Its not a number they just come up with out of thin air.
Just because they have a method, doesn’t mean it’s an accurate #. Hooking mortality is BS based on bad science. There’s a reason they don’t use it for management anywhere else.
Just because they have a method, doesn’t mean it’s an accurate #. Hooking mortality is BS based on bad science. There’s a reason they don’t use it for management anywhere else.
Agree, all I was saying is that its not a made up number. It is calculated from scientific methodology. Whether you or I or someone else thinks its accurate or not accurate is another subject.
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>BigWerm wrote:</div>
Just because they have a method, doesn’t mean it’s an accurate #. Hooking mortality is BS based on bad science. There’s a reason they don’t use it for management anywhere else.Agree, all I was saying is that its not a made up number. It is calculated from scientific methodology. Whether you or I or someone else thinks its accurate or not accurate is another subject.
Whether the # is BS or not, something is to be expected. The fact any boats were out there bass fishing or pretending to be targeting bass, is still considered towards walleye HM.
For once I think their # is indicative of the amount of fishing pressure the lake sustained during that time period.
Looking out my window, few boats were seen and all the way up to and including today… very few boats out there fishing.
Which gives me wonder about the relative absence of bass anglers as well.
Publicity?
A few years ago when Bassmaster held the national tournaments 2 years back to back and the one year they named it #1 in the nation, the lake was hopping with energy and anglers were flocking from around the country.
Sad maybe how that momentum dissipated as I believe the bass fishing and trophy potential is no less than it was back then.
Now if you were a complete stranger with no knowledge of the lake at all, you’d look out there and ask…is this lake any good for fishing? 
A few years ago when Bassmaster held the national tournaments 2 years back to back and the one year they named it #1 in the nation, the lake was hopping with energy and anglers were flocking from around the country.
Sad maybe how that momentum dissipated as I believe the bass fishing and trophy potential is no less than it was back then.
Yes…until they had those tournaments and then it was ranked tops in the country, it was significantly easier to catch these beastly brown bass. That publicity put it on the national map. A good thing for tourism, but a bad thing for fishing pressure.
It has become significantly tougher for me the past 2-3 years out there targeting them and it is solely because of the pressure those fish receive, especially in the spring prior to and during the spawn. Even Seth Feider himself said “you can only catch those fish so many times.”
The 3 times I went this spring in late May/early June, there were a lot of people bass fishing…and a lot of people walleye fishing. I saw several boats that I thought were walleye fishing turn out to be targeting smallmouth when I talked to them at the access too. They all said the same thing: “tough fishing out there for smallmouth today.”
Quota is a quota and they will not control it.
There I fixed it for you.
Excellent post joneser!
The DNR certainly has their flaws with hooking mortality and harvest estimates but there’s not much else people should be upset with them about. Quota is a quota and they can’t control it.
I do not disagree, but was it necessary to have us scroll through the entire thing all over again? 
#longestpostever
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Ripjiggen wrote:</div>
That is my point. How is it calculated from bass anglers? By counting <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>bass boats. You mean walleyes being caught mid summer in probably less than 15 ft with artificial lures still die. Yeah pretty flawed idea in my book.They have a method. I have never done it before so I don’t know what that method is. Contact the Aitkin Fisheries Office if you want their methodology. It will likely contain a bunch or scientific terminology that neither you or I understand. Its not a number they just come up with out of thin air.
I know how they calculate. When the season is closed however I do not understand how the calculation doesn’t change. They are still just counting boats. They calculated hooking mortality last fall after the season is closed and no live bait was used at all. Hell they said their was hooking mortality last October even though their study show that their was 0 dead fish in the study in October. Even if the numbers are low that is not the point. They are ghost numbers that do not exist.
The last two years they have added an extra number as well tournament pounds. That number goes on top of the monthly pounds.
So to say they are not pulling numbers out of thin air is getting hard to believe.
They calculated hooking mortality last fall after the season is closed and no live bait was used at all.
Even if there’s no live bait used, there will still be a small amount of hooking mortality. Live bait results in more dead fish, we all know that. But fishing in general does result in some mortality. Cooler water reduces it even further, warm water increases it. In order to have a mortality of zero, there would have to be zero boats out there fishing.
The last two years they have added an extra number as well tournament pounds. That number goes on top of the monthly pounds.
Tournament anglers are going to catch more fish than recreational anglers. That is hard to argue against. They fish longer, harder, and there’s money on the line so the result is more fish caught, and thus, higher mortality.
If you don’t like their method, attend one of the meetings or vote for an elected official who can make a change. I think we’re pounding the same sand on this subject to be honest, I’m only trying to explain things a little.
“Im not some woke liberal hipster fairy either “
Best line ever!
“Even if there’s no live bait used, there will still be a small amount of hooking mortality. Live bait results in more dead fish, we all know that. But fishing in general does result in some mortality. Cooler water reduces it even further, warm water increases it. In order to have a mortality of zero, there would have to be zero boats out there fishing.”
Not according to their specific study that they conducted. And it is not just no live bait being my point the season is closed. Were you not the one that stated there should be no harvest allowed for winter anglers because they are favoring them vs the summer anglers. Could not the same be said for bass/pike/muskie fisherman that are still putting up hooking mortality numbers when walleye anglers are not allowed to because a catch and release season is arbitrarily closed.
Seems a little bit of a double standard to me. For the record I do not agree with either.
“Tournament anglers are going to catch more fish than recreational anglers. That is hard to argue against. They fish longer, harder, and there’s money on the line so the result is more fish caught, and thus, higher mortality.”
I know how tournament anglers fish been their done that. You don’t find it odd that they now started calculating that just last year.
“If you don’t like their method, attend one of the meetings or vote for an elected official who can make a change. I think we’re pounding the same sand on this subject to be honest, I’m only trying to explain things a little.”
[/quote]
Thanks for suggestion I have done both several times. Maybe you can plan one of your handful of bass trips a year around one of the meetings and join in as well.
Jonser that all sounds great and I agree with you netting can exist with sport angling as well. However when one sides clearly lays out all their cards and offers up their goals and objections for the lake and the other side has never given reason to their low ball number or even given a list of their goals and objectives for the lake it makes co-management impossible.
It also makes mud slinging and theories as to what their overall plan is just that theories and uneducated thoughts.
Kind of done with this topic.
Were you not the one that stated there should be no harvest allowed for winter anglers because they are favoring them vs the summer anglers. Could not the same be said for bass/pike/muskie fisherman that are still putting up hooking mortality numbers when walleye anglers are not allowed to because a catch and release season is arbitrarily closed.
Yes, that’s me and it’s still how I feel on winter vs summer.
As far as allowing it to stay open for bass, muskie, and pike fishing in July, maybe you have a point. Not so much on the muskie and pike fishing as the lures being used are generally way too big (8+ inches) for the average walleye, but perhaps bass fishing. They probably could have just restricted the use of live bait and kept all fishing open with artificials. Bear in mind that bass are also more tolerant of warmer waters so the mortality with them isn’t nearly as high as it is for walleyes too.
Can someone write the cliff Notes to what Joneser is typing? 
Can someone write the cliff Notes to what Joneser is typing?
He offers good insight but ya his posts are too much for me too. 
Notice of Mille Lacs Fisheries Advisory Committee meeting
The Mille Lacs Fisheries Advisory Committee (MLFAC) will meet 4:30-6:30 p.m. Monday, Oct. 12, via online videoconference. The agenda will cover an open water season update, a discussion on winter regulations, an update on the in-progress lake management plan and new committee member recruitment.
Members of the public may observe MLFAC meetings, but these meetings serve primarily as a way for the committee to hold group discussions. Fifteen minutes are reserved for public comments and questions. For the upcoming online meeting, members of the public who wish to observe the meeting or speak during the public comment period should contact [email protected] by Monday at noon. Meeting minutes will be posted after the meeting on the Mille Lacs Lake management page.
Individuals with a disability who need a reasonable accommodation to participate in this event, please contact the Mille Lacs Lake area fisheries office by email at [email protected] or by phone at 320-692-0085 or using your preferred Telecommunications Relay Provider.
The committee has been active since October 2015. Its purpose is to advise the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) on the State of Minnesota’s fisheries management program for Mille Lacs Lake.
For more information about DNR’s management of Mille Lacs Lake and how to get involved, visit the Mille Lacs Lake management page. To sign up to receive these email updates, click on “Newsletter” on the left menu and enter your email in the blue box on the page.
Hi, here are the DNR notes from the Oct. MLFAC meeting. These were provided to me from the DNR based on my request.
Note for any of those who want to actively become involved, the DNR will be seeking applications for new members. Note the list of current committee members.
Mille Lacs Fisheries Advisory Committee (MLFAC)
Date: October 12, 2020
Time: 4:30-6:30 pm
Location: Webex
Committee Purpose
To advise the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) on the State of Minnesota’s fisheries management program for Mille Lacs Lake.
Committee Members
Dean Hanson, co-chair Steven Johnson Tom Neustrom
Tony Roach, co-chair Steve Kulifaj Peter Perovich
Steve Besser Eddy Lyback
Tina Chapman Mark Utne
Bill Eno Laurie Westerlund
DNR Staff
• Brad Parsons, Fisheries Chief
• Brian Nerbonne, Regional Fisheries Manager
• Tom Heinrich, Mille Lacs Area Supervisor
• Kelly Wilder, MLFAC facilitator/coordinator
• Kristi Kunz, Office and Administrative Specialist
Quick Summary
MLFAC met via videoconference for its third meeting of the year. DNR provided a season update following the final creel period and fall netting, notably that walleye condition (plumpness) continues to be lower than average, and that the average walleye catch per net was similar to the past two years. DNR presented three options for winter regulations (14-17, 21-23, and 22-24 inch slots). Some members expressed support for the 21-23 inch slot, given the consistency and the potential for summer harvest. Staff also described the upcoming member recruitment process.
Action Items
DNR will provide to following to MLFAC related to member recruitment:
• Current roster/member categories
• Draft application
• Outreach channels
• Notification when published
Agenda
1. Welcome
2. Season Update
3. Winter Regulations
4. Lake Management Planning Update
5. Committee Business
6. Public Comment
Meeting Notes
1. Welcome
Kelly opened the meeting, provided a primer on the Webex platform, and reviewed the agenda. DNR staff reported on previous action items:
• DNR will send the committee the original selection criteria, selection criteria from other Fish and Wildlife Division committees, and DNR’s thoughts on what interests are missing from the current roster.
o Provided via email, for discussion today.
• DNR will send MLFAC the work plan and solicit additional ideas.
o Provided via email, for discussion today.
• MLFAC requested an update on the bands’ telemetry project.
o Brian shared that he has contacted Mille Lacs Band biologists and invited them to present their research. Their biologists have requested permission from Band leadership to present, hopefully at a future MLFAC meeting in 2021.
2. Season Update
Tom updated the group on creel results:
• He shared that Garrison staff just finished picking up the temperature loggers.
• Angling pressure has tailed off as is typical in fall. The state will remain within its walleye harvest allocation through the end of the season (November 30).
Tom also provided an update on preliminary fall netting results:
• Since 2002, DNR has had near- and off-shore nets, and survey methods have been the same over this period. Last year there were more fish in near-shore nets, and we saw the same this year. Over time, the near- and off-shore catch has been converging.
• Condition factor is measure of how plump fish are, and for the last 5-6 years, fish have been relatively skinny, indicating relatively low forage. This correlates well to angler catch rates because anglers have an easier time catching hungrier fish.
• The bigger fish have the worst condition (are the skinniest), due to the lack of forage-sized tullibee. Low numbers of perch, shiners, and tullibee drove strong fishing success last winter through this spring.
• Concerning spawning stock biomass, 2018 was the only recent year over 20 pounds per lift, the goal per the 2017 consensus agreement. 20 pounds might not be a realistic goal at this point.
• For walleye length frequency, the 2013 year class (fish 18-20 inches) has shifted up an inch. There are no other big changes from last year.
• In response to a member’s question, Tom explained that while regulations would typically put pressure where fish are most abundant, with treaty obligations, that would exceed the state allocation.
3. Winter Regulations
Brian introduced discussion on winter regulations. Winter harvest directly impacts summer regulation options. DNR considered three regulations:
• 14-17 inch slot:
o Considered based on past discussions about harvesting smaller fish. Has the advantages of angler preference for harvesting medium-sized fish, and pounds add up less quickly than with larger slot sizes.
o However, fish are relatively abundant so this could risk going above allocation just with the winter fishery.
o The consensus agreement included provisions to be “small fish friendly,” letting fish reach maturity before harvesting. This regulation would run counter to that concept.
o According to the raw gill net catch, this slot has 25% more pounds of available fish than the 21-23 inch slot.
• 21-23 inch slot:
o Same slot as recent years, so it is predictable to anglers, and acceptable to DNR and the bands.
o Harvest would be 60% higher than 22-24 inch slot, which could have summertime ramifications.
• 22-24 inch slot:
o Has the disadvantage that if we keep moving the slot up, when would we stop. 21-23 inches is already a big fish, and this is even bigger. This runs counter to angler preferences for harvest size.
o Harvest would be the smallest (40% less than the 21-23 inch slot) of all options so this would leave open the most summer possibilities.
MLFAC members had the following questions and comments.
• Comment/question: Will the bands be avoiding small fish too?
o Tom: The bands harvest with a mix of netting and spearing, and each gear tends to select for different sizes. Males are more vulnerable during the spawn, which skews the bands’ harvest to smaller sizes because males are smaller than equal aged females. Females are not as vulnerable to gill nets, but are harvested during spearing. The relative mix of spearing and netting shapes the size distribution of their harvest.
• Comment/question: Catch rates are down according to the creel. There is a lot of bait in the lake, so catch rates will go down this winter. From the spring to now, it looks better, compared to Leech Lake.
o Tom: We don’t have forage analyses yet from this fall. Agree walleye condition looks good, based on fish I caught angling, but fall gill net data show that the fish are still skinny, relative to past years. Forage results aren’t available yet, so there is no way to compare forage abundance to previous years. We also don’t know what ice will look like this winter, which has a big influence on angling pressure.
• Comment/question: 20-inch fish is too big. Did you consider a 15-16 inch slot?
o Brian: We have not but we could. Tom followed up with rough approximation of harvest based on several additional slot sizes.
• Comment/question: Could regulations vary over the course of the year?
o DNR: Yes, we could look into that.
• Comment/question: Explain the size distribution graphs.
o Tom: The graph does not show the whole population. Gill nets are size selective, for example 6 and 7 inch fish don’t get caught much.
o Tom: You cannot tell true abundance from the gill net graph. DNR’s statistical catch at age model is a better representation because it corrects for selectivity, but the model isn’t available until we can finish aging fish from the fall netting.
• Comment/question: Can DNR provide predicted total harvest under each of the scenarios, even “guesstimates,” knowing the popularity of ice fishing, even if other lakes are accessible.
o Brad: Harvest should be lower due to good forage, but angling pressure on all large lakes depends on winter ice conditions.
o Brian: For reference, in 2019, the harvest was 15,000 pounds with the 21-23 inch slot, an above-average bite, and 2 million hours of angler pressure.
• Comment/question: What is the status of the next consensus agreement?
o Brad: There is no current update. We are aiming for a longer term agreement (3-5 years), with less variation year to year. Keep in mind we do not need a new agreement in January; the previous agreement came about because of an overage, which isn’t the case now. The most likely scenario is we negotiate a safe harvest level this year on its own.
• Comment/question: Will there be a benefit in the future because the state is under allocation this year, and being conservation oriented?
o Brad: Two years ago there was acknowledgement the state was under, and that did lead to goodwill. This year the bands were under too. It is hard to say what this will mean in the future but it does speak to the benefit of a longer term plan.
o Follow-up comment/question: The split should go back to 70% state/30% bands, rather than the 50% split after 64,000 pounds under the current agreement.
MLFAC members had the following input on which regulation is preferable:
• Members in general do not support the 22-24 inch slot, which would greatly reduce winter harvest.
• Some members expressed support for the 21-23 inch slot, given the consistency and the potential for summer harvest.
o Some members expressed that some harvest in the summer is essential.
4. Lake Management Planning Update
DNR staff shared that tribal review of the management plan will take place over the coming weeks, after which point DNR will make edits to the plan. There will then be an opportunity for MLFAC review, followed by public review via an online survey and virtual input meeting.
5. Committee Business
Kelly provided an update the DNR is preparing to advertise a call for applications for MLFAC in the coming weeks. MLFAC members discussed the following:
• Comment/question: Passion for the lake is important, so the application should ask about this.
• Comment/question: The co-chairs should be involved in selecting new members.
o Kelly: We discussed this idea internally. Only staff are typically involved in reviewing applications, and that will be the case for new MLFAC members as well. However, MLFAC should weigh in on the front end if there are selection criteria we should incorporate.
• Comment/question: Applicants should have to commit to attend meetings.
o Kelly: We have incorporated this question into the new application.
• Comment/question: How will MLFAC members remain involved during the process?
o Kelly: DNR will provide information as listed in action items above.
DNR staff asked for input on the 2021 work plan provided via email. Members suggested the following topics:
• Smallmouth bass.
• Pros and cons of measuring the allocation in pounds versus numbers of fish.
o Brad: There are reasons for both; there might be a middle ground.
• Cisco and trophic dynamics.
The committee also discussed that Bassmaster’s recent rankings and comments about the lake are inaccurate and put Mille Lacs in a poor light for walleye and smallmouth bass.
6. Public Comment
Time was reserved for members of the public who requested time via email to provide a comment.
• A member of the public shared they have fished Mille Lacs for 50-plus years, living here April to November. The night ban and lack of access to fall trolling limits access to the resource when there is no adverse effect. Would like to see the night ban lifted in October and November, even with a live bait ban, catch and release only. Currently, if harvest remains, there is no opportunity left in the fall.
o Brad: We can look into writing the rules differently next year so that if state harvest remains, we can extend the season.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
