Mille Lacs New Walleye Regs

Ripjiggen wrote:

Go for it. I keep all my 55 inch muskies. Lots of meat.

All of them? lol

The muskie stocking in Mille Lacs is all but non-existent nowadays. At least compared to historical amount of stocking.

It’s a statewide pull back on muskie stocking in general for years now. A survey was conducted a while back and the majority of muskie anglers preferred quality over quantity.

The average number of adult sized muskies in Mille Lacs now is about 1 per every 40 acres.

Jason wrote:

The 22-27″ fish are sadly going to be very yummy for most boats.

Large walleyes are fine to eat, ESPECIALLY out of a big, clean lake like Mille lacs. Just remove the pin bones. Plus, doesn’t Mille lacs actually need more of that size class taken out?

I meant they shouldn’t put any money in to the lake other than musky stocking.

They stock so few now it isn’t even much of a fishery other than late springs when they are still shallow and the livescope guys. Those fish would provide more opportunity for fisherman in other lakes.

So I’d be okay if the dnr stopped putting any money in to the lake.

Ripjiggin doesn’t seem smart enough to be able to utilize that technology proper.

Nope pretty dumb but if you have 6 poles they are pretty easy to chase down. Tire them out and scoop them up with a big ol net. Great table fair when smoked.

You seem like such an intellect I am surprised you haven’t figured it out.

FinnyDinDin wrote:

I meant they shouldn’t put any money in to the lake other than musky stocking.

They stock so few now it isn’t even much of a fishery other than late springs when they are still shallow and the livescope guys. Those fish would provide more opportunity for fisherman in other lakes.

So I’d be okay if the dnr stopped putting any money in to the lake.

Sure seems like you care if you keep commenting on such a horrible lake.

LabDaddy1 wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Jason wrote:</div>
The 22-27″ fish are sadly going to be very yummy for most boats.

Large walleyes are fine to eat, ESPECIALLY out of a big, clean lake like Mille lacs. Just remove the pin bones. Plus, doesn’t Mille lacs actually need more of that size class taken out?

Perhaps. I’m not familiar with the current makeup of year classes represented in the lake for walleyes, but clearly those size fish are the spawning females that significantly contribute to natural reproduction.

Plus, it won’t take long to reach a quota if people are removing 5 or 6 pounders. The quota is based on weight. I could see this turning out disastrous if too many of those spawners get removed.

gim wrote:

Plus, it won’t take long to reach a quota if people are removing 5 or 6 pounders. The quota is based on weight. I could see this turning out disastrous if too many of those spawners get removed.

This assumes the DNR checks, which they don’t. They likely already have an avg poundage they will apply to their creel boat #s, which again do not account for pleasure boaters, smallie fishermen, or musky fishermen etc.

Perhaps. I’m not familiar with the current makeup of year classes represented in the lake for walleyes, but clearly those size fish are the spawning females that significantly contribute to natural reproduction.

Plus, it won’t take long to reach a quota if people are removing 5 or 6 pounders. The quota is based on weight. I could see this turning out disastrous if too many of those spawners get removed.

Disastrous? There is already a safe harvest level number. It makes no difference if it comes from a 1 pound or 4lb fish. Literally zero difference.

Ripjiggen wrote:

It makes no difference if it comes from a 1 pound or 4lb fish. Literally zero difference.

In terms of the quota, correct. What I’m saying is that bigger fish are females that are spawners. Removing those fish en masse removes their ability to spawn. Does it not?

Traditionally, ML has not allowed the harvest of bigger fish in significant numbers. Just 1 fish over 28 inches was the reg for many years.

BigWerm wrote:

This assumes the DNR checks, which they don’t.

I checked myself when I worked for them.

gim wrote:

n terms of the quota, correct. What I’m saying is that bigger fish are females that are spawners. Removing those fish en masse removes their ability to spawn. Does it not?

25 years of netting those big spawning females, and a biomass that has crashed multiple times, and GLIFWC and the DNR tell us it has no impact.

gim wrote:

I checked myself when I worked for them.

You weighed fish doing creel surveys??? I highly doubt you even measured their length, let alone weighed them.

gim wrote:

I checked myself when I worked for them.

How did you do that, ask them or actually weigh the fish. Honestly curious.

In terms of the quota, correct. What I’m saying is that bigger fish are females that are spawners. Removing those fish en masse removes their ability to spawn. Does it not?

Traditionally, ML has not allowed the harvest of bigger fish in significant numbers. Just 1 fish over 28 inches was the reg for many years.

What’s the difference if you remove them 1 year before they spawn or 1 year after. A kept fish is a kept fish. The tribe has been netting spawning size fish for a long time. Do the math it’s not that many fish. Targeting multiple year classes is a much better approach than targeting 1. Almost every lake with special regs allows 1 over 20.

Ripjiggen wrote:

Traditionally, ML has not allowed the harvest of bigger fish in significant numbers. Just 1 fish over 28 inches was the reg for many years.

*except for netting by the preferred race.

Ripjiggen wrote:

What’s the difference if you remove them 1 year before they spawn or 1 year after. A kept fish is a kept fish. The tribe has been netting spawning size fish for a long time. Do the math it’s not that many fish.

Well each big spawning female has hundreds of thousands of eggs, so 1 year is the difference in millions and millions of eggs.

BigWerm wrote:

You weighed fish doing creel surveys??? I

Sorry. I think there was some confusion about this. I didn’t weigh or measure them. I did conduct creel surveys. I thought you meant the surveys themselves weren’t being conducted.

John Rasmussen wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>gim wrote:</div>
I checked myself when I worked for them.

How did you do that, ask them or actually weigh the fish. Honestly curious.

See my post above. I did the surveys. I thought he was stating those weren’t being done.

Well each big spawning female has hundreds of thousands of eggs, so 1 year is the difference in millions and millions of eggs

Those fish won’t have eggs at the time of harvest just like a fish being one year away from having millions of eggs. Like I said they have been doing it for years and years in special reg lakes.
Do you think it would be better to target 1 year class in a two inch slot and historically only getting to 30,40,50 percent of the safe harvest number that is lower than the lake can actually handle in the first place.

Again do the math it is not that many fish.
It’s about time for the lake to see some harvest. It is loaded with fish right now. They teased us with three fish and now it’s only 2.

gim wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>BigWerm wrote:</div>
You weighed fish doing creel surveys??? I

Sorry. I think there was some confusion about this. I didn’t weigh or measure them. I did conduct creel surveys. I thought you meant the surveys themselves weren’t being conducted.

Gotcha, you said catching 5-6 pounders will get us to quota faster, and I said it wouldn’t because they don’t check, and I meant they don’t check avg weight…or length. They have a poundage they will apply to their creel #’s, and those creel (boat) #’s don’t factor in people fishing other species or pleasure boaters. I think (hope) they at least exclude jet skis and pontoons, but depending on what the tribe wants, possibly not.

Ripjiggen wrote:

Well each big spawning female has hundreds of thousands of eggs, so 1 year is the difference in millions and millions of eggs

Those fish won’t have eggs at the time of harvest just like a fish being one year away from having millions of eggs. Like I said they have been doing it for years and years in special reg lakes.
Do you think it would be better to target 1 year class in a two inch slot and historically only getting to 30,40,50 percent of the safe harvest number that is lower than the lake can actually handle in the first place.

Again do the math it is not that many fish.
It’s about time for the lake to see some harvest. It is loaded with fish right now. They teased us with three fish and now it’s only 2.

I agree spreading out the harvest is better, and am fine with the new regs.

I thought your original point was wrong, “What’s the difference if you remove them 1 year before they spawn or 1 year after. A kept fish is a kept fish. The tribe has been netting spawning size fish for a long time.” There is a huge difference, fish die for many reasons throughout the year. The ones strong enough to make it to spawn need to be protected, not targeted. Gill nets can be big enough to let the little ones go, but not small enough to not catch big walleye. I mean I think we have all seen the roadside ditch pictures with huge northerns and musky, which surely means the trophy walleye are getting the knife too. At commercial scale.

“Last spring, for example, Matity recovered five pounds of roe—that’s approximately 300,000 eggs—from one incredible 11-pound walleye. And practically all of those eggs would have been viable. With a two- to three-pound walleye, on the other hand, only 20 to 30 per cent of the eggs would hatch.

“Big fish have the biggest, juiciest eggs with the best yolk sacs, so each one is a bigger target for a sperm to find,” Matity says in explaining why big spawners are the critical part of the reproductive pyramid.”

http://www.outdoorcanada.ca/Why-you-should-always-always-ALWAYS-release-big-fish/

Interesting Werm, because that contradicts much of what I have read from other studies. The older ones like referenced there were not the best spawners, but it were fish in the mid 20 inch range. After that they dropped off dramatically. Lost in this whole thing is the importance of mature male fish which BTW have been right in the bullseye of every slot on mille lacs for like 15 years or more.. Doesnt matter how many prime females you have if you dont have enough males to take care of business.

CaptainMusky wrote:

Interesting Werm, because that contradicts much of what I have read from other studies. The older ones like referenced there were not the best spawners, but it were fish in the mid 20 inch range. After that they dropped off dramatically. Lost in this whole thing is the importance of mature male fish which BTW have been right in the bullseye of every slot on mille lacs for like 15 years or more.. Doesnt matter how many prime females you have if you dont have enough males to take care of business.

Big difference being the amount harvested is a drop in the bucket.

agree spreading out the harvest is better, and am fine with the new regs.

I thought your original point was wrong, “What’s the difference if you remove them 1 year before they spawn or 1 year after. A kept fish is a kept fish. The tribe has been netting spawning size fish for a long time.” There is a huge difference, fish die for many reasons throughout the year. The ones strong enough to make it to spawn need to be protected, not targeted. Gill nets can be big enough to let the little ones go, but not small enough to not catch big walleye. I mean I think we have all seen the roadside ditch pictures with huge northerns and musky, which surely means the trophy walleye are getting the knife too. At commercial scale.

“Last spring, for example, Matity recovered five pounds of roe—that’s approximately 300,000 eggs—from one incredible 11-pound walleye. And practically all of those eggs would have been viable. With a two- to three-pound walleye, on the other hand, only 20 to 30 per cent of the eggs would hatch.

“Big fish have the biggest, juiciest eggs with the best yolk sacs, so each one is a bigger target for a sperm to find,” Matity says in explaining why big spawners are the critical part of the reproductive pyramid.”

I meant it more tongue in cheek when comparing to the netting aspect.
My point was targeting exclusively one size makes a lake out of balance. That is when you have bigger issues. All big fish can be a problem as well.
I for one don’t see this reg being disastrous like it was mentioned.
I know we are mostly in the same page when it comes to Mille Lacs from past discussions.
It’s about time to allow some harvest.

Ripjiggen wrote:

I know we are mostly in the same page when it comes to Mille Lacs from past discussions.
It’s about time to allow some harvest.

Yes and yes!

CaptainMusky wrote:

Interesting Werm, because that contradicts much of what I have read from other studies. The older ones like referenced there were not the best spawners, but it were fish in the mid 20 inch range. After that they dropped off dramatically. Lost in this whole thing is the importance of mature male fish which BTW have been right in the bullseye of every slot on mille lacs for like 15 years or more.. Doesnt matter how many prime females you have if you dont have enough males to take care of business.

If you read the Matity study on it, it digs into some of the flaws in previous studies. And the reason Male walleye are lost in importance, is because they are less important. One male walleye can spawn repeatedly and cover dozens of females egg production. And the other factor with fish (walleye especiallY) spawn, is it is a huge #’s game, as a very small % of eggs are viable and the ones that do an even smaller % survive to 1 year old. Which is why, imo, it’s of utmost importance to protect the fish that make it to spring.

Ripjiggen wrote:

Big difference being the amount harvested is a drop in the bucket.

Poundage perhaps I will agree for sure, but volume I am not sure and have nothing to back that up.

BigWerm wrote:

If you read the Matity study on it, it digs into some of the flaws in previous studies. And the reason Male walleye are lost in importance, is because they are less important. One male walleye can spawn repeatedly and cover dozens of females egg production. And the other factor with fish (walleye especiallY) spawn, is it is a huge #’s game, as a very small % of eggs are viable and the ones that do an even smaller % survive to 1 year old. Which is why, imo, it’s of utmost importance to protect the fish that make it to spring.

I will make it a point to read it in depth, I was just pointing out it was contradicting what I have previously read and its funny, they were all from Ontario/Canada LOL. In theory it does make sense, but like I said the fish targeted for angling were by and large mostly males in that size structure. Doesnt matter much right now because there has been so many years without ANY harvest, but when there was they pounded that size range.

I love any mille lacs post. Always a great source for a debate

Youbetcha wrote:

I love any mille lacs post. Always a great source for a debate

So true!

I gave up on Mr 55. Pretty pointless attempting a discussion with someone who demonstrates such poor reading comprehension.

A couple of points from 56386
The local band usually has maybe a dozen netting permits issued. Now the NE MN band & the WI bands a far east as Bad River (Ashland} are far more active. there has been several instances of pickups pulling into field roads and dumping gut piles & intact carcasses of walleyes, pike & muskies, & a few SMB. the east side accesses {Cedar Creek & Liberty Beach I have seen with mt own eyes) will have LEO on site at the entrance to turn non-tribal members away. Dunno about Malmo, Wealthwood, Garrison, Casino, or Cove. CC & LB are very active.
Last spring there was a net / trap out on the south side of Meshegan Point. Basically out in front of the weed bed of the houses / cabins on Lakeshore. A guy who lives on the other side of the point asked me if I had any idea what it was about since I had clear view. When I saw a big Jonboat going out there & vehicles at the city park, I hustled over to the park. The biologist leading the team is based out of Garrison & said it is a trap ne to strip female muskie of eggs the are then fertilized with pike sperm to thenn be stocked in Metro lakes as tigers. Old ML just keeps giving!
We talked for quite a while and he was very interested in my fall night bite. It was good and the #, size & healtyness of 25s & up was exceptional. He said that they had been way off in their modeling.
I’m okay with this reg for this year. Hopefully it will help businesses. Beachside is a couple doors over & Ben & his crew had a lot of traffic on the ice.
Guides are getting their clients on big Muskies. Especially in the fall.

Bladepuller, that is very interesting about the Muskie eggs. I had no idea they were pulling eggs out of Muskies on Mille lacs. Seems odd for many reasons. I assume this was mn dnr? I could see them trap netting for fishery research but not for stripping eggs. I thought most egg take was from leech and broodstock lakes but I’ll admit that I don’t follow that as much as I used to several years ago when I was a serious Muskie nerd, so maybe things may have changed.

Can you share the guides names that are having success on Muskies consistently? I don’t hire guides but I’d be interested to know for buddies that would like to hire them if they can find the Mille lacs giants on a consistent basis. I’m too busy in the fall. Are they all livescopers? Are we talking a few giants each fall or several fish a week type fishing?