I’m glad I got up there on Saturday, to enjoy a launch off of Twin Pines. Was an enjoyable night. 95% of the fish we caught were from the 2 recent strong year classes. I hope the businesses find a way to stay afloat….
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Will Roseberg wrote:</div>
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>philtickelson wrote:</div>
I think Mille Lacs is a total and necessary wake up call for fishermen in this day and age. With all the advances in technology it’s become a lot easier for people to find and catch fish than in the past.Mille Lacs is a reminder that even the biggest lakes can be overfished. Whether it’s netting(it’s not just netting) or by hook and line, it doesn’t matter. Walleyes, panfish, northern, you name it.
While on the surface that seems to make a lot of sense Phil and it is accurate to say that fishing pressure can take a toll on a lake as big as Mille Lacs, IMO the numbers don’t really support this theory… 20 years ago (before the current slots were introduced) the number of walleyes harvested were on the order of more than 5-10 times more than the amount harvested over the past several years so there is definitely much more at play here then simply over-harvesting the lake.
Will
So does it not make sense that if 20 years ago there were that many more walleyes taken, then there would be that many fewer walleyes to spawn for next years class, thus leaving us with a steady decline of fish? So how is over harvesting not one of the main issues here?
@Tony
Look at pages 17 and 20 for the history of the slot and the lakes biomass pre and post 1999. The DNRs own report lay it out pretty obviously imo.
http://fwcb.cfans.umn.edu/prod/groups/cfans/@pub/@cfans/@fwcb/documents/asset/cfans_asset_494345.pdf
yep. Uh huh.
what has changed in the last 20 years for Mille Lacs ? I say technology.. including sonars and nets. Why is only 1 affecting the lake and not the other ? One group uses both technology and nets and the other, only the technology. What do you think affects it more ??? 
@Tony
Look at pages 17 and 20 for the history of the slot and the lakes biomass pre and post 1999. The DNRs own report lay it out pretty obviously imo.http://fwcb.cfans.umn.edu/prod/groups/cfans/@pub/@cfans/@fwcb/documents/asset/cfans_asset_494345.pdf
2003 was the year a decision was made with the slot that doomed the lake IMO.
Protecting all those big fish is what caused the imbalance.
I like the idea of what Lac Seul has, heck most of NW Ontario has regs like that, but it may not be a “plug and play” type regulation here due to a much higher number of anglers. Its definitely down the right track though.
Is this for only the remainder of this season? The article sounded like uncertainty of any plan related to 2016?
Very similar situation over here with Lake tomahawk. They put a 5 year no kill on walleyes on that system. Lots of unhappy cottage and business owners…but when the majority of people harvest the 16-20″ “eaters”, they are removing the most productive spawners from the system. I don’t fish M/L, so I don’t know the specifics for that lake.
However, this seems to be a universal problem everywhere that experiences “destination fishing”. Many anglers look at the $$$ they spend on their vacation and hell bent on bringing fish home. Our lakes at an abundance level of walleyes is 5.5 to 6 mature (over 12″) walleyes per acre. Easy math – 5.5 X acres = apprx population. So on a 1000 acre lake, you have 5500 walleyes over 12″. Now calculate out the man hours spent by anglers and harvest rate for a season. Doesn’t take long to take a lake out of balance.
As an example, we just fished an 1107 acre lake this last week, and had 8 nights out there. Two of us caught 286 walleyes and kept 9. This lake has a estimated population of 3.8/acre. Thats roughly 4,207 mature walleyes in the lake. We caught and released about 6.5% of those in just over a week amongst the two of us. Imagine if 10 more guys figured out our pattern??? Those fish could be decimated in no time at all. Exponentiate that for the size of ML, and I can see where one or two bad spawning years could crash the system.
Hope they get a viable solution soon.
Is this for only the remainder of this season? The article sounded like uncertainty of any plan related to 2016?
Very similar situation over here with Lake tomahawk. They put a 5 year no kill on walleyes on that system. Lots of unhappy cottage and business owners…but when the majority of people harvest the 16-20″ “eaters”, they are removing the most productive spawners from the system. I don’t fish M/L, so I don’t know the specifics for that lake.
However, this seems to be a universal problem everywhere that experiences “destination fishing”. Many anglers look at the $$$ they spend on their vacation and hell bent on bringing fish home. Our lakes at an abundance level of walleyes is 5.5 to 6 mature (over 12″) walleyes per acre. Easy math – 5.5 X acres = apprx population. So on a 1000 acre lake, you have 5500 walleyes over 12″. Now calculate out the man hours spent by anglers and harvest rate for a season. Doesn’t take long to take a lake out of balance.As an example, we just fished an 1107 acre lake this last week, and had 8 nights out there. Two of us caught 286 walleyes and kept 9. This lake has a estimated population of 3.8/acre. Thats roughly 4,207 mature walleyes in the lake. We caught and released about 6.5% of those in just over a week amongst the two of us. Imagine if 10 more guys figured out our pattern??? Those fish could be decimated in no time at all. Exponentiate that for the size of ML, and I can see where one or two bad spawning years could crash the system.
Hope they get a viable solution soon.
That is assuming you believe the numbers. When the “boom” was going on Mille Lacs, the estimates were that each fish was being caught about 1.5 times per season. I don’t think they accurately know what is in that lake.
All lakes have cycles, Mille Lacs especially. The cycles are based on strength of spawning classes, other predator/prey available, fishing pressure, etc. Things naturally work themselves out and have for thousands of years. The DNR seems to think they can have prevent cycles, much like politicians think they can stop climate change (tell that to volcanos or the sun).
I know musky fisherman will agrue against this, but we have seen a big change in Vermilion as the population exploded. Mille Lacs is going through the same thing. It could just be a coincidence, but there might be more to it.
Randy I like what you wrote about catching 200+ walleyes and only keeping 9. I believe more fisherman need to practice this form of fishing. I keep about 12 walleyes a year, I have to add that I fish about once a week. If anglers put catch and release to practice on Mille lacs and similar waters I assume that the fishing would get better. Everyone needs to remember future generations of anglers. Not 5 years from now, but 50 plus years from now.
@Tony
Look at pages 17 and 20 for the history of the slot and the lakes biomass pre and post 1999. The DNRs own report lay it out pretty obviously imo.http://fwcb.cfans.umn.edu/prod/groups/cfans/@pub/@cfans/@fwcb/documents/asset/cfans_asset_494345.pdf
I think page 9 sums it up best, the low survivability of from year 0 to year 3 is from increased predation and cannibalism.
The chart in figure 14 really spells this out. Look at the inverse correlation of the pike population in relation to the walleye population.
Also note the inverse populations of walleye to cormorants.
I would bet that the smallies are a function of the lower walleye, similar to how the crappies took advantage on Red in a perfect storm of lower predation combined with a great spawn.
I would really like to know more about this comment made by the “Blue Ribbon Pannel”
We conclude that recreational and subsistence fishing mortality is unlikely to be the direct cause of the decline of Mille Lacs walleye. However, we also note that the fixed exploitation policy of 24% of fish over 356 mm that was established when state and tribal co-management was put in place does not necessarily provide for a conservative level of fishing or prevent substantial year-to-year fluctuations in the actual impact of fishing (enphasis added by me)
I tried finding some definition on this comment. Best I could tell, they are suggesting that the slots are overly protecting larger (14″+) walleye by limiting their harvesting to only 24% of the total kill.
Thoughts?
However, this seems to be a universal problem everywhere that experiences “destination fishing”. Many anglers look at the $$$ they spend on their vacation and hell bent on bringing fish home.
Couldn’t agree with this more, especially with the higher price of gas to make the trip up and expensive new boat payments forcing the attitude of “I gotta get my money’s worth” by keeping limits every time. I also think the huge jump in sonar technology the last 3-4 years has had a bigger effect than folks want to admit… just my 2c
I agree that us fisherman are largly to blame though not solely responsible; however wasn’t RED lake ON FIRE the last year and in only two month of fishing it saw more fishing pressure that all of LOTW and the populations of walleye were decimated…In two months.
We did that.
Last winter was Destination Red Lake for many anglers.
Walleye is the bucket fish. The majority of anglers fish for them to put them in a bucket. The DNR dumps them out of a bucket as fry and when they hit that magic size the majority fish for those fillets.
Mille Lacs sure was a blast when it was pumping out fish though. I enjoyed 3 straight winters on the ice searching out the great fishing!
I agree that us fisherman are largly to blame though not solely responsible; however wasn’t RED lake ON FIRE the last year and in only two month of fishing it saw more fishing pressure that all of LOTW and the populations of walleye were decimated…In two months.
We did that.
Last winter was Destination Red Lake for many anglers.
Exactly! You watch, Red will be in a similar situation as Mille Lacs right now in a couple years.
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Randy Wieland wrote:</div>
However, this seems to be a universal problem everywhere that experiences “destination fishing”. Many anglers look at the $$$ they spend on their vacation and hell bent on bringing fish home.Couldn’t agree with this more, especially with the higher price of gas to make the trip up and expensive new boat payments forcing the attitude of “I gotta get my money’s worth” by keeping limits every time.
Totally agree.
Change Mille Lacs any way you want and that still doesn’t change one factor that needs to change: Angler attitudes about having to limit out every time and go home with coolers full of fillets are going to have to change as well.
I don’t care what kind of walleye factory a lake is. There aren’t that many lakes that have anything close to sustainable natural reproduction and NO LAKE can sustain the kind of pressure we have today.
The can’s just getting kicked down the road in favor of a quickie-slickie Mille Lacs fix to appease those who just want to put the blinders back on and get back to freezer filling as usual.
Why not bite the bullet now and go to a license tag system where every license buyer gets to tag X number of walleye? Size doesn’t matter, lake doesn’t matter, but when you fill out your last tag, you’re done keeping fish for the year. Catch them all in one day, or over a full season, it’s simple in that you tag fish until you’ve used your last tag.
Change is hard. Repeating past mistakes is even harder.
Grouse
The can’s just getting kicked down the road in favor of a quickie-slickie Mille Lacs fix to appease those who just want to put the blinders back on and get back to freezer filling as usual.
Kind of makes you wonder a lot of things. First of all bans and restrictions may have the unintended consequence of people doing what they can to make sure they get their “fair” share. Be it legal (catch’em, fry’em get back out) or not. Which kind of makes you wonder are the quota’s being met or exceeded.
The best chance for that lake to have a turn around is to let it sit for 2-4 years untouched. That isn’t going to happen. Even then, with the smallmouth and muskie fishery that now exists, it probably would not get back to the way it was…depending on your target definition of “the way it was” is.
I do feel bad for the businesses. But that solution is to change the marketing to the premier smallmouth and musky destination in Minnesota.
Change is never easy unless you don’t have someone to point your finger.
We have been limited to C&R fishing on Mille Lacs for years now. The skinny slot and 1 or 2 fish limit has basically shut down the harvest. The majority of the angler harvest today is release mortality.
With proper management from the DNR and no tribal netting, Mills Lacs can sustain hook and line fishing at the same levels seen prior to 2002. (angler harvest in the million pound range annually.)
-J.
“I see it every year up at LOTW, the same group of three guys show up to the fish cleaning shack four days in a row with three limits of walleye. I’m sure they are eating their full limit every night though, so nothing wrong with that. ”
and the sad part is that most of those walleye are not what i would consider keepers – the charter boats keep any and every walleye so as to make good on their guarantee to “catch your limit”.
Except for this year, (I caught a limit this year…. 1 fish at 19 1/8″) I can’t remember the last time I kept a limit of walleyes from Mille Lacs. I think the mentality of “gotta keep em” came about close to 6 or 7 years ago… when the slot started it’s throat grip on everybody except the priveleged netters. I know I heard the attitude, “if I don’t keep it, the netters will”… after years of watching the lake swirl around in circles on it’s way down the drain, it made alot of people change their attitude, to not giving a crap either, like the DNR.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
