17-28 slot for 2012

[Stick in Mud]

I agree with you Wally that some people keep fish that are illegal. But people do it all the time already (I always wonder how many people actually release ALL of their illegal fish in the winter...at least in the summer they're in an open boat for everyone to see, thereby making it a bit trickier).

I guess I don't see there being a large increase in illegal harvest with a 1'' change in the slot. But it might....I dunno.

[fetch]

see your problem is using a rod and reel. apparently ive been told that nets dont apply to slot sizes?

[pushbutton]

Hey Fetch welcome to HSO! Your thoughts on netting aside, what is your take on the slots for 2012? Would you rather see a higher minimum or lower bag? Just to bring you up to date, like it or not, we can't tap into the other 142,000 lbs......the bands get their share by when and how they want to.....and we get our share by how and when we want, and so, for the time being, all we can do is try to figure out a way to best distribute our share. So what do you think the best way to do that would be?

[desert_bulls]

wallygader, I agree with you about people sneaking fish. I kind of get a kick out of people saying they need to make it worth their while to drive there. People know they slot before they go there. If they don't like it, move to another lake to make it worth their while. I love going to maybe catch a trophy.

[joedavis]

A few thoughts...

It's a rare 13" walleye or sauger that I've caught where "There is just no meat on it when you fillet it". Of the fish brought home on Saturday from a trip to the river, we immediately cooked up a 13" and 13.5" sauger as part of dinner...4 decent sized fillets for my family of 4. Not huge, but certainly more meat than I would get off an 11" crappie which most would keep all day long. Last years' opener was spent in the boundary waters, and we were relying on catching fish as part of our meals - I was quite surprised at, if I was careful, just how nice a piece of meat I could get from a 12" walleye.

From a reproduction standpoint, when you look at an egg production vs. size curve, I would rather take smaller fish than larger fish. But that's purely just looking at possibilities for total egg production. What concerns me more (and I'd love to hear from someone involved with fisheries management on this one) is the potential for an increasingly skewed population distribution, and any impacts this might have. Walleye are an important predator in Mille Lacs, and what they feed on changes with size. And when food is scarce (not usually an issue) they will feed on other young walleye.

If the concern is limiting the total weight of fish taken by anglers, then why not use a more direct method of measure? It is just as easy to weigh a fish as measure its' length. Why not a system where all fish 21" - 28" must go back for reproductive purposes (and who here would even keep that size to eat anyway?), and then you are allowed any 4 fish under a certain total weight? Rather than attempting to limit weight taken by limiting size, just limit weight.

Just my 2 cents...

By the way, when do I no longer have a "hello I'm new" title. I know I don't post a ton, but I have been registered for over a year now...

[MidCoast]

I personally would rather have the DNR allow us to take home one Walleye over 15 inches per person. So one Walleye over 15 inches per person would be good for Mille Lacs. That way at least I would get to bring home 1 fish for dinner vs catching and releasing 100 Walleyes in the slot with no fish for dinner. My buddies I take out would at least get to have one for dinner as well.

No doubt Mille Lacs is a good lake for catching Walleyes, but with our gas prices, me driving a 2010 5.7L Tundra Crew Max, and a 2009 Crestliner 1850 Fish Hawk with 150 HP, it becomes very costly for each trip to Mille Lacs.

[pushbutton]

I fish a lake with a 15 inch minimum, and while it is hard to make comparisons to Mille Lacs, it is a larger fertile lake with excellent natural reproduction and a ton of pressure including a lot of resort pressure that harvest nearly anything that is brought up....including 10 lbers. A big difference is that there is not nearly the amount of winter traffic. Since that slot was enacted, the lake has gotten decidedly better. The slot essentially ends up being about 14 3/4 through 20, with a lot of healthy upperteen fish. Have read somewhere that the DNR is not a fan of these 15 inch minimums though, and can't remember the reason. But it has worked so well, for this lake anyway, that they won't be changing it anytime soon.

JoeD....just make a few more posts and you won't be a newbster anymore

[CaptainMusky]

Captain Musky

that was alittle sacrism

I dont care what kind of fish is going into mille lacs

the best natural reproducing lake in the world

i dont want any of my license or tax money going to restock it

while nets are taking fish out!!!!!

get the restocking money from across the street at the casino!!!!!!!!

Got it, Kind of thought about that as I was replying.

[WallEYES]

There will be no fish left in my opinion to keep....No Dnr enforcement at any landings that I see to overlook netting just tribal enforcement....Change the name of the lake to Red Mille Lake?

[Musky Buck]

The part I can't figure out is why how many thousands of pounds of walleyes do they honestly really need to take out of the lake, and did the treaty really specify "walleye" netting ? Why can't it be carp,white sucker, lake whitefish, tullibee or redhorse sucker netting ? Like many have said sell your cabin, don't fish there, that's what many have done, and go enjoy another fishery, you won't have to worry about the wind as much, no slots, and you just may find a new hotspot and you'll again fish for fun the way fishing is meant to be and it will free up your mind at least some, life is to short guys, we aren't guaranteed tomorrow. I also understand the right to fight for what's right, so this is the stickiest issue we got and I took the easiest way out and quit fishing there even musky fishing is done for me, I know it isn't that simple for so many.

[RiverFish]

The part I can't figure out is why how many thousands of pounds of walleyes do they honestly really need to take out of the lake, and did the treaty really specify "walleye" netting ? Why can't it be carp,white sucker, lake whitefish, tullibee or redhorse sucker netting ?

"They" are allowed less pounds than the rod/reel anglers. Do sport anglers "honestly need" that many pounds of walleye?

Mille Lacs is being managed for a walleye harvest of 500,000 pounds. The protected slot is meant to hold the take by sport anglers to 357,500 pounds. The tribal quota is 142,500 pounds.

[Musky Buck]

OK thanks riverfish, true enough. I just thought I repeat thought that it was more for sustinance as I doubt their were many buffets and restaurants back in those days, was it a vague enough treaty to allow for the sale of fish ? Did people trade fur vs. currency back in those days, I know I better read the treaty and get up to snuff that way, but I think my comments are what so many likely wonder and that's likely why it is the mess it is, like me many don't understand it much or have the time to understand it much. How accurate is the take of fish out of the big pond, when you start talking a half million pounds. Anyway, it all is what it all is and 1 of my best friends in college is a chief of the tribe today, I wish we could've kept on being friends, we were both game, but our careers took us out of touch.

[Red Miller]

MuskyBuck, I know you may think you need to have every little fact before you can take a stand but thats not the case, (at least in my world). You feel how you feel for a reason and others feel the same for maybe different reasons. My point is, your position is just as relevant as mine or anyone elses. If things are not acceptable in the current situation for whatever reason, shout it out. You are not alone. Right or wrong, thats your right as a human being.

[Stick in Mud]

Well, for what it's worth, I was just up at the Pond last night, and the DNR folks were sitting at the access while they were netting. This was at 10:30 or 11:00 at night. The harvest is being recorded.

Went by this morning, and the DNR was there weighing everything caught. I'm not worried that the harvest will be over the alottmnet. Every single time I've seen netting, there's always been a recorder there to weigh each fish.

Just my .02.

[northender]

Well, for what it's worth, I was just up at the Pond last night, and the DNR folks were sitting at the access while they were netting. This was at 10:30 or 11:00 at night. The harvest is being recorded.

Went by this morning, and the DNR was there weighing everything caught. I'm not worried that the harvest will be over the alottmnet. Every single time I've seen netting, there's always been a recorder there to weigh each fish.

Just my .02.

MN. DNR reps or GLIFWC DNR reps?

[theharvester]

yes they weighed everything they brought in but were they in the boats watching the "releases" just watched a video chucking northerns back that were in the boat a long time and they drove way out where they thought they were out of sight its on you tube

[Stick in Mud]

I'm not sure if they were out in a boat on the lake with them...and I don't know which enforcement agency they belonged to, as I just drove by and didn't stick around.

[WallEYES]

CARMIKE

Been at the accesses on NW side no DNR enforcement only GLIFWC enforcement

[lispeej]

It will be interesting to see how the catches will be this year with the drop in the slot limit. I remember the majority of the eyes we caught last year were all released. I will keep my opinion to myself. Happy fishing!

[Stick in Mud]

Thanks for the clarification, WallEYES.

[lispeej]

It will be interesting to see how the catches will be this year with the drop in the slot limit. I remember the majority of the eyes we caught last year were all released. I will keep my opinion to myself. Happy fishing!

OOPS. I meant to say with the "increase" in the slot limit.

But I'm sure you guys knew what I meant.

Happy fishing!

[minniwinni91]

Anyone who says they won't keep one smaller than 15in is a liar and will end up starving. This slot is not the end of the world I remember just a few years ago when there was only a 4 inch window that you could keep them. The lake will be just fine and continue to produce fish. It's important to remember the DNR doesn't do things to [PoorWordUsage] the anglers off although it may seem that way.

Mille Lacs will continue to thrive there is no doubt about that. Sometimes you just have to suck it up for a few years

[ThndrDkl]

new slot while the indians are still netting...rubbing salt on an open wound.

agreed-what a bunch of bull

[BrdHunter01]

Anyone who says they won't keep one smaller than 15in is a liar and will end up starving. This slot is not the end of the world I remember just a few years ago when there was only a 4 inch window that you could keep them. The lake will be just fine and continue to produce fish. It's important to remember the DNR doesn't do things to [PoorWordUsage] the anglers off although it may seem that way.

Mille Lacs will continue to thrive there is no doubt about that. Sometimes you just have to suck it up for a few years

Remember when it was a 14-16 inch slot for a FULL year? It was when the Indians fist started netting and the dnr almost crapped there pants cuz they had no clue how this was going to play out....

Fast forward 12 years..... we are inching our way back to a 2 inch slot and the dnr pants are starting to fill up very quickly! And for good reason!

[Stick in Mud]

Whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine...breath...whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine....breath. Enough already.

[BrdHunter01]

Ru sad? I'm not whining just stating the truth. I fished the lake every weekend when it was a 14-16 inch slot and I will again this year. Keep turning a blind eye to the facts.

[Ole #1]

Whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine...breath...whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine....breath. Enough already.

Yup, I agree. Who cares if they change the slot from 18 down to 17. It's really not a big deal. I also fished the lake when you could only keep a walleye from 14-16, and you just keep less fish is all. The slot has obviously done a lot of good on this lake, lots of big fish.

[BrdHunter01]

When they first made the 18-28 slot wasn't there objective to not have to change it? Hmmmmm

[tfin]

The slot is changing because the huge number of fish kept and limits made before the year started. It's in no way an indication of the population of fish still in the lake.

[BrdHunter01]

Your right, the SSB (spawning stock biomass) numbers and the tribal netting quota give no indication to the walleye population. considering the record ice out and the longest netting season on record.