The management of that lake is a head scratcher for sure
And so is your photo a head scratcher. Sure looks like you’re standing on the banks of Mille Lacs but based on your post, I’ll assume those were walleyes caught on another area lake. Good way to go about it to have walleye for shore lunch, but would imagine it would certainly raise eyebrows from any passerby. 
For good or bad what we are seeing now on Mille Lacs is the new normal. Anyone who stays away because they can’t keep a walleye is missing out and hurting no one but themselves.
The time is now… Get up there and make some memories! 
Will
For good or bad what we are seeing now on Mille Lacs is the new normal. Anyone who stays away because they can’t keep a <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>walleye is missing out and hurting no one but themselves.
The time is now… Get up there and make some memories!
Will
You are right, it is still a tremendous fishery, but what about contributing to the “safe harvest” when you are releasing all those fish? I guess maybe I am the only one looking at it that way, but if the only safe harvest we have now is some arbitrary mortality calculation the DNR uses are we doing a disservice by fishing it now at the risk of potential real harvest in coming years?
We are currently hamstrung because the DNR “bought ahead” with over harvest in previous years which included angler take AND mortality. Now we are paying the price with no angler take.
So, my question is, if no one fished at all (I know its a ridiculous question) we wouldn’t have a hooking mortality correct? Then we would be well below that arbitrary safe harvest level to potentially give us a better opportunity in a year or two?
Cpt Musky,
Under the current management system from a walleye fishing perspective there will be peaks and valleys. Historically speaking the lake did a pretty good job of managing itself where if the bait biomass was in critical condition the fish bit like crazy and more fish were harvested… Which was actually good for the lake because it helped to remove pressure from the middle of the food chain (aka baitfish). Following this principle when fish are biting like crazy it is actually good to remove some fish from the system be it through harvest or even through hooking mortality. Biologically speaking the lake needs you!
Will
So, my question is, if no one fished at all (I know its a ridiculous question) we wouldn’t have a hooking mortality correct? Then we would be well below that arbitrary safe harvest level to potentially give us a better opportunity in a year or two?
Unfortunately I don’t think this is correct. The safe harvest level is determined by their netting analysis which gives them an idea of total biomass, which they use to determine the safe harvest level. If no one fished it, there would be no hooking mortality, but the netting survey numbers would still need to be high enough to justify a harvest. Also, from what I understand the hooking mortality is solely based off angler hours, which they derive from the vehicles parked in the landings, so the many bass and musky anglers are still factored (wrongly) into that calculation.
I love a good fish fry as much as anyone, but I agree with Will that this is the new normal (regardless of our opinion on it), so you may as well go enjoy the great fishing and area while it’s making so many people look like pro’s!
sure raised the eyebrows of the guys in Nitti’s fish cleaning house I can tell you that! I caught them on a small lake outside of Aitkin
Bigwerm wrote:
Also, from what I understand the hooking mortality is solely based off angler hours, which they derive from the vehicles parked in the landings, so the many bass and musky anglers are still factored (wrongly) into that calculation.
With this statement you are only half correct. While it is true angler information can be estimated by counting vehicles in the parking lot; however, that number can be adjusted and the number of non-walleye anglers and water-contact recreation only vehicles are subtracted from the total to derive an estimate of only walleye anglers.
This, among other things, is common method of estimating angler use across the U.S.
ClearCreek
Which was actually good for the lake because it helped to remove pressure from the middle of the food chain (aka baitfish). Following this principle when fish are biting like crazy it is actually good to remove some fish from the system be it through harvest or even through hooking mortality. Biologically speaking the lake needs you!
Will
Yes and there seems to be enough evidence to support this. On a lot of walleye fisheries you may catch a lot of small and up and coming fish with the larger one’s becoming less and less of a frequent catch.
Not picking on you steveo but, Over “1/2 dozen over 29” in a weeks trip which is phenomenal…does illustrate that things are becoming more out of balance out there. The larger fish are out of proportion relative to the smaller fish.
I agree with you 100%, Andy. the fish looked relatively healthy. much healthier than last year but the forage will ultimately run low again. heard more than a few locals recommend harvesting some fish over 25″. doesn’t sound like a bad idea to me.
Bigwerm wrote:
Also, from what I understand the hooking mortality is solely based off angler hours, which they derive from the vehicles parked in the landings, so the many <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>bass and musky anglers are still factored (wrongly) into that calculation.
With this statement you are only half correct. While it is true angler information can be estimated by counting vehicles in the parking lot; however, that number can be adjusted and the number of non-walleye anglers and water-contact recreation only vehicles are subtracted from the total to derive an estimate of only walleye anglers.
This, among other things, is common method of estimating angler use across the U.S.
ClearCreek
Right, so they take the number of boats out by a factor of how long they think they were out fishing for, by a factor of what percent they think were walleye fishing, by a factor of how many walleye they think each boat caught, by an estimated hooking mortality percentage to determine how many walleye “died”. What could go wrong there… 
Not trying to derail the thread, just pointing out that, imo, it’s understandable for MN Anglers to be upset with the management of the lake, while still supporting the area and encouraging people to go fish it as much as possible.
Unfortunately I don’t think this is correct. The safe harvest level is determined by their netting analysis which gives them an idea of total biomass, which they use to determine the safe harvest level. If no one fished it, there would be no hooking mortality, but the netting survey numbers would still need to be high enough to justify a harvest.
I see your point and I guess maybe I made a leap in figuring that if no fish died of mortality that would equate to higher netting numbers which would then equate to higher safe level harvest limits in the following year.
Aside from that though, this doesn’t change the fact that right now we are working under the “buying forward” issue that the DNR screwed up on when Dayton allowed it to stay open that one year and we went over the safe harvest level. The band allowed it, but that meant we had to pay it back which is now what is happening. At least that is how I understood those posts a year or so ago where if finally came out MUCH after the fact.
I do really enjoy the lake and it was always phenomenal fishing out there, but I just am not that interested in fishing it with all the turmoil around it. I have plenty other lakes I fish now and have enjoyable experiences that are a bit closer for me.
Bigwerm’s post:
Right, so they take the number of boats out by a factor of how long they think they were out fishing for, by a factor of what percent they think were walleye fishing, by a factor of how many walleye they think each boat caught, by an estimated hooking mortality percentage to determine how many walleye “died”. What could go wrong there… roll Not trying to derail the thread, just pointing out that, imo, it’s understandable for MN Anglers to be upset with the management of the lake,
But that is how ALL fish management agencies do creel surveys. Yes, the surveys are an estimate; there is no other way to do a creel survey unless a high fence is built around the lake and each person is checked in and out each time they go fishing.
The Minnesota DNR is using state of the art methods to collect and analyze fisheries data (FYI – I do not now, nor have I ever worked for the Minnesota DNR. I do not live in MN, nor have I ever fished in MN; but I do know how fisheries data collection is done.)
You could move to another state and the fish management folks there would be doing the same thing.
Now, if you have developed estimate methodologies that would provide more accurate results, by all means get that method publicized and prove, in fact, that it is better and more refined than what is being used nationally, and probably internationally, now.
ClearCreek
You could move to another state and the fish management folks there would be doing the same thing.
Creel Survey’s are not used as a lone tool for management or actual harvest quota numbers on any lake other than Mille Lacs as far as I’ve read. Creel Surveys inherently (and obviously) have huge margins of error, so they are used as a tool alongside a wide variety of additional analysis (including more accurate forms like gill netting, sein netting, electrofishing, and numerous tagging studies).
FYI – I do not now, nor have I ever worked for the Minnesota DNR. I do not live in MN, nor have I ever fished in MN;
Then why are you here? And why do you care? I’m sure you have no agenda, despite trolling many different fishing forums almost exclusively on Mille Lacs threads, despite it being a lake you’ve never fished…
Bigwerm’s post
Creel Survey’s are not used as a lone tool for management or actual harvest quota numbers on any lake other than Mille Lacs as far as I’ve read. Creel Surveys inherently (and obviously) have huge margins of error, so they are used as a tool alongside a wide variety of additional analysis (including more accurate forms like gill netting, sein netting, electrofishing, and numerous tagging studies).
Buffalo Fishhead’s reply:
So, are you saying the MN DNR does no gill netting, seining or electrofishing on Mille Lacs and uses only creel surveys for managing the lake? I really doubt that is true.
And, you may be surprised to know creel surveys, if done properly, are actually pretty accurate at estimating angling use and harvest. There has been a lot of statistical research done on refining creel survey methods to increase accuracy. It is probably safe to say the inaccuracies in a creel survey come about because anglers do not provide accurate info, whether accidentally or intentionally, when asked about their fishing trip.
Bigwerm’s post:
Then why are you here? And why do you care? I’m sure you have no agenda, despite trolling many different fishing forums almost exclusively on Mille Lacs threads, despite it being a lake you’ve never fished…
Buffalo Fishheads reponse:
My only agenda is to call BS when I see it. I do follow several fishing forums and a couple have info on Mille Lacs, but mostly they are salmon fishing forums.
I am here because I enjoy fish and fishing, always have, always will.
Lastly, I would be interested in knowing where you read that Mille Lacs is the only lake managed with creel surveys exclusively, and no other fish sampling methods are used?
Buffalo Fishhead
Lastly, I would be interested in knowing where you read that Mille Lacs is the only lake managed with creel surveys exclusively, and no other fish sampling methods are used?
Harvest is determined by creel surveys. The lake is not managed by creel surveys.
sure raised the eyebrows of the guys in Nitti’s fish cleaning house I can tell you that! I caught them on a small lake outside of Aitkin
SteveO… the shack was losing the fish stank… nice job 
Mille Lacs should be made into a catch and release fishery in perpetuity. No other lake in the world is a better candidate for this. Furthermore, the natives should not be allowed to illegally poach fish via netting or spearing anymore either.
These two simple changes would solve every problem the lake has ever had. It would go from one of the best lakes in the area to perhaps the greatest freshwater sportfishery in the world. Too bad this will never happen because of extremely ignorant people on the front lines on all three sides of this battle.
Buffalo Fishhead’s reply:
So, are you saying the MN DNR does no gill netting, seining or electrofishing on Mille Lacs and uses only creel surveys for managing the lake? I really doubt that is true.And, you may be surprised to know creel surveys, if done properly, are actually pretty accurate at estimating angling use and harvest. There has been a lot of statistical research done on refining creel survey methods to increase accuracy. It is probably safe to say the inaccuracies in a creel survey come about because anglers do not provide accurate info, whether accidentally or intentionally, when asked about their fishing trip.
Buffalo Fishheads reponse:
My only agenda is to call BS when I see it. I do follow several fishing forums and a couple have info on Mille Lacs, but mostly they are salmon fishing forums.
Lastly, I would be interested in knowing where you read that Mille Lacs is the only lake managed with creel surveys exclusively, and no other fish sampling methods are used?Buffalo Fishhead
There is no BS here Buffalo. I’ll start by saying it is my opinion that you misunderstand or have misinterpreted what BigWerm said or is saying.
Creel survey is the primary method used to estimate harvest and/or hooking mortality. You contradict yourself stating that “creel surveys, if done properly, are actually pretty accurate at estimating angling use and harvest.”
But then you say, “It is probably safe to say the inaccuracies in a creel survey come about because anglers do not provide accurate info, whether accidentally or intentionally”…so the reality is that creel surveys can very well be inaccurate if not done “properly” which is quite possible because anglers do not always provide accurate info.
The other thing you seem to be missing is the creel survey is to measure angler pressure, harvest/hooking mortality.
Gill net sampling, seine netting, electrofishing, and tagging studies are used to help estimate the population or biomass. (Not the same as angler harvest). Yes, Mille Lacs is managed using all the aforementioned methods.
tagfish3.jpg
walleye student:
The BS I was talking about was when Big werm said:
You tell me what he is saying. I read the poorly structured sentence to imply that Mille Lacs is the only lake where creel surveys are the lone tool used for management, etc.
You preaching to the choir. I understand how lakes are managed and all the sampling methods that are used to derive angler catch and harvest rates, fish mortality (angling and natural) rates, biomass estimates and on and on.
I did not contradict myself when I said
A big part of that “done properly” is getting accurate info from anglers when they are questioned during the survey. The statistical methods that are used to calculate the information desired in creel surveys are sound and are the result of extensive research.
How many creel surveys have you done? I don’t mean how many times have you been interviewed by a creel clerk. I mean how many creel surveys have you actually designed, gathered the data, analyzed the data and reported the results?
ClearCreek
Creel surveys based on unverified hooking mortality percentages are what have closed down Lake Mille Lacs every time it has been closed recently, and I’m unaware of another lake that is managed similarly with hooking mortality as a significant factor. As you stated any statistical analysis is dependent on the quality of info input, bad info in and you get bad info out, and that is what my (and many MN anglers) gripe is. Currently on ML a high percentage of the boats on the lake are fishing bass or musky/northern, and the DNR does not accurately account for that (by their own admission, as I talk to Erik from the Aitkin office somewhat regularly). They also do not monitor the parking lots frequently enough (typically driving by once in the morning and once in the evening, on the days they do a creel survey) to have an accurate idea of how long each boat is out for. I, and my many friends who fish the lake frequently, haven’t been creel surveyed for a number of years, which makes me also question the # of fish they think the average anglers are catching. And then you have the hooking mortality percentage, which hasn’t really been studied until the last year or two, and even that study was questionable as the fish were “released” into a small holding net. Making nearly every data point in their creel survey questionable statistically, yet that is still the deciding factor in managing Mille Lacs availability to MN anglers.
ClearCreek you have a long history of trolling fishing forums, I was disappointed to see you crawl out of LSF and show up here and I have no interest in continuing to debate it with you. You’ve proven to be a troll of the highest order over many years.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t hooking mortality based on many factors including angling pressure, water temperature, and the use of live bait? I have been told that if people switched from using live bait (mainly slip bobbers) to artificial lures (like most bass and muskie anglers use), the hooking mortality would go down by almost 60% in July and August (when its at its highest due to warm water).
if people switched from using live bait (mainly slip bobbers) to artificial lures (like most bass and muskie anglers use), the hooking mortality would go down by almost 60% in July and August (when its at its highest due to warm water).
probably so…mainly because people would catch 60% less fish! LOL Nothing like a leech under a bobber on a flat in late July/Aug.
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Grant Ruis wrote:</div>
Meat hunters can go rape and pillage another lake. The rest of us will continue the trophy caliber walleye, smallmouth, and muskie fishing that the lake has to offer.My thoughts exactly.
You gut hookers can stay away from my neck of the woods and I will continue staying away from yours. 
These big pond threads are good reading.
I would say the “Open Water Trollers” are killing as many if not more fish than the live bait riggers or corkers. Either way, if the DNR insists on a strict C&R season, they should also implement a barbless hook rule.
Back to my corner…..
-J.
I would say the “Open Water Trollers” are killing as many if not more fish than the live bait riggers or corkers. Either way, if the DNR insists on a strict C&R season, they should also implement a barbless hook rule.
Back to my corner…..
-J.
From what I see on my boat when we are open water trollin the walleyes shoot out of your hand when releasing and take off. This happens 9 out of 10 fish at least. Occasionally you have to hold them for a sec then they dart off. It’s hard to believe they “all die” when they take off with so much spunk. And every one says it’s those warm water temps too. You guys ever dive into mille lacs it’s called surface temps for a reason. 5 to ten ft down it is significantly colder so the fish are in that warm water for mere seconds.
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Jon Jordan wrote:</div>
I would say the “Open Water Trollers” are killing as many if not more fish than the live bait riggers or corkers. Either way, if the DNR insists on a strict C&R season, they should also implement a barbless hook rule.Back to my corner…..
-J.
From what I see on my boat when we are open water trollin the <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>walleyes shoot out of your hand when releasing and take off. This happens 9 out of 10 fish at least. Occasionally you have to hold them for a sec then they dart off. It’s hard to believe they “all die” when they take off with so much spunk. And every one says it’s those warm water temps too. You guys ever dive into mille lacs it’s called surface temps for a reason. 5 to ten ft down it is significantly colder so the fish are in that warm water for mere seconds.
Jon, before you think about replying, remember…just stay in your corner. 
Here are a couple of reports that many might find interesting. A 2015 creel report and 2016 LL Survey. Note in the LL Survey that from DNR’s measurements the temperatures measured in the water column for the depths that most people are trolling are within a degree for the entire water column.
Also included 1996 LL survey so you can see how much the survey has progressed.
1996-LL-Report.pdf
2016-LL-Report-with-graphs-b.pdf
Creel-Report-2015-final-Draft.pdf
@gonefishin, thanks for sharing! Very interesting read! I didn’t read all of them, but I did cherrypick some of the key points. From Page 43 of the 2016 LL with graphs PDF there is a paragraph where they hypothesized about the root cause of the “issue” is it too large number of predatory fish or is it some bio issue with the “foodwebs”. Basically they say its the latter and that is largely due to the water cleaning up for multiple factors.
Well, I say we dump sewage and start using phosphorous in our fertilizer again!
Only joking, but isn’t it interesting how we do things to clean up the environment and then it negatively affects it?? Ironic.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
