You’re welcome Indians..
We’re just working on your future of lakerape..
I hope that was just a typo in the story. I would be shocked if they actually introduced new walleye DNA into Mille Lacs.
-J.
I hope that was just a typo in the story. I would be shocked if they actually introduced new <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>walleye DNA into Mille Lacs.
-J.
X2 Enormously stupid idea. Nature spends thousands of years fine tuning the Walleyes in that specific environment, and the DNR is going to improve on that? No way, they’ll just dilute the genetics and end up worse off.
SR
So much for the mille lacs strain of walleyes.
I hope that was just a typo in the story. I would be shocked if they actually introduced new <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>walleye DNA into Mille Lacs.
-J.
Jon, would you really be shocked at anything the DNR did any more?
Strain of the fry are all from Mille Lacs. DNR announced very early on that they wanted to keep this strain (and this strain only…) in the lake…RR
I agree. This has to be bad reporting. The fry are from Mille Lacs.
Strain of the fry are all from Mille Lacs. DNR announced very early on that they wanted to keep this strain (and this strain only…) in the lake…RR
That is very good news.
However if one of the problems with this lake is an over abundance of big old mature Walleyes cannibalizing their young, then dumping 10 million Walleye fry into the lake is essentially the same thing as dumping 10 million Fatheads into the lake. We’ve seen this before. In the 70’s and 80’s the DNR dumped millions of Walleye fry into Lake Waconia. Two things happened. The Crappie population exploded, and not many people reported catching Walleyes. They were stocking BAIT.
SR
Steve it does make me wonder why they don’t allow 1 fish over lets say 21″. It certainly would help thin out some of the cannibalism and give a monster boost to these young eye’s. If the future of this lake is in the 13′ class and now this 16′ class than it seems wise to me to get rid of some of the bigguns’. No? RR
Steve it does make me wonder why they don’t allow 1 fish over lets say 21″. It certainly would help thin out some of the cannibalism and give a monster boost to these young eye’s. If the future of this lake is in the 13′ class and now this 16′ class than it seems wise to me to get rid of some of the bigguns’. No? RR
I think that would have made a lot of sense 3-5 years ago RR; however, based on what I’ve been seeing the (slot driven) unnaturally high population of large walleyes really thinned down two years ago with an extremely warm summer and lack of forage. Even two years ago I would have strongly advocated harvest of over 20″ fish, but I think now we are at a level where we need to leave the big fish alone for the next 2 years until the current class of 13-16″ fish reach spawning maturity.
One a side note the shiner run on Mille Lacs this Spring has been very strong. 6-8 years ago we would catch dozens upon dozens of shiners but for the past five years we’ve seen very few. This Spring though it’s been very good again. I’m sure there could be other factors involved as well but I’m pretty sure much of the reason is the cycle of big walleyes has reached a low(er) point again.
Will
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>roosterrouster wrote:</div>
Steve it does make me wonder why they don’t allow 1 fish over lets say 21″. It certainly would help thin out some of the cannibalism and give a monster boost to these young eye’s. If the future of this lake is in the 13′ class and now this 16′ class than it seems wise to me to get rid of some of the bigguns’. No? RRI think that would have made a lot of sense 3-5 years ago RR; however, based on what I’ve been seeing the (slot driven) unnaturally high population of large <em class=”ido-tag-em”>walleyes really thinned down two years ago with an extremely warm summer and lack of forage. Even two years ago I would have strongly advocated harvest of over 20″ fish, but I think now we are at a level where we need to leave the big fish alone for the next 2 years until the current class of 13-16″ fish reach spawning maturity.
One a side note the shiner run on Mille Lacs this Spring has been very strong. 6-8 years ago we would catch dozens upon dozens of shiners but for the past five years we’ve seen very few. This Spring though it’s been very good again. I’m sure there could be other factors involved as well but I’m pretty sure much of the reason is the cycle of big walleyes has reached a low(er) point again.
Will
Will, What you are saying is exactly what I have experienced and have also heard from others. While there are still good numbers of the a larger fish, they are now down significantly from 3-5 years ago.
Also, the 2013 year class is at the size now that they could/would cannibalize both the naturally hatched fish as well as vacuuming up these stocked fish as well. The “wild card” is if the forage base keeps pace. Not just shiners but a big perch hatch would also be tremendous. Let’s hope, with fingers crossed…
Andy
If you need some big fish but not a lot of big fish why not allow bigger fish to be kept? Pick a number…..25″. Why not allow a max of say 3 fish per day over 25″. Can you imagine the hype that would create when the media got ahold of it. It would have to help tourism I would think. In my mind either the nets gets ’em or tourism gets ’em.
If you need some big fish but not a lot of big fish why not allow bigger fish to be kept? Pick a number…..25″. Why not allow a max of say 3 fish per day over 25″. Can you imagine the hype that would create when the media got ahold of it. It would have to help tourism I would think. In my mind either the nets gets ’em or tourism gets ’em.
In a way I agree with you but I will go with what Will said that the biggun’ population is at a good level right now. (Also, I don’t believe that the nets trap 25″ and larger fish. With the size of the squares in those nets their heads are too big to get through to grab the gill plates. I remember a couple years ago reading something about the Indians wanting to be able to use larger holes in the nets to catch bigger fish and that correctly so got shot down. Greedy greedy greedy…)
If you need some big fish but not a lot of big fish why not allow bigger fish to be kept? Pick a number…..25″. Why not allow a max of say 3 fish per day over 25″. Can you imagine the hype that would create when the media got ahold of it. It would have to help tourism I would think. In my mind either the nets gets ’em or tourism gets ’em.
In the long run I fully agree with this approach… For the short run I think we are now at a place where we do need avoid depleting the population of spawning fish for at least the next couple years. The way that I see it is that (for a lake with a high natural reproduction rate such as Mille Lacs) slots restricting the harvest of large fish (say 18-28″) are an effective way of building up the spawning biomass of a lake BUT that once that biomass reaches a healthy level THEN we need to open the slot to avoid the population of large fish becoming so plentiful that they deplete the baitfish population.
If you need some big fish but not a lot of big fish why not allow bigger fish to be kept? Pick a number…..25″. Why not allow a max of say 3 fish per day over 25″. Can you imagine the hype that would create when the media got ahold of it. It would have to help tourism I would think. In my mind either the nets gets ’em or tourism gets ’em.
You all are forgetting the the “allowable safe harvest quota” for state licensed anglers is set at 28,600 pounds. Once that has been met or exceeded 
the lake will be closed to all walleye fishing, even C&R. Allowing/adding any harvest of these larger fish will only multiply the poundage accounted for and the 28,600 pound quota could be reached before the kids are out of school!
Andy
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Dutchboy wrote:</div>
If you need some big fish but not a lot of big fish why not allow bigger fish to be kept? Pick a number…..25″. Why not allow a max of say 3 fish per day over 25″. Can you imagine the hype that would create when the media got ahold of it. It would have to help tourism I would think. In my mind either the nets gets ’em or tourism gets ’em.You all are forgetting the the “allowable safe harvest quota” for state licensed anglers is set at 28,600 pounds. Once that has been met or exceeded
the lake will be closed to all walleye fishing, even C&R. Allowing/adding any harvest of these larger fish will only multiply the poundage accounted for and the 28,600 pound quota could be reached before the kids are out of school!
Andy
And herein lies the trick box that is extremely difficult to get out of… I think the only way out was/is for the “bubble” of big fish that was built up over years of slot restrictions to die off naturally which has for the most part has already/is currently happening. My hope is that current strong year classes of smaller fish reaches a level where the 18-22″ fish are plentiful enough to sustain a healthy spawn then I would like to see a protected slot of something like 17-21″ or 18-22″ but that allows for large fish to be harvested. The only way this works given the harvest quotas is if we don’t allow a huge bubble again.
Will
More concerned with the mentality of throwing money and resources at a problem that time and management would fix. But since they can’t manage, and the locals don’t have time, we’ll all get to bail out the lake. DNR stays useful, local businesses are pacified,and all of our fishing licenses will go up in price next year.
More concerned with the mentality of throwing money and resources at a problem that time and management would fix. But since they can’t manage, and the locals don’t have time, we’ll all get to bail out the lake. DNR stays useful, local businesses are pacified,and all of our fishing licenses will go up in price next year.
Our fishing licenses will not go up in price next year, that would involve a huge legislative process which has already been exercised recently. Furthermore we have much more to be concerned about than that.
Correct me if I am wrong but the purpose of this stocking is to determine how many of the ten million fry that are stocker survive throughout the years to try and figure out why the population of fry is not surviving. The dnr maintains that the spawning is strong (I know many don’t believe this) and they want to know why they are not surviving and determine how many will survive to become larger walleye. The dye allows them to track this. They will use this information to gain a better understanding of the overall problem.
Correct me if I am wrong but the purpose of this stocking is to determine how many of the ten million fry that are stocker survive throughout the years to try and figure out why the population of fry is not surviving. The dnr maintains that the spawning is strong (I know many don’t believe this) and they want to know why they are not surviving and determine how many will survive to become larger walleye. The dye allows them to track this. They will use this information to gain a better understanding of the overall problem.
Theoretically you are correct as this is what the DNR has been saying. And there may be some validity to the experiment, but if you look through the smoke screen you’ll figure out that it is really more of a side show to draw the focus off the perhaps more likely issues that are causing the walleye population decline. After years of outcry and with the dwindling allowable harvest limits that ultimately led to a shutdown last year and then a C&R only this year, the DNR, governor, and other political figures patched together a collection of “actions” to demonstrate that they ARE doing something. Just my opinion though. Believe what you want. 
Does this dye transfer to the fish that are eating them? Are we to contact the DNR if we filet a sunfish that has a blue stomach? How else would the DNR determine where these dyed fry are ending up. Even if it is an attempt to determine the survival rate, I can’t fathom a way they can come to any kind of definitive answer based on the current methods used.
Does this dye transfer to the fish that are eating them? Are we to contact the DNR if we filet a sunfish that has a blue stomach? How else would the DNR determine where these dyed fry are ending up. Even if it is an attempt to determine the survival rate, I can’t fathom a way they can come to any kind of definitive answer based on the current methods used.
To a certain extent I do agree that this partly may be just doing something to help create the impression that they have a plan… But for the most part I fall much more in the camp of those who think that it is better to be proactive rather than reactive and by developing a better understanding of the survival rate for a sample stocking of walleyes they are going to be much more prepared if in the future we do get a point where stocking is required to avoid further population crash.
Will
They will determine survival rates through the same process that they use to determine population now but they will also test for the dye. Not sure how they do it but I think it’s a great idea to find out more information. It will allow them to have some kind of understanding about survival rates or at least a better understanding than they do now.
Like Will, I would like to see it get to a point where it is allowed to harvest some of the larger fish. My comments previously would be to implement something similar to what Ontario does in many of their waters. Limit 4 fish up to 18, but may have 1 fish over. Obviously we could be a long long ways away from able to harvest 4 fish, but the sample could still work.
They will determine survival rates through the same process that they use to determine population now but they will also test for the dye. Not sure how they do it but I think it’s a great idea to find out more information. It will allow them to have some kind of understanding about survival rates or at least a better understanding than they do now.
I am not the fish biologist but my understanding is that they collect X number of fish and remove the clethirum? bone and put something like a black light on it to see the dye. They then can tabulate if say 10 of 100 are dye marked. Plug those numbers into their “modeling” machine and it spits out results.
What that will tell them, who knows? There have been countless studies but Dick Sternberg (former DNR biologist) predicted the current Mille Lacs malaise years ago. Whether netting affects walleye recruitment during the spawn, who knows? That’s another argument. What it did create was slot limits that favored larger fish in order to minimize the total poundage that would eat away at the safe harvest quota. So the likelihood of poor survival rates had already been figured out many years ago!
Like Will, I would like to see it get to a point where it is allowed to harvest some of the larger fish. My comments previously would be to implement something similar to what Ontario does in many of their waters. Limit 4 fish up to 18, but may have 1 fish over. Obviously we could be a long long ways away from able to harvest 4 fish, but the sample could still work.
Yes, that would great but go back and read previous posts. The limited “safe allowable harvest” quota determined by treaty co-management would not feasibly permit much if any harvest of these larger fish because the quota would most likely be reached early in the season. DNR is almost mandated to keep the season open as long as possible, even if it’s only C&R. Having to shut it all down in June because the quota had been reached would bring upon an even greater firestorm.
I’m sure Will knows of this as well.
At current harvest levels yes but there were years when safe harvest was well over 200000 pounds. Like. I said which I’m sure you glazed over, this is going to be years down the road, but when it gets to that point that type of “slot” would serve much better than what was in place before.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
