Lake Mille Lacs open-water walleye harvest proposed for 2019

biggill wrote:

After thinking about the night ban a bit, I’d bet they probably aren’t willing to pay survey personnel to work night shift hours in the fall.

That’s probably part of it.

biggill wrote:

Mille Lacs would even be an excellent opportunity to experiment with barbless hooks.

I wouldn’t be surprised if it came to that. I wouldn’t mind too much, if it would help.

I spoke to a local warden a couple weeks ago who said that a circle hook only law has even been floated by some groups. That would really suck.

biggill wrote:

I’d just like to see night ban lifted during the lowest mortality months like October and November when fishing is fantastic and resort revenue is at a season low.

Mille Lacs would even be an excellent opportunity to experiment with barbless hooks.

It would be nice if they just moved the night ban starting time to 11PM instead of 10PM. That move would essentially be the removal of daylight savings time from the evening fishing time.

Bass Thumb wrote:

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

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Bass Thumb wrote:</div>
Dang, I was hoping they’d keep it CPR for at least another summer and lift the stupid night ban.

The “stupid night ban” is the majority of the problem. I hope they never lift it…..EVER!

How so? Do you have data to prove this?

From my experience, there’s likely less hooking mortality with trolled crankbaits than with Lindy Rigs and slip bobbers. I almost never nick a gill with a crank bait.

No I don’t have any data, but I do know that the bite is better in low light and more bigger fish get caught in low light conditions. Not everyone pulls cranks at night. A vast majority bobber fish. I am not saying, I am just saying it’s a lot easier to get away with extra lines and keeping illegal fish at night. I know that is painting with a broad brush and I am not accusing anyone of anything. I wouldn’t have near as much of an issue if the ban was lifted in the fall, but kept on all spring and most of the summer.

In the Strib 2-23-2019

http://www.startribune.com/dnr-chippewa-bands-say-numbers-are-right-to-open-mille-lacs-walleye-harvest/506273572/

What circumstances occurred in 2013 which made for such a good class of fish compared to 2015 and 2016 which according to this article aren’t so good?

I couldn’t read the article (Star Trib is annoying wont let me read without a subscription)

But I think we all know the answer to that. 2013 had late ice and virtually no netting. Funny how that produced a bumper crop of walleye.

lindyrig79 wrote:

I couldn’t read the article (Star Trib is annoying wont let me read without a subscription)

But I think we all know the answer to that. 2013 had late ice and virtually no netting. Funny how that produced a bumper crop of walleye.

I’m leaning that way also.

Some year classes are better than others. The issue in that lake is not a lack of reproduction. The issue is the bigger fish eating the smaller ones. The big walleyes in that lake are the primary eating machine.

gimruis wrote:

Some year classes are better than others. The issue in that lake is not a lack of reproduction. The issue is the bigger fish eating the smaller ones. The big walleyes in that lake are the primary eating machine.

That’s my question, why was there such a big difference between the 2013 class and the 2015-16 class? The big walleyes didn’t like eating the 2013 class?
I couldn’t find online Mille Lacs Ice Out History, but I’m thinking the record ice out in 2013 and lack of opportunity to net/spear played a role.

Not enough perch to eat those years.

You can contribute lots of things to the mess. Poor slot management, AIS, which created extra clear water, which caused a perch / forage shortage, which caused big walleye to eat small walleye. Also netting during spawn.

But what got the lake back on track (I.E. the 2013 year class) was because it was super late ice and no netting occurred that year. That is not a coincidence.

As a mile lacs property owner I’ve been watching the unfold for years but don’t understand something. According to the star tribune article all of a sudden they mention 700,000 fish over 14 inches but no overall poundage. All the other information has always been in total poundage and that is what the quota is set in. Why don’t they forget the estimated poundage and just set the quota in number of fish available? Who cares how much they weight.
Would make allot more sense to me.

Make the limit 2 but one must be 26″ or larger.

Flood the lake with CO’s year round.

One reason is that the lake is home to relatively few yellow perch, a prime walleye forage fish. The decline is the result, perhaps, of a corresponding falloff of the lake’s zooplankton.

Or another theory, the DNR keeps protecting too many large fish that the perch are consumed by the large fish until they disappear.

I’m glad to see the DNR getting into that 2013 year class. The 2013 fish need to be trimmed before they become the protected 24″ and above. If the 24″+ population is too big it will cause the next crash of missing year classes.

I agree, it’s time to trim a few.

There are many contributors to the problem on Mille Lacs. Not just the netting. I believe the 2013 year class did so well because the spawning conditions were more ideal, for a longer time than in other years. The water temperatures remained in the ideal range for spawning longer because of the cooler spring. This resulted in a much higher number of newly hatched walleyes. Along with a strong perch hatch as well.

Here we go again……………you can’t have spawning fish if they are wrapped up in nets.

Every other reason floated by the DNR is a contributing factor but late ice outs prove that nets are a major problem. You can’t overlook the elephant in the room.

Also don’t forget that those were the years with the least amount of predator size walleye so less if any little walleye gets eaten if there are enough perch.

Hoping for a very late ice out and no more abandoned nets as this from last year.

Attachments:

1. 

   20180520_165900.jpg
   

gonefishin wrote:

Hoping for a very late ice out and no more abandoned nets as this from last year.

I was wondering where I put that.

Eelpoutguy wrote:

I was wondering where I put that.

It was right next to your second rod.

biggill wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>eelpoutguy wrote:</div>
I was wondering where I put that.

It was right next to your second rod.

I was using two rods only because I forgot my spear at home.

Kyhl wrote:

Or another theory, the DNR keeps protecting too many large fish that the <em class=”ido-tag-em”>perch are consumed by the large fish until they disappear.

I’m glad to see the DNR getting into that 2013 year class. The 2013 fish need to be trimmed before they become the protected 24″ and above. If the 24″+ population is too big it will cause the next crash of missing year classes.

It was really refreshing to see all the little walleyes this season through the ice. That’s a great indication of a healthy fishery. I rarely went a trip without catching a fish 13″ or under. The prior two winters, I’d very rarely see one that size, and would routinely catch as many fish over 20″ as under. This year was more of an even size distribution. I’d like to see the bell curve. From 4″ to 29″ and everywhere it between, with a large proportion of fish in the 18-22″ range. Seems like a lot of 12-13″ fish, too. Whatever year class that is seems pretty strong. The fish were a lot fatter, as well, after eating up many of those dink perch that were lighting up people’s graphs last season and making fishing tough.

How old is a 13″er?
and I agree it was good to see the little guys out there this winter.

Eelpoutguy wrote:

In the Strib 2-23-2019

What circumstances occurred in 2013 which made for such a good class of fish compared to 2015 and 2016 which according to this article aren’t so good?

I think you may have misunderstood this portion of the article. It’s saying that the 2015-2016 was good enough so that they will allow some harvest of the 2013 class.

“As large as that year class is (2013), the DNR likely wouldn’t have allowed even a limited harvest of it if two of the lake’s subsequent year classes — the 2015 and 2016 — didn’t show promise they will survive in sufficient numbers to add eventually to the lake’s walleye spawners.”

So…maybe not as great as 2013, but good nonetheless. I think the 12-13″ walleyes we’re seeing now would be from the 2015-2016 year classes. As far as for 2017-2018 year classes, I believe they need to get a little bigger to start showing up in survey nets.

Hi, here are the distributions numbers from ML 2017 Large Lake Survey

Attachments:

1. 

   Mille-Lacs-LL-Survey-2017a.pdf.png
   

gonefishin wrote:

Hi, here are the distributions numbers from ML 2017 Large Lake Survey

Good information to be confirmed here. Clearly the 2013 class is by far most abundant. 2017 class #’s should be discounted some as this survey was in 2017 and those would have been YOY. Many now have been consumed.

That spike in 2008 would explain the somewhat abundant 24-27″ fish being caught this winter.