Possible 3 walleye limit on Mille Lacs

  • Eelpoutguy
    Farmington, Outing
    Posts: 10989
    #2318542

    DNR setting the table for a possible bigger walleye catch on Mille Lacs
    Members of an advisory committee want the season to start with a two-fish or three-fish bag limit

    By Tony Kennedy

    Verified improvements in Mille Lacs Lake fish populations could significantly increase this year’s walleye harvest when the 2025 season opens May 10.

    State Fisheries Chief Brad Parsons and members of his staff at the Department of Natural Resources said Tuesday night they will give consideration to suggestions for a two- or three-fish walleye bag limit this year.

    In 2024, state-licensed anglers weren’t allowed to keep a single walleye caught from Mille Lacs until August. The stringent regulation last year was borne out of concerns about overrunning last year’s safe harvest level of a total of 91,500 pounds.

    Confident that this year’s safe harvest level will be set significantly higher when negotiations conclude soon with Ojibwe tribes who share in management of Mille Lacs, Parsons and Brian Nerbonne of the DNR listened to hypothetical rule-setting suggestions from an 18-member advisory committee that met at Izatys Resort in Onamia and by teleconference. Members repeatedly vocalized a desire for the DNR to get aggressive with early-season harvest rules this year. Throughout Minnesota, the walleye bite is generally best in May and June.

    “This is a year to let people have a little fun,’’ said Dean Hanson of Agate Bay Resort and launch service. “You could tell them. ‘You have a chance to keep three fish.’’’

    “Let’s try to take it right to the max,’’ said Bill Eno of Twin Pines Resort and launch service.

    Nerbonne summarized the discussion, saying members were in favor of an aggressive start to the season with a bag limit of two or three keepers. Some members said they preferred the harvest be limited to fish under 20 inches in length, or 17-20 inches in length. A few others suggested anglers be able to keep one fish larger than 20 inches in length, and one or two under 20.

    Eno told Parsons and Nerbonne that stakeholders around the lake have grown tired of tight harvest regulations to start the season. At the end of several of those years, the approach has left an unused surplus of allotted walleyes, he said.

    Area business owners and anglers are also easier to adapt to changing conditions. They are no longer as sensitive about unplanned closures of walleye fishing during the mid-season to avoid an overrun.

    “If we have to close, we have to close,’’ Eno said.

    Normally by this time of year, the DNR and the tribes who have retained fishing rights by treaty have agreed upon their respective harvest limits. But this year, Parsons said, those discussions have been complicated by an effort to possibly lengthen the term of the agreement from the traditional one-year pact to a multi-year pact.

    The shift toward a more liberal harvest in 2025 is driven by a drastic improvement in the health and numbers of walleyes, perch and ciscoes. Perch and ciscoes are prime forage for walleyes and the abundance of those species has made it more difficult for anglers to catch walleyes. As one member of the advisory committee put it, the walleyes aren’t as hungry as they used to be because of plentiful natural forage.

    Parsons and Nerbonne didn’t say when 2025 Mille Lacs fishing regulations will be announced, but traditionally they are set prior to the Northwest Sportshow, opening this year on March 13 at the Minneapolis Convention Center.

    CaptainMusky
    Posts: 24400
    #2318544

    This would be good news for the businesses around the lake. If they do go through with it I like the idea of 1 over 20 personally. I think that type of allowance should have been done LONG ago to target the larger fish who were preying on the YOY and small perch so much. It seems we are sorta past that problem now, but lets not let it happen again.

    FinnyDinDin
    Posts: 1014
    #2318546

    Perch came back and walleye came back. Been saying it for years. Hate on nets all you want but that lakes walleyes have always been highly dependent on swings in forage. It’s been that way even before the tribe had control of the lake regulations with ‘co-management’.

    Glad to see her doing so well. Going back this weekend. Been awhile since I’ve been on the ice on Mille lacs.

    lindyrig79
    Forest Lake / Lake Mille Lacs
    Posts: 6229
    #2318547

    It’s great news. But going from zero to three? How about we set it at one or two fish and leave it alone for awhile.

    CaptainMusky
    Posts: 24400
    #2318549

    It’s great news. But going from zero to three? How about we set it at one or two fish and leave it alone for awhile.

    Seems like a good idea. I didnt particularly care for the comment “let them have fun for a while” LOL. Yeah, let them all use nets and underwater spearing that would be a heckuva lot of fun!

    FinnyDinDin
    Posts: 1014
    #2318553

    The shift toward a more liberal harvest in 2025 is driven by a drastic improvement in the health and numbers of walleyes, perch and ciscoes. <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>Perch and ciscoes are prime forage for walleyes and the abundance of those species has made it more difficult for anglers to catch walleyes. As one member of the advisory committee put it, the <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>walleyes aren’t as hungry as they used to be because of plentiful natural forage.

    This paragraph should read something like ‘the lake saw a massive hatch of perch 4-5 years ago. This allowed the walleyes to feed on perch instead of eating all the baby walleyes. This has created great survival for the walleye yoy and the lake is loaded with small walleye now so the future is looking good.’

    Ripjiggen
    Posts: 12529
    #2318569

    Dancing puppet strings.

    Ripjiggen
    Posts: 12529
    #2318570

    It’s great news. But going from zero to three? How about we set it at one or two fish and leave it alone for awhile.

    Mainly because it was a joke to start at zero in the first place. I for one don’t think we should leave over 60 percent of our safe allowable harvest in the lake while the tribes take their share. The state is at 30k lbs of 90k lbs for 2024 and haven’t been close in years.

    Ripjiggen
    Posts: 12529
    #2318571

    Perch came back and walleye came back. Been saying it for years. Hate on nets all you want but that lakes <em class=”ido-tag-em”>walleyes have always been highly dependent on swings in forage. It’s been that way even before the tribe had control of the lake regulations with ‘co-management’.

    Glad to see her doing so well. Going back this weekend. Been awhile since I’ve been on the ice on Mille lacs.

    True but there is not magically more harvestable walleye in the lake this year vs last year. It’s still a very flawed system.

    Ripjiggen
    Posts: 12529
    #2318573

    This paragraph should read something like ‘the lake saw a massive hatch of perch 4-5 years ago. This allowed the walleyes to feed on perch instead of eating all the baby walleyes. This has created great survival for the walleye yoy and the lake is loaded with small walleye now so the future is looking good.

    Was it low forage or too high of bigger hungry walleyes. Or both.
    Agree always going to ebbs and flows just like every lake in the state but it got out of whack because of their own doing.

    OG Net_Man
    Posts: 788
    #2318576

    I will not have to go out on a limb and state that a 3 walleye limit will not happen. Asking for this is like throwing crap on the wall and see what sticks.

    I would like to see some harvest allowed but I also like showing up at the lake and finding a parking spot available at a boat launch.

    buckybadger
    Upper Midwest
    Posts: 8865
    #2318579

    I like the idea of 2 fish, no size structure parameters whatsoever. This would allow some harvest, while also keeping a proactive lid on things in case of a hot bite.

    Leave this in place for at least 2-3 years and see what happens. Trying to customize the limit each and every year to some data set that may/may not be flawed is crazy. It’s expensive, hard on area businesses, and doesn’t give a real accurate baseline of longitudinal harvest.

    Ripjiggen
    Posts: 12529
    #2318586

    That would have to be negotiated. I agree however a 3 year plan with a three year harvest number would be a step in the right direction.

    big_g
    Isle, MN
    Posts: 22838
    #2318622

    I disagree about the lake “always being that way before the nets”… The lake was a natural walleye producing beast… for decades… females being milked every spring for their eggs to help other lakes. Once netting started, you see the decline in walleye… the emergence of Muskie, Northern and Smallmouth was positively affected by the lack of walleyes. Big picture it went downhill after the netting. Do I blame natives…? Not anymore than I do the anglers, they all are just doing what the GLIFWC and the DNR said they can. Mismanaged from the start. Now it is starting to come back some and I hope lessons were learned.

    Karry Kyllo
    Posts: 1359
    #2318630

    I think the problems with walleyes in Mille Lacs in the past are due to issues much more complex than just netting alone. The poor walleye fishing at times can be attributed in part to climiate change which affects walleye recruitment by disrupting the timing of ice-off, loss of spawning habitat and clearer water which can be in part attributed to AIS infestation. There are likely other factors at work as well.
    It’s easy to blame the DNR for mismanagement and they may have made some mistakes but remember there isn’t a manual to go by to properly manage the Mille Lacs walleye fishery when there are so many variables at the same time and hindsight is always 20/20 isn’t it?
    It could that there was just a perfect storm of variables that were uncontrollable and unmanageable. Maybe conditions in the lake have now satbilized and the DNR has finally figured a few things out about how to manage Mille Lacs. We’ll see.

    Hunting24seven
    Posts: 142
    #2318632

    I’d like to see it be 2 fish. Everything 22-28 go back. Can keep the 1 trophy fish if that’s your thing.

    Won’t hold my breathe but it at least appears things are moving in the right direction. I love fishing the lake and watching the mismanagement the last 10 years has been a shame.

    Ripjiggen
    Posts: 12529
    #2318633

    I disagree about the lake “always being that way before the nets”… The lake was a natural walleye producing beast… for decades… females being milked every spring for their eggs to help other lakes. Once netting started, you see the decline in walleye… the emergence of Muskie, Northern and Smallmouth was positively affected by the lack of walleyes. Big picture it went downhill after the netting. Do I blame natives…? Not anymore than I do the anglers, they all are just doing what the GLIFWC and the DNR said they can. Mismanaged from the start. Now it is starting to come back some and I hope lessons were learned.

    Yet they had the largest on record spawn last year. So not sure how you can explain that. It is still a natural reproducing beast. YOY Survival has always been the bigger issue.
    Lake is extremely healthy right now. Opening up harvest is the right decision to keep the predator prey balance going.

    Ripjiggen
    Posts: 12529
    #2318635

    I think the problems with walleyes in Mille Lacs in the past are due to issues much more complex than just netting alone. The poor walleye fishing at times can be attributed in part to climiate change which affects walleye recruitment by disrupting the timing of ice-off, loss of spawning habitat and clearer water which can be in part attributed to AIS infestation. There are likely other factors at work as well.
    It’s easy to blame the DNR for mismanagement and they may have made some mistakes but remember there isn’t a manual to go by to properly manage the Mille Lacs walleye fishery when there are so many variables at the same time and hindsight is always 20/20 isn’t it?
    It could that there was just a perfect storm of variables that were uncontrollable and unmanageable. Maybe conditions in the lake have now satbilized and the DNR has finally figured a few things out about how to manage Mille Lacs. We’ll see.

    Agree and Ma Nature sure has a way to take care of herself. Sometimes she is better left alone.

    Dutchboy
    Central Mn.
    Posts: 17281
    #2318638

    Years ago in down cycles it was known as “the dead sea”

    Years ago there was no sewer system keeping the lake water clearer.

    Years ago you rented a cabin and stayed for days, now people blow up there from the metro several days a week during a hot bite.

    Years ago the DNR wasn’t afraid of GLIFWC.

    Things change.

    Ripjiggen
    Posts: 12529
    #2318652

    Years ago in high forage cycles it was known as “the dead sea”

    Fixed it for you.

    But generally agree Dutch. Lake has changed a lot over the years and your list could go on and on.

    big_g
    Isle, MN
    Posts: 22838
    #2318662

    If you actively were regularly fishing Mille Lacs from the late 80’s to around 2000.. you could see the demise happening. In the late 80’s and early 90’s.. the lake was as it always was… a Walleye churning machine. The netting was just the beginning of the end. Between the DNR having anglers target a “slot” of fish, constantly changing it here and there, but always between 13″ & 20″… the exact same fish that the natives were targeting with their nets. The walleye were taken down to an extreme level… which allowed Smallmouth, Muskie & Northern to flourish. That then just made it more difficult for walleye to make it past fingerlings. It cannot ALL be blamed on netting and anglers… but that is where it started, by targeting a lot of the reproducing fish. Back in the mid 90’s, We actually had a DNR fisheries surveyor that would stay at our place in the spring when they would do survey netting… he reiterated what we suspected. Depleted the Walleye too fast.

    (I know nature also affects a system, but not for 20+ years running) crazy

    FinnyDinDin
    Posts: 1014
    #2318666

    This paragraph should read something like ‘the lake saw a massive hatch of perch 4-5 years ago. This allowed the walleyes to feed on perch instead of eating all the baby walleyes. This has created great survival for the walleye yoy and the lake is loaded with small walleye now so the future is looking good.

    Was it low forage or too high of bigger hungry walleyes. Or both.
    Agree always going to ebbs and flows just like every lake in the state but it got out of whack because of their own doing.

    Both. But I think the forage is the most important factor.

    FinnyDinDin
    Posts: 1014
    #2318667

    The lake was a natural walleye producing beast… for decades….

    It always has been. Nets haven’t changed that a bit. It simple logic really. But I know you love to blame nets and that dead horse has been beat plenty so I’ll leave it at that.

    Karry Kyllo
    Posts: 1359
    #2318672

    Finny,

    It’s likely a combination of all of the above, but if in fact netting had the negative effect that some claim, a sustained decent walleye population for the next decade or so should be proof.
    That being said, nature can definitely affect a system for 20+ years. It’s not unprecedented.

    Ripjiggen
    Posts: 12529
    #2318676

    Big G
    First slot was introduced in 2000. Not disagreeing with you that it has an effect. Like you said that ain’t changing now.
    I was just pointing out that it is still a natural walleye spawning beast. Proven just this past spring.
    That lake is pretty resilient with all the negative impacts it has had thrown at it.
    The multi species opportunities are pretty fantastic right now that would rival any lake IMO.
    The folks that have refused to fish it because of the regs have definitely been missing out on some pretty awesome fishing.
    I doubt we will get to three this year as well but 0 last year was just plain stupid.

    Ripjiggen
    Posts: 12529
    #2318679

    It always has been. Nets haven’t changed that a bit. It simple logic really. But I know you love to blame nets and that dead horse has been beat plenty so I’ll leave it at that.

    Netting during the spawn has some impact how much is debatable no doubt. Like you said though no sense in beating that dead horse anymore.

    big_g
    Isle, MN
    Posts: 22838
    #2318681

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>big_g wrote:</div>
    The lake was a natural walleye producing beast… for decades….

    It always has been. Nets haven’t changed that a bit. It simple logic really. But I know you love to blame nets and that dead horse has been beat plenty so I’ll leave it at that.

    Blame nets ? ??? That’s one part of it… Do you not think going from netting 0 lbs to 80,000 lbs would have zero effect ? Read what I wrote, anglers and nets targeting the same fish for over 8 years… its gonna take a toll. It changes the make-up of species in the lake, allowing others to flourish while decimating the walleye… record hatches or not.

    3rdtryguy
    Central Mn
    Posts: 1583
    #2318691

    I think the limit should follow the state limit and I hope that’s 4 soon. I also think it’s time to challenge all the poor management issues over the years because a Wisconsin tribe wants to challenge every issue that they disagree with and claim it’s their right. This crap should be challenged under the Trump administration now that the liberals don’t control the country. One country, one set of laws. This post is doomed to be dusted soon. All of us that live around here are tired of it.

    Ripjiggen
    Posts: 12529
    #2318704

    Yeah probably not happening.

    No need to lock the thread think the discussion is going just fine.

    gim
    Plymouth, MN
    Posts: 18611
    #2318739

    2 fish in a specific size range seems reasonable to me. And hopefully all season long.

    Some of these businesses have changed their tune on the closures it seems. They used to decry an unplanned closure as the second coming of the devil and now they just say “oh well” to the possibility of it.

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 45 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.