOT counted toward the main quota as each Band has a 1000 lb. “incidental” <em class=”ido-tag-em”>walleye quota also–over and above the main quota total. The ML Band will able to take the entire 11K lb.s this year spearing PLUS “incidental” walleyes with nets while “targeting” perch. (The other Bands have given their entire share for 2016 to the ML Band–as the ML Band has already reached the 3000lb. 2016 quota as of a few days ago via spears and now is issuing permits toward the spearing of the other Bands quota’s by ML Band members) Last year for example, while “targeting” <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>perch with nets, the same mesh size was used as has been the size for walleyes. Guess what? Now this year, if they would decide to lower the mesh size to “target” perch, then the easy “target ” would be the 2013 precious walleye class. Go figure…

I said it before, the strong year class we all were able to C&R this last short ice season will be too big to make it through the nets this spring. RIP.

They will not stop netting… The worst case scenario ONLY has a positive impact on a certain group. The lake dies, they buy every resort, gas station and restaurant with their unlimited funds. The lake slowly recovers over 5-10 years due to increased DNR stocking efforts and every taxpayer from then until the world ends is forced to support the group through taxes/stocking of the lake and the multi-million dollar fisheries building we “need” to fix the lake (now an area owned by a non-taxpaying organization). The tribes then commit to “stop the netting” to fix the lake, angler harvest is zero as well. Fishing starts back up years later, netting with regulations stating early summer and fall only, now with increased DNR monitoring thanks to the tribes donations. Then tack on the profits due to anglers and tourists who will once again be able to enjoy the lake, but will be directly paying the very people that caused the problem. Seems like a very sound business plan. –ZERO downside for one group.

steve-fellegy wrote:

The ML band IS netting perch and “incidental walleyes” are allowed– of course– and NOT counted toward the main quota as each Band has a 1000 lb. “incidental” <em class=”ido-tag-em”>walleye quota also–over and above the main quota total. The ML Band will able to take the entire 11K lb.s this year spearing PLUS “incidental” walleyes with nets while “targeting” perch. (The other Bands have given their entire share for 2016 to the ML Band–as the ML Band has already reached the 3000lb. 2016 quota as of a few days ago via spears and now is issuing permits toward the spearing of the other Bands quota’s by ML Band members) Last year for example, while “targeting” <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>perch with nets, the same mesh size was used as has been the size for walleyes. Guess what? Now this year, if they would decide to lower the mesh size to “target” perch, then the easy “target ” would be the 2013 precious walleye class. Go figure…

So called stewards of the environment!!
Nothing but Greed, Greed, Greed!!

TripleA wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>steve-fellegy wrote:</div>
The ML band IS netting perch and “incidental walleyes” are allowed– of course– and NOT counted toward the main quota as each Band has a 1000 lb. “incidental” <em class=”ido-tag-em”>walleye quota also–over and above the main quota total. The ML Band will able to take the entire 11K lb.s this year spearing PLUS “incidental” walleyes with nets while “targeting” perch. (The other Bands have given their entire share for 2016 to the ML Band–as the ML Band has already reached the 3000lb. 2016 quota as of a few days ago via spears and now is issuing permits toward the spearing of the other Bands quota’s by ML Band members) Last year for example, while “targeting” <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>perch with nets, the same mesh size was used as has been the size for walleyes. Guess what? Now this year, if they would decide to lower the mesh size to “target” perch, then the easy “target ” would be the 2013 precious walleye class. Go figure…

I said it before, the strong year class we all were able to C&R this last short ice season will be too big to make it through the nets this spring. RIP.

They will not stop netting… The worst case scenario ONLY has a positive impact on a certain group. The lake dies, they buy every resort, gas station and restaurant with their unlimited funds. The lake slowly recovers over 5-10 years due to increased DNR stocking efforts and every taxpayer from then until the world ends is forced to support the group through taxes/stocking of the lake and the multi-million dollar fisheries building we “need” to fix the lake (now an area owned by a non-taxpaying organization). The tribes then commit to “stop the netting” to fix the lake, angler harvest is zero as well. Fishing starts back up years later, netting with regulations stating early summer and fall only, now with increased DNR monitoring thanks to the tribes donations. Then tack on the profits due to anglers and tourists who will once again be able to enjoy the lake, but will be directly paying the very people that caused the problem. Seems like a very sound business plan. –ZERO downside for one group.

Where’d you get the crystal ball??

Walleyestudent Andy Cox wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>TripleA wrote:</div>

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>steve-fellegy wrote:</div>
The ML band IS netting perch and “incidental walleyes” are allowed– of course– and NOT counted toward the main quota as each Band has a 1000 lb. “incidental” <em class=”ido-tag-em”>walleye quota also–over and above the main quota total. The ML Band will able to take the entire 11K lb.s this year spearing PLUS “incidental” walleyes with nets while “targeting” perch. (The other Bands have given their entire share for 2016 to the ML Band–as the ML Band has already reached the 3000lb. 2016 quota as of a few days ago via spears and now is issuing permits toward the spearing of the other Bands quota’s by ML Band members) Last year for example, while “targeting” <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>perch with nets, the same mesh size was used as has been the size for walleyes. Guess what? Now this year, if they would decide to lower the mesh size to “target” perch, then the easy “target ” would be the 2013 precious walleye class. Go figure…

I said it before, the strong year class we all were able to C&R this last short ice season will be too big to make it through the nets this spring. RIP.

They will not stop netting… The worst case scenario ONLY has a positive impact on a certain group. The lake dies, they buy every resort, gas station and restaurant with their unlimited funds. The lake slowly recovers over 5-10 years due to increased DNR stocking efforts and every taxpayer from then until the world ends is forced to support the group through taxes/stocking of the lake and the multi-million dollar fisheries building we “need” to fix the lake (now an area owned by a non-taxpaying organization). The tribes then commit to “stop the netting” to fix the lake, angler harvest is zero as well. Fishing starts back up years later, netting with regulations stating early summer and fall only, now with increased DNR monitoring thanks to the tribes donations. Then tack on the profits due to anglers and tourists who will once again be able to enjoy the lake, but will be directly paying the very people that caused the problem. Seems like a very sound business plan. –ZERO downside for one group.

Where’d you get the crystal ball??

No crystal ball, simply basic business sense and common sense mixed with current events!

If I remember right the spring netting is done for a few reasons. One is that the bands can be done netting before the season, as not to interfere with anglers, especially those people that troll/drift. Another is that they can get their quotas quickly. Then there is the theory that a dead fish is a dead fish so netting during the spring won’t matter.

Or you can pay via tax dollars to stock the lake then pay again to buy Walleye from the tribe! I still don’t hear them talking about why the lake is in the shape it’s in, only how we can t have a meal of walleyes once and a while or we’ll kill the lake. Absolutely a joke!

blackbay wrote:

If I remember right the spring netting is done for a few reasons. One is that the bands can be done netting before the season, as not to interfere with anglers, especially those people that troll/drift. Another is that they can get their quotas quickly. Then there is the theory that a dead fish is a dead fish so netting during the spring won’t matter.

The only reason is the 2nd one… “get their quotas quickly”… if they had to work at it for a few months, they would eat hotdogs.