<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>FinnyDinDin wrote:</div>
Man you are a pro. The best musky fisherman would be jealous of anyone who can catch two 55’s a year. What is your secret technique? It appears you want to kill all of them so surely you’ll share.obviously it’s forward facing sonar.
Ripjiggin doesn’t seem smart enough to be able to utilize that technology proper.
When did they stop stocking Muskies in Mille lacs?
The creel, fishery management, etc is the waste I am talking about. What is the point? It doesn’t seem like that has any effect on what the tribes allow us to take.
They didn’t stop they stock musky every other year, I thought you were saying they should stop stocking it with anything besides musky. Which other than that brief period of walleye stocking in 2016-2018 they have never really stocked with anything besides musky.
https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/lakefind/showstocking.html?context=desktop&downum=48000200
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.
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. 
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.
<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.
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.
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.
This assumes the DNR checks, which they don’t.
I checked myself when I worked for them.
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. 
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
<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.
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>BigWerm wrote:</div>
You weighed fish doing creel surveys??? ISorry. 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. 
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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
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.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
