Winter Regs

Per Steve @ Portside’s FB video:
Winter regulation
1 fish 21”-23”
or 1 over 28”

Reminder that winter reg’s begin 12/01/2018.

An article about population

https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/sports/outdoors/4521464-mille-lacs-walleyes-nearly-triple

I think the results are more alarming than most understand. I’m glad to see the population grow. The “Nearly Trible” headline is somewhat misleading as to the health of the system though. With one year class representing ~40% of the measured population and a system still short on baitfish, we are setting up for another collapse. I’ve seen some pictures of awfully skinny 20-25″ fish coming out of Mille Lacs this summer. Clearly the MNDNR fears the same with the harvest solely targeting mature fish.

Mille Lacs will always have a walleye population, but the return to the old glory days is almost scientifically impossible. The bass and other predator fish have carved out a huge chunk of the lake’s available biomass (due to many controllable and uncontrollable forces). Catching 20+ mature fish in a late Spring outing with relative ease is not necessarily a sign of a sustainable population. It’s more a product of a hurting forage base and some starving walleyes.

buckybadger wrote:

I’ve seen some pictures of awfully skinny 20-25″ fish coming out of Mille Lacs this summer.

You can’t base the health of a fish population on this as I have come realize. I’ve seen very few photos of summer walleyes from other lakes in that size range that actually look healthy or plump.

buckybadger wrote:

With one year class representing ~40% of the measured population and a system still short on baitfish, we are setting up for another collapse.

This statement is misleading in regards the posted article. The article says it’s 40% of the fish CAUGHT, not the population. I wouldn’t expect to catch many of the ‘16 or ‘17 year classes due to their size anyway. The DNR reports these year classes as normal.

The DNR is taking a cautious approach to interpreting the results of the population estimates. The 2013 year class continues to dominate the population, accounting for about 40 percent of the fish caught, but year classes hatched since 2013 show mixed results. The 2014 and 2015 year classes remain below normal. The 2016 year class, which is now 13-15 inches in length, appears close to average compared to the last 15 years.

Let me also say I agree with the prediction that it’ll crash again. Too many adult walleyes equals a quickly approaching crash.

I also take exception to the DNR’s definition of “normal” or “average”. It is basically the average over the past 15 years. Those 15 years are the ones we don’t want to repeat in my opinion.

Seems as though the wheels are still spinning.

biggill wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>buckybadger wrote:</div>
I’ve seen some pictures of awfully skinny 20-25″ fish coming out of Mille Lacs this summer.

You can’t base the health of a fish population on this as I have come realize. I’ve seen very few photos of summer walleyes from other lakes in that size range that actually look healthy or plump.

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>buckybadger wrote:</div>
With one year class representing ~40% of the measured population and a system still short on baitfish, we are setting up for another collapse.

This statement is misleading in regards the posted article. The article says it’s 40% of the fish CAUGHT, not the population. I wouldn’t expect to catch many of the ‘16 or ‘17 year classes due to their size anyway. The DNR reports these year classes as normal.

The DNR is taking a cautious approach to interpreting the results of the population estimates. The 2013 year class continues to dominate the population, accounting for about 40 percent of the fish caught, but year classes hatched since 2013 show mixed results. The 2014 and 2015 year classes remain below normal. The 2016 year class, which is now 13-15 inches in length, appears close to average compared to the last 15 years.

^Hence why I said the measured population, not actual population.

Either way, I’m predicting a crash and a forage shortage for the upcoming years. That one solid year class that was so strategically protected is going to team up with the bass and other predator fish to eat the forage base to nothing.

I caught 167 eyes in October. Less than 5 that I considered thin fish. The rest all looked healthy.

Since I’ve kind of caught gold fever right now I will probably actually venture out on Mille Lacs this winter. Haven’t been out there since I started ice fishing again in 2014.

I’ve been pounding the heck out of Mille Lacs all fall. I’ll be going up in literally 20 minutes to fish artificials on shallow rocks. It’s been utterly terrific fishing for walleyes and very poor for bass. Mille Lacs is generally my primary fall fishery. Otherwise, I don’t fish it a whole lot other than right around opener. I also ice fish it a lot.

The walleyes I’ve seen this fall are WAY fatter and more healthy than I’ve seen in years. Anyone with a Vexilar/Marcum/Humminbird knows the massive plague of perch that made last year’s ice season so lousy as compared to the few seasons prior. One could barely mark the bottom through the school of perch that invaded every hole as soon as the Rippin Rap hit the bottom. I jigged some up with Eurolarvae, and they were about the size of my pinkie finger.

That perch boom helped the current stock of walleyes, I’m certain of it. These are not underfed walleyes currently.

buckybadger wrote:

That one solid year class that was so strategically protected is going to team up with the bass and other predator fish to eat the forage base to nothing.

I agree. I’ve been shaking my head ever since they declared that year class such a success. Why they wouldn’t want to mow it down to a more average level is beyond me. Now I’m guessing the 2017 and 2018 year classes are at serious risk.

The DNR found the biggest predator to young walleyes was larger walleyes. If I remember correctly that was followed by pike and almost absent was SMB.

Bass Thumb, are you finding many walleyes in that slot of 21-23″? I think that it will be rare to find that one to keep, but I haven’t been up to the shack fishing in a couple years.

Winter Regs, the last few years, it’s been tough to catch one in the slot. I don’t really care a whole lot, and I would prefer to see the lake be catch and release indefinetly. I always seem to be a half inch under or an inch or two over. Last year, it was 20-22″, the year before it was 19-21″, etc. The slots were designed to be one year class ahead of the bumper 2013 crop, according to some reports. Makes sense.

This year, that bumper crop appears to be in the 18-21″ range. I don’t have proof of this, but the majority of fish caught are in the 18-20″ range, with a very solid number in the 21″ range. 22-23″ fish seem almost entirely absent. There are a good number of 24-25″ fish, and the ‘biggins’ are in the 25.5-27″ range. I haven’t caught any bigger than that in a few years. That’s my experience.

That said, I think a lot of 21″ fish will be caught and kept this season. They’ll be a bit mushy, but they’ll still taste pretty good. I’ll take a few home and chunk them up into pieces the size of chicken nuggets and deep fry them.

Or group last ice season got prob 10 in the slot A few close to 21 if you cut them into walleye fingers they fry right up. Feeds a lot guys,I usually make a hoagies but yeah it’s got to be difficult cooking one whole slab of walleye.

Bass Thumb wrote:

The slots were designed to be one year class ahead of the bumper 2013 crop, according to some reports. Makes sense.

This year, that bumper crop appears to be in the 18-21″ range. I don’t have proof of this, but the majority of fish caught are in the 18-20″ range, with a very solid number in the 21″ range. 22-23″ fish seem almost entirely absent. There are a good number of 24-25″ fish, and the ‘biggins’ are in the 25.5-27″ range. I haven’t caught any bigger than that in a few years. That’s my experience.

Your experience is pretty much spot on. Here’s an illustration courtesy of many the MN DNR has graced us with. Although we all know that walleyes have been fried up in fish houses that didn’t need to be cut into “chicken size nuggets” or “walleye fingers”…

Attachments:

1. 

   walleye-slot.jpg
   

Saying 20” or bigger fish don’t taste as good bugs the hell out of me. Pan fry the whole fillet, drizzle a small amount of honey on top (salty sweet combo), mash up some potatoes, and make vegetable of your choice as a side. My absolute favorite meal. I actually prefer the 18” or bigger fish. It’s an old school grandma home cooked meal

Fack!

Something just occurred to me that hit me like a ton of bricks…I’m shocked I’ve never heard this mentioned or realized it before now:

It is impossible for us to ever harvest the 2013 year class and reduce it down to where it needs to be to not have a high probability of crashing the lake.

Why?

The lake’s management plan is based off of pounds of fish. We have a single year class representing 40% of the fish in the lake, averaging 2.5lbs a fish.

They can’t put the open slot to where it will coincide with the “thirteens” because it would resuit in state anglers reaching their share of the allowable harvest quota right away. The quota would get just destroyed if they opened the slot on them, and that problem will only get worse since guess what? They’re NOt going to decrease in size as they age….well, weight wise they will at some point when they’re starving.

Here’s the thing the DNR simply doesn’t get is a possibility with the “thirteens”

Which came first? The chicken or the egg?

Is the 2013 year class the only good year class in the lake? Or are there no other good year classes because of the 2013 year class?

My opinion is the latter is the much higher probability of being the case. The DNR keeps expecting to look at their line graphs and see a second year class jump off the charts. That isn’t likely if it’s possible at all. It’s time to stop looking at these graphs under the context that the only year class that is “normal” is the ‘thirteens’ and start looking at it the other way around—it is the only one that is “abnormal.”

Why does this year class exist in the first place? Hint: it wasn’t created in a lake with a balanced out population in either size distribution and certainly not numbers—the 2012 fall assessment was the all-time the population has been surveyed, and it was comprised of the most underweight, malnourished, and BEAT UP walleyes the lake has ever had in her waters. I’ll never forget fishing Mille Lacs from sunrise to sunset both Saturday and Sunday I want to say the third weekend in August of 2012, when the lake reached it’s highest water temperature recorded. The massive tullibee die off was absolutely stunning. It was almost impossible to fathom that many had been in the lake had you been able to see them right there, all floating on the surface, with a lot of ripe big ‘eyes mixed in too. There was four or five 27″-28″ fish we tried scooping up with the net only to have the bottom of the basket clear air and it was like blowing on a round fuzzy dandelion, “Poof!” What amazed me more than anything was how evenly spread the tullibee were. It was like someone placed them on about a five or six foot grid across the entire lake. It seemed impossible to me. You’d think there be a little cluster here, a big cluster over there, and them scattered randomly at various densities.

Between the record low walleye population and the massive tullibee die-off the lake almost certainly had to have the lowest biomass in lake history, by far.

Is everyone familar with the Red Lake crappie bonanza of the late 90’s? Schools of 13″-15″ slabs documented at three miles long?

That was also only possible by the lake’s walleye population crashing. It was beyond absurd…a level of absurdity that bordered on insanity when compared to what “normal” was for the lake.

We’ve got a monster walleye year class that only exists in Mille Lacs because the it crashed in the first place……I have to admit….wouldn’t it be a prophetic irony if the ‘thirteens’ destiny is to re-create the conditions that created them? Lucky number thirteen, right??

If that happens again, what needs to happen is once they’re Y-3 fish and 13″-15″ in size—cut their numbers in half, bare minimum.

As a result of the 2012 crash the DNR was very much in full-out “Chicken Little” mode. When the ‘thirteens’ reach Y-2, their numbers totally intact, they became the lake’s savior—the miracle year class born when the doomsday clock struck high noon.

What occured on Mille Lacs summer of 2012 really was an absolutely extraordinary group of dynamic conditions that any one by itself could have, and should have been viewed as having the potential to be cataclysmic.

1. Highest recorded water temp
2. Record low walleye pop
3. Massive tullibee die-off
4. Zebra mussel explosion
5. Spiny water flea explosion

People have a hard time looking at a lake and seeing anything other than the surface of the water. Underneath the surface of Mille Lacs in 2012 was arguably the greatest ecological disaster in state history. We need to recognize what happened to the lake that altered it forever if we want to manage it right. Using data sets as benchmarks from before the lake experienced ‘the great flux’ to manage afterwsrds should be done with great scrutiny.

The way walleye populations in large MN walleye lakes can look exceedingly complex when viewing the algorithm, with sigmas, etc. You do a spring assessment, creel surveys, fall assessment, [repeat] until you get a beseline data set to manage the walleye population. This supposed harvestable amount of the population is determined by the exploitation rate. How walleye management works is if the population drops the exploitation rate also drops, more walletyes go back, spawning biomass increases—walleye population increases.

In a nutshell:

“To increase the walleye populatin—you increase the spawning biomass”

Here’s the problem in Mille Lacs is that it doesn’t work out that way because a lot of those bsseline numbers are historical figures—so due to the lake population being low due to it never being able to produce like it did…even a marginal drop is going to put out a much lower number because you stuck constantly trying to catch back up to itself.

I digress…..

The DNR and GLFWC need to get together and discuss scrapping the curent frameworks, or at the very least offer for more flexibility. The biggest problem I see with Mille Lacs is that whatever the two parties with a 50/50 reach an agreement on, it’s essentially a legally binding contract.

So if there’s ever an obvious curveball that’s got some serious ramifications to the sustained long-term health of the lake, nothing can be implemented as a management change that would lessen the blow, nothing can be done.

For example: A baitfish crash that plummets past a point that there’s nowhere near enough forage to support the walleye population (smallmouth, pike, and muskies seem to be relatively immune due to different diets, I guess?).

The example I like to use is what the SD Game Fish & Parks did on Lake Oahe in 2011.

Due to spring flooding they had to open up the spillway on the dam wide open, and two-thirds of the rainbow smelt got flushed out of the lakd. Rainbow smelt are the main forage for the lake’s walleye population. Knowing there’d be a resulting die-off as a result what drastic regulation change did the SD GF&P do in order to protect the longterm sustainability of the lake?

A: They closed the lake to walleye fishing.

Kidding!!!

Real Answer: They raised the limit.

Their logic was that in order for the walleye population to bounce back faster you try to pull a lot more fish out of the lake to hopefully keep more rainbow smelt in it because the quicker they bounce back—same goes for the species up the food chain that exists off their abundance. They also figured anglers might as well enjoy the opportunity to take home more fish that were going to just die anyways. Plus with not enough forage fishing would be phenomenal, and since it’d take several years before the lake would be back in a manner similar to pre-2011 flooding, why not give them the chance to have an unbelievable summer of fishing before they’d get to have one “like it used to be?”

On Mille Lacs, if there’s going to be a shortage of forage and a resulting walleye die-off a la 2012 the most likely scenario is going to shut the lake down…due to the quota already being reached, and am very much including a quota reached exclusively through hooking mortality.

Essentially, we take a shortage of baitfish and make it drastically worse by a crapload of starving walleyes scouring every nook and cranny of the lake desperately hoping for one last meal that’ll keep them surving so they can look for what’s possibly their next last meal.

Why is there an emphasis placed on conserving the walleye spawning biomass when the population is low, but no attention ever paid to conserving the spawning biomass of forage species when their population is low and drastically dwindling?

Look, I think the DNR has a lot of really good people doing a pretty good job all things considered. Anything mentioned where I come across as being critical of them is not intended to come across as offensive, and also isn’t intended to come across assuming they had [have] the option to make any other calls than the ones they’ve made. There’s a lot of variables that influence and determine the management plan. Often times the DNR has their hands tied behid their backs and something that seems like a common sense adjustment to the regs isn’t an option. The resulting status quo leaves many upset and shaking their heads as another example for their incompetence, but the reality is….for all we know, they saw what is being complained about long before it was an issue we noticed and they would have desperately loved to do something but what was already written…as they say, “it is written.”

So what, if anything, can we do moving forward?

I’d love to see those in charge of the state harvest (DNR) sit down with those in charge of tribal harvest (GLFWC) and discuss some possible scenarios where they get together on the fly instead of waiting until the next scheduled meeting.

That’s a huge complaint of mine—how lockstep everything has to be with the formulaic process for how the management plan is determined.

Both sides can change whatever they want as long as they both agree to it. If they decided that the 2013 needs to cut in half, they can make that happen.

The biggest problem is the Indians—they’re too conservative, they need to net more fish.

I actually predicted a crash would occur August of 2017. I’ve been predicting it since 2016 when I informed many at the DNR that “being conservative and erring on the safe side” by not increasing harvest and protecting the 2013 year class, wasn’t conservative at all—it was very reckless.

We don’t know how many Mille Lacs can support post 2011-12, “The Great Flux.” We flat out don’t. We know that the lake even in the 2000’s supported a 600K lbs walleye harvest, or that there used to be X, Y, Z for spawning biomass, multiple large year classes in the lake, and this data that’ll get pointed to in years prior to 2011….

….and it is absolutely irrelevant and almost completely worthless.

In 2012 over a third of the lake’s bottom was covered in zebes in densities observed over 7K in a square foot; an estimated 2,000,000,000 lbs….a million tons of zebes that were created by filtering the lakes water and consuming mainly zooplankton out of it to come into creation. Keep in mind it’s not a direct equal transfer, it’s worse than that…it’s not like a pound of zooplankton makes a pound of zebes. How much food have you consumed in your lifetime? I’m guessing quite a bit more than what your current weight is.

Look, my prediction that the lake would crash August of 2017 was wrong. Completely incorrect. One of the times I’ve been extremely happy to dead wrong in a long time. It was unseasonably cool August which helped a lot, and I’m not going to suggest that was what solely made the difference, but it might have….fish were biting pretty dang last August…and there were more than a couple severely underweight big girls, but Thank God they made it through because they were around for a major perch hatch to make it’s way into the system to provide ample forage.

Do I know what this lake is going to do going forward? No. Neither does anyone else. One caveat, my dead wrong prediction did contain a premise that was correct then and is correct now:

Any prediction about what might happen going forward shouldn’t be based on anything that happened before “The Great Flux.”

Managing the lake and making predictions based on it being the same lake that had a million pound harvest at one point is fool’s gold.

In our lifetimes we’re never going to see a time when Minnesota has twenty thousand head of moose again, barn doors will be covered with prairie chickend nailed up for a photo after just another “average” opening day, passenger pigeons block out the sun, buffalo roam the prairie…..

……and a half million pounds of walleye harvested on Mille Lacs isn’t that uncommon.

Things change, and not always for the bad. Fifty years ago you got your picture in the paper for shooting a canada goose, turkey hunting in this state didn’t exist, and good luck hitting a lake close to home for some good muskie fishing unless you happen to live next to one of the like three.

Mille Lacs is never going to be the same. It’ll never be able to support as many walleyes as it did before “The Great Flux.” That’s OK. It’s still a great lake that even in it’s diminished state still produces a ton of walleyes, plus smallies, muskie, pike, etc.

Let’s move forward managing it trying to figure out what it can support instead of trying to figure out why it can’t support what it used to. The only possible end result of that endeavor is failure. Here’s the answer to that question—zebra mussels, spiny water fleas, followed by a whole slew of other contributing factors.

Ultimately, what does it matter? What difference does it make if we know all the factors and their share of being responsible for the lake not being able to hold as many adult walleyes as it used to?

Let’s see here, zebra mussels are 27% responsible, spiny water fleas are 16% responsible, all the way down to….I don’t care because it’s irrelevant.

Does management play a role? Sure it does! The fishery can be better or worse based on how well it’s managed. However, there is no possible set of “perfect regulations” that because they were tweaked just right….the lake is going to produce a million pounds of walleye harvested by state anglers. It’s just not!

So why are wasting are time this far into the sequel (Mille Lacs II) pretending like it’s the same characters and plot line we’re watching?

The lake CANNOT be managed based on the same stuff that was used before!

Honestly, the most productive thing the DNR and GLFWC could do is meet and decide to have it take place somewhere where they can have a nice big bonfire and burn everything they have. Every study, every paper, every past quota agreements, every past agreement period…everything…get rid of it all….start absolutely from scratch. Create an entirely new baseline.

Personally? I’m fine with it being a catch and release lake for walleyes. I actually prefer it. I absolutely don’t care in the slightest about eating fish from ML. If I’m in the mood for fried fish after getting off the lake I’ll hit the drive-thru at the McDonalds in Garrison for a couple filet o fishes.

With that being said, I think we need to start taking walleyes out of the lake….starting with a shitload of “thirteens.” I think that’s the best management move for the lake moving forward. I think it’s important to find out what happens to the bottom of the age pyramid by slashing their numbers and having a lot less fish on the top end of the age pyramid. I’m banking on it making the lake much healthier overall with a more ample amount of forage, enough to feed the fewer walleyes left afterwards, and enough forage present to result in a significantly higher amount of young walleyes not becoming forage in order to constitute a stronger year class than what the DNR has been labeling as “unsuccessful” for recruitment, based off the stuff they need to burn.

What if the year classes we’re seeing are actually average to above average for Mille Lacs II?

Is there going to be a need to manage the lake trying to have similar year classes every year? Because I again, having three big year classes in a decade is a thing of the past.

Maybe the best way to manage the lake is to produce a bumper year class and when they reach age three have a four fish limit with a 13″-15″ slot and clean most of them out? Which even then enough would make it past to have for later in terms of spawning biomass.

I honestly think that would be the best way to manage it if the goal is to maximize the lake in terms of it pumping out the most walleyes for the frying pan. You have a banner year hypothetically every third year without putting to many fish into the system as large adults to have forage shortages. Cause guess what? It’s a hell of lot faster to grow a three year old walleye than it is a six year old walleye, and if you think guys would have a problem putting a knife to a 13″ walleye you’ve obviously never fished where that’s legal because no one seems to mind doing that in those places.

Would that idea actually work? I don’t know. I think it could but it wouldn’t shock me if it didn’t. Only one way to find out, right? Or maybe we should just keep beating the same dead horse like we have been and expect things to be different, right?

Maybe, just maybe, we’ll get another timely perch boom hatch?

The more I’ve been thinking about that the more I’m worried it was a huge anomaly. I really, really, really hope I’m wrong. Hopefully that’s a frequent occurring thing see happen.

Gotta run…more food for thought later homeys!

Cliff note version?
My thumb seized up after I fell asleep 1/4 of the way through.

Interesting write-up

Just echoing AJW’s comment. We could go round and round if it’s OK to keep a 20”+ walleye (and in my opinion this really depends on the fishery).

However, any walleye 20-25” in my opinion tastes great. I’ve pan fried them, or better grilled the boneless skinless fillets whole after rubbing them with olive oil, lemon juice, basil and garlic. Tastes alot like halibut.

phoyem wrote:

Just echoing AJW’s comment. We could go round and round if it’s OK to keep a 20”+ walleye (and in my opinion this really depends on the fishery).

However, any walleye 20-25” in my opinion tastes great. I’ve pan fried them, or better grilled the boneless skinless fillets whole after rubbing them with olive oil, lemon juice, basil and garlic. Tastes alot like halibut.

My brother Just cooked me some haLibut soaked in olive oil, lil lemon pepper, and garlic cooked it in a cast iron grill pan 4 min a side It w as freaking awesome, I told him I’m gonna try it with some mille keepers this winter. If it tastes anything like the halibut that’s the only way im cooking walleye from now on! Be so easy with zero mess

Do walleyes over 20″ taste good? Yeah, they’re not bad.

However…

If a buddy and I went fishing on a body of water with no special regs and at the end of the day we had a 24,” a 22,” four fish 19″ to 19.5″ and the other six were a 16,” four 15,” and a 14,” and I got left with the six smaller ones (yeah…yeah…despite legally supposed to take one of the fish over 20″)

I’d be so angry at my buddy for such B.S. I’d go up to him and very matter-of-fact right to his face bluntly assert,

“Thanks! I owe you a beer homey.”

If I’m cleaning a limit of fish I’d rather have it be of the variety that doesn’t dull my knife, is quick and easy, doesn’t involve me feeling obligated to stupidly go after the cheeks which always includes either going at it slow or cutting yourself, and that when all said and done…..sits in my fridge in a medium sized bowl waiting to be fried up in a single sitting for whomever is going to eat it with me. I hate freezing fish and believe there’s a significant drop off in texture and taste after doing so.

It’s not the end of the world cleaning a fish over 20″ and I guess if anything, it’s nice in that a single chunky 21″ eye is still a full meal for the old lady and seven year old boy.

But in my opinion there’s a significant difference in frying up big fish versus little fish. The reason for which is obvious—the layer of fat in-between each layer of meat (AKA “texture”) is inherently much thicker and prone to soaking up an abnormally large amount of grease.

That’s why I prefer grilling or baking bigger fish versus frying them.

Not saying big fish aren’t good, and not saying little fish don’t fry up better than big fish…just saying…

To each their own.