Factors Impacting the Mille Lacs Lake Walleye Population

[DTro]

The decline of Tulibees could actually be MORE concerning than any other issue on the lake. The ol canary in the mine deal.

While the Tulibee aren't a main source of food for the smaller walleye, the big walleyes depend on them, not to mention the pike and muskies.

Why are they declining? I don't think that has been quantified yet, warming is a theory, but could also be related to other things. The large supply of perch currently in the lake is a new thing. Remember all the skinny walleyes a while back? Not many people were seeing perch back then either.

The available forage has been a huge factor. This diet study wasn't an anomaly either, it matched up with historical diet studies showing perch and tulibee were the clear food source and it wasn't even close.

[fishyspringer]

My understanding is that the harvest quota and slot was put into place as a means to track how much fish are being taken out of the lake. The quota is the total amount of fish that could be safely harvested from the lake in that given year. In order to track this the DNR uses a slot limit because they need some commonality as to what anglers are harvesting from the lake. If they know anglers are only harvesting a certain size and number of fish they can determine how many fish are being harvested in number of pounds.

Northender: Do you believe that if the treaty management had not been put into place and the harvest of 1.2 millon pounds of fish per year(as occurred in 1992) continued until today, would the results be any different? Better or Worse?

Is there someplace that shows the harvest quotas that were set for each year and what the total pounds harvested were for each year? It would be interesting to see what these are. I have a feeling it hasn't exceeded the 1.2 million pounds that were harvested in 1992, before the treaty management. Also maybe the resorter's shouldn't have been lobbying for getting more and more pounds of fish in the quota's. But should have been looking at them from more of a conservation point of view with concern for the future of the fishery. As SaintPaul said the resorter's need to ADAPT, just like any other business does to stay with the changing times and be profitable. They treat the DNR as the enemy, but yet expect them to save them by fixing a downturn in the walleye population. I would like to know what the resorts do to give back to the resource and Mille Lacs communities? Shoreline clean ups, fundraisers for worthy causes, kids fishing clinics, etc? The resorts should look in the mirror and see that they are a big part of the reason the lake has a dark cloud over it. It gets sickening hearing the resorts whining, you never hear anything about the lake put into a positive light. It is actually embarrassing as a land owner knowing that there are so many good things about the lake and the area, they get drowned out by all the doom and gloom.

I agree the nets do play a role in the state of the lake, but it is not the sole reason for it as some make it out to be. The mentality of "It's the nets" does not help solve the problem.

Maybe this is the how the life cycle of the lake works? Weren't there population downturns before treaty management?

[SaintPaulPaul]

AMEN. WELL PUT.

[gunner55]

Couldn't agree more.

[maxpower117]

I couldn't disagree more.

When the slot limits were put in place they were warned of the consequences. The crash and boom were accurately predicted immediately when the slots were put into place. This was explained in a detailed report that can be found online somewhere. Please post it if someone can find it.

You guys act like the DNR had absolutely no control over the harvest. That is the DNR's first responsibility when it comes to fisheries management. The issue isn't the number of pounds being harvested, it's the balance of predator/prey relationship and success of spawning. Part of the predator/prey relationship is having the correct balance of year classes of walleyes. I don't think anyone can argue that there have been a number of years that people couldn't catch a small enough walleye to keep. Yet they could catch dozens of slot fish.

Take the bigger fish out of the lake and let the smaller ones thrive. That is what we all want anyway.

[maxpower117]

http://www.perm.org/pdfs/TreatyManagement.pdf

[maxpower117]

I'd like to add that the one thing that angers me most is how the DNR keeps going to the press with the doom and gloom. They've done the business owners no favors in regards to that.

They could have at least publicly promoted the other world class fish that are in the lake.

[fishin4sum]

http://www.perm.org/pdfs/TreatyManagement.pdf

max, that report is 13 years old. A lot of the information in there is good stuff and to take note of. But many different actions and decisions have been placed upon Mille Lacs since then. there have been good cycles and bad since then. The whole thing is a learning process. problem is that environmental conditions change all the time. The ploan that was good for the lake last year may be bad this year. It is difficult to come up with a plan that works consistently from year to year. Fishing pressure has inv=creased dramatically over the last 15 years and has a much bigger effect than anything else. Does not take very long for a lake to get hit in a detrimental way when pressure rises toa point that is unsustainable. Take a look at Red. Gonna be a wait and see what the winter of 14/15 did to the walleye population. I do not think anybody has a clear "this is gonna work for sure" solution.

[federline]

Just adding a data point - the Pioneer Press summarizes the report here:

http://www.twincities.com/sports/ci_27341961/dave-orrick-mille-lacs-fewer-walleyes-might-be

Might help more people armchair quarterback this. Won't help solve anything to anyone's desired state.

All I know is that fishing the memories of a different lake called Mille Lacs from the past doesn't put as much fish in my bag, but somehow, I still get what I need as an angler.

[coryusmc]

Maybe this is outside the box, but if there is a lack of forage, perch and tullabies, why doesn't the dnr start stocking the two species, as well as other native bait fish. If there is a food problem, add more food. I'm sure building a more sustainable bait fish population is way less expensive then walleye and muskie stocking. More forage equals more fish

[delcecchi]

http://www.perm.org/pdfs/TreatyManagement.pdf

Interesting that the bands wanted lower safe harvest levels than the DNR.

And there are several possible ways to limit harvest besides slots. It might be that slots, with the accumulation of large walleye, are a bad idea.

[Bandersnatch]

Just adding a data point - the Pioneer Press summarizes the report here:

http://www.twincities.com/sports/ci_27341961/dave-orrick-mille-lacs-fewer-walleyes-might-be

Might help more people armchair quarterback this. Won't help solve anything to anyone's desired state.

All I know is that fishing the memories of a different lake called Mille Lacs from the past doesn't put as much fish in my bag, but somehow, I still get what I need as an angler.

And again......

"They're being eaten -- and mostly by bigger walleyes, which remain, bar none, the most prolific predator in the lake."

Yet the panel did not have the stones to point to the major contributing factor in this, the MNDNR and their Slot Limit management of the lake for "Trophy Walleye".

I have said it until my fingers are blue from typing it.

A lake can only support a certain level of biomass. If you manage a lake for all Big Fish then ALL FISH will suffer.

Yet here we are, with a stooopid, politically postured, 18-20 two fish slot. If you want a younger population of fish to flourish in the lake then the "slot" needs to be 22-26 inches right now. But that won't happen.

The next "slot" will end up being Zero.

Why?

Because estimated Hooking Mortality will out pace estimated Safe Harvest Levels.

World Class Panel my rosy red.

[FowlSki]

How many nets were there back in the days when Mille lacs was known as the Dead Sea?

Better question would be what was the perch population before those days?

Have ya'll heard there are lots of perch and baby walleyes lately?

Cycles cycles

[fishin4sum]

Exxxxaaccttly!

[Roosterslayer05]

So, based on the fact that tagged walleyes, which are similarly, randomly netted not unlike Treaty Harvest nets, about 90 percent of the Treaty harvest fish each year would NOT be killed the same year by hook and line--the only other major mortality factor. (DNR nets are set in the spring also to gather fish for tagging) That means 90 percent of Treaty harvest fish, which amounts to many 100's of 1000's over the past 15 plus years, would have survived at least one or more springs if not killed by Tribal nets--to spawn, potentially multiple more years than they were allowed to because of Tribal netting. Add that "factor" up over time?

The "experts" say a "dead fish is a dead fish". How can that apply, knowing that a huge percentage of walleyes killed in Tribal nets, would NOT get killed the same year or most likely, for multiple years--if hook and line and natural mortality was the only dead fish "factor" in place?

This argument makes no sense. If the harvest poundage was approximately the same before treaty harvest, as it was after treaty harvest, then the same poundage of walleye were harvested. Sure, 90 percent of the walleyes netted by tribal fisherman would not be harvested, but the greater hook and line harvest would come from "other" fish.

Let's put it in simple terms. The year before netting began 2,000 walleyes were harvested (this is an example). The first year of netting 2,000 walleyes were harvested, 1,000 by tribal fisherman. 900 of those walleyes that were netted would have survived if netting weren't allowed, yet 2000 walleyes were still harvested.

The reason why 90 percent don't get harvested is because it's a large population and those fish get mixed back into the general population. The harvest is still the same regardless if THOSE particular fish weren't harvested.

I think it's safe to say that netting has an effect either directly or indirectly.

Directly: The tribe is harvesting way more males then females. This cannot be avoided since walleyes are broadcast spawners. The males loaf on the spawning grounds for weeks while the females come in, drop their eggs, and leave. The males are also smaller fish so they are harvesting similar size fish as the sport anglers. This creates a double whammy.

Indirectly: Because of tribal harvest, slots were put in place. This created an imbalance in larger fish who have been predating on smaller fish. The predator biomass a lake can support is the same. A 6 pound walleye is 6 pounds. Two three pound walleyes are 6 pounds. If you have a large number of large fish you will have less small fish. Add an increase in smallmouth and pike numbers and the walleye biomass capability will decrease (since walleyes are the most numerous predator in the lake).

The DNR was put between a rock and a hard place by the court decision. They did what they could do reduce angler harvest. Everything is not doom and gloom as everyone thinks. When big walleyes decline, small fish will take their place. The Mille Lacs walleyes will come back, it just won't be in the near future. People need to stop thinking that a natural resource can come back in a year. As others said "cycles".

Blaming the DNR is an easy thing for people to do because it puts a face to their frustration. People do it for EVERYTHING. Deer populations are down in the whole region yet allot of deer hunters in MN blame wolves. If you're a republican you blame Obama for everything. If you're a democrat you did the same thing when George W. was president. Heck, people even turned on Vietnam vets when they came back because they didn't approve of the war! It's human nature to point fingers at everyone but yourself.

Did the DNR regs contribute to the current state of the fishery? Maybe. If they knew what they know now, and did things differently, would we be in the same place? Maybe. Even if tribal fishing never existed the Mille Lacs walleye population might still be down. Natural systems are complex and sometimes we have less control over things then we realize.

[Sculpin]

I wonder why a bajillion young of the year perch have survived, but not young of the year walleye.?

Can someone tell me how the blue ribbon panel assessed the volume of young of the year walleyes year over year. In-shore trawling ??

[Sculpin]

One simple question about the perch balance vs. the young of the year walleye balance and the thread goes dead..Hmmmm.

I was even holding out hope that someone from the "Blue Ribbon Panel" would weigh in and throw me a bone on this one.

More studies must undoubtedly be underway.

[Getanet]

The answers to your question about young of the year walleye appear to be on page 6 of the Report under sections 2: Low egg production and/or survival

to first fall and 3: Low survival from first to second fall

http://fwcb.cfans.umn.edu/prod/groups/cfans/@pub/@cfans/@fwcb/documents/asset/cfans_asset_494345.pdf

On Page 11 there is a section that attempts to address why young walleyes are getting eaten despite an abundance of perch.

[Sculpin]

Thanks for the response Getanet. I am not able to view the report. My basic question was how are the YOTY perch gathered/collected to assess the overall population from one year to the next ?

What is the methodology to gather the fry..

[Black_Bay]

Thanks for the response Getanet. I am not able to view the report. My basic question was how are the YOTY perch gathered/collected to assess the overall population from one year to the next ?

What is the methodology to gather the fry..

They pull trawls.

[Getanet]

The report didn't really address how they measured perch populations. Although I have read reports on this site where people are saying they have seen tons of perch on their underwater cameras this year.

In terms of young walleye, this is how it said it was determined:

We used data from fall trawl, gill netting, and electrofishing surveys to calculate the relative survival of age-0 walleye from the first to second fall of life as the ratio age-1 catch-per-unit effort (CPUE) in year t+1 to age-0 CPUE in year t.

[B-man715]

From what I've seen on the camera the last two weekends the lake is going to rebound big time

Literally dozens and dozens of 5"-10" walleyes and plenty of little perch along with them

Also a handful of nice eyes (18-24") seen and caught. Saw a sow of a pike too.

Whatever changed in the last say two years has had a huge positive impact to the lake's walleye and perch population.

Seeing is believing The future is bright for Mrs. Mille Lacs with some big year classes of eyes growing up.

I wish I saw the same thing in many other lakes that I fish.

[delcecchi]

From what I've seen on the camera the last two weekends the lake is going to rebound big time

Literally dozens and dozens of 5"-10" walleyes and plenty of little perch along with them

Also a handful of nice eyes (18-24") seen and caught. Saw a sow of a pike too.

Whatever changed in the last say two years has had a huge positive impact to the lake's walleye and perch population.

Seeing is believing The future is bright for Mrs. Mille Lacs with some big year classes of eyes growing up.

I wish I saw the same thing in many other lakes that I fish.

Interesting. I wonder if the big fish are gradually dying off. After all, they can't live forever. The fewer there are of them, the less cannibalism.

[pushbutton]

Whatever changed in the last say two years has had a huge positive impact to the lake's walleye and perch population.

The perch rebound started in 2012 with a great year class. Walleye fishing started getting slower by that fall and winter. By the end of the next year, all those skinny eyes really started fattening up and the bite was getting really tough. This coincided with essentially two years of not netting during the spawn due to late ice, and can't imagine that wasn't for the good. Similarly, and to be fair, the state's slot didn't change much during this time and there were not really many legal fish left to keep. What was left of the small male walleyes got to do their thing and mom full of perch didn't eat babies after which......now we have two decent walleye year classes. Hope both sides don't eat them all right away in another two years.

[delcecchi]

So there are a lot of perch because there was no netting during the spawn? Could you explain?

[pushbutton]

No can't explain, nor implied. B-man stated that there must have been a change over the last few years. I concurred by stating a huge perch year class happened in 2012 for whatever reason....well, could have been 2011, but by late fall of 12/winter of 13 there were small finger sized perch every where. This had to benefit the walleyes, and you could tell this by the bite falling off and how thick the fish were becoming compared to the previous years of skinny not heathy looking fish(walleye) that were easily being caught out there. Next said ......COINCIDED....with in about the same time frame.... two years of both sides, not intentionally, but due to late ice, and the anti twofer crowd going elsewhere, there was a lot more male sized(the main target of the nets and slots) left at a time that was certainly needed. The perch probably had more effect, but it sure as heck did not hurt to have every fish(walleye) that could spawn ...spawn over the last few years.

[Sculpin]

Agree. Fewer nets the last two years seems to have had a positive impact. It was nice last spring to look out and not see the typical 50 or 75 Hundred foot gillnets strung out from Doe Island to Hawkbill Point.

[jigginjim]

Two ideas, netting later, after the walleyes spawn, may save some fish. Plus what do others think? If circles were used for fishing livebait, fish would be lip hooked, less gut hooked fish. MY 2 pennies.

[7outof10]

Two ideas, netting later, after the walleyes spawn, may save some fish. Plus what do others think? If circles were used for fishing livebait, fish would be lip hooked, less gut hooked fish. MY 2 pennies.

I like the idea of circle hooks. That's one small thing we can do to cut down on hooking mortality....then maybe when we make some changes to the way we fish the dnr might make changes to the way the neters fish

[justwannafish2]

If netting is not a factor, then why the tight restrictions this year and the mumblings of catch and release next year? Why? Because that great year class (2013) will be a perfect size to get caught in the nets before their reproductive age hits.

Next year those fish will be 13-15". How are the slots imposed protecting those walleye from hook and line? Obviously so we can't keep that size, but why not then just allow us to have the same slot as last year then?

How is the population that far down from last year? Can't be. Where are they going if it is?

The goal of the DNR is to be small fish friendly. Well as far as a hook and line standpoint, we are just that. And aside from being allowed to harvest more predator walleye, I don't understand how dropping the overall harvest again is going to boost it any faster then it already is.

The DNR has these restrictions to protect this awesome year class from THE NETS. It's very obvious. If we want the nets out, the only way to do it is to take a hit on the angling standpoint, and sacrifice our fish dinner to keep this awesome year class out of the nets.