Dnr's future plan for walleye slot?

[creepworm]

14 minutes ago, Bandersnatch said:

How do you know that the fry hatched in the first place?

 

Fall electroshocking done in the fall to sample Young of the Year Walleyes. Pretty standard for the DNR to do this to sample the population that the DNR's nets can't sample.

[delcecchi]

12 hours ago, creepworm said:

Fall electroshocking done in the fall to sample Young of the Year Walleyes. Pretty standard for the DNR to do this to sample the population that the DNR's nets can't sample.

From the report of the blue ribbon panel 

None of the age-0 abundance

indices showed a declining trend in recent years (Figure 8).

On the contrary, both the trawl and gill net

data (which data back to the 1970s) indicate that some of the highest

fall abundances of age-0 walleye have occurred within the last decade. The

time series for electrofishing is shorter (since 1991), but also indicates high production of age-0 walleye in the last decade.

Therefore, we conclude that Mille Lacs walleye continue to be

capable of producing strong age-0 year classes

despite declines in adult abundances.

Folks really ought to read the blue ribbon report and look at the figures at the back.  

[Kyhl]

10 hours ago, delcecchi said:

 

Folks really ought to read the blue ribbon report and look at the figures at the back.

As should our legislators.  I emailed a link of the report to my state senator last week, and quoted the recommendation that building a hatchery would be counter productive.  He thanked me for the information and said he would share with colleagues.  I don't think they know what the report said.

Contract your legislators and send them the report.  Most likely they have not seen it and are following the direction of Landwehr, the press stories, and gov goofy which will not help.

Edited March 11, 2016 by Kyhl

[leech~~]

1 hour ago, Kyhl said:

 I emailed a link of the report to my state senator last week, and quoted the recommendation that building a hatchery would be counter productive.  He thanked me for the information and said he would share with colleagues. 

Or his Secretary did her normal job of handling junk mail by sending a standard reply and filed it!

Edited March 11, 2016 by leech~~

[Bandersnatch]

You should email them this link as well.

 

http://lybacks.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Implications-for-the-Mille-Lacs-Lake-Fishery-with-Continued-Enfor.pdf

[delcecchi]

And just for general interest....

 

3 hours ago, Bandersnatch said:

You should email them this link as well.

 

http://lybacks.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Implications-for-the-Mille-Lacs-Lake-Fishery-with-Continued-Enfor.pdf

Why should I pay attention to a paper written by a student in law school prior to the blue ribbon report?  He says "one of the potential explantions ..... is native netting", which is debunked by both reason and fact in the blue ribbon report.   He needed to write a class paper and you guys are on it like geese on corn.  He made an argument, like lawyers are trained to do with disregard for the truth. 

[Bandersnatch]

14 hours ago, delcecchi said:

And just for general interest....

 

Why should I pay attention to a paper written by a student in law school prior to the blue ribbon report?  He says "one of the potential explantions ..... is native netting", which is debunked by both reason and fact in the blue ribbon report.   He needed to write a class paper and you guys are on it like geese on corn.  He made an argument, like lawyers are trained to do with disregard for the truth. 

I guess for the same reason that you quote the Blue Ribbon Report that was nothing more than people that went over the data provided to them by the MNDNR. They did absolutely no research themselves. It was nothing more than a Rubber Stamp.

[Kyhl]

I don't understand how it is a rubber stamp when it basically calls out the DNR for mismanaging the slots bringing us to this situation.  It also directly contradicts the DNR's plan to build a hatchery. 

I guess we either have different definitions of rubber stamp or we read different reports.

Edited March 12, 2016 by Kyhl

[leech~~]

On 3/11/2016 at 7:24 PM, delcecchi said:

And just for general interest....

 

Why should I pay attention to a paper written by a student in law school prior to the blue ribbon report?  He says "one of the potential explantions ..... is native netting", which is debunked by both reason and fact in the blue ribbon report.   He needed to write a class paper and you guys are on it like geese on corn.  He made an argument, like lawyers are trained to do with disregard for the truth. 

Interesting. The DNR must use different net mesh size then the Tribes because I keep hearing how only certain size Walleye can be taken in the nets? But, yet there are very large Walleye and small Perch? Seems the kill is wide in size and fish type. Glad the Tribe nets only can take Walleye of only a certain size!  Wonder why the Jumbo Perch are down as well.

[delcecchi]

I think the dnr uses special research nets with several mesh sizes. I recall reading that.

It would certainly make sense if the objective was sampling the population.

And the mesh is size selective.  Too large and fish go through.  Too  small and the fish bounces off the net.

[leech~~]

3 hours ago, delcecchi said:

I think the dnr uses special research nets with several mesh sizes. I recall reading that.

It would certainly make sense if the objective was sampling the population.

And the mesh is size selective.  Too large and fish go through.  Too  small and the fish bounces off the net.

Ahh "special research nets"

 

[delcecchi]

Gill net: This is the main piece of equipment used for sampling walleye, northern pike, yellow perch, cisco, whitefish, trout, and salmon. The standard gill net is 6 feet tall by 250 feet long, with 5 different mesh sizes. Gill nets are generally set in off shore areas in water deeper than 9 feet. Nets are fished for a period of 24 hours. Fish are captured by swimming into the net and becoming entangled. Fisheries workers record length and weight data from each fish, determine the sex, look for parasites or disease, and remove several of the fishes scales for determining the fishes age. Most of the fish taken in gill nets are killed, but only a small portion of the lakes fish population is sampled during an individual survey event. The number of gill nets set during a survey is dependent on the lake acreage.

 

From http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/lakefind/surveys.html

[leech~~]

1 hour ago, delcecchi said:

Gill net: This is the main piece of equipment used for sampling walleye, northern pike, yellow perch, cisco, whitefish, trout, and salmon. The standard gill net is 6 feet tall by 250 feet long, with 5 different mesh sizes. Gill nets are generally set in off shore areas in water deeper than 9 feet. Nets are fished for a period of 24 hours. Fish are captured by swimming into the net and becoming entangled. Fisheries workers record length and weight data from each fish, determine the sex, look for parasites or disease, and remove several of the fishes scales for determining the fishes age. Most of the fish taken in gill nets are killed, but only a small portion of the lakes fish population is sampled during an individual survey event. The number of gill nets set during a survey is dependent on the lake acreage.

 

From http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/lakefind/surveys.html

Ok well you brought it up. Now prove that the Tribes are using the same or different size Net mesh for netting as the DNR is for testing (Walleye) and what by catch fish are caught in both?

Edited March 18, 2016 by leech~~

[Bandersnatch]

"Through the last few weeks of April, all tribes within the 1837 Treaty were able to net for perch, while only a handful of the Band members elected to do so. Bad River and Lac Courte Oreilles are two of such bands. Targeted perch netting is still done with nets in the same size as the nets used for walleye. Starting net dimensions are 1.25 inches (they stretch to 2.5 inches) and 1.75 inches (stretch to 3.5 inches), Rasmussen said. "

 

That's all that I could find on band mesh size restriction, and it was funky finding that much.

[leech~~]

7 minutes ago, Bandersnatch said:

"Through the last few weeks of April, all tribes within the 1837 Treaty were able to net for perch, while only a handful of the Band members elected to do so. Bad River and Lac Courte Oreilles are two of such bands. Targeted perch netting is still done with nets in the same size as the nets used for walleye. Starting net dimensions are 1.25 inches (they stretch to 2.5 inches) and 1.75 inches (stretch to 3.5 inches), Rasmussen said. "

 

That's all that I could find on band mesh size restriction, and it was funky finding that much.

I'm sure Perch size mesh should take out the 2013 Walleye's pretty nicely!

[delcecchi]

You guys just can't seem to wrap your mind around the fact that the troubles with the Mille Lacs fisherie are primarily due to the combination of angler harvest and the DNR's methods of limiting the harvest, can you?

It is so much more comforting to blame tribal netting and dream of the days long ago.   

[Bandersnatch]

3 hours ago, delcecchi said:

You guys just can't seem to wrap your mind around the fact that the troubles with the Mille Lacs fisherie are primarily due to the combination of angler harvest and the DNR's methods of limiting the harvest, can you?

It is so much more comforting to blame tribal netting and dream of the days long ago.   

Sorry that I didn't include a short rant on every other aspect of the issue when answering a question about mesh sizes used.

I'll keep in mind for the future that I should include a 13 bullet Talking Points list with each and every post.

 

Thanks for the reminder.

[delcecchi]

5 minutes ago, Bandersnatch said:

Sorry that I didn't include a short rant on every other aspect of the issue when answering a question about mesh sizes used.

I'll keep in mind for the future that I should include a 13 bullet Talking Points list with each and every post.

 

Thanks for the reminder.

My post wasn't aimed at you personally.  

21 hours ago, leech~~ said:

I'm sure Perch size mesh should take out the 2013 Walleye's pretty nicely!

 

On 3/11/2016 at 9:50 AM, Bandersnatch said:

I guess for the same reason that you quote the Blue Ribbon Report that was nothing more than people that went over the data provided to them by the MNDNR. They did absolutely no research themselves. It was nothing more than a Rubber Stamp.

Now that you bring it up, are you in the "tribal netting is the cause" camp, or not? Just curious.

[leech~~]

4 hours ago, delcecchi said:

You guys just can't seem to wrap your mind around the fact that the troubles with the Mille Lacs fisherie are primarily due to the combination of angler harvest and the DNR's methods of limiting the harvest, can you?

It is so much more comforting to blame tribal netting and dream of the days long ago.   

That's because we are not all sheep that just follow the "line" that is being put out like you Del. Lot's of good questions and view points have been raised throughout this whole thread like why have not other large lakes that have not been netted collapsed because of cannibalize which you just seem to dance around. I guess the best we can do is to agree to disagree and move on.

[Bandersnatch]

51 minutes ago, delcecchi said:

My post wasn't aimed at you personally.  

 

Now that you bring it up, are you in the "tribal netting is the cause" camp, or not? Just curious.

Not at all, in the manner that I think that you ask. As a root issue for sure, but it's something that has to be lived with re: the court.

I.E. If there were not netting (and only Cultural Spearing) there would be no Slots.

IMO if there were not Slots, I have my doubts that we would be were we are.

I ranted about the over population of large Walleye in the lake years ago. This is not only a Netting issue, but the idiotic MNDNR management of the Slots to attempt to turn Mille Lac into (paraphrasing) A World Class Trophy Walleye Lake. Why idiotic? Because the genetic strain of Walleye in Mille Lac has not ever (that we know of) produced anywhere near a "World Class" record.

You would think that those with a string of letters behind their names would have known that to begin with.

(For comparison, I believe that the IFGA record is right around 25 pounds)

[kelly-p]

Interesting topic to say the least. Like I posted here earlier I know nothing about Mille Lacs except what I have read. One part of Mille Lacs problems keeps drawing my attention and I am curious what you people that know Mille Lacs far better then me think of my observation/opinion.

   The Clean Water Act of 1972 caused the sewers and such around Mille Lacs to be upgraded resulting is less nutrients going into Mille Lacs. The nutrients are the base of the food chain, less food, less growth. The results started showing up with the lake getting clearer in the mid 1990's. The clearer lake was a result of less phytoplankton in the water. Zooplankton feeds on phytoplankton so there is then less zooplankton also. Larval fish need the zooplankton to start growing so the food chain is already starting to slowdown in the 1990's. Then in 2005 zebra mussels are found in the lake. Zebra mussels filter out phytoplankton further restricting the food that zooplankton needs so the levels of zooplankton drop some more. The end result of the drop in the amount of phytoplankton and zooplankton is that Mille Lacs is now 1 1/2 times clearer then it was in the 1980's. Does that mean that now Mille Lacs can now only support 1 1/2 times less fish then it could in the 1980's?

  Then in 2009 another shoe dropped when Spiny Water Fleas were found in Mille Lacs. Spiny Water Fleas not only eat zooplankton resulting in less zooplankton in the lake but also replace zooplankton in the food chain but larval fish will not eat Spiny Water Fleas. Now there is even less food at the base of the walleye food chain. The levels of zooplankton in Mille Lacs right now is the lowest it has been in the 4 decades since it has been recorded. That to me is alarming.

  Now look at the fishing pressure. Look at how fishing technology has changed since 1990. The lake maps, the GPS's the fish finders, the boats and motors and the wheelhouses so that in the winter that technology is being used 24 hours a day right through storms, blizzards and high winds. We are many times better at harvesting fish then we were in 1990. So just when the lake could grow less fish we were becoming more efficient at catching those fish.

  The netting is not helping anything but maybe there is more to the problem then just netting. This reminds me of a time before URL collapsed. After a softball game while we were having some refreshments I told some of the Native netters that they needed to go back to the birchbark canoe. They replied that they would as soon as the sportfishermen went back to rowboats. Well none of us backed off, we all just kept catching as many fish as fast as we could. We did a good job didn't we?

 

 

[leech~~]

56 minutes ago, kelly-p said:

Interesting topic to say the least. Like I posted here earlier I know nothing about Mille Lacs except what I have read. One part of Mille Lacs problems keeps drawing my attention and I am curious what you people that know Mille Lacs far better then me think of my observation/opinion.

   The Clean Water Act of 1972 caused the sewers and such around Mille Lacs to be upgraded resulting is less nutrients going into Mille Lacs. The nutrients are the base of the food chain, less food, less growth. The results started showing up with the lake getting clearer in the mid 1990's. The clearer lake was a result of less phytoplankton in the water. Zooplankton feeds on phytoplankton so there is then less zooplankton also. Larval fish need the zooplankton to start growing so the food chain is already starting to slowdown in the 1990's. Then in 2005 zebra mussels are found in the lake. Zebra mussels filter out phytoplankton further restricting the food that zooplankton needs so the levels of zooplankton drop some more. The end result of the drop in the amount of phytoplankton and zooplankton is that Mille Lacs is now 1 1/2 times clearer then it was in the 1980's. Does that mean that now Mille Lacs can now only support 1 1/2 times less fish then it could in the 1980's?

  Then in 2009 another shoe dropped when Spiny Water Fleas were found in Mille Lacs. Spiny Water Fleas not only eat zooplankton resulting in less zooplankton in the lake but also replace zooplankton in the food chain but larval fish will not eat Spiny Water Fleas. Now there is even less food at the base of the walleye food chain. The levels of zooplankton in Mille Lacs right now is the lowest it has been in the 4 decades since it has been recorded. That to me is alarming.

  Now look at the fishing pressure. Look at how fishing technology has changed since 1990. The lake maps, the GPS's the fish finders, the boats and motors and the wheelhouses so that in the winter that technology is being used 24 hours a day right through storms, blizzards and high winds. We are many times better at harvesting fish then we were in 1990. So just when the lake could grow less fish we were becoming more efficient at catching those fish.

  The netting is not helping anything but maybe there is more to the problem then just netting. This reminds me of a time before URL collapsed. After a softball game while we were having some refreshments I told some of the Native netters that they needed to go back to the birchbark canoe. They replied that they would as soon as the sportfishermen went back to rowboats. Well none of us backed off, we all just kept catching as many fish as fast as we could. We did a good job didn't we?

 

 

Ya, it's to bad the Hook and lines cleaned out the whole Lower Red as well as the Upper with all that technology.

[ANYFISH2]

6 hours ago, Bandersnatch said:

Not at all, in the manner that I think that you ask. As a root issue for sure, but it's something that has to be lived with re: the court.

I.E. If there were not netting (and only Cultural Spearing) there would be no Slots.

IMO if there were not Slots, I have my doubts that we would be were we are.

I ranted about the over population of large Walleye in the lake years ago. This is not only a Netting issue, but the idiotic MNDNR management of the Slots to attempt to turn Mille Lac into (paraphrasing) A World Class Trophy Walleye Lake. Why idiotic? Because the genetic strain of Walleye in Mille Lac has not ever (that we know of) produced anywhere near a "World Class" record.

You would think that those with a string of letters behind their names would have known that to begin with.

(For comparison, I believe that the IFGA record is right around 25 pounds)

That is a perfect response, bandersnatch!

Now, if the netting were to end now, would the slots go away?                           Imho, I doubt it.

Should the slots go away now, even with netting allowed?                                         I think so, sort of.

How do fix something that is (seemingly) so broken?

My suggestion would be, 2 fish limit. 1 over 23" and one under 18" no cull.  Keep that way nets or no nets.  This after we get a couple of decent year classes to survive to year 2.

Leech~, I am not sure how to take your comments with this guy at the end of them all?

Do you solely blame the gill nets?

Another question for you guys, would you be OK with the bands netting after the opener until they get their quota?  

Is that a better option than at ice out, even with the interference at the accesses and nets in water while hook and liners are running around in their boats?

 

[delcecchi]

There are walleye slots on many lakes in minnesota, just not as extreme as on Mille lacs.  West end of Vermilion has a similar problem of lacking smaller walleye, for unknown reasons.  That is why I became interested in the issue on Mille Lacs.

Mille Lacs receives a great deal of fishing pressure and that pressure is capable of greatly over harvesting the lake, even without netting.  Several times anglers exceeded their quota, taking hundreds of thousands of pounds, even with slots in place. So, like the rest of the big popular lakes in Minnesota, special regulations were used to limit the harvest.

In fairness to the DNR they believed that the slot was the way to limit harvest that was most palatable to the public.  Turns out to have had problems. And there were folks who were concerned.  But something had to be done.

Maybe the 2013 class will provide some breathing room, but I don't see it fixing the problem.  I wonder what will be done, and what will happen.  Very conservative quotas for a while for sure.

[leech~~]

Old story but now we can all see the results on Mille Lacs that they were "Closely watching" then.

How does that saying go? "Those who do not remember their past are condemned to repeat their mistakes." 

And how did Red turn around? Stop netting!

 

Red Lake Walleye Fishing Ruined
By Dan Gunderson
April 15, 1998

RealAudio 2.0 14.4

 

Part of the Mainstreet Radio series Treaty Rights and Tribal Sovereignty

The tough regulations and enforcement on fishing at Mille Lacs, as Ojibways exercise their treaty rights, are being closely watched by the Red Lake band of Chippewa. Red Lake was once a walleye fishery as good or better than Mille Lacs. But over-harvest by native commercial fishers nearly destroyed the population; only a remnant of the world-famous Red Lake walleye remains. The result has been economic ruin and sometimes rancorous debate about who is to blame for the management debacle.

FOR 80 YEARS COMMERCIAL FISHERS have spent sunny spring days mending nets and getting boats ready for the walleye harvest. But this year, like last, there will be no commercial fishing because the Red Lake walleye has been nearly wiped out.

Pat Brown: We got two hatching batteries, about 200 jars, and you can raise about two quarts of walleye eggs in each one.

At a small fish hatchery on the shore of Lower Red Lake, water flows through large glass jars and runs down a metal sluiceway and into the lake. The glass jars are normally used to hatch walleye eggs, but they'll be empty this year. Tribal biologist Pat Brown says no walleye will be hatched because there are too few mature walleyes in the lake to harvest eggs from.

The problems at Red Lake started decades ago. The federal government opened commercial fishing in 1918 to provide food for Minnesotans during World War I. The harvest was increased during World War II, and the regulations put in place then have not changed in 55 years. Federal regulations set a maximum walleye harvest and ostensibly controlled the commercial fishing, but for decades there was little or no oversight. It was just ten years ago that the Red Lake tribe started a fish biology department. The tribe manages 85 percent of the lake; the state of Minnesota oversees the remaining 15 percent that's outside reservation boundaries. Minnesota DNR regional fisheries manager Bob Strand says Red Lake is in critical condition.

Strand: I guess what it comes down to is we can quit harvesting walleye by choice and improve the potential for recovery, or we can quit fishing walleye by no action, because they're gone.

In the late 1980s commercial fishing took nearly one million pounds of walleye a year from Red Lake - that was the legal harvest. Some contend another one million pounds were taken illegally.

Any member of the Red Lake band was free to do subsistence netting - catching fish to feed their family. Many used the freedom as it was intended, but some subsistence netters took thousands of pounds of walleye to sell on the black market. Tribal and state officials are circumspect about placing blame, but commercial fisherman and Red Lake tribal member Bill May says greed led to a declaration of war on walleye.

 

Bill May says he can live without fishing, but he misses the hours spent on the water. He says the spiritual connection to the lake is strong. He wonders what his Anishinabe forefathers, who called the lake their storehouse, would think of what's been done

Edited March 20, 2016 by leech~~

[mjk]

Good read.  Thanks for sharing.  The number of Lbs that were netted is staggering....  

[Bandersnatch]

4 hours ago, leech~~ said:

Old story but now we can all see the results on Mille Lacs that they were "Closely watching" then.

How does that saying go? "Those who do not remember their past are condemned to repeat their mistakes." 

And how did Red turn around? Stop netting!

 

 

 

I don't think that holding Red Lake up as the de facto example of netting is completely valid though. It is my understanding that a great deal of the Red netting was done by seining nets, which take everything.

 

That said, we don't even know what affect that netting has during Walleye spawning. Because it has NOT been studied.

For all we know "lean" hatches could be caused by boat traffic over spawning beds, regardless of nets. kicking gravid fish off the beds to drop eggs off the beds in unfavorable water.

 

Who knows? Certainly not the MNDNR, because they refuse to study the effect of netting during spawning in favor of politics.

Edited March 20, 2016 by Bandersnatch

[ANYFISH2]

Walleyes are broadcast spawners not bed spawners, they will spawn anywhere there is suitable substrate.

It also takes a lot to get walleyes to scatter during the spawn, we seen this at pipestone falls they where so thick and tight to shore one could stand in the water with them and touch them if you wanted too.  It was an amazing sight.

Just to establish my position, I would like to see if there is any appreciable difference between net during pre-spawn or after.  I don't think the netting is causation to the poor survival of young walleye, I also believe 2013 year class is a coincidence of minimal netting not a result of.

I do believe the safe harvest numbers are a big shot in the bucket, I do not trust the numbers as I should be able to.  I Think the slots of past contributed to our situation greatly, too many large Walleye put a HUGE strain on the perch population leading to enormous amounts of cannibalism, thus suppressing year classes of walleye.

As kelly put, the invasives have really put a stress on the producer part of the food triangle.  Hopefully with the decline in mussles, things will improve.

I just think, being so focused on netting alone, would just slow any true resolution to our problems.  The situation is so much bigger than nets alone, IMHO.

 

[Sculpin]

The Indian fish processing plant in Redby, (Red Lake) still uses gill nets on the lake.  For a period of time, after the recovery, the Band attempted to sustain the commercial fishery by hook and line fishing, they quickly learned it was not possible. Although there are still a good number of Band members who fish hook and line to sell their fish to the processing plant, gill nets must be deployed to keep the processing volume at a sustainable commercial level. Much like the bands coming to Mille Lacs, without gillnets, their quota would never be met.

In addition, in the case of Mille Lacs, the Bands would probably never achieve their quotas during any time other then the spawn, when the fish are concentrated in-shore, in shallow water.

In another week or so, the WI. bands will declare where they are going to "fish" this year, if they declare Vermillion, as they did last year, it will be interesting to see how they are welcomed by the Bois Forte, you may recall last year, Kevin Leecy, the Tribal chair at Vermilion, told them they were not welcome. He said in essence, it was injurious to the lake, the economy, and it was not in keeping with the way it should be done, in canoes.  Mr. Leecy should work for the DNR, he is a wise man, indeed.

The DNR will announce Mille Lacs regulations either tomorrow, or Tues.  hang on.    

  

[ANYFISH2]

Oh leech~~, leech and Winni, are also netted.  They have not collapsed, leech did I guess but that was cormorants they say, both are seeing issues caused by the slots.  So much so the DNR is looking at changing things up.