It’s the circle of life on the pond. You know it, I know it, and so does the MNDNR. The troubling piece is it’s been ten years of co-management and nothing has changed.
At this point it is a C&R lake and ma nature will take care of it how she wants.
I guess the only problem at Mille Lacs is if you want Walleye to eat. Otherwise it sounds like the <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>walleye fishing there is Great. I guess there are other lakes in the area a person could go to to get fish to keep if they want.
Not the only problem. Why turn a blind eye?
I think what Tom is getting at is the lack of forage which often leads to cannibalism of smaller walleyes by bigger ones.
Certainly smallmouth, pike, and muskies may eat a small percentage of perch, small walleye, and tulibee, but the eating machine in that lake are the adult walleye which still represent the largest biomass of predator.
Guess I am not sure how to fix that. It doesn’t sound like there are a lot of large, older walleyes in the lake based on recent reports. Recent reports in this thread and another would seem to indicate a pretty well rounded bell curve of various age/size of walleye right now.
Reports also seemed to indicate an increase of perch in the lake last fall and during the limited winter ice fishing period, but the DNR claims there was a lack of them which would seem to indicate why the bite may be so good right now.
The part about not being able to keep walleye there isn’t anything new. The restrictions have been very tight on keeping walleye for years and quite often its 100% C & R.
“Guess I am not sure how to fix that. It doesn’t sound like there are a lot of large, older walleyes in the lake based on recent reports. Recent reports in this thread and another would seem to indicate a pretty well rounded bell curve of various age/size of walleye right now.”
The 2014 class one of the largest on record will be large very soon.
They have been protected their entire life and are already the devouring everything in site size.
It wasn’t C&R last year FYI…
It would seem to me the DNR should be trying to keep a more sustainable forage to prey ratio.
Much the same as a rancher only puts out enough cattle in a pasture as the pasture will feed.
Only difference is we would be removing large fish instead of not putting out cattle.
How to get the bands to agree is probably the issue though.
Guess I am not sure how to fix that.
I have a really novel idea for fixing the rollercoaster of predator to prey relationships on Mille Lacs. What if we actually managed the predators via a keeper reg of 2 fish (1 under and 1 over 20″)? And say a total annual harvest (actual harvest, not Hooking mortality BS harvest) of 200k. Prior to co-management failure, the lake actually sustained a 200k+ harvest year in and year out for DECADES. Including over 1M pounds of actual harvest a couple years. Crazy I know, but we all know there is no science or common sense to be applied by the DNR Suits in St Paul nor their puppet masters at the Tribe, especially toward the joke of a quota.
The data collection and poor negotiation to set an absolute number is the problem.
If anyone is interested in exactly how it all works go to Johnson portside Facebook page and watch the video on May 9th. Steve explains it all very well.
I would post but doesn’t seem to be working.
I’ve always liked the idea of spreading out a harvest while simplifying things.
I wonder what impact 1 walleye any size would have on things. Sure a 15” fish may not be a lot, but guys will push into that older year class of low 20” fish too to get more for the plate. There would be spread out harvest…plus some of the bigger fish taken out…without targeting only one class.
With the introduction of zebra muscles, the water fleas,rusty crayfish and the reduction in mayflies the forage base has changed so 200k+ harvest is a thing of the past.
Cannibalism has happened before you would think they would have learned.
BigWerm is right though, the hooking mortality is not accurate enough.
I don’t know what figure they use, but the the bands did a telemetry study and I believe their mortality was 5%.
It would seem to me the DNR should be trying to keep a more sustainable forage to prey ratio.
I’d be willing to bet that they’d like to. I’d also bet they know the lake can handle some harvest and could use some. I don’t believe there is any comanagement. I think their hands are tied by the tribe and they won’t admit it. Instead they twist data to justify their ultra tight regs. It’d be interesting to know why that is. My guess is money and politics.
The management of Mille lacs lake is unlike any other body of water in the state and I think that is because they are not allowed to manage it.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the perch population actually came back if they allowed some harvest of walleyes. And I’m not talking about 1 fish between 20-22 type harvest.
I’d be willing to bet that they’d like to. I’d also bet they know the lake can handle some harvest and could use some. I don’t believe there is any comanagement. I think their hands are tied by the tribe and they won’t admit it. Instead they twist data to justify their ultra tight regs. It’d be interesting to know why that is. My guess is money and politics.
The management of Mille lacs lake is unlike any other body of water in the state and I think that is because they are not allowed to manage it.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>perch population actually came back if they allowed some harvest of walleyes. And I’m not talking about 1 fish between 20-22 type harvest.
[/quote]
I wouldn’t be surprised if you were 100% correct!
I’m not a fisheries biologist, but I like bigwerm’s idea of a 2-fish limit, with one under and one over 20”.
Bucky’s idea isn’t bad either IMO.
I agree with Finny and Toms posts above.
I don’t think there’s any doubt that the lake isn’t the same as it used to be just 20 years ago either. Anyone who has fished it during that span can see that.
In the meantime it sounds like the bite is pretty good.
Anybody see a CO on the lake anytime recently?
With the introduction of zebra muscles, the water fleas,rusty crayfish and the reduction in mayflies the forage base has changed so 200k+
harvest is a thing of past.Cannibalism has happened before you would think they would have learned.
BigWerm is right though, the hooking mortality is not accurate enough.
I don’t know what figure they use, but the the bands did a telemetry study and I believe their mortality was 5%.
Disagree about 200k harvest. It was combined 175k last year of which only 120k was used. So 55k lbs went unused. Where did those fish go? With super low to almost no harvest happening this winter how did we go backwards? Some how with almost zero fishing pressure in January because of poor ice conditions more fish were harvested this January than any January the past five years. Huh? What? 3X more than 2023. Huh? What?
Let me ask this. It’s been 10 years of co management. The biomass is at its all time high in those 10 years. Yet zero harvest is happening on one side and other side is allowed to harvest 65k pounds however they want whenever they want.
So what is the real issue at hand?
What has been done in those ten years to try and correct things on one of the largest natural reproduction walleye lakes in the state.
Great point. When the state anglers seemingly go over the allocated harvest, they get penalized with a closure and a lower allocation the next season.
Should be a 2 way street.
If you think we are not still paying for the one time we did go over when the governor said it was fine you are not paying attention.
If you think we are not still paying for the one time we did go over when the governor said it was fine you are not paying attention.
Warden was working south the side (Wahkon) hard on Saturday. Checked my neighbor fishing off his dock. Also checked 3 others I know. Doing their job, making their presence known. 1st time I’ve seen them in some time.
I have never understood the reasoning behind targeting the 21-23″ length only over the last 5+ years. Doesn’t that impact the highest levels of egg producing fish??
I have never understood the reasoning behind targeting the 21-23″ length only over the last 5+ years. Doesn’t that impact the highest levels of egg producing fish??
Because there was hardly any fish that size and they were trying to protect the 2014 year class. 1 fish in a 2 inch slot is not impacting anything.
The Tribe is using the 1874 treaty to slowly draining the $ out of the community till resorts go belly up so they can snatch them up.
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Jason wrote:</div>
I have never understood the reasoning behind targeting the 21-23″ length only over the last 5+ years. Doesn’t that impact the highest levels of egg producing fish??Because there was hardly any fish that size and they were trying to protect the 2014 year class. 1 fish in a 2 inch slot is not impacting anything.
Agreed. I caught 1 fish in that slot. Lots over and lots under, but only the one in the slot
Before a realistic target can be set, a realistic actual current harvest should be known. With the lack of transparency on the tribal side as to what they actually take, we have no way of even roughly estimating total harvest and its effects on the population. Truck after truck of tribal harvest leaving the lake with ZERO accountability tosses the entire process i to the garbage bin.
Before a realistic target can be set, a realistic actual current harvest should be known. With the lack of transparency on the tribal side as to what they actually take, we have no way of even roughly estimating total harvest and its effects on the population. Truck after truck of tribal harvest leaving the lake with ZERO accountability tosses the entire process i to the garbage bin.
One of many bad data numbers being used yes.
The Tribe is using the 1874 treaty to slowly draining the $ out of the community till resorts go belly up so they can snatch them up.
^^^ THIS × 2 !!! ^^^
BUT It is more than resorts that the band buys. Actually they will buy commercial / retail property if below market.
Lots to unpack here, but I can provide some answers to questions, clarifications, transparency, and some corrections.
I am a fisheries biologist for one of the tribes, I’m pretty knowledgeable and involved in the process. Hit me up with any questions, I’m all about transparency and I’m happy to try to answer them.
First, A 200k shared quota is feasible. Think in terms of exploitation rate. This years spawning stock biomass was 1,219,000 pounds. The quota in 157,500 = 12.9% This a very reasonable exploitation rate. I expect we will see a spawning biomass of ~ 1,400,000 in the next few years, bring that exploitation rate up to around 14%, still very reasonable and you’ve got a 200k pound quota. I’m really hoping for this.
As far as quota, quick facts, the state has gone over several times. The split is legally suppose to be 50:50. The tribes voluntarily give a significant percentage to the state every year in good faith.
I would love to see a two fish harvest for state anglers. 2 fish 19 – 23″ slot. This year this is not feasible. With the bite the way it is the angler harvest alone would exceed 250,000 pounds. Include the tribal harvest ~60,000 pounds, and you’re at 26% exploitation rate, not sustainable. I have nothing to do with the catch and release reg, not my call.
Three reasons for the seemingly strange slot limit: First target the 2013 year class, they are getting old, and it’s time to harvest them. Second, the tribal harvest is 80% Male and almost exclusively 17 – 19″, overlapping harvests could cause overharvest of males and skew the sex ratio. Third, Mille Lacs is not egg limited, for the last 20 years having enough large spawning females has not been the issue.
So if the walleye population has overshot it’s forage base and will likely cannibilize at higher rates this year why not harvest more fish? This makes perfect sense, and it may be right, except it’s not that straightforward. It used to be that Mille Lacs could handle this, catch 1/2 a million pounds the population would decrease, cannibilism would decrease, forage would increase and a new year class would recruit. These days with zebra mussels, spiny water flea, Smallmouth Bass, and very high water temps I’m just not confident that next year class is right around the corner. The plan is, and I hope we stick to it, to carefully increase harvest through increasing exploitation rates. This has happened the last three years in a row. Also, while carefully monitoring juvenile survival. I do the juvenile assessment, last years year class was a total bust, in my opinion due to the late hatch being born right into high summer water temps.
Hooking mortality: Hooking mortality estimates are actually very low for Mille Lacs. I just finished up checking some DNR data from last year, last May it was only 1.5% It peaked around 11% in early august. Overall it’s only ~5%. When I first saw the hooking mortality numbers I was also skeptical, it wasn’t until I did the math and saw these percentages that it seemed correct. This has been a cool May, I expect the hooking mortality correction to be less than 1%.
Lastly for tonight anyways, I’ve worked in fish and wildlife for 14 years all over the US. Almost all harvests are estimated and extrapolated. The Mille Lacs tribal harvest is diligently counted. Myself and 4 teams of creel clerks are at the landings all day and all night. I’m confident my harvest report is 99% accurate, I like to say it’s the most accurate harvest data in the country. People disagree with me on this often, I don’t know what to say, I’m personally at cedar creek and I drive around and check the crews at the other landings. The tribal system is rock solid, I was really impressed when I started the job. If anything the angler creel survey estimates could be more rigorous.
Mille Lacs is a conundrum, I think about how to interpret assessment data and what the best course of action is constantly. It’s not necessarily possible to be 100% certain on how to proceed. I simply hope the health of the fishery, and relations between agencies and user groups continue to improve.
1 walleye limit…any size
This could keep everyone happy and within thresholds without jeopardizing the future or creating a forage rollercoaster
This lake is so “overthought” it’s difficult to comprehend.
Appreciate the post Eric, actually backing the talk up with numbers.
As far as the 80% male and 17-19 inch class, is this documented or just observation?
Also, more out of curiosity. What percentage of the walleye biomass are made up of the 2013 class and the average size of a 11 year old walleye in the lake currently?
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
