DNR walleye reproduction seminar

[fish_hunt_guy]

I went to the meeting last night in Isle with an open mind. But after listening to the speaker I realized he really is in denial. Just a government politically correct puppet nothing more. He was very contradictory saying it doesnt affect the spawn to have nets out during the spring, but angling might and often does hurt the spawning becuase anglers can concentrate on areas with lots of fish. And netters dont!? At first he didnt have an opinion about what happened on Red Lake years ago becuasue he wasnt a part of the solution, but then at the end of the night when the topic came up again he said it was a totally different situation than Mille Lacs for various bogus reasons he explained? He also said there was no correlation to there currently being an influx of small walleye in the lake and the fact that there has been little netting the past two springs due to lake ice out. Also when asked he said "YES" there is a claus in the treaty that the DNR has a right to stop nettting of the lake if they feel the fishery is in jeapordy, but then went on to say there is a claus within the claus which he couldnt quite explain. He would basically just murmur awhile until you couldnt understand him and go to the next question. I just hope this gets resolved in my lifetime. This is completely ridiculous. Just senseless in my opinion. How did these guys become such spineless puppets and how can they be replaced? Can they be voted out or once there in are they in for good? Common sense needs to replace political correctness.

[delcecchi]

You should note that a walleye on the ice outside a shanty also doesn't spawn.

It may be that the whole idea of harvest regulation by protected slot doesn't work in some situations or on some lakes.

[laportian]

Red Lake and Mille Lacs don't compare. I was there for the Red Lake deal. Mille Lacs gets netted by a few dozen crews for a couple weeks each spawn, each stringing out only 6 or 8 nets at a time. Red Lake was netted by 50 crews running 25 to 40 nets at a whack for 6 or 7 months out of each year. Big time difference there fish hunt guy.

[FowlSki]

If only the DNR could produce a large perch hatch, it would give the little walleyes a break and they wouldn't be the number one prey of the large walleyes...that would bring the walleye fishery back...oh wait, that happened!

Patience young Jedi. The fishery is on the rebound.

[fish_hunt_guy]

Your right I think Fowlski, and I cant wait. Getting the nets out of the lake during the spawn would be the cherry on top though.

[laker1]

O'kay where was this individual from? Office?

[fish_hunt_guy]

Yes he was definately an "office man." His name is Tom Jones. His title is Treaty Management Coordinator or something to that nature. What a joker, if it wasn't for netting he wouldnt have a job. No wonder he says netting during the spawn doesnt hurt the lake, but angling does. You cant even make this stuff up, comical.

[willyfahey]

No mention of the "blue ribbon panel?" I hope some day the DNR will opening say that harvesting walleye in any manner during the spawn puts an undue burden on the fishery.

[northender]

My Jones is quoted in the today's StarTribune that water clarity has NOT changed since the zeebs showed up at Mille Lacs in 2005. Locals have always said it hasn't changed in many years as well. Yet for the past 4-5 years, this same Jones guy has blamed the clearer water on more smallmouths and more predation of young of the year walleyes due to clearer water. So now that clear water is not to blame for anything in the past 9 years at least, what is it? Why is there 70-80 ( or even less) percent less walleyes in the lake than before the treaty management era began? Can't blame water clarity now, right?

[river rat316]

The slots have more to do with it than anything

[northender]

The slots have more to do with it than anything

No doubt. And why were the slots put into play? Per the DNR, on the record, to accommodate the treaty harvest. On the record, the DNR says there were zero walleye numbers issues leading into the treaty harvest era and no need for a change in management. Court orders changed that. Not biology.

So--the nets were and are the main reason behind the crash of the lake walleye numbers. Indirectly as much or more as directly. And Mr. Jones of the DNR world won't come out and say that in these infomercials.

[Bandersnatch]

Hmmmmm

So what about all of the slots for different species on all of the other lakes in Minnesota?

As far as low numbers of Walleye in the lake........

A) I don't have any faith in the DNR's numbers.

Back in the 60's when there was maybe a tenth of the Sport Fishing pressure, the lake was known as The Dead Sea for several years. Not a net to be seen.

The above begs the question.........

If you don't trust that the DNR's data on netting is accurate, how do you then use their data on populations to make your argument? They are only correct when it supports you?

Personally I don't think that they have any data that is correct that doesn't come from the latest political polling.

[BrdHunter01]

Back in the 60's when there was maybe a tenth of the Sport Fishing pressure, the lake was known as The Dead Sea for several years. Not a net to be seen.

That was due to an explosion in bait fish not lack of walleyes. I can't count how many times I've tried to explain this on here. If you actually believe the current demise of walleyes on Mille Lacs didn't start with Treaty Management, you need to open your eyes.

Good luck!

[northender]

Hmmmmm

So what about all of the slots for different species on all of the other lakes in Minnesota?

As far as low numbers of Walleye in the lake........

A) I don't have any faith in the DNR's numbers.

Back in the 60's when there was maybe a tenth of the Sport Fishing pressure, the lake was known as The Dead Sea for several years. Not a net to be seen.

The above begs the question.........

If you don't trust that the DNR's data on netting is accurate, how do you then use their data on populations to make your argument? They are only correct when it supports you?

Personally I don't think that they have any data that is correct that doesn't come from the latest political polling.

Watch where slots on other lakes, for example Winnie and Leech and Rainy go in the next few years--or take those lake's walleye numbers. None of them have had them in place as Mille Lacs has for 15 years but everyone of them now are being closely studied behind the scenes regarding the negative impacts of the slot limits.

Slot limits, no doubt, can a play a very positive role in building a lake back such as Leech or building a more diverse year class balance in a predominately small fish lake but in the end , if in place for too long, slot limits ultimately kill off the very species that it originally grew. It is inevitable and very predictable--as it was by biologists early on at Mille Lacs.

The dead sea years were dead for the average angler but local guides thrived during those periods and walleye numbers were at all time highs with all year classes balanced.

Netting numbers are easily questioned when one watches how the DNR comes up with them, exclusively via Tribal reports and counts. You can easily question the DNR's take on the lack of impact the netting has on the lake because they do not say the Treaty era management was put into place only to accommodate the netting itself. They are on the record with that. Also, when the DNR says the netting has no effect because a dead fish is a dead fish is flawed. Random tagging studies of walleyes, taken by DNR nets, show that only about 5-10 percent of the tagged walleyes ever get caught by anglers and in the same year they are tagged, even a smaller percentage get caught by anglers. So, easily, the DNR take on the impact of netting is questioned. A gill netted fish is a dead fish but if not gill netted, it most likely would spawn several springs and would most likely, obviously, not be killed the same year by hook and line--or at least could be released by an angler if caught. Do the math...and justify some or all of the concerns and doubts of the info the DNR spews out.

[northender]

That was due to an explosion in bait fish not lack of walleyes. I can't count how many times I've tried to explain this on here. If you actually believe the current demise of walleyes on Mille Lacs didn't start with Treaty Management, you need to open your eyes.

Good luck!

EXACTLY!! It is not debatable if viewed and thought out with an open mind. "Treaty era management" (gill-netting during the spawn and slot limits etc.) caused the entire crash of the walleye numbers in the lake. No other reasoning and or source holds any factual on the record weight. None. It can't be found.

Over and out!

[GravelBar]

I was up on Mille Lacs this summer and saw a single tribe member bring in his daily limit. 10 Walleyes between 22 to 28 inches. I would guess the weight to be approximately 50 pounds. My question is where does the walleyes caught by the tribe during the summer count? Are these all free and above their netting limits? I also wonder how many thousands of pounds of Walleyes are taken this way. I believe both tribe and non-tribe walleye limits should be the same while Angling.

[Red Miller]

Ya...its pretty pitiful. What can I say that wont get censored. The lake is a disaster and there is perfect of example of why.

[laportian]

I was up on Mille Lacs this summer and saw a single tribe member bring in his daily limit. 10 Walleyes between 22 to 28 inches. I would guess the weight to be approximately 50 pounds. My question is where does the walleyes caught by the tribe during the summer count? Are these all free and above their netting limits? I also wonder how many thousands of pounds of Walleyes are taken this way. I believe both tribe and non-tribe walleye limits should be the same while Angling.

Im calling bull on this gravel. Every time there is a Mille Lacs netting thread you pipe in with this 10 fish thing. So now you witness Natives with 50 pound stringers? Uh-huh. Check his posts with anything concerning Mille Lacs and netting; there is a post by gravel crying about their 10 fish limit. Im so sure.

[hockeybc69]

Apparently the tribal members are very good anglers. I dont know anyone that has caught that many fish of that size in one day on the big pond this summer.......

[PurpleFloyd]

I was up on Mille Lacs this summer and saw a single tribe member bring in his daily limit. 10 Walleyes between 22 to 28 inches. I would guess the weight to be approximately 50 pounds. My question is where does the walleyes caught by the tribe during the summer count? Are these all free and above their netting limits? I also wonder how many thousands of pounds of Walleyes are taken this way. I believe both tribe and non-tribe walleye limits should be the same while Angling.

I am not sure but if the fish are so depleted and yet he can catch that many fish that size in a day, as him if I can hire him as a guide next year.

[GravelBar]

Every guide on the lake could double or triple that amount. You just can't keep them because your not a member of the tribe.

[PurpleFloyd]

So then you are saying there are plenty of fish in the lake?

[GravelBar]

No I am not saying there are a lot of fish in the lake. I simply want to know how the 20,000 lbs of walleye taking by the tribe via angling figure into the limits set for tribe and non-tribe members? Does the 20,000 lbs count against the tribes netting limits? If not where does it get counted?

[gregg52]

You should note that a walleye on the ice outside a shanty also doesn't spawn.

It may be that the whole idea of harvest regulation by protected slot doesn't work in some situations or on some lakes.

that statement about walleyes on the ice not spawning might be the silliest comment I've seen on the whole mille deal

that solved the problem right there ban ice fishing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

good lord !!!!!!!!!!!!!

[PurpleFloyd]

No I am not saying there are a lot of fish in the lake. I simply want to know how the 20,000 lbs of walleye taking by the tribe via angling figure into the limits set for tribe and non-tribe members? Does the 20,000 lbs count against the tribes netting limits? If not where does it get counted?

I am not sure but when you claim to see someone with a 50 lb stringer and claim every guide could do that it indicates to me that there is a pretty good fish population.

[GravelBar]

Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

Quote from Mark Twain

[PurpleFloyd]

Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

Quote from Mark Twain

is that how you define the tactic of claiming there are no fish yet someone can catch a 50 lb stringer of big walleye?

Or are you too insecure with your position to allow someone to question you on it? I suspect it's the latter.

[delcecchi]

Gregg, my point was that a walleye spawns once a year. Killing it in January keeps it from spawning just like killing it in April. That may sound stupid to you but it is true. In fact if a fish is killed in July it won't spawn in the spring either. Why would it make any difference if a fish was killed 5 minutes before it spawns, or 5 days or 3 months? Protecting the fish during the spawn only works to the extent that it makes it more difficult to harvest them. It has nothing to do with how many eggs get laid.

Besides, isn't the problem not that insufficient eggs are laid, or fry produced, but that the fry don't make it to age two?

All harvest by band members is supposed to be reported and count against the Native share, as I understand it.

I am reading this thread because the west half of Lake Vermilion has a similar problem (with no netting)

[northender]

Gregg, my point was that a walleye spawns once a year. Killing it in January keeps it from spawning just like killing it in April. That may sound stupid to you but it is true. In fact if a fish is killed in July it won't spawn in the spring either. Why would it make any difference if a fish was killed 5 minutes before it spawns, or 5 days or 3 months? Protecting the fish during the spawn only works to the extent that it makes it more difficult to harvest them. It has nothing to do with how many eggs get laid.

Besides, isn't the problem not that insufficient eggs are laid, or fry produced, but that the fry don't make it to age two?

All harvest by band members is supposed to be reported and count against the Native share, as I understand it.

I am reading this thread because the west half of Lake Vermilion has a similar problem (with no netting)

A gill-netted walleye is dead no matter when and will never spawn again. There is a 90 percent or better ( based on DNR studies via tagging walleyes at Mille Lacs using nets) chance that a gill-netted walleye would not have been killed in the same year by hook and line. So, this "dead walleye is a dead walleye no matter when it is killed" to show netting has no major impact is, obviously, wrong and very flawed at best.

How many fish in the past 15 years would have spawned multiple years instead of being netted--if the netting had not been in place? Do the math! Divide the total "reported" tribal harvest poundage for the past 14-15 years by 1.8 pounds and you'll have your number. No impact?

Now, before anyone says angler "harvest poundage " is no different than tribal harvest poundage...remember--angler "harvest" has been in place for decades before the treaty era harvest. And the past 15 years angler harvest has been around the same or less than the historical averages for the past 50 years of record keeping. Any proof, historically, all the way up to the treaty harvest era, angling had a negative impact?

Tell us the netting and the court ordered/forced treaty era management is not the major/only blame for the walleye crash at Mille Lacs?

Wide Slot limits--especially aimed at protecting big fish, "long term" such as at Mille Lacs and now more recently at other big historical natural walleye factories, are devastating. It was and is predictable. It is not too late (getting close at a few though)at the other big lakes...unlike Mille Lacs which has already crashed. It takes about 10-12 years...or a little longer such as at Leech where major stocking is taking place every year.

[Search Function]

I was up on Mille Lacs this summer and saw a single tribe member bring in his daily limit. 10 Walleyes between 22 to 28 inches. I would guess the weight to be approximately 50 pounds. My question is where does the walleyes caught by the tribe during the summer count? Are these all free and above their netting limits? I also wonder how many thousands of pounds of Walleyes are taken this way. I believe both tribe and non-tribe walleye limits should be the same while Angling.

It's my understanding that not very many Indians fish the lake with hook and line.