Red Lake fishing pressure smashes record

[Ybone]

Minimum size limits are the best way to get a lake full of small fish. Say you have a size limit of 14 inches, it won't be long before you have a lake full of 13 1/2 inch fish. It's been tried many times in other states, Wisconsin for one if my memory is correct.

[swmndeerhunter]

A minimum size limit would be extremely beneficial for a lake like Red Lake that has the tremendous amount of fishing pressure. Given the amount of fish taken out of the lake in the last few years is part of the driving force for the strong growth rates we are seeing with the fish. Granted a state wide 15" minimum would effect some lakes with minimal fishing pressure by causing lower growth rates for fish, but the lakes that get pressure (the main lakes the majority of people fish) would help lakes from crashing or having large downturns. I look to South Dakota, they have very healthy lakes out there and a handful that see extreme levels of fishing pressure, but a state wide 4 fish limit and these lakes have 15" minimums and they continue to produce year after year.

[James_R]

I think these ridiculous new regs have little to do with sport fishing pressure and everything to do with the DNR worried about having their hands slapped by the tribe. I can remember seeing a lot more fishing boats over there back in the 80s. The fishing was fantastic and we had no arbitrary and constantly changing slot or bag limits. The tribe went into full gear as hundreds of thousands of pounds were netted and then we were told that the blame rested with us despite the fact that we didn't have nets and our access was limited to a small sliver of the lake.

[hayseed]

A minimum size limit would be extremely beneficial for a lake like Red Lake that has the tremendous amount of fishing pressure. Given the amount of fish taken out of the lake in the last few years is part of the driving force for the strong growth rates we are seeing with the fish. Granted a state wide 15" minimum would effect some lakes with minimal fishing pressure by causing lower growth rates for fish, but the lakes that get pressure (the main lakes the majority of people fish) would help lakes from crashing or having large downturns. I look to South Dakota, they have very healthy lakes out there and a handful that see extreme levels of fishing pressure, but a state wide 4 fish limit and these lakes have 15" minimums and they continue to produce year after year.

You need to forget this statewide minimum size thing. While some or most lakes may benefit there are others that won't. Slots seem to be working so well on Red and Mille Lacs, I'm not sure I support slots. Most of the lakes in Northeast Mn. are infertile and walleyes over 15 inches are uncommon. They are plentiful, but short of 15 inches. This does not call for a one size fits all solution. Decrease the limits, I fine with that.

Take for example the the new Northern Pike regulation proposals. Talk is for three different zones. Areas of this state are different from other areas and cannot be compared to South Dakota or North Dakota or Wisconsin. I don't mean to be contrary here, but you keep posting about a statewide regulation of 15 inches. You need to look a little deeper. My 2 cents.

[kelly-p]

Quote:

I think these ridiculous new regs have little to do with sport fishing pressure

Some numbers for you to think about. For the 2015 WINTER harvest year we ended up at 1,753,502 hours of fishing pressure. For comparison the ENTIRE 2014 harvest year had 1,263,680 hours of fishing pressure. The ENTIRE 2012 harvest year had 783,448 hours of fishing pressure with 72,107 pounds of walleyes harvested.

Over the 2015 winter season we harvested 140,130 pounds of walleyes or 83% of our ENTIRE 2015 harvest year Safe Harvest. So even if the 63,000 pounds of walleyes we were over Safe Harvest for 2014 just magically disappears we are still left with only 27,870 pounds of walleyes for the summer harvest season.

Of the 140,130 pounds of walleyes harvested over the 2015 winter season 24% or 33,621 pounds of walleyes were consumed/eaten on the ice.

Quote:

I can remember seeing a lot more fishing boats over there back in the 80s. The fishing was fantastic and we had no arbitrary and constantly changing slot or bag limits.

And how did that work for us?????? Was the FANTASTIC fishing during the "80's" worth crashing the walleyes and having very poor walleye fishing during the "90's" and 7 years of NO WALLEYE FISHING until May 2006?

In my opinion the agreement with the Red Lake Band has worked very well. The agreement is what has lead to this period of very good fishing. For the 2014 harvest season we harvested 138% of our Safe harvest. The Band harvested 92% of their Safe Harvest. So far in the 2015 harvest season we have already harvested 83% of our Safe Harvest while the Band has only harvested 38% of their 2015 Safe harvest. We are in no position to be pointing fingers or throwing rocks.

Quote:

we were told that the blame rested with us

I'm willing to accept my share of the blame for crashing the walleyes in the Red Lakes and I am willing to deal with changing slots and limits and working with the Red Lake Band to do everything we can to keep this a healthy fisheries here on the Red lakes. If you do not feel that you should accept part of the blame for what happened causing the "Crash" or deal with changing slots and limits or to have an agreement with the Red Lake Band here is my suggestion for you. Just go fish some other lake.

[birchbranch]

How about the trunkloads of walleyes that left the lake illegally back then. I get a bit tired of the political correctness. We have certainly done our share to hurt the lake, but it was estimated that, in the late 80's at least a million pounds a year were illegally taken from the West.

[kelly-p]

How about the trunkloads of walleyes that left the lake illegally back then. I get a bit tired of the political correctness. We have certainly done our share to hurt the lake, but it was estimated that, in the late 80's at least a million pounds a year were illegally taken from the West.

Everybody can make a choice. A person can live in the past and keep throwing rocks and pointing fingers or live now and in the future with an agreement that was entered into in 1999 if my memory is correct. An agreement that has worked pretty good that the present good fishing is a result of. Me, I've made my choice. I'm on the boat ready to sail into the future with others that feel the agreement is a good thing. Everybody can make their own choice. Get on the boat with us,,,or sit on the dock with their bucket of rocks.

[bturck]

+1

[hayseed]

+2. I'll take my share of responsibility. I've taken 20 crappies and 24 walleyes in the last ten years. All legal.

[gunner55]

+ 3 been fishing it since the mid 60's,not all the time since we got our place down by Winnie but 2 or 3 times a year.It's where I learned to fish walleyes so save me a spot on that boat.

[delcecchi]

So the harvest was 140/1700 (in thousands) or .08lb( 1.3 ounces) of harvest per hour of fishing? Am I interpreting those numbers correctly?

[pushbutton]

Kelly you do have a great ability to communicate ...I would just come out and say "your a dummy pooopie"...lol. Say, I know you are scaling back but you may want to think about coming out of semi retirement and be a speech writer or spokesperson for politicians......there are a few that could really use your help right now....yes Lmit would make fun of you in sillytown.....but the pay is excellent!

[LABS4ME]

How about the trunkloads of walleyes that left the lake illegally back then. I get a bit tired of the political correctness. We have certainly done our share to hurt the lake, but it was estimated that, in the late 80's at least a million pounds a year were illegally taken from the West.

And bought illegally by those from the East! illegal is illegal. No political correctness there!

Good Luck!

Ken

[kelly-p]

So the harvest was 140/1700 (in thousands) or .08lb( 1.3 ounces) of harvest per hour of fishing? Am I interpreting those numbers correctly?

[i'majigger]

Why did they set a safe harvest limit if they are not going to pay any attention to it? If the safe harvest limit has been met CLOSE the lake. Are they going to sit and watch until the lake crashes again and say WOW we should have done something sooner. I know this puts a tough burden on the people of Washkish that make a living off of the lake, but if the fish are gone there will be no living to be made anyway. Even if it is a short season people will come the next year for good fishing even if a short season but they are not going to come back at all if they catch no fish There are to many people that don't care if a lake is getting fished out they are going to fish it until they can't catch anything and move on to the next lake and do it there. The DNR needs to get there heads out of there butts and do something now instead of just writing figures on a piece of paper and whining about it, that's the job they were hired to do.

[kelly-p]

Quote:

Why did they set a safe harvest limit if they are not going to pay any attention to it? If the safe harvest limit has been met CLOSE the lake.

That is what I had been expecting for most of the winter to happen this summer. But after attending the Technical Committee meeting last week I came away with a fairly comfortable feeling that they have a very good idea of what is happening and that we can keep the walleye harvest open with reduced limits. When all the studying, testing, projecting and everything else from both the State waters and Band waters is combined I think it is a pretty good picture not only of the present but the future. The 2 fish limit really helped the State waters. The fishing pressure always slows down in February but that combined with the 2 fish limit dropped the fishing pressure from 937,460 hours in January to 209,690 hours in February. Harvest dropped from 50,550 pounds in January to 12,281 pounds in February. The things that I felt were the most important from the meetings were #1, that the “09” and “11” year classes are very, very strong. There are a lot of walleyes moving “up the chain” that will be spawning the next few years. When the “walleye crash” happened back in the “90’s” we were down to 1, ONE spawning female for each 40 acres of lake. From the projections I saw even if we harvest 100% of safe harvest for a number of years we still have a very healthy number of spawning females through 2017. The #2 important thing is that in 2006 when the walleye harvest resumed everything was “new”. Now there is a 9 year track record they can look back on to help plan the future. #3, there are people in this world that know some very big words.

The final fishing pressure numbers from the State waters during the 2015 winter season.

In 2014-15 winter season,

Day trips 27,000

Sleeper trips 38,000

Mean Day trip length 6.5 hours

Mean sleeper trip length 41 hours

Day trip hours 173,000

Sleeper trip hours 1,580,000

Remember that LOW averages 1,500,000 hours of fishing pressure each winter with 6 times more State waters then URL.

[delcecchi]

Something's got to give. I find it hard to believe that 1.5Million hours of pressure is compatible with 168,000 pounds of harvest.

Quote:

The upper kill limit for non-tribal anglers Minnesota is 168,000 pounds of walleyes annually. In 2013 (Dec. 1, 2012, to Nov. 30, 2013), the kill was estimated at 156,000 pounds. The 2014 kill is estimated to be 231,000 pounds.

http://blogs.twincities.com/outdoors/201...-winter-limits/

[kelly-p]

Quote:

Something's got to give. I find it hard to believe that 1.5Million hours of pressure is compatible with 168,000 pounds of harvest.

It's mindboggling isn't it. Then think that the 1.5Million, (1,580,000) hours of fishing pressure is just the sleeper/wheelhouses in the winter. Then add the 173,000 day trip hours in the winter and in 2014 summertime anglers added another 182,875 hours of pressure. We just hit 1,935,875 hours of fishing pressure in 1 year. It's late and I'm tired so maybe I'm adding this up wrong but is the 1,580,000 hours of pressure from sleeper/wheelhouses in the winter about 80% of the total year long 1,935,875 hours of pressure on the lake.

[i'majigger]

I'm hoping that you are right Kelly, but I don,t put a lot of faith in the track record of the DNR's facts and figures from there surveys. They have not done a very good job in management when it comes to our deer herd, and our duck hunting has dwindled away to almost non-existent and they have done millions of dollars of surveys on these. I guess we just sit back and pray that they are right. If there not I guess we start all over again!

[bturck]

Kelly, does the DNR or creel census people contact the resorts/outfitters to determine the amount of rental, day trips, sleeper numbers for the fishing hours? As I've mentioned in a couple of other posts , in 5 years on Red I was checked once by the creel census people, and that was 4 years ago. I have never had contact from a CO on the lake, and as you know I've made 3/4 trips to the lake per winter. Maybe it's old age or purely cynicism but I still have a hard time wrapping my mind around the numbers that are reported.

This is an awesome fishery no doubt and steps have to be taken to conserve what has taken years to resurrect. It is a great area of the State where I have had the pleasure of meeting some great people and enjoyed some very good fishing.....already looking forward to next season

[James_R]

Some numbers for you to think about. For the 2015 WINTER harvest year we ended up at 1,753,502 hours of fishing pressure. For comparison the ENTIRE 2014 harvest year had 1,263,680 hours of fishing pressure. The ENTIRE 2012 harvest year had 783,448 hours of fishing pressure with 72,107 pounds of walleyes harvested.

Over the 2015 winter season we harvested 140,130 pounds of walleyes or 83% of our ENTIRE 2015 harvest year Safe Harvest. So even if the 63,000 pounds of walleyes we were over Safe Harvest for 2014 just magically disappears we are still left with only 27,870 pounds of walleyes for the summer harvest season.

Of the 140,130 pounds of walleyes harvested over the 2015 winter season 24% or 33,621 pounds of walleyes were consumed/eaten on the ice.

[kelly-p]

Quote:

Give me a break.

You are right, you need a break. If you come back have some factual information.

[Bullwinkled]

It is not one guy and his son, it is hundreds of guys and their sons, daughters,wives and friends. I was up last weekend of November, 100s of walleyes caught eaten and limits taken home. That is what the numbers indicate. Everyone now has latest and greatest ice gear, and follows digital media to get the hot bite, that is the fact. And it is a given that URL is a no skills required lake to get limits. The bottom line is we do have to back off time to time.

[James_R]

I'll take my $100 gillnet over your high priced ice fishing accessories anytime. While us guilt ridden fishermen back off; the tribe will be happily accelerating their collection efforts.

[Boar]

Yeah dont take any responsibility for your own actions, just keep blaming everyone else, take your tax dollar ball and go home.

[crestliner61]

The only reason the DNR/Politicians made the effort to bring this lake back to life was for the “tribe”. They did not do it for the white man that lives on the lake or their community. Yes…the community and the guy living on the lake benefited from it as well, but it was not done for you/them…it was for the “tribe”.

Yep…the lake is seeing a lot of pressure and the numbers that are being stated show it. Apparently by some of the posts, this was happening before the lake crashed. Some want to say we are all responsible, and I believe they can make that argument. But, I believe and probably most know for a “fact” that if the “tribe” was not there commercially fishing the lake it would never have happened. Even with the entire irresponsible white knuckle heads illegally rapping the lake it most likely would not have.

Kelly P…..I seen that you have stated you were responsible for the “crash” as well. Can you explain that? I respect some or your input that u have posted and don’t assume what that means.

[James_R]

The actions of sport anglers never resulted in the unsustainable harvesting of a million+ pounds of walleye from Red. Even if you included the handful of poachers. The same cannot be said of those from the sovereign nation.

[creepworm]

The only reason the DNR/Politicians made the effort to bring this lake back to life was for the “tribe”. They did not do it for the white man that lives on the lake or their community. Yes…the community and the guy living on the lake benefited from it as well, but it was not done for you/them…it was for the “tribe”.

Is there any proof of these wild claims people are making, or is it acceptable to think of some wild story in your head and try to pass it off as being true?

[James_R]

Is the tribes official 820,000 pound unenforceable harvest quota a wild story?

[SwivelDigger]

Maybe someone can answer this. Didn't the tribe contribute quite a bit to the lake being restocked? I thought I read somewhere that it was a joint effort. I don't think the lake would have rebounded so well if the white side was the only one trying to bring it back. I'm not sure if you can believe the tribes reported harvest ( I don't have any proof not to) but I know that the white estimate is probably low just for the simple fact that most people are meat hogs. When you think about the limit does it really matter if it is a 1 , 2 , or 4 fish limit? The cost effectiveness of someone driving a couple hundred miles, lodging, rental etc. makes that amount of fish pretty expensive. But it matters greatly to the health of the lake. I would rather spend the money to go there and catch tons of fish with my two young daughters and have them learn to enjoy a great place and throw them all back then go there to catch only a couple to keep. I think everyone's time would be better spent trying to figure out a good resolution to the problem instead of pointing fingers at this side or that side.