Guests - If You want access to member only forums on FM. You will gain access only when you Sign-in or Sign-Up on Fishing Minnesota.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

  • RECEIVE THE GIFTS MEMBERS SHARE WITH YOU HERE...THEN...CREATE SOMETHING TO ENCHANT OTHERS THAT YOU WANT TO SHARE

    You know what we all love...

    When you enchant people, you fill them with delight and yourself in return. Have Fun!!!

eyechoholic

Dnr's future plan for walleye slot?

Recommended Posts

Weathertite

If anyone here actually believes ANYTHING  the DNR has to say then our natural resources are really in trouble. They don't have a clue as to what is going on , they are like when you go to the doctor and he says " Try this medicine and if you don't fell better in 2 weeks come back " . We need a complete overhaul of our DNR. We need people who can figure out what the REAL problem is and do what ever it takes to FIX it !!!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delcecchi
1 hour ago, Weathertite said:

If anyone here actually believes ANYTHING  the DNR has to say then our natural resources are really in trouble. They don't have a clue as to what is going on , they are like when you go to the doctor and he says " Try this medicine and if you don't fell better in 2 weeks come back " . We need a complete overhaul of our DNR. We need people who can figure out what the REAL problem is and do what ever it takes to FIX it !!!!

So, what is it that you don't believe, and why? What would you do different with the state's share of the fish in the lake?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
slammer

Lets say netting stops at some point.  I would really like to see the effect it has on the lake 3-5 years later.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
leech~~
1 hour ago, delcecchi said:

 What would you do different with the state's share of the fish in the lake?

With the "States share". Net them all out and give them to the needy Comrade! ;)

This is from the Perm site.

The people’s fish and lack of transparency

Ron Schara recognized the anger and distrust of the sport-fishing public over the DNR-tribal co-management of walleyes in Lake Mille Lacs. He writes that if DNR and tribal fish managers hope to change that, more transparency in the co-management process is needed.

Media often bring up the word transparency when they have questions about the way government operates. Stringent open meeting laws apply to almost every gathering where decisions by government officials are made. It’s part of Minnesota’s reputation for "clean" and “open” government.

Yet, when Minnesota is dealing with walleyes on Mille Lacs, complete transparency is lacking. Ever since the courts ordered co-management of Mille Lacs' fish, DNR and tribal fish managers regularly hold closed meetings regarding the people's walleyes. Major newspapers, who so love transparency, are editorially silent about the secrecy.

The fish management meetings likely are on the up and up. But without transparency, the public is in the dark about how decisions are made. Today we know those Mille Lacs fish management plans were, at best, faulty, ill-advised, or biologically inept.

Without transparency, who knows how many tribal nets go into the lake, or how the walleyes are counted? Of if Wisconsin band netters follow the same rules.

Transparency is the best way to deal with accusations that tribal netting is bad. But DNR and tribal leaders insist on secret negotiations in meetings closed to the public. Recently the DNR said some members of the new advisory committee could sit in on these negotiations. A few weeks later, the DNR said tribal officials objected, after which the DNR rolled over and concurred. The secrecy continues; meetings remain closed. And once again, the media say nothing.

Meanwhile, the fishing public's distrust goes on. Sadly, it doesn't need to be this way.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
creepworm
12 hours ago, Weathertite said:

If anyone here actually believes ANYTHING  the DNR has to say then our natural resources are really in trouble. They don't have a clue as to what is going on , they are like when you go to the doctor and he says " Try this medicine and if you don't fell better in 2 weeks come back " . We need a complete overhaul of our DNR. We need people who can figure out what the REAL problem is and do what ever it takes to FIX it !!!!

This is a joke, right?

I would love to hear what your fisheries management qualifications are. PhD in fisheries? many years of experience in fisheries? Professional biology experience of any kind? Knowing all the intricacies of trying to manage a changing ecosystem while trying to keep several groups of people happy even though they all want different things? Managing people with the unrealistic expectation that fishery biologists are God, and know everything that is happening and why it is happening, instantaneously, as it is happening, without any hypothesis forming or experimentation?

If you do not have every single one of these qualifications then you should probably keep your completely asinine comments to yourself.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delcecchi

Logic is the way to deal with allegations about tribal netting.  As for transparency, the governing body for tribal netting maintains a web site with detailed information about what has been netted.  Netting is more closely and honestly monitored than angling is. 

Here is a link to their information

http://www.glifwc.org/Fisheries/Inland/inland.html

The DNR needs to limit harvest of walleye in many lakes in Minnesota.  They chose to use slots since that seemed to be the least objectionable to anglers.  In some lakes slots seem to have had adverse effects that weren't foreseen by the DNR when coupled with natural processes happening in the lake.  Mille Lacs is one of those lakes. 

I don't know what kind of secret stuff the PERM crowd fears is going on in the meetings.  Do you?

And also recall that the PERM guys and Bud Grant and others contributed to the problem by torpedoing the buy out deal the state had with the Mille Lacs band and forcing the case to the Supreme Court. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bandersnatch
2 hours ago, creepworm said:

This is a joke, right?

I would love to hear what your fisheries management qualifications are. PhD in fisheries? many years of experience in fisheries? Professional biology experience of any kind? Knowing all the intricacies of trying to manage a changing ecosystem while trying to keep several groups of people happy even though they all want different things? Managing people with the unrealistic expectation that fishery biologists are God, and know everything that is happening and why it is happening, instantaneously, as it is happening, without any hypothesis forming or experimentation?

If you do not have every single one of these qualifications then you should probably keep your completely asinine comments to yourself.  

Here are mine.

 

Master of Common Sense.

 

Here is my observation: The public had the wool pulled over their eyes with the Blue Ribbon Panel that was supposed to come in and help out with this issue.

 

What did the Blue Ribbon Panel do? They went over the very same data collected by the MNDNR and Rubber Stamped the findings.

 

I call this an Epic Fail.

 

Anyone have a different take on that?

Edited by Bandersnatch
spelling
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
creepworm
15 hours ago, Weathertite said:

 

21 minutes ago, Bandersnatch said:

Here are mine.

 

Master of Common Sense.

 

Here is my observation: The public had the wool pulled over their eyes with the Blue Ribbon Panel that was supposed to come in and help out with this issue.

 

What did the Blue Ribbon Panel do? The went over the very same data collected by the MNDNR and Rubber Stamped the findings.

 

I call this an Epic Fail.

 

Anyone have a different take on that?

 

The Blue Ribbon Panel agreeing with the DNR is the DNR's fault? I guess I am not quite understanding your post.

The Blue Ribbon Panel, made up of fisheries experts from around the nation, "rubber stamped" the data. So basically, if you say the DNR "has no clue" or "the DNR needs a complete overhaul" you are saying the leading experts in the fisheries field have no clue, and basically that you know more about fisheries than the leaders in the field collectively.

What people fail to understand when they get all emotional, is that there is more we do not know about nature, than what we do know. And it is not even close. We make educated guesses, we study things to try to understand them, but with all the variables involved in nature we have no way of knowing how Species A will respond to management style B. We can take an educated guess, but in reality that is all that it is and there is no way of knowing it will work for sure.

So, to expect the DNR to be right every time is unrealistic. Especially with something as complicated as a large fishery in a changing climate, with large changes happening to the water chemistry, large changes to fish populations, invasive species being relatively new to the mix, a diverse set of anglers and property owners around the lake, all wanting something different, and then throwing the treaty part in and you have a mess like has never been seen before.

So, the DNR really has no baseline when it comes to this situation to base their educated guesses upon. To expect the DNR to get it right on the first try is unrealistic. It would be great if they did, but unrealistic to expect it.

Edited by creepworm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
leechlake

Mille Lacs is unsolvable.  Too close to too many people, too easy to catch and net fish.  Most of the people aren't invested in the lake.  Fish it when it's good, take what you can, and fish somewhere else when it stinks.  That's the mentality of many that ruin it.

We have a place that's pretty far away, the lake is hard to fish for anyone who hasn't fished it for years, and most that fish it have a place on it so they are invested in the lake.  Pretty lucky situation and the fishing has been great for years.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delcecchi

Bandersnatch,

Data is data.   Do you think the data is incorrect?  What would you have the DNR do?  Remember that they can't do anything that would affect the local economy, built around tourism/angling, too much or the political backlash would be Huge. 

Personally I think they are hoping against hope that the 2013 year class and some good perch hatches will get them off the hot seat.  In the mean time the resorts will be bailed out, a un-needed hatchery will be built, and the DNR will restrict harvest of walleye as best they can while throwing the bass and pike to the wolves. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bandersnatch
1 hour ago, creepworm said:

The Blue Ribbon Panel agreeing with the DNR is the DNR's fault? I guess I am not quite understanding your post.

The Blue Ribbon Panel, made up of fisheries experts from around the nation, "rubber stamped" the data. So basically, if you say the DNR "has no clue" or "the DNR needs a complete overhaul" you are saying the leading experts in the fisheries field have no clue, and basically that you know more about fisheries than the leaders in the field collectively.

What people fail to understand when they get all emotional, is that there is more we do not know about nature, than what we do know. And it is not even close. We make educated guesses, we study things to try to understand them, but with all the variables involved in nature we have no way of knowing how Species A will respond to management style B. We can take an educated guess, but in reality that is all that it is and there is no way of knowing it will work for sure.

So, to expect the DNR to be right every time is unrealistic. Especially with something as complicated as a large fishery in a changing climate, with large changes happening to the water chemistry, large changes to fish populations, invasive species being relatively new to the mix, a diverse set of anglers and property owners around the lake, all wanting something different, and then throwing the treaty part in and you have a mess like has never been seen before.

So, the DNR really has no baseline when it comes to this situation to base their educated guesses upon. To expect the DNR to get it right on the first try is unrealistic. It would be great if they did, but unrealistic to expect it.

I could take the time explain it to you, but I won't waste that time as you would simply ignore it, as evidenced by your post.

Instead I will deflect (as you have attempted to) an focus on your statement(s): "So, to expect the DNR to be right every time is unrealistic." "So, the DNR really has no baseline when it comes to this situation to base their educated guesses upon."

1) When have they ever got it right visa vi Mille Lac.

2) No base line? Then what the hell has my money been doing since 1960? Paying for their parking downtown?

 

You can play DNR apologist all that you care to. That is your right.

Just don't expect me to swallow that drivel.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
creepworm

As I said in my post you quoted, "what people fail to understand when they get all emotional".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bandersnatch
18 minutes ago, creepworm said:

As I said in my post you quoted, "what people fail to understand when they get all emotional".

I'm not emotional whatsoever.

 

But I won't stand by and be called an idiot either.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
leech~~
3 hours ago, leechlake said:

Mille Lacs is unsolvable.  Too close to too many people, too easy to catch and net fish.  Most of the people aren't invested in the lake.  Fish it when it's good, take what you can, and fish somewhere else when it stinks.  That's the mentality of many that ruin it.

We have a place that's pretty far away, the lake is hard to fish for anyone who hasn't fished it for years, and most that fish it have a place on it so they are invested in the lake.  Pretty lucky situation and the fishing has been great for years.

Isn't that some where up by Cass Lake? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delcecchi
12 minutes ago, leech~~ said:

Isn't that some where up by Cass Lake? :P

BTW, how many trophy pike have the harpooners taken out of Cass and Mille Lacs the last few years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sculpin
5 hours ago, delcecchi said:

Logic is the way to deal with allegations about tribal netting.  As for transparency, the governing body for tribal netting maintains a web site with detailed information about what has been netted.  Netting is more closely and honestly monitored than angling is. 

Here is a link to their information

http://www.glifwc.org/Fisheries/Inland/inland.html

The DNR needs to limit harvest of walleye in many lakes in Minnesota.  They chose to use slots since that seemed to be the least objectionable to anglers.  In some lakes slots seem to have had adverse effects that weren't foreseen by the DNR when coupled with natural processes happening in the lake.  Mille Lacs is one of those lakes. 

I don't know what kind of secret stuff the PERM crowd fears is going on in the meetings.  Do you?

And also recall that the PERM guys and Bud Grant and others contributed to the problem by torpedoing the buy out deal the state had with the Mille Lacs band and forcing the case to the Supreme Court. 

 

Your recollection is partially correct on the old "buy out" scenario, the problem was that the Mille Lacs band was good with a "zone" of their own over around the Rez, and Rainbow Island on the west side.  The real wrench was that the Wisc. bands would not have been a party to the agreement, so at the end of the day the whole lake would have been open, regardless of any "deal" made with the Mille Lacs band. Nobody gave a hoot what Bud Grant did, nor PERM for the most part. Bud simply went to the big protest at the Capital at that time and made an ass of himself by calling out a bunch of Natives for purportedly being drunk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fisherman45

It is an impossible task for the DNR to manage any fishery where so many anglers think they are entitled to fish.  Especially when the fish are so easy to catch. Best bet is to ban walleye fishing for a few years at a time to allow the lakes to reset themselves. The End

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
leech~~
1 hour ago, delcecchi said:

BTW, how many trophy pike have the harpooners taken out of Cass and Mille Lacs the last few years?

There is a Thread for that: Bowfishing/Spearing - MN     

Why don't you offer yourself up as a decoy and go in there and ask them? ;)

We will keep an eye out for blood on the water! :D

Edited by leech~~
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delcecchi

Been there done that.   Got the time out to prove it. 

But it is just another example of DNR malfeasance if you are looking for such.  They caved to the spearers.  And on Mille Lacs it was part of blaming pike when that was their theory.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weathertite

I find it hilarious that I can be called an idiot for having an opinion. Seems to me that you must work for the DNR and feel like you are being blamed. I would explain myself further but then again it would just be my opinion again which would only make me a bigger idiot.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delcecchi
11 minutes ago, Weathertite said:

I find it hilarious that I can be called an idiot for having an opinion. Seems to me that you must work for the DNR and feel like you are being blamed. I would explain myself further but then again it would just be my opinion again which would only make me a bigger idiot.

Well, it seems to me that those who rip on the DNR should have some facts to support their position and maybe even some alternative solutions to propose (not counting any that involve getting the Supremes to change their mind).  And they shouldn't say stuff that isn't true. 

That's my point of view. 

So trot out some facts and some proposals. Let's see what you have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
creepworm
8 hours ago, Weathertite said:

I find it hilarious that I can be called an idiot for having an opinion. Seems to me that you must work for the DNR and feel like you are being blamed. I would explain myself further but then again it would just be my opinion again which would only make me a bigger idiot.

I feel like this is pointed at me.

I never once called anyone an idiot. I did say that your opinion is asinine, because it is. After all, you did say " If anyone here actually believes ANYTHING  the DNR has to say then our natural resources are really in trouble". So when the DNR says the Walleye population in Mille Lacs is down from historical highs, should we believe them? If we do, according to your opinion " our natural resources are really in trouble".

18 hours ago, Bandersnatch said:

I'm not emotional whatsoever.

 

But I won't stand by and be called an idiot either.

Again, I never called anyone an idiot.

However, I do invite you to reread your posts while remembering that anger and frustration are emotions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bandersnatch
1 hour ago, creepworm said:

I feel like this is pointed at me.

I never once called anyone an idiot. I did say that your opinion is asinine, because it is. After all, you did say " If anyone here actually believes ANYTHING  the DNR has to say then our natural resources are really in trouble". So when the DNR says the Walleye population in Mille Lacs is down from historical highs, should we believe them? If we do, according to your opinion " our natural resources are really in trouble".

Again, I never called anyone an idiot.

However, I do invite you to reread your posts while remembering that anger and frustration are emotions.

Okay. I'll take the hit for that.

I was alluding to your very pointed post (paraphrasing here) that read no one that did not have a masters in biology should have an opinion on the matter, and if they did, they were being foolish to express it.

Is that close to what you meant in that post?  Or not.

"anger and frustration" That has to be colored by your very own myopic reading of my posts.

 

As for posting research, I am quite tired of posting link after link on how SLOTS damage lakes, only to be told "that's not Mille Lacs" time an again. So with that, you have Google. Use it.

In closing this thought, not only has the DNR futzed up Mille Lac with it's poorly thought out SLOTS it has also doomed many other Walleye lakes in the State to the very same eventual decline seen on Mille Lac. It may just take a little longer. With the One Fish Over 20" State Wide slot targeting the smaller fish year after year after year the very same thing (sans netting) will happen to many other lakes in the State over time. Manage lakes for Big Fish, and sooner or later you will have Big Fish predation, until the lake turns around and then you will have a population of Old Stunted Fish. (google the Wisconsin study on large mouth slots).

The MNDNR has not made good biological choices for the waters of Minnesota in a very long time.

 

What they have made are Political choices.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kyhl
On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Bandersnatch said:

Here are mine.

Master of Common Sense.

Here is my observation: The public had the wool pulled over their eyes with the Blue Ribbon Panel that was supposed to come in and help out with this issue.

What did the Blue Ribbon Panel do? They went over the very same data collected by the MNDNR and Rubber Stamped the findings.

I call this an Epic Fail.

Anyone have a different take on that?

I didn't read the Blue Ribbon Panel's summary as a 'Rubber Stamp'.

I thought they directly called out the DNR for their stupid targeted protection of large fish.

See the recommendation section of https://www.d.umn.edu/biology/documents/Ahrenstorff2_000.pdf

 

Quote

However, we also note that the fixed exploitation policy of 24% of fish over 356 mm that was established when state and tribal co-management was put in place does not necessarily provide for a conservative level of fishing or prevent substantial year-to-year fluctuations in the actual impact of fishing.

...

In the future, we believe there is a need to move away from a constant-F or constant exploitation rate policy like that is technically in place.

 

Feel the burn DNR?

The DNR mismanaged by overly protecting large fish.  Sadly, they are still protecting them.  Hopefully they will die off soon so the fry have a better chance to grow.

One last quote

 

Quote

Finally, we do not recommend walleye stocking in Mille Lacs. Stocking supplements natural reproduction and can therefore be an important part of a walleye recovery effort (e.g., Red Lakes walleye; Logsdon 2006). However, natural reproduction in Mille Lacs is already very high. The problem appears to be lower survival from the first winter to approximately the third fall. Stocked fish will suffer the same fate and, assuming that low survival is due to cannibalism and/or predation, could exacerbate the problem by sustaining predator populations.

In other words, Adding a hatchery and stocking the lake will add to the problem by feeding the big fish that are there already.  Why do we need to build a hatchery on ML?  Oh yeah, politics.

The DNR needs to be able to do its job without political meddling from Gov Goofy, and Congress.

 

I can't edit the block quote in this system.  The last Panel quote was supposed to be

 

Quote

Finally, we do not recommend walleye stocking in Mille Lacs. Stocking supplements natural reproduction and can therefore be an important part of a walleye recovery effort (e.g., Red Lakes walleye; Logsdon 2006). However, natural reproduction in Mille Lacs is already very high. The problem appears to be lower survival from the first winter to approximately the third fall. Stocked fish will suffer the same fate and, assuming that low survival is due to cannibalism and/or predation, could exacerbate the problem by sustaining predator populations.

 

In other words, Adding a hatchery and stocking the lake will add to the problem by feeding the big fish that are there already. Why do we need to build a hatchery on ML? Oh yeah, politics.

The DNR needs to be able to do its job without political meddling from Gov Goofy, and Congress.

 

Edited by Kyhl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delcecchi

Congress???

What meddling from congress?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now