New Slot Rules

[Kyhl]

Looks like it is a compromise approach trying to appease all sides.

This is what I don't understand. Why is the DNR trying to appease anyone? The fishery should be their first goal, not opinions of fisherman and resort owners because without a fishery there are no fisherman or resort owners.

So focus on fixing the fishery instead of compromising with special interests that are putting their interests ahead of the fishery.

I don't get it.

[pushbutton]

The DNR gets to make a lot of the smaller decisions in any given outdoor management senario, but in a case like Mille Lacs, doubt your going to see what is "right" for the lake. Most big decisions are made by their bosses....the suit wearing politicians along with their lawyers and lobbyists.... in St Paul.

[John Mickish]

My 2cents.

You don't HAVE to keep fish. Just because someone else gets to, whether you think its fair or not, you CAN be the bigger person and let them go.

The DNR dosen't HAVE to make anyone happy. From locals to resort owners to people that travel to fish. It's not the DNRs job to make anyone happy.

The DNR has to play within the rules set forth by the state and federal government. Changine rules is not easy.

The DNRs job is to protect the lake. Period. Some of the rules they set to do their primary job make people mad, and mad people complain loudly, then the press gets involved which makes the DNRs job harder.

We all have to work together on this or it will end up in the toilet. We NEED to put our personal greed aside for awile so things can work themselves out. The lake has lots of things going on in her that have never been there before, so be patient.

[Walleyehooker]

The bottom line is ML is a heavily pressured lake with a shared quota between netting and anglers and is proveing it cant sustain the year round pressure with the past quotas and slot limits. At least this will open up some eyes to what is really going on and get more attention. So if both are going to co exsist you better get used to very tight restrictions and possibly shorter seasons.

[northender]

My 2cents.

You don't HAVE to keep fish. Just because someone else gets to, whether you think its fair or not, you CAN be the bigger person and let them go.

The DNR dosen't HAVE to make anyone happy. From locals to resort owners to people that travel to fish. It's not the DNRs job to make anyone happy.

The DNR has to play within the rules set forth by the state and federal government. Changine rules is not easy.

The DNRs job is to protect the lake. Period. Some of the rules they set to do their primary job make people mad, and mad people complain loudly, then the press gets involved which makes the DNRs job harder.

We all have to work together on this or it will end up in the toilet. We NEED to put our personal greed aside for awile so things can work themselves out. The lake has lots of things going on in her that have never been there before, so be patient.

Per the Mn. Constitution "Sec. 12. Preservation of hunting and fishing.

Hunting and fishing and the taking of game and fish are a valued part of our heritage that shall be forever preserved for the people and shall be managed by law and regulation for the public good."

With that in place, has the MN. DNR stayed within this law ( passed by the public in Nov. of '98) by agreeing, as the federal courts gave them the option to do or not, to the treaty harvest as we have known it at Lake Mille Lacs?

Per this law, has the DNR done it's job correctly by not going back to court and acting in the best interests of the public this law mandates the DNR to do?

[Walleyehooker]

Think about it in dollars

Their quota is around 80,000 pounds

In fillets you would be lucky to get 40,000 pounds

At $10 a pound that is $400,000 but at wholesale would be more likely $4-5 a pound or $160,000-$200,000

Now what is that going to cost the state in tourism dollars,lost jobs and taxes etc.

[pushbutton]

A state law is usually not going to take precedent over a supreme court decision...especially one that treats the bands as a separate sovereign entity. Not saying its right or wrong, you can debate that all you want, but no way is the state going to challenge the ruling because of something found in our state constitution.

There is a clause in the court ruling that addresses the health of the lake...and if one side or the other feels the other is doing irreparable damage...there is probably some type of mediation process. But, before that would ever happen the courts would make both sides sit down and work it out....which has been done...with both sides taking less. Again, you can debate if this is fair or not.....wrong or right. But bottom line is that the bands can net if they choose to and there is not a whole lot you can do about it.

[northender]

Think about it in dollars

Their quota is around 80,000 pounds

In fillets you would be lucky to get 40,000 pounds

At $10 a pound that is $400,000 but at wholesale would be more likely $4-5 a pound or $160,000-$200,000

Now what is that going to cost the state in tourism dollars,lost jobs and taxes etc.

EXACTLY!

[BrdHunter01]

They should do earn a walleye. Whack a smallmouth bass, northern or musky before you can catch walleye. Sounds good to me!

+1

[northender]

A state law is usually not going to take precedent over a supreme court decision...especially one that treats the bands as a separate sovereign entity. Not saying its right or wrong, you can debate that all you want, but no way is the state going to challenge the ruling because of something found in our state constitution.

There is a clause in the court ruling that addresses the health of the lake...and if one side or the other feels the other is doing irreparable damage...there is probably some type of mediation process. But, before that would ever happen the courts would make both sides sit down and work it out....which has been done...with both sides taking less. Again, you can debate if this is fair or not.....wrong or right. But bottom line is that the bands can net if they choose to and there is not a whole lot you can do about it.

The Mn. DNR has not, per this law, acted in good faith on behalf of the public, let alone abiding by this law, by not formally taking this back to court. It makes no matter if they can win or lose the argument. It is their obligation, per this law, to act on the issues, if there is proof the potential of harm to the publicly owned resource is in place. They have publicly admitted to that aspect already. Federal law allows, generally, let alone that the courts specificly told them to do so in the Mille Lacs case, the state to come to them on behalf of the state residents. In this case, the DNR is mandated to do so.

[pushbutton]

Bet there are a ton of instances and issues that arise all the time between state and federal law and that state entities could probably go to court over. Does not mean it is going to happen though....and if I were you would probably not hold your breath waiting for for some ordinary mid level DNR dude who feels like losing his job, decides to ignore his superiors, foot the legal bill himself, and take on the national tribal sovereignty issue because he does not like netting walleyes on lake Mille Lacs.

[northender]

Bet there are a ton of instances and issues that arise all the time between state and federal law and that state entities could probably go to court over. Does not mean it is going to happen though....and if I were you would probably not hold your breath waiting for for some ordinary mid level DNR dude who feels like losing his job, decides to ignore his superiors, foot the legal bill himself, and take on the national tribal sovereignty issue because he does not like netting walleyes on lake Mille Lacs.

And that attitude of don't try has got Mille Lacs where it is.

[pushbutton]

And what would you propose to do? Armchair/buddies in a bar generated ideas aside...... Look, because I say your not going to erase 200 year old case law because of some walleyes on a lake in central minnesota does not mean I am a defeatist. It just means your not going to overturn 200 years of case law because of some walleyes in central minnesota.

[northender]

And what would you propose to do? Armchair/buddies in a bar generated ideas aside...... Look, because I say your not going to erase 200 year old case law because of some walleyes on a lake in central minnesota does not mean I am a defeatist. It just means your not going to overturn 200 years of case law because of some walleyes in central minnesota.

The Mille Lacs case was passed by one vote by a liberal federal court(s). The court is now heavily weighted the other way, throughout the whole federal court system. I wouldn't bet against potential change. Laws out live their need. Times change.

200 years ago, do you think the south ever figured there would be a national monument of the likes of Rosa Parks? 100 plus years ago, did anyone believe women would be allowed to vote?

[pushbutton]

Hey, if I am wrong...great! Just remember there have been a lot of conservative courts over those 200 years. Regardless, our arguing law semantics does not help the walleye out, and hopefully we each can do our part to do so ...... Got to go to work!

[alleyes]

northender, I appreciate your thoughtful and imformative posts on this topic. Thank you and keep it up!

[Walleyehooker]

Not much a guy can do after the supreme court ruleing but honestly I hope the lake collapses and grabs national attention and MAYBE clears out the casino parking lot. Then just maybe with enough attention we can try to get rid of netting or at LEAST generate a reasonable buyout. The way I see it the DNR is better at restoreing fisheries than they are at maintaining them anyway.

[slurpie]

Agreed if you want to see a big change hope it crashes hard to point where you can't get an eye. Good news would be the perch should make a heck of a come back.Maybe we can call walleye a cyclical fish like the crappie.

[John Mickish]

If the supreme court won't go back and visit Roe v Wade, there isn't a snowballs chance in heck they will touch the tribal netting.

We all are thinking the same thing, but without help in the form of a huge pile of money to pay the lobbyist, in reality, I don't see how anything can change. Do you really think that your congressman cares if you catch fish on Mille Lacs? He's just going to tell you to go to Farm Island.

[tfin]

Bleeble blabble,

The DNR does exist to try to make us happy. Neither the lake nor the fish are paying the DNR.

The new slot limit will work just as it did after 2007 and hopefully they will do a better job after the lake comes back.

The casino's have nothing to do with anything.

The resort owners will take a hit but may be better off in the future. Just like any of us blue collar workers who get laid off from time to time.

There's no logical arguement from those that preach catch and release is the answer because they don't care what the slot is anyway. This arguement is about being able to catch and eat fish.

For those of you that think the DNR is lacking. Just think how bad the fishing would be without them. Do you think it's easy to keep the masses from destroying the fisheries? You'd have to be a complete silly-me to think we'd be better off without them. And don't try to do their job without having the responsibilties and pressure that go with it. All of you that have said what you would do if you were them have seen how many posts both agree and disagree with you. Now think about having other people's happiness and livelyhood depending on the decision you make.

[kgpcr4]

My 2cents.

You don't HAVE to keep fish. Just because someone else gets to, whether you think its fair or not, you CAN be the bigger person and let them go.

The DNR dosen't HAVE to make anyone happy. From locals to resort owners to people that travel to fish. It's not the DNRs job to make anyone happy.

The DNR has to play within the rules set forth by the state and federal government. Changine rules is not easy.

The DNRs job is to protect the lake. Period. Some of the rules they set to do their primary job make people mad, and mad people complain loudly, then the press gets involved which makes the DNRs job harder.

We all have to work together on this or it will end up in the toilet. We NEED to put our personal greed aside for awile so things can work themselves out. The lake has lots of things going on in her that have never been there before, so be patient.

Be the bigger person and let them go?? Why catch and release fish so some of them can die? I wlll release those outside the slot because thats the law but i dont see the sense in it.Who kills more fish, The guy who goes and takes two fish and quits or the guy who catches 20 and lets them all go? My vote is for the guy who kills his two and stops. I love to eat fish and i plan on keeping some. If that makes me a neanderthal then i wear that badge with pride. If all i wanted to do is C&R i would fish carp in the river. If you are serious about protecting fish then outlaw live bait. Gut hooked fish often die. Outlaw barbed hooks. No treble hooks just one single hook like to do in Alaska on the Kenai river. That would help cut down on fish that get tore up during the fight. C&R often kills as well so at least my fish dont get wasted. Anyone who has fished the lake has seen the dead walleye floating that fell victim to C&R so i would not call myself a bigger man for doing it.

[CaptainMusky]

There better not be any fishing tournaments on the lake this year or for the foreseeable future.

[smackem33]

Kgp3r4, I will also sport that sweet badge!! Great post

[wally243]

I have been hearing bits about extending the night closure. Can someone please tell me why we even have a night closure. Wouldn't it be more intellegent to get rid of the night ban completely and close the season from the Wednesday after the 4th till the water is cooler again in the fall. You see very very few floaters until July and you would offset some of the business loss with the extended hours early. I think we need one fish bag limit under the current set up 19-21. Bottom line is we only get x pounds so cut it up anyway you like it. Take a 2 fish limit to 1 and you double the season for getting super. Take away the floaters in July and put more poles in the water in may and you maximize what you have. I have a family of 4 and if 2 of us go get 20" walleyes and cook a little toast and beans we have super. The days of filling your freezer for yourself and the relatives and neighbors I would hope is in the past.

The netting is another subject of coarse..

[greenbackslayer]

Why should a guy not keep his 4 fish limit on Mille Lacs????? If i drive an hour and a half one way to catch fish and I am legal doing so. Why should I throw the keepers that are extremely hard to find in the first place back. The bass over 20 inches would be for someone to mount that fish.... not keep it and eat it.

[smackem33]

Early season night fishing is about as easy as it gets, park on top of some rocks throw out a night BRITE cork, leech ft off the bottom and bam walleye! Its just to easy to catch them that's why there is a night ban. And closing the season during the warm part of the year would stink dragging lead core is the funnest part of the summer in my boat!

[smackem33]

Are smallies good to eat? I've never tried them

[TRZ II]

small to medium sized (15") smallies are great to eat! They are much better than pike. Mixed in with a batch of deep fried walleye a novice would never tell the difference. I've done it many times. I would bet that the smallies on Mille Lacs taste great and I plan to find out this fall. Larger smallies are also great smoked.

[wally243]

greenback not sure who you are talking to??

smacker I am using the assumptioin that if the slot goes to 19-21 or 20-22 85 percent of boats are going to have their limit anyway weather they fish till 10 or 1 am what is the difference as long as the fish can handle it. They are made to be caught and kept at a conservation frienly level. You maximize your fishing experience with what you have to work with. You may have fun with lead core, but now you are killing tons of fish that count against our quota and quit frankly against the lake we are trying to save. If you fish dep water in July I would recomend keeping the fish or not fishing. Someone on here knows the hook mortality number and I would bet we could turn 90 percent of the number into take home pounds with proper care and management. The limit is a horse a piece. You can keep them for 3 weeks or a month and a half either way it sucks. Just my opinion and it is fine if you disagree. If the limit was one it would last longer and less would be targeted while they remove the night ban I guess. It just plain sucks and it is what it is.

[John Mickish]

Bass and musky guys have been practicing catch and release for years. Take a look at what has happened to those populations in the last 20 years and then tell me you wouldn't like that to happen to walleyes. Catching and properly releasing your fish will cause little harm. The biggest problem with walleye guys is they don't know how to properly handle big fish.

I have witnessed to many times how people keep the fish out of the water for minutes while someone is tryng to find the camera, or they use some cheap $10 knotted net that wipes all the slime off the fish. I have seen them perform a 5 minute surgery to try and save a 25 cent hook, releasing the fish only for a certain death. Not everybody does this, but enough do to make the hooking mortality more serious that it should. Bass guys get their fish back in the water in a hurry, and most musky guys only take the fish out of the water for a quick photo and back she goes.

I'm just sayin' that putting them back is an option. It's no secret that I don't keep fish so having all of the fish in the protected slot dosen't bother me at all.