Mille Lacs Regulations Update

I’m guessing everyone over there is getting hammered with calls and emails today!

-J.

big_g wrote:

posturing for sure…

No nets from one tribe(so far), CPR from all anglers, personally, this seems to be on the right track.

Tough call, but the right one IMO after I’m sure thousands of baby eyes being pulled up from the depths this winter.

Did the DNR address the huge numbers of walleye caught ice fishing this winter?

Or, did have they ever outlined a plan on how to make a lake that has always had hot and cold trends over the years consistently produce a certain amount of fish every year?

The more I hear of their plans, they less faith I have

The harsh reality is these regs have NOTHING to do with the well-being of the fishery but ONLY protect the state from having to close the lake based on the “binding” agreement between the state and the Tribal Regime (GLIFWC) The agreement simply dictates, by law, that IF either side of the agreement reaches their quota of any species, that side has to cease harvest of that species ( supposedly it means NO nets for any and or ALL species if the tribal side reaches their quota). That is the SOLE purpose of these regs. Simply–to keep some form of fishing open to the angling public. Fishery management/biology plays zero role in these decisions–as a priority–nowadays. The “quota” is the only thing that dictates the regs from the start. Period…and obviously.

Correct me where I am wrong.

So the issue is that plenty of fish are spawning and hatching. But they are not living long. The thought is this is due in large part to predation and management of the lake that produced big walleyes and killed small ones. The big eyes and pike ate the forage base down so young eyes now became the forage base.

Based on this does it not seem like the lake needs to be managed to restore a healthy forage base? Seems like this is a half measure. Better than nothing but could be better.

Jonesy wrote:

Correct me where I am wrong.

So the issue is that plenty of fish are spawning and hatching. But they are not living long. The thought is this is due in large part to predation and management of the lake that produced big walleyes and killed small ones. The big eyes and pike ate the forage base down so young eyes now became the forage base.

Based on this does it not seem like the lake needs to be managed to restore a healthy forage base? Seems like this is a half measure. Better than nothing but could be better.

Your take would be based on sound biology/fishery management…but that plays little to none role here–obviously.

these regs would lead one to believe, hook and line, live bait fisherman at night are what decimated the lake… of which I am (minus the launch fisherpeople ? of which I am also)

The slots creating a lake of large fish with little size diversity causing them to over eat normal forage and having to resort to cannibalism to survive. All the regs there are just to satisfy the treaty stuff not manage an healthy lake.

Mwal

steve-fellegy wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Black98TransAm wrote:</div>
Correct me where I am wrong.

So the issue is that plenty of fish are spawning and hatching. But they are not living long. The thought is this is due in large part to predation and management of the lake that produced big walleyes and killed small ones. The big eyes and pike ate the forage base down so young eyes now became the forage base.

Based on this does it not seem like the lake needs to be managed to restore a healthy forage base? Seems like this is a half measure. Better than nothing but could be better.

Your take would be based on sound biology/fishery management…but that plays little to none role here–obviously.

Ok. What should the management/regulations of the lake be under the assumption that netting is going to remain? There has to be a management philosophy that can sustain a healthy fishery even while the nets are out (I’m not for the nets)

Jonesy wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>steve-fellegy wrote:</div>

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Black98TransAm wrote:</div>
Correct me where I am wrong.

So the issue is that plenty of fish are spawning and hatching. But they are not living long. The thought is this is due in large part to predation and management of the lake that produced big walleyes and killed small ones. The big eyes and pike ate the forage base down so young eyes now became the forage base.

Based on this does it not seem like the lake needs to be managed to restore a healthy forage base? Seems like this is a half measure. Better than nothing but could be better.

Your take would be based on sound biology/fishery management…but that plays little to none role here–obviously.

Ok. What should the management/regulations of the lake be under the assumption that netting is going to remain? There has to be a management philosophy that can sustain a healthy fishery even while the nets are out (I’m not for the nets)

Until the agreed upon “mandated quota” is in place to accommodate the netting/treaty rights, goes away, the DNR can not use, solely, a “philosophy” that can sustain nor build the fishery back. Period…as the quota forces slot limits that over a long term, even according to the famous “Blue Ribbon” study contracted by the Mn. DNR, end up being the demise of the species it ( the slot limit) is directed at. It never ends until the “agreement” goes away…and the DNR has room to operate according to sound common sense biology vs. trying to stay under a quota that by law is meant to close the lake down if reached.

Until the state is willing to fight hard enough to do away with the current “agreement”….nothing changes in the long run. Not talking on paper treaty rights need to go away–talking HOW and WHEN those rights are exercised…..and if there is a “binding need” for them vs. the stability/well- being of the fishery. The courts did NOT dictate the “how and when”. That was solely left up to the state to agree on with the Tribal Regime.

So glad I built in this area. The lake situation is a sour disappointment and the crime does not seem to be any less than the Twin Cities. Oh well, at least God gave me a trailer. But what are the business people supposed to do?

Jon Jordan,
“Bass regulations compromise

Anglers can keep four bass in any combination of largemouth and smallmouth, down from last year’s limit of six fish. The new regulations add a requirement that all fish 17-21 inches be immediately released, and the length restriction for the largest fish an angler may keep increased from 18 to 21 inches.”

The length limits seems to be conflicting!
From 17 to 21 immediately released
Keep 21 inches
I’m So Confused My Head Hurts!!

ya, ya i know my head hurts you too.

What lake is the next lake to be destroyed in Minnesota now?

WarEagle wrote:

What lake is the next lake to be destroyed in Minnesota now?

I would guess – farm island, I have been hearing some grumbles from the locals on that lake so far.

Agreed, that Farm Island will be targeted this year. As will all of the other surrounding lakes. Leech will probably see more pressure as people from the metro drive past ML.

Since I mostly C&R walleyes anyway, I’m looking forward to the expected tranquility on ML this summer.

Every single lake in the ceeded territory, covering more than half the state is at risk.

-J.

In my opinion the two most important factors that should have been considered for these regulations were the biological impacts they would have on the lake and the economical impact it would have on the local businesses. I can’t see how these regulations are in the best interests of either.

This is just sad.

TripleA wrote:

I hope they keep these regs for 5 years and see that it doesn’t help…. then they will look at the other methods of fishing that are the root of the problem. (ya right)

These regulations have more to do with mathematics than they do biology. And the sad truth is that they will work extremely well for what they are intended to accomplish… Drive down the angling hours on the lake.

Many people will not come because they can’t catch a fish and even more will not show up because they won’t be able to fish in the ways that they are accustomed to doing so.

John Peterson wrote:

About as expected…unfortunately no walleye harvest at all.

The Opening Weekend Night Fishing is appreciated, however no Fall Night Fishing is a loss for the resorts and anglers that have pursued it for years.

This one makes zero sense to me since with cooler water temps the hooking mortality goes down. Our only hope is that if their hooking mortality numbers aren’t close exceeding the quota by the end of summer that they remove the night ban for Fall trolling season, but I won’t hold my breath.

Reading between the lines this is simply another attempt to reduce the angling hours on the lake or stated in another way as I would feel if I were a local resort/bait shop/gas station… Driving anglers away from Mille Lacs.

Say what you want about the DNR ruining the lake, but Politicians have ruined about everything else. Far too much rhetoric in these bills and absolutely ZERO biology or science.

I hope Mille Lacs can turn it around and soon. Might be a couple more years before its more like it was 5 or 6 years ago.

So with that Smallie slot, how does that play into the Bassmasters tourney coming there? They have to follow local rules right? I was hoping to see some really big bags during the tourney, but maybe not.

Starts at the beginning of the food chain…

For those of you that think that one of the biggest issues is a good forage base (which I agree with…) what is a walleyes/perch/bass/northern/minnows ‘first meal’? Zooplankton. What consumes zooplankton? Zeebs. Why is Mille Lacs water clarity the best it has ever been? Zeebs. The DNR has admitted that the clarity issue is due to the Zeebs ‘cleaning’ the water of the lakes zooplankton so it is no wonder that the lake has a low forage base since the forage that is there has a tough time finding a meal to survive. This is a great example on why we have to continue to fight Zeeb’s. Note the attached video I took from Garrison reef in 17′ of water…RR

Attachments:

1. zeebs.mov

Denny O wrote:

Jon Jordan,
“Bass regulations compromise

Anglers can keep four bass in any combination of largemouth and smallmouth, down from last year’s limit of six fish. The new regulations add a requirement that all fish 17-21 inches be immediately released, and the length restriction for the largest fish an angler may keep increased from 18 to 21 inches.”

The length limits seems to be conflicting!
From 17 to 21 immediately released
Keep 21 inches
I’m So Confused My Head Hurts!!

ya, ya i know my head hurts you too.

4 bass under 17″ or 3 bass under 17″ and 1 bass over 21″. Pretty much what it was last year except only 4 bass rather than 6 and I think last year you could keep 0-18″ bass and 1 over 21″.

CaptainMusky wrote:

So with that Smallie slot, how does that play into the Bassmasters tourney coming there? They have to follow local rules right? I was hoping to see some really big bags during the tourney, but maybe not.

This is from the DNR quote on page one. You still should see big bags.

“The ability to exempt large bass tournaments from the size regulation and bag limits remains.”

Just remember to support the bait shops, stop in and buy something, maybe your new plastics. I would hate to see the smaller shops around Mille Lacs start closing.

Kris Lindberg wrote:

Just remember to support the bait shops, stop in and buy something, maybe your new plastics. I would hate to see the smaller shops around Mille Lacs start closing.

Got word last night that my favorite bait shop in Isle is already packing up and shutting down. Sad thing going on here.

Will Roseberg wrote:

In my opinion the two most important factors that should have been considered for these regulations were the biological impacts they would have on the lake and the economical impact it would have on the local businesses. I can’t see how these regulations are in the best interests of either.

This is just sad.

I agree with those being the two biggest factors. And I think these reg’s are the best available option for both considerations. This should keep the season open all year, which allows the resorts and charters to book their full year. Do you think they are booking less guests than they would with a 1 fish limit of a nearly uncatchable slot?
And biologically keeps the most fish in the lake. It is brutal for the bait shops, but people still need rap’s, plastics, and musky baits. The real question is on this year’s spawn, which will be pivotal for the momentum built by the 2013 and 2014 year classes. If the DNR and Mille Lacs band can’t influence the WI bands to stay home or net elsewhere it may all be for naught. If there is no netting that will be 3 of the last 4 years spawn that went off basically uninterrupted.

I absolutely feel that the option of keeping 1 fish versus catch and release only will have an impact on business. Even more so however, is the artificial only restriction. Economically the restriction of no live bait will be devastating to local businesses. And not just the lost revenue from selling bait, but I also think that to a majority of your typical weekend anglers walleye fishing and live bait are synonymous and fishing only with plastics or hard baits will keep them away. (Which I believe was ultimately the goal to reduce angling hours on Mille Lacs)

Biologically I think they’re missing their one potential chance to hit the reset button on the current treaty management system… The courts ordered that the lake be jointly managed to allow netting. They did not order how the management needs to conducted and I think there a much more effective ways to do it than the current system. If the conservation argument was ever going to be made now was the time. This catch and release season is nothing more than a band aid that will temporarily result in recovery while not addressing the real underlying problems that got us here in the first place.

This time next year…DNR, “Good job guys! You made it. Now all those 14″ walleye are 17″-18″ and are darn near their prime for breeding! Just one more year of catch and release and we are almost home…Hang in there peeps!” Bunch of BS…RR

One issue that really bothers me (And I know many of the local businesses and members of the the committee as well) is that the DNR will not share how they calculate hooking mortality. This single issue has caused a lot of mistrust in the DNR and if (as would be expected) they have strong rationale for the formula that they use then why couldn’t they share the formula and all the data to back up how they calculated the hooking mortality last year. The lack of transparency with this formula and data does not make sense to me.

sticker wrote:

Got word last night that my favorite bait shop in Isle is already pac

Which one?

They all may as well shut down.