What Do YOU Want!

Will Roseberg wrote:

What I want is simple… Get rid of the small “kill” slots and replace it with a larger slot that protects the most productive spawning size of <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>walleyes yet still allows the harvest of larger fish.

My wish would be something like a protected slot for all fish 18-23″ with a limit of 2 fish but only one over 23″.

Will

X1000, spot on Will

I could even live with one fish over 22″, but Will’s plan is the ideal.

Mille Lacs just doesn’t have the ability to sustain a forage base for the trophy fishery in my opinion. The lake just isn’t deep enough/cool enough to hold high quality forage like cisco or smelt. It can barely sustain a population of tulibee with as warm as it gets in the summer and no deep holes for them to hide.

If we have to have a protected slot then I agree with Will.

Ideal to me would be to manage the lake for a healthy population of eaters, a two fish limit with one over 18″. I agree with others that have pointed out that ML is not really a trophy lake candidate.

I get bored fast catching the same 25″-27″ fish over and over. It is not fun to me and doesn’t seem like a sport. It isn’t a challenge when they are everywhere. I’d rather see lots of 15″-20″ fish and have it more difficult to catch a 25″+.

I would like to see 1 fish any size. Once you put it in the live well you are done fishing. That way if you want a meal you can have one or if you want to do CPR and potentially catch numbers you can do that. That would also spread out the year classes that are kept and not have huge numbers of walleyes taken out of the lake. That might be a viable solution, but who knows for sure?

ML produces lots of trophy fish-Many many other lakes do not and cannot, so as many others have said work to that streagth. We have many other walleye ‘meat markets’ like Red (I know ML is so much closer to the Twin Cities) How many times on this forum have you seen a picture of a little kid with a huge Walter from ML:
“…his first walleye and its 24”!” Thats great, tip your hat a bit to the DNR.

I think the protected slot of 18-23” with a limit of 2 fish but only one over 23” would be great. And no netting in areas less than 25’ deep.

Hatch99 wrote:

I would like to see 1 fish any size. Once you put it in the live well you are done fishing. That way if you want a meal you can have one or if you want to do CPR and potentially catch numbers you can do that. That would also spread out the year classes that are kept and not have huge numbers of walleyes taken out of the lake. That might be a viable solution, but who knows for sure?

What would be the point of banning C&R once a fish is kept?

Under this scenario you can C&R all day. You just make the person keep the last fish of the day. I don’t get it. Seems like a superfluous rule.
What am I missing?

You can put me on record that any proposal that bans C&R is DOA in my world.
“Many men go fishing all of their lives without knowing that it is not fish they are after.” -Henry David Thoreau
Banning C&R might as well be a closed season because I do not go fishing to find a meal, but that doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t like a meal now and then.

I think 2 fish with only one being over 18″ would work great. The only problem I see is that with current “harvest levels” it would hit the poundage in a hurry.
The reason I think of catch, keep, done would work is because then you essentially take hooking mortality out of the equation. True, I think that would be a VERY difficult thing to pass, but I think in all honesty something like that would work very well short term, to allow some of the larger fish to be removed and the whole biomass get more in balance with healthier baitfish populations and young walleye survival.

The main reason for you keep one fish and you are done is to cut down on mortality. Some guys just want a fish to eat. They can get that and be done without continuing to catch more fish and possibly hook one badly and kill it.

sticker wrote:

The main reason for you keep one fish and you are done is to cut down on mortality. Some guys just want a fish to eat. They can get that and be done without continuing to catch more fish and possibly hook one badly and kill it.

Agreed. And like I mentioned in my prior post I think this kind of harvest would be good short term and then eventually as things balance out a bit it could allow C&R, but the key to me was the hooking mortality. This catch and keep throws that out the window so in “theory” the actual harvest could go up.

I also like the idea of a 2-3 fish limit and protected slot. My vote would be 18-22″ so there is a possibility to remove some of the older males that don’t grow as fast.

As far as the trophy fishery, it is as good as I can ever remember in my 29 years of fishing Mille Lacs. The fishing pressure has been considerably down the last 2 years, but the number of 28″+ fish I have seen or heard of is way up.

In the short term slot limits harvest levels would need to change depending on the year class levels. In the long term there needs to be a consistent harvest balance once the GLIWC and DNR agree to an effective management model.
I may be wrong but despite the angst over netting, I don’t see it ever going away.
Mille lacs bushinesses will not survive Catch and release fishing. There needs to be a small effective and sustainable harvest limit.

It has become to easy to catch large walleyes on Mille-lacs, I cringe at the thought that too many fisherman young and old, feel this is normal.

sticker wrote:

The main reason for you keep one fish and you are done is to cut down on mortality. Some guys just want a fish to eat. They can get that and be done without continuing to catch more fish and possibly hook one badly and kill it.

I have heard this or similar proposals offered by quite a few others as well. If what you are in fact proposing, once you catch that first walleye you keep it and are done fishing for the day will never fly. With the bite the way it is you could easily get that first one in 10 minutes. Just about everyone going out fishing would want more than 10 minutes. Think about getting everything together, cooler filled, bait purchased, putting your boat and then having to pack it all back up after 10 minutes or 30 minutes. Ah..no! Same for a launch outing if you catch one right off the bat, and then have to sit on the boat for the 3 and a half hours watching.?

My vote though would be 2 fish limit, 1 under 20″ and one over 20″.

would propose a short term 2-3 limit no slot and once you have your fish your done. and then evaluate. fine with catch and release but the reality is throwing fish back left and right they don’t all survive. I primarily fish live bait but would be open to seeing artificial only. tossing back a gut hook walleye seems pointless.

Short term (year or two) 1 fish limit any size. Long term 2 fish limit of any size. Keep it simple.

Wouldn’t be opposed to a live bait restriction during July and August to help limit the hooking mortality.

Bass: limit 2, must be under 14″, 1 over 20″.
Pike: limit 3 must be under 26″, 1 over 36″.
Muskie: same as statewide (minimum 54″)

Barbless single hook with no live or dead bait. No slot one fish limit. No fishing for walleye more than 1/2 mile from shore in July and August.

Walleyestudent Andy Cox wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>sticker wrote:</div>
The main reason for you keep one fish and you are done is to cut down on mortality. Some guys just want a fish to eat. They can get that and be done without continuing to catch more fish and possibly hook one badly and kill it.

I have heard this or similar proposals offered by quite a few others as well. If what you are in fact proposing, once you catch that first walleye you keep it and are done fishing for the day will never fly. With the bite the way it is you could easily get that first one in 10 minutes. Just about everyone going out fishing would want more than 10 minutes. Think about getting everything together, cooler filled, bait purchased, putting your boat and then having to pack it all back up after 10 minutes or 30 minutes. Ah..no! Same for a launch outing if you catch one right off the bat, and then have to sit on the boat for the 3 and a half hours watching.?

My vote though would be 2 fish limit, 1 under 20″ and one over 20″.

I think this is misunderstood. You don’t have to keep the first one you catch or even any of them, but once you keep one you are done. Just like any other lake, once you put your limit in the livewell you are not supposed to target that fish any longer. By this theory you could fish all day long, then in the last half hour of your trip you try and find one to keep for the day.

sticker wrote:

I think this is misunderstood. You don’t have to keep the first one you catch or even any of them, but once you keep one you are done. Just like any other lake, once you put your limit in the livewell you are not supposed to target that fish any longer. By this theory you could fish all day long, then in the last half hour of your trip you try and find one to keep for the day.

I did consider that…but then that is not any new proposal, just another terminology for a 1 fish limit just like there was last winter. Only variable would be if there was a slot and what size. I have heard from some who did propose a one and done…literally.

sticker wrote:

I think this is misunderstood. You don’t have to keep the first one you catch or even any of them, but once you keep one you are done. Just like any other lake, once you put your limit in the livewell you are not supposed to target that fish any longer. By this theory you could fish all day long, then in the last half hour of your trip you try and find one to keep for the day.

That is a misunderstanding for a lot of people. There is no rule in MN that says you have to stop fishing for a species once you hit your limit. I wish that rumor would stop.

There is a rule that says you cannot cull once a limit is kept. But that is not the same thing, and the culling rule assumes that you would continue fishing after meeting the limit.

Plus adding a new special rule just for ML seems counter to what we are trying to do. In my mind, I would like to see rules simplified not made more convoluted.

Walleyestudent Andy Cox wrote:

I did consider that…but then that is not any new proposal, just another terminology for a 1 fish limit just like there was last winter. Only variable would be if there was a slot and what size. I have heard from some who did propose a one and done…literally.

What if it was catch 2 fish and done regardless of size? What are 95% of the people complaining about right now on ML? They cannot keep any fish. What is the other side of the equation that has led to the closure as we type? Hooking mortality. If you do the catch, keep, done model then hooking mortality is out the window right?
Say the safe harvest is 60,000lbs with 20,000lbs of that being hooking mortality, so really its only 40,000 of angler kept fish right? Well, if you catch it, you keep it then the angler kept number could be the whole 60,000 wouldn’t it?
I would really like to see how the DNR gets their data going into the hooking mortality. I have a STRONG feeling that if some catch/must keep model were proposed it would NOT be like I describe where the hooking mortality figure would just get added to the angler kept number. They would hedge on that for sure.

ClownColor wrote:

Two fish, one over 18″.

This is what I would like because it’s been proven to work vs protected slots.

That 18″-23″ range that has been mentioned would cover the in-prime spawning females but it would also protect the old males, since very few of them go over 23″ in their lifetime, and those old males are IMO the fish that need to be kept in check to have a more diverse biomass.

CaptainMusky wrote:

What if it was catch 2 fish and done regardless of size? What are 95% of the people complaining about right now on ML? They cannot keep any fish. What is the other side of the equation that has led to the closure as we type? Hooking mortality. If you do the catch, keep, done model then hooking mortality is out the window right?
Say the safe harvest is 60,000lbs with 20,000lbs of that being hooking mortality, so really its only 40,000 of angler kept fish right? Well, if you catch it, you keep it then the angler kept number could be the whole 60,000 wouldn’t it?

So what you are proposing is that anglers would be REQUIRED to keep their 2 fish if they caught them? Even if they had no desire to keep any? Sure there are many who want to keep them but than there are many others satisfied with C&R or there would have been nobody fishing the lake the last 2 months. So I guess I don’t know quite what you are proposing that is different than a 2 fish limit…no sorting, which is currently not allowed anyway.

CaptainMusky wrote:

What if it was catch 2 fish and done regardless of size? What are 95% of the people complaining about right now on ML? They cannot keep any fish. What is the other side of the equation that has led to the closure as we type? Hooking mortality. If you do the catch, keep, done model then hooking mortality is out the window right?
Say the safe harvest is 60,000lbs with 20,000lbs of that being hooking mortality, so really its only 40,000 of angler kept fish right? Well, if you catch it, you keep it then the angler kept number could be the whole 60,000 wouldn’t it?
I would really like to see how the DNR gets their data going into the hooking mortality. I have a STRONG feeling that if some catch/must keep model were proposed it would NOT be like I describe where the hooking mortality figure would just get added to the angler kept number. They would hedge on that for sure.

What do you do with incidental catches?

Last time out, in July mind you, I was targeting eater pike but caught 5 walleye in 12′ FOW in cabbage before we saw our first pike. Did we have to keep that first walleye then quit even though we weren’t targeting them?

It’s a silly question but the point is, there will always be hooking mortality.

Will Roseberg wrote:

What I want is simple… Get rid of the small “kill” slots and replace it with a larger slot that protects the most productive spawning size of <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>walleyes yet still allows the harvest of larger fish.

My wish would be something like a protected slot for all fish 18-23″ with a limit of 2 fish but only one over 23″.

Will

The DNR and tribes would be amazed at how well this would work out!

-J.

Kyhl wrote:

It’s a silly question but the point is, there will always be hooking mortality.

I don’t think that’s a silly question at all.

Walleyestudent Andy Cox wrote:

So what you are proposing is that anglers would be REQUIRED to keep their 2 fish if they caught them? Even if the had no desire to keep any? Sure there are many who want to keep them but than there are many others satisfied with C&R or there would have been nobody fishing the lake the last 2 months. So I guess I don’t know quite what you are proposing that is different than a 2 fish limit…no sorting which is currently not allowed anyway.

I personally would not drive up from the metro area for the chance at catching and keeping 2 fish. I can do that on a handful of lakes within 30 minutes of a home-cooked meal and a good night’s rest in my own bed.

That is a misunderstanding for a lot of people. There is no rule in MN that says you have to stop fishing for a species once you hit your limit. I wish that rumor would stop.
[/quote]

If this is true I have learned something today and I appreciate that. I will have to do some research on that since that has always been my understanding.

think this really brings up a point. People are complaining they can’t keep any, but if you said you get 3 fish your done get off the lake anything 15″ plus your done would they be happy? there would be less hooking mortality, but would make for some quick trips and quick launches.

Realistically, I don’t think anyone would argue that an angler “being forced” to return a gut hooked 22″ fish, they know is going belly up immediately, is silly. For those ready with “the eagles and loons will eat it” analogy, they miss quite a few and they end up on shore rotting. In the past, when somebody wanted a meal, they would be forced to catch 30 walleyes, to find the 1 or 2 in the slot to keep. I don’t know how you would word something like this, but it would be nice for the guy who wants an eater, to be able to catch said “eater” and be done, than being forced to catch and release 30, trying to get that “magic slot fish” to eat.

Kyhl wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>sticker wrote:</div>
I think this is misunderstood. You don’t have to keep the first one you catch or even any of them, but once you keep one you are done. Just like any other lake, once you put your limit in the livewell you are not supposed to target that fish any longer. By this theory you could fish all day long, then in the last half hour of your trip you try and find one to keep for the day.

That is a misunderstanding for a lot of people. There is no rule in MN that says you have to stop fishing for a species once you hit your limit. I wish that rumor would stop.

There is a rule that says you cannot cull once a limit is kept. But that is not the same thing, and the culling rule assumes that you would continue fishing after meeting the limit.

Plus adding a new special rule just for ML seems counter to what we are trying to do. In my mind, I would like to see rules simplified not made more convoluted.

This is true but it is a relatively new concept. Previously you were required to stop fishing once your daily or possession limit was reached.

I’d like to see equal limits per person no matter the ethnic heritage. If they want to allow a certain person with a certain ancestry a different method of catching as the rest of us, so be it. But make it equal per person.

biggill wrote:

And my guess as to why we don’t see the 30″ fish anymore is because the 25-27″ fish have lived a stressful life and more would be 30″ if it weren’t for heavy competition for food.

I agree 100%! If you don’t feed your teenager for a couple years do you think he’ll be as tall as the other grown ups later in life?