Mille Lacs BS

https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/news/2024/03/13/dnr-sets-open-water-fishing-regulations-mille-lacs

Did you expect anything different?

How are the nets going to be catch and release? Explain that to me? Bull poop all the way.

Yep we can’t hook and line one, but they can take them out in nets. Yep seems totally fair to me.

This truly is a terrible joke. We need to stop this BS somehow.

Terrible. Let’s let people think we will open it up in August when we know they won’t.
How did we go backwards again vs last year.

Ripjiggen wrote:

How did we go backwards again.

Science

What if the ice conditions would have been great?

You just can’t make this up. There will ALWAYS be an excuse. It’s never going to change.

I really dont pay attention but do the indians net their “65k lbs” pre spawn with obviously no size limit?

Joe Jarl wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Ripjiggen wrote:</div>
How did we go backwards again.

Science

Yes science!!

Not surprising. At least there won’t be a closure. For now. I can only imagine the pitchforks if they have to close it unexpected during the season.

JEREMY wrote:

I really dont pay attention but do the indians net their “65k lbs” pre spawn with obviously no size limit?

Pre spawn. Spawn. Post spawn all depends on ice out.

gim wrote:

Not surprising. At least there won’t be a closure. For now. I can only imagine the pitchforks if they have to close it unexpected during the season.

Hasn’t been a closure in a couple years. Zero reason to ever have one.

Ripjiggen wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>JEREMY wrote:</div>
I really dont pay attention but do the indians net their “65k lbs” pre spawn with obviously no size limit?

Yes.

Yes, and that 65k lbs take is not monitored or creel surveyed, it’s a self reporting system….

3Rivers wrote:

What if the ice conditions would have been great?

You just can’t make this up. There will ALWAYS be an excuse. It’s never going to change.

Yet is was probably the worst since the co-management and we still went backwards…
Can’t make it up.

Ripjiggen wrote:

Hasn’t been a closure in a couple years. Zero reason to ever have one.

So if the bite is as bonkers as they think it will be, and the water temps soar, and their mortality estimates go way up, I think they could pull the emergency closure card at some point. Certainly not out of the realm of being possible.

Not saying I agree or disagree with it, but I could see it happening.

Also, a quick hop in the way back machine in case anyone thinks it’s actually raining, rather than the DNR/GLIFWC pi$$ing on you and laughing.

We are now a decade into virtually no actual harvest by MN Anglers, 2014 was the first year of a severely reduced bag and super tight slot (2 fish 18-20″ with 1 over 28″). Prior to that it was 4 or 6 fish with 17/18/20″-28″ protected slot.

Also as a reminder prior to co-management in 1999 Mille Lacs produced over 200,000 lbs of actually harvested walleye nearly every year of it’s recorded history except for 3 years. And routinely produced over 400,000 lbs of actual harvested walleyes numerous times, including 1992 when over 1,000,000 pounds were harvested.

I sent an email to the DNR with a question about the new regulations. Their reasoning seems counterintuitive.

I read the new Mille Lacs regulations and have a question. Since walleye fishing is good to excellent with multiple year classes showing prominence and bait levels insufficient to satisfy walleye’s hunger, why not lower the walleye population to reduce predation on bait species? Maintaining a balanced system must be critical to fostering the 2021 & 2022 year classes. It appears that the current situation is upside down.
Thank you,
Gregg Gunter

Gregg, your logic seems spot on to me. I’m guessing logic has nothing to do with their decision making.

Greg you’re missing a key point. Don’t waste your time with the MNDNR. They have as much “say” in the Mille Lacs situation as any of us. The Bands run it and the MNDNR just gets propped up as a messenger of bad news. There’s no co-management of anything. It’s well beyond the MNDNR and there’s really no legal action to right the ship.

How exactly did we get in the situation where co-management was required? I’d be interested to know the history of what landed us here.

There is obviously zero science behind any of it anymore.

Both MN & WI DNR seem to do very little by science anymore. The Departments are run by politicians and Native Americans.

FinnyDinDin wrote:

How exactly did we get in the situation where co-management was required? I’d be interested to know the history of what landed us here.

There is obviously zero science behind any of it anymore.

Oh boy to late for that now but if you really want to know… search IDO
Or PM me if you reallh want me to rant.

I agree that science has little to do with decision making. I knew a guy from the DNR and read some studies about musky introduction to certain lakes. In one lake known as a crappie lake the crappie population declined by a large percentage. But the study found that to be insignificant. There were similar conclusions in other studies. I pointed out to my friend that changes of +/- 5% is statistically significant. He was livid and said muskies don’t eat round fish they eat long fish. That’s when I realized that fish biologists don’t recognize the scientific method. Maybe I shouldn’t have made notes on the papers!

I would still like to hear the DNR explain how there could be as much fish taken this winter, when there was hardly anyone fishing.
The Red Door never put a fish house on the lake. Terry’s boat harbor didn’t even have a road.
The only area that had any where near normal conditions was Isle bay.
Their lake assessment doesn’t add up.
If there are not enough baitfish to feed the gamefish shouldn’t we be reducing the number of baitfish, not trying to maintain the number of gamefish?

Tom schmitt wrote:

If there are not enough baitfish to feed the gamefish shouldn’t we be reducing the number of baitfish, not trying to maintain the number of gamefish?

No, that’s incorrect. We don’t really have a way of “reducing the number of baitfish” in the lake. Unless you have a method of mass harvesting small dink perch.

So there is a good population of walleye, and a good year class coming up, and a shortage of baitfish and food for the baitfish. Sounds like more walleyes need to be harvested to give the baitfish a chance to catch up to the next year class of fish from 2021.

Riverrat wrote:

So there is a good population of walleye, and a good year class coming up, and a shortage of baitfish and food for the baitfish. Sounds like more <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>walleyes need to be harvested to give the baitfish a chance to catch up to the next year class of fish from 2021.

They will be just not but hook and line anglers. They know the early ice out will lead to increase in fish taken out.

^x2

Plenty of mature fish will be leaving Mille Lacs, just not by hook and line.

Tom schmitt wrote:

Their lake assessment doesn’t add up.
If there are not enough baitfish to feed the gamefish shouldn’t we be reducing the number of baitfish, not trying to maintain the number of gamefish?

That’s good in theory. You would have to believe that there indeed is a bait fish shortage, which in fact there isn’t. At least according to pretty much everyone that fishes the lake regularly. There’s more perch in the lake than there has been in 15 years.

There is NO actual CORRECT number of Native American harvest(netting & spearing) in MN or WI. The DNR agencies give you a number but it’s basically grabbed out of the sky. JMO