Advisory meeting

[Random guy]

...and JCHiggins get my vote for best post of the winter.

[Paul Waldowski]

Quote:

...and JCHiggins get my vote for best post of the winter.

+1

[kelly-p]

To think this whole thing started because I thought people would be happy that it looked like there would be a Jume 15th slot adjustment again.

[woodman]

+3

[theharvester]

where did i say more jc ? and do u think that survey is that acurate i have seen it and people dont tell the truth i do realize they have to go by something but its still a guess. look at the dnr on moose and wolves

[JCHiggins]

You said "more" when you said you wanted to change it to 18 inches. Please take the time to read Kelly P's NUMEROUS posts. If you up it to 18 inches, the projection is up to 200,000 lbs of fish, = OVER THE SET HARVEST QUOTA = "more" fish. The scientists deal with pounds instead of numbers of fish because it relates better to the biomass balance of the lake. Bigger fish eat more, etc. Sorry, but your just plain wrong on this one. I'll take the DNR biologists science-based calculations anyday over a fly by night shot in the dark based on jack. Oh, one more thing. When scientists conduct studies, they use this thing called "statistics" It has to do with probabilities, averages, percentages, and all kinds of other big math words. They use this "statistics" thing to come up with a reasonable assumption based on plus or minus so many points of reliability. Thats how they account for all the people that drive around the creel census dudes, and the wonderful folks that choose to lie, or even worse those few poachers out there who have a 26 incher under the carpet in the wheel well. They realize there's a margin of error, and its all calculated into the end result.

[SDS]

To date ive only fished red in the winter months. This will change come May. Since December 2006 ive spent at least 30 days and 30 nights each winter fishin red. I like everyone ive had my ups and my downs. I can honestly say that fishing this last winter 2010-2011 has been the best experiance to date. Dont get me wrong im on red lake at least 2-3 days at a time and i talk to people, i know what the reports were like this winter. The reports that the general public provides are great for all fisherman alike. Depths, colors, lures are all vital info to take into consideration day-in and day-out, especally this winter with the low pressure systems hitting every 3 days. Any info helps the cause, with rough weather. This brings me to say that in six years this winter has proved to be the most unstable since ive fished red. With rough weather taken into consideration, I was fortuanate enough to be on the ice seemingly each time the wind switched direction and therefor pushing a front into the area. With all the snow, pressure, bad reports, and every other element i was able to land over 160 eye throught the ice this winter on red. I enjoy figuring out patterns and catching fish much more than eatting fish, so I only kept around 40 eyes this winter. I would personally not recommend increasing the daily limit, not this year, not next year. red lake has far too much pressure to take such as chance at this time. The increased slot during summer months is on the other hand a good idea to continue doing. For that matter i think the state wide limit on walleye should be no more than 4.

[SrBrits]

Quote:

...and JCHiggins get my vote for best post of the winter.

halad gets my vote for best post this winter, but as usual it gets removed just for speaking the truth.

[shaky legs2]

We made 4 trips this year during the walleye season. While some trips were better than others, we had no trouble catching keeper fish for a meal plus bringing fish home to eat. I do not have enough background or information to question the slot decision but I do know that the majority of residents on both sides of the line do not want to see a repeat of the 80's and 90's and I respect that. Keep it as is.

[Iambjm]

" or one fish between 17 and 19 i want the lake healthy too does anybody agree with me out there at all?

This is a copy/paste of what I posted just last night concerning that.

We looked at that this past meeting. If during the summer harvest season each fisherman was allowed 1 fish over 17 inches the projected take would be around 200,000 pounds. 32,000 pounds more then the top of our safe harvest range. That would mean that the slot adjustment on June 15th could no longer happen. No more being able to take to take 4 walleyes up to 20 inches from June 15th to November 30th. Also the winter harvest season would most likely have to have a 3 walleye under 17 inch limit rather then the present 4 walleye limit. Also that would lead to people sorting out of their livewell. Taking the 18 inch walleye back out after an hour to replace ot with an 18 3/4 and then an hour later taking the 18 3/4 back out to replace it with a 20 inch fish. That would lead to a lot higher release mortality.

Why would you want to have the winter limits cut to 3 walleyes or the June 15th slot adjustment not happen? We can not just "take more fish".

I guess I am confused, did you mean: "If during the summer harvest season each fisherman was allowed 1 fish over 17 inches the projected take would be around 200,000 pounds."? Or did you mean to say: "If during the winter harvest season each fisherman was allowed 1 fish over 17 inches the projected take would be around 200,000 pounds."

This is confusing my meager math skills

[Stcloudangler]

...and JCHiggins get my vote for best post of the winter.

Let me know where to vote

[MNfan]

Well said JC.

[kelly-p]

I guess I am confused, did you mean: "If during the summer harvest season each fisherman was allowed 1 fish over 17 inches the projected take would be around 200,000 pounds."? Or did you mean to say: "If during the winter harvest season each fisherman was allowed 1 fish over 17 inches the projected take would be around 200,000 pounds."

This is confusing my meager math skills

Me too.

The concern is that if the limit can include 1 fish over 17 inches that first month of the summer season when the fishing is usually pretty good and fishing pressure is very high that it could really shoot the pounds taken up. That 1 more inch of fish really increases the pounds taken fast. What happened the last 2 weeks of June 2009 really scared a lot of us with the huge amount of pounds taken. It would mean that the June 15th slot adjustment up to 20 could not happen. I do not really understand this but were are operating under "emergency rules" (?). We would still need 6 weeks to get the regulations changed. So we would not be able to see how the first month of season went and then decide whether or not to have the June 15th slot. We have to have that decision made now.

If the pounds taken that first month put us in the position that there is concern that we may go over our safe harvest level before the winter season is over then we may have to reduce the winter limits to 3 to make sure we can have a full winter season. The past 3 years about 80% of the fishing pressure happens in the winter. I do not know if we will ever see taking bigger fish in the winter. Then we are getting more into our spawning fish. We need them, especially right now as it looks like the 2010 year class could be very weak due to the early spring.

We are only 2 years into the June 15th slot adjustment so we are still feeling our way in the dark as far as how that works. After this 3rd year of that we should have a better idea of what to expect from it.

I just hope that the DNR people that have a better understanding of this are reading through my posts and will correct me if I'm wrong. In my younger and more foolish years I killed off way to many brain cells for this. When I started this topic I expected 4 or 5 posts. Was I wrong.

When we get the minutes from this meeting I'll post them here.

[kelly-p]

Here is the summery from the March 2010 meeting so everyone can see the many variables being dealt with. It is like dropping 50 toothpicks on the floor until you get them to all point the same direction. When we get the summery from this last meeting I'll post it.

Upper Red Lake Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting Summary

March 4, 2010.

Meeting attendance was approximately 15-20 non-DNR with mix of committee members and other interested local participants. No elected officials attended.

The first agenda topic was an update on the status of the northern pike regulation process. We informed the group that the recommendation from this committee for a modification to a 26-44” PSL had been approved to proceed with formal public review. There was some discussion about alternatives from a couple of participants who were not present at the March 2009 meeting when this recommendation was agreed to. They were advised that there will be considerable opportunity during the formal review process for further comments. We will be distributing a voluntary input card to anglers throughout the open water season to try to broaden the opportunity for anglers to comment.

2009 Population assessment results were presented with an emphasis on spawning stock biomass (SSB), the main indicator of population health. SSB has declined from a surplus condition (above 3 lb/acre) for the first time since harvest resumed. We are now in the optimal condition (2-3 lb/ acre) which reduces our annual harvest cap from 240,000, to 216,000 pounds. This decline is not alarming but it should be clear that it reduces the margin for error above our safe harvest range, and further decline below 2 lb/acre would affect the safe harvest range.

Final harvest statistics were presented for recent periods and compared to previous harvest periods under a variety of regulation packages. The attached handout was provided to summarize harvest by season and total annual harvest. Total harvest for the most recent full harvest year ending November 2009 was 147,000 pounds, 88% of the top of the safe harvest range (168,000 lbs). That was attained with a 3 fish bag in winter (17-26” PSL), and a 4 fish bag in open water with a June 15 adjustment to 20-26” PSL.

The current harvest year beginning Dec 1, 2009 started out with a 4 fish bag and 17-26” PSL for the winter season. This CAC meeting was delayed until the end of the winter period to improve precision of our full year harvest projection. Knowing winter harvest before setting open w ater regulations will be to our advantage as we approach the top of the safe harvest range.

Regulation options are also becoming limited as we approach the top of the range. General assumptions for considering options to present were as follows:

• The 2009 mid-season slot adjustment was popular

• There would be little interest in reducing bag limit

• There is little room to increase bag limit

• Slot limits have been providing more control on harvest than bag limits

We looked at three specific regulation options, all with the existing 4 fish bag. Positives and negatives as discussed:

• 17-26 PSL year around (Annual harvest projected at 115,000 pounds)

Low risk of exceeding safe harvest range or cap

Stability, simplicity, same regulation year around

Least impact on existing spawning stock

Not fully utilizing available harvest

• 17-26 PSL with June 15 adjustment to 20-26 PSL (Annual harvest projected at 160,000 pounds)

Projected harvest is very close to top of safe harvest range, moderate risk of reaching cap

Maximizes available harvest while distributing across available size range

Economic/recreation benefit of distributing pressure and harvest

Some risk of reducing SSB, possibly affecting future harvest allocation

Regulation complexity of mid-season slot adjustment

Regulation stability (year to year) is not certain; as population size structure changes, risk may increase under this regulation

• 18-26 PSL for open water period (Annual harvest projected to exceed 200,000 pounds)

High risk of exceeding safe harvest range and possibly the cap, requiring closure

Would require significant reduction in winter harvest (undesirable business implications)

Stack additional harvest in high pressure/high harvest periods

Higher impact on SSB than mid-season slot adjustment

As expected there was very little debate among those in attendance over the most preferred option. We have been hearing broad support for repeating the mid-June slot adjustment if possible, and this meeting was no different. We did want everyone to be aware that there are risks associated with this regulation. Also it is not certain that this regulation can be maintained for the long term, and will depend on status and size structure of spawning stock biomass.

Recommendation: The unanimous recommendation from the Citizen Advisory Committee is to proceed with a four fish bag limit 17-26 inch PSL for the 2010 open water season, with an adjustment June 15 to a 20-26 inch PSL. The size limit would revert to a 17-26 inch PSL on December 1.

We propose to write the emergency rule with calendar dates for PSL adjustments, but with no reference to individual year, so this rule would not expire on any particular date. If adjustments are needed due to harvest levels or changes in SSB condition we will use the emergency rule process as needed between seasons. The rule will be written to include annual harvest caps for both the surplus and optimal SSB conditions. A decline in SSB into the marginal condition (below 2 lb/acre) will certainly require a rule revision.

[bearbait]

I will have to vote for JChiggins also even though he is my fishing buddy and beer drinking buddy that I 99% of the time out fish him.So that said he would bennifit the bigger slot so he would have a better chance to out fish me so for him to say keep it the same speeks volumes.We both live 3and a half hours away but we try and go to REDLAKE 2 to 3 times winter and summer for the best walleye fishing in the state its like catching sunfish of the dock its so easy a caveman can do it.So I will respect that it stays the same limits.I grew up on a Lake that froze out they stocked 1 million walleyes in it it took 15 years to make them trophys I have 5 of them on my wall I need 1 more to have a limit and I hope to catch it on RED in 5 to 8 more years cause my lake once the word got out it took 3 years to completly fished it out walleyes and crappie now its a bass lake so I dont fish it no more I havent had my boat lift in the water for 8 years now and I would hate to see that happen to REDLAKE so that said anyone who is complaining u could always move to North Dakota and fish there lake u can keep walleyes all year long.

[kelly-p]

This is the results of the creel survey from June 2009 when the slot was adjusted.

----------------Angler hours----Walleye-harvest--Walleye-released

----------------------------------numbers/pounds--numbers/pounds

1st-14th---------28,289-----------6,716--7,058----31,528--43,091

15th-30th-------51,901----------25,927-40,925----40,454--30,943

--------------------------------------------------------------

----------------release mortality------Total walleye kill-----

----------------numbers/pounds---------numbers/pounds---------

1st-14th----------213---215---------------6,929---7,273---------

15th-30th------3,067-1,907-------------28,994--42,832---------

42,832 pounds of walleyes in 2 weeks!! 25% of our total yearly Safe Allowable Harvest, in 2 weeks. It shows that changing the slot size can really change the pounds leaving the lake fast.

[Portavilla]

Further proof that fishing is getting more like baseball.

[groove]

Very interesting Bearbait that you kept 5 of the largest for mounts and then complain that the walleyes are fished out, hmmm? In regard to slot size i have a ? Does the DNR in the test nets attempt to determine the quantities of say 16, 17, 18 etc inch size walleyes in the lake? Would not this determine the slot size, knowing possible different year classes are different sizes. I have been fishing Red for several years now and would love to see the numbers of walleyes NOT GO DOWN, i bring my grandkids up ages 6-8 and most enjoyable to watch them catch walleyes. This is one great lake to catch walleyes especially for kids, fish shallow with a bobber.

[bearbait]

Groove,the lake I live on has no rivers and no gravel bars or rocky shores so the DNR says there is no reproduction for walleyes.I was in my twenties when the fishing was good the 1st walleye mounted was a 10 1/2 lb 1995 then I caught 8 lb 1996 on bday the next night caught 8 1/2 so I mounted them together ya I agree that it was dumb.1997 I caught a 12 lb then 1998 I caught the pig that was 13 lbs.The reason it was fished out was fish were hungry cause the walleyes ate most of the perch out u could hardly even see or catch one perch.The access was packed almost every day in summer and winter the fish houses were every where pulling in limits of walleyes 2 lbs to 8 lbs.The thing is anything over 3 lbs is not a keeper to eat in my book.Know the DNR is trying to restock it but it isnt working to good the limit on the lake know is 17" and under have to be released and u can keep 5 fish .The point I was trying to make is that it doesn't take long at all to fish out a lake so I support the RED LAKE slot limit and in 5 to 8 years we will be catching some trophy's . I think a walleye should be at least 10 lbs to be thrown on a wall.

[kelly-p]

Does the DNR in the test nets attempt to determine the quantities of say 16, 17, 18 etc inch size walleyes in the lake?

Yes. With the shoreline seining, gillnet test nets and electro shocking they are able to give us a pretty good idea of what is happening in the lake. They are able to give us a very good breakdown on each year class. Growth rates, the % of walleyes in URL from each year class, the size/length of each year class and on and on. You end up with a pretty good idea of what is happening. The 2 big things that you have no control over though is the weather and fishing pressure. The Fisheries people both from the Area level and Regional level also came to the last URLAA meeting and provided some information.

One thing that I feel has really helped the URL recovery is that some of the DNR people at the Area level have been around URL for a long time so they are more like part of the community then just people from the DNR. They have been through the good times years ago, the collapse of the walleyes and the recovery so there is a lot of trust built up. In fact a couple of them I first met in the "70's" when I was nightgaurd at the Waskish hatchery and they were just starting out with the DNR. The amazing thing about the 35 or so years ago from then is that they have turned into a couple of old fossils and I'm still the same.

[MNfan]

Alway wondered why some people age faster then others always figured it was how hard they work now I have my answer!!!!!

[Rick]

Those DNR guys must have been workers then ehhh

[bturck]

some people just never age Kelly and you are apparently one of them....LOL

[Red_Eye]

Kelly: Is the results in a public information available that compares year to year? Do you know if comparable testing is complete on LRL? I ask not to stir up controversy but if comparable testing on LRL were completed would this truly validate total fish population and size?

Our prayers to the Hillman family.

[kelly-p]

I believe that all of the information is public. At the Advisory meetings they have it all projected on the screen with charts and graphs in a whole bunch of pretty colors. I also believe that they do the same testing on the Bands waters and all of the data is shared. That is how they come up with the SSB (Spawning Stock Biomass) per acre across all waters of the Red Lakes. As the SSB goes up and down it triggers changes in the Safe Allowable Harvest level on all waters of the Red Lakes. All of it is laid out in the managment aggreement between the DNR and the Band. The Band is bound by the same limits in pounds harvested as we are adjusted by the % of waters owned by each. Roughly 82% owned by the Band and 18% by the State. Jon knows all of this far better then me as he usually attends both the Advisory meetings and the Technical Committee meetings where all of the fisheries people, the biologists and enforcement people from both sides of the Line meet. Jon is gone now driving cat on shearing jobs around northern MN right now but as soon as they run out of frost he can fill in the holes I've left behind concerning this.

[kgpcr4]

[Note from admin: Please read forum policy before posting again. Thank you.]

[kelly-p]

DNR, citizen committee propose same summer walleye regs on Upper Red Lake Sunday, March 13, 2011

DNR, citizen committee propose same summer walleye regs on Upper Red Lake

The recommendation would mean a four-walleye limit with a 17- to 26-inch

protected slot from the May opener through mid-June. Beginning June 15, anglers

could keep walleyes up to 20 inches in length, with one longer than 26 inches,

as part of their four-fish limit.

By: Brad Dokken, Grand Forks Herald

The Department of Natural Resources is proposing to keep summer fishing

regulations on Upper Red Lake the same as they’ve been the past two years.

If approved by DNR Commissioner Tom Landwehr, that would mean a four-walleye

limit with a 17- to 26-inch protected slot from the May opener through mid-June.

Beginning June 15, anglers could keep walleyes up to 20 inches in length, with

one longer than 26 inches, as part of their four-fish limit.

The DNR manages Minnesota’s portion of Upper Red Lake with an annual harvest

quota of 168,000 pounds.

“The midseason adjustment seems to be working pretty nice,” said Gary Barnard,

area fisheries supervisor for the DNR in Bemidji. “In the late summer when

pressure dies down and the catch rate dies down, the potential to stack up fish

is a lot less.”

The DNR first loosened the protected slot in June 2009.

Barnard said a citizens’ advisory group that occasionally huddles with the DNR

on Red Lake fisheries issues met March 3 in Kelliher, Minn. Because of the low

winter harvest, which this year was only 29,000 pounds, the group explored

options for even more liberal walleye regulations this summer but decided to

recommend the same limits that have been in effect the past two years.

Barnard said in 2009, the first year anglers could keep walleyes up to 20 inches

beginning in mid-June, a late spring kept the fish close to shore longer, and

the regulation resulted in a harvest of about 95,000 pounds.

Last year, by comparison, an early spring meant the walleyes by mid-June were

less accessible to anglers, and the harvest was only 35,000 pounds with the

exact same regulations.

“If we have another good year like 2009, we’re talking 120,000 pounds or in that

vicinity” for the year, Barnard said. “They thought, let’s give this regulation

one more summer and see how it does. They looked at some other options, but none

looked real appealing without a lot of angler confusion. And there’s a lot of

risk when you try a new regulation, a lot of potential harvest if you mess up.

“When you’re trying to manage for less than 168,000 pounds, a mistake can cost

you 50,000 to 100,000 pounds pretty easily.”

Barnard said the citizen committee felt being conservative was the safest

course, even though more walleyes are available to harvest this summer.

“We’d like to see a good summer this year, and the citizens group would, as

well,” Barnard said. “Everyone is crossing their fingers hoping we have a good

summer. That would be the boost we need after this winter.”

Dokken reports on outdoors. Reach him at (701) 780-1148; (800) 477-6572 ext.

148; or send e-mail to [email protected].

[analyzer]

1. I trust you guys to do what's in the best interest for the lake, and everyone as a whole.

2. You can't have a standard PSL state wide. Every lake is different. Hell, there's no night bite on LOW, and there is on URL. URL has limited depth to fish in the summer months, making it very difficult to find walleyes at that time of year, whereas Millelacs, you just fish deeper. Some lakes have more natural reproduction than others. Some lakes have native netting and some don't. Angling pressure is different from one lake to the next. There are so many variables it's silly to think that you could apply one PSL to ALL lakes.

3. I agree with 4 walleye limit max on any lake however... and 0-1-2-3 as necessary on certain lakes.

4. Bearbait, with all due respect, you should think about graphite replicas. My son caught his first ever 10 lb walleye in the BWCA last year. It's still swimming. Replicas look great, and last longer. But to each there own I suppose.

5. Are the Red lake indians keeping Pike or do they have to honor the PSL too?

6. I'm a little confused about the release mortality numbers in 2009. 1-14th, vs 15-30th. Looks like angling hours basically doubled or so, but the mortality rates, went up about 10x. I would think with the slot change, anglers are keeping MORE fish, and releasing less per hour. I would expect the mortality to be less than double during the 15th-30th, not 10x that they show. I assume that they get their mortality rates, based on a percentage of total fish caught. But something seems off there, don't cha think?

7. My regards to shorty's family. I'm sorry for your loss. I don't know any of you all that well, but being a part of this forum makes you all feel a little like distant relatives.

8. Kelly-p, your time, effort, and above all else Patience, with regard to this forum, and especially this particular topic, is very commendable.

9. I have to admit, I've often thought some sort of total inches kept would make sense, like 68 inches. Which would allow you to keep a badly hooked fish. But I can see where that wouldn't necessarily protect your breeders very well, and would allow for much higher harvest rates. Which would inevitably be a bad thing.

10. The years of the crappie boom, was some of the best fishing memories of my life. I would have like to have protected the crappie. It seems as though the pike should've been protected sooner. It might be me, but they seem to be alot tougher to find, and fewer and father between catches. You still have a great walleye resource, and it's alot of fun when I come up. Whatever you're doing appears to be working in that regard. Please carry-on, and thanks for your dedication and continued efforts.

11. Is it possible you could make a couple islands to break the wind, plant a few pine trees, to make me feel more like I'm in the boundary waters, change the water color to a prettier color blue, and add a couple 28 foot holes, we can fish in July? Thanks in advance.

Garrett.

Happy belated St. Patty's.

Love you guys.

[analyzer]

This is the results of the creel survey from June 2009 when the slot was adjusted.

----------------Angler hours----Walleye-harvest--Walleye-released

----------------------------------numbers/pounds--numbers/pounds

1st-14th---------28,289-----------6,716--7,058----31,528--43,091

15th-30th-------51,901----------25,927-40,925----40,454--30,943

--------------------------------------------------------------

----------------release mortality------Total walleye kill-----

----------------numbers/pounds---------numbers/pounds---------

1st-14th----------213---215---------------6,029---7,237---------

15th-30th------3,067-1,907-------------28,994--42,432---------

42,432 pounds of walleyes in 2 weeks!! 25% of our total yearly Safe Allowable Harvest, in 2 weeks. It shows that changing the slot size can really change the pounds leaving the lake fast.

If I'm reading this correctly, you can see from the first half of June, to the 2nd half of June, the angling hours went from 28k to 51k... or slightly less than double (80% increase or so). The total fish released increased a similar amount 31k to 40k, with the poundage actually decreasing from 43k to 30k (I assume because we're keeping bigger ones, and releasing smaller ones). I assume if we add the harvest fish, to the release fish, we get the total hooked. Which increased from increased from 38k to 66k (again a little less than dbl).

Yet the mortality went from 213 to 3067?

Now that I look at it, can I safely assume that's a typo, and it should be something like 2130, and they just forgot a digit. Or does it have something to do with warmer water the last 2 weeks.

Total walleye kill for 1-14th at 6029 is off too, as the harvest amount was 6716, and the kill would have to be 6716 PLUS the release mortality, as it is in the 2nd half of the month 25,927 + 3067 = 28994.

AND FYI, Total pounds killed 2nd half of June should be 40925 + 1907 = 42832, not 42432

and as long as I'm add it, just based on the 1st half of the months mortality rates, the pounds killed should be 7273, not 7237.

Sorry to be so Anal. Someone might want to recheck figures, if every month has these sorts of discrepancies.

[traveler]

that was a great post for 4 a.m. analyzer! The first one that is..the 2nd one has way too many numbers in it for me, especially on my first cup of coffee:) I agree though, the #'s look a little off...