Dnr's future plan for walleye slot?

[delcecchi]

The number of fry produced has not been a problem. The number of fish that make it to catchable size is the problem. 

And a fish killed in July or October  or February won't be spawning or producing eggs either.

[Weathertite]

No pun intended , But I believe someones feathers have been ruffled !!!!!

[leech~~]

3 hours ago, delcecchi said:

The number of fry produced has not been a problem. The number of fish that make it to catchable size is the problem. 

And a fish killed in July or October  or February won't be spawning or producing eggs either.

Del, please think over what you just stated. A fish "killed" by hook and line or Nets won't be spawning-agreed.

But you still have not explained why the number of fish are not making it to catchable size if the number of fry produced is not the problem? 

I still contend that it's all a numbers game and a 24" to 26" Killed Netted female can put out way more eggs then a Killed hook and line 18" female slot fish.

But the sad thing is a Net kills both not just 18" slots fish.

Below is from another site. Like they say, do the math an 18" Walleye is not going to put out as many eggs as a 24" so the survival rate of the 18" fish is going to be way less then the 24" fish.  If you keep netting out the larger fish you are not going to have as many fish in a lake Fry-catchable or other. Period! 

Now you can jump back in the pleasure of the Presidents stuff because your math just does not hold water.

 

Walleye

RELEASE ALL WALLEYE OVER 18 INCHES

Female Walleyes can produce on average 26,000 EGGS PER POUND of body weight. (That means that one 24 inch - 5.1 lb. Female Walleye can have over 130,000 eggs each year for spawning)

1% or less of all Walleye eggs hatch to become an adult Walleye. (Doing the math: One 5lb Walleye hatches Approx. 130,000 eggs of which 1% or less survive. That means 1300 WALLEYES could survive.

Edited February 9, 2016 by leech~~

[Bandersnatch]

"Walleye

RELEASE ALL WALLEYE OVER 18 INCHES"

 

Well, with the suspected predation that occurs by cannibalistic larger Walleye eating the YOY Walleye, your FishFacts just may be half of the problem in this instance.

[leech~~]

1 hour ago, Bandersnatch said:

"Walleye

RELEASE ALL WALLEYE OVER 18 INCHES"

 

Well, with the suspected predation that occurs by cannibalistic larger Walleye eating the YOY Walleye, your FishFacts just may be half of the problem in this instance.

Yes it is a fish eat fish world under that water. But, hasn't it always been way before and during Hook and line fishing?  So what has changed the most since the lake has become a resort and fishing mecca in the last 70-80 years? 

Come on you can say it. Netting!

Edited February 9, 2016 by leech~~

[delcecchi]

I don't know why you are so hung up on netting.  

The DNR's studies concluded that large walleye cannibalism of small walleyes was a significant contribution to the failure of several year classes to make it to catchable size, after first blaming pike and bass.

 

[leech~~]

49 minutes ago, delcecchi said:

I don't know why you are so hung up on netting.  

The DNR's studies concluded that large walleye cannibalism of small walleyes was a significant contribution to the failure of several year classes to make it to catchable size, after first blaming pike and bass.

 

Bahaha, "after first blaming pike and bass" why don't I always believe the DNR! And how many years, studies and cost did it take them to find that out!

Wolves aren't killing Moose and their calves too!

Edited February 9, 2016 by leech~~

[Bandersnatch]

1 hour ago, leech~~ said:

Yes it is a fish eat fish world under that water. But, hasn't it always been way before and during Hook and line fishing?  So what has changed the most since the lake has become a resort and fishing mecca in the last 70-80 years? 

Come on you can say it. Netting!

 

That in part, of course.

 

But face it. A busy day when I started fishing the lake was more than SIX boats out around Hennepin Island, not 60, or 100!! (or more!) Not to mention that back then No One Ever fished the flats. The Walleye season back then was the first six weeks, and then it was about done until freeze up!

[leech~~]

2 hours ago, Bandersnatch said:

 

That in part, of course.

 

But face it. A busy day when I started fishing the lake was more than SIX boats out around Hennepin Island, not 60, or 100!! (or more!) Not to mention that back then No One Ever fished the flats. The Walleye season back then was the first six weeks, and then it was about done until freeze up!

The Resort Launch boats have pounded the Flats for ever, even before the 18" foot Lund was made! And still plenty of fish to go around.

Edited February 9, 2016 by leech~~

[theharvester]

Fish has an option to bite or not bite .with a net they are caught whether they bite or not. Big Differnce lot harder to fish lake out than net it out .

[Bandersnatch]

22 minutes ago, leech~~ said:

The Resort Launch boats have pounded the Flats for ever, even before the 18" foot Lund was made! And still plenty of fish to go around.

Yeah, and back then I think there were four of them on the entire lake lol.

[leech~~]

33 minutes ago, Bandersnatch said:

Yeah, and back then I think there were four of them on the entire lake lol.

A really good book for you to read is this one to learn a little history on the Resorts and their Launch boats back then. There were a ton more Resorts open then, then there is now.

 

 

Flip to back Flip to front

Listen Playing... Paused   You're listening to a sample of the Audible audio edition.
Learn more

 

[delcecchi]

2 hours ago, theharvester said:

Fish has an option to bite or not bite .with a net they are caught whether they bite or not. Big Differnce lot harder to fish lake out than net it out .

Yep. but unless you believe there is a bunch of unsupervised unmonitored netting going on like there was on Red, netting doesn't take enough to be the problem.   And angling was effective enough to take hundreds of thousands of pounds per year. 

[leech~~]

26 minutes ago, delcecchi said:

Yep. but unless you believe there is a bunch of unsupervised unmonitored netting going on like there was on Red, netting doesn't take enough to be the problem.   And angling was effective enough to take hundreds of thousands of pounds per year.

Really, is that why the Band's netting quotes have always been thousands of pounds higher each year then Anglers?

[delcecchi]

15 minutes ago, leech~~ said:

Really, is that why the Band's netting quotes have always been thousands of pounds higher each year then Anglers?

You have that all wrong.  Anglers get much more than bands. 

For 2015

"Under this year’s quota, state anglers can harvest up to 28,600 pounds of walleye, and the eight Chippewa bands with 1837 Treaty harvest rights can harvest up to 11,400 pounds of walleye."

for 2014

"State-regulated hook-and-line anglers will get 42,900 pounds of the quota; 17,100 pounds will be reserved for the eight Minnesota and Wisconsin Chippewa bands that net the lake in spring."

You can find the numbers for earlier years easily on the web using google. 

In 2008 the anglers got 307,000 and the bands got 122,500

 

[Weathertite]

If anyone here actually believes ANYTHING  the DNR has to say then our natural resources are really in trouble. They don't have a clue as to what is going on , they are like when you go to the doctor and he says " Try this medicine and if you don't fell better in 2 weeks come back " . We need a complete overhaul of our DNR. We need people who can figure out what the REAL problem is and do what ever it takes to FIX it !!!!

[delcecchi]

1 hour ago, Weathertite said:

If anyone here actually believes ANYTHING  the DNR has to say then our natural resources are really in trouble. They don't have a clue as to what is going on , they are like when you go to the doctor and he says " Try this medicine and if you don't fell better in 2 weeks come back " . We need a complete overhaul of our DNR. We need people who can figure out what the REAL problem is and do what ever it takes to FIX it !!!!

So, what is it that you don't believe, and why? What would you do different with the state's share of the fish in the lake?

[slammer]

Lets say netting stops at some point.  I would really like to see the effect it has on the lake 3-5 years later.

[leech~~]

1 hour ago, delcecchi said:

 What would you do different with the state's share of the fish in the lake?

With the "States share". Net them all out and give them to the needy Comrade!

This is from the Perm site.

The people’s fish and lack of transparency

Ron Schara recognized the anger and distrust of the sport-fishing public over the DNR-tribal co-management of walleyes in Lake Mille Lacs. He writes that if DNR and tribal fish managers hope to change that, more transparency in the co-management process is needed.

Media often bring up the word transparency when they have questions about the way government operates. Stringent open meeting laws apply to almost every gathering where decisions by government officials are made. It’s part of Minnesota’s reputation for "clean" and “open” government.

Yet, when Minnesota is dealing with walleyes on Mille Lacs, complete transparency is lacking. Ever since the courts ordered co-management of Mille Lacs' fish, DNR and tribal fish managers regularly hold closed meetings regarding the people's walleyes. Major newspapers, who so love transparency, are editorially silent about the secrecy.

The fish management meetings likely are on the up and up. But without transparency, the public is in the dark about how decisions are made. Today we know those Mille Lacs fish management plans were, at best, faulty, ill-advised, or biologically inept.

Without transparency, who knows how many tribal nets go into the lake, or how the walleyes are counted? Of if Wisconsin band netters follow the same rules.

Transparency is the best way to deal with accusations that tribal netting is bad. But DNR and tribal leaders insist on secret negotiations in meetings closed to the public. Recently the DNR said some members of the new advisory committee could sit in on these negotiations. A few weeks later, the DNR said tribal officials objected, after which the DNR rolled over and concurred. The secrecy continues; meetings remain closed. And once again, the media say nothing.

Meanwhile, the fishing public's distrust goes on. Sadly, it doesn't need to be this way.

[creepworm]

12 hours ago, Weathertite said:

If anyone here actually believes ANYTHING  the DNR has to say then our natural resources are really in trouble. They don't have a clue as to what is going on , they are like when you go to the doctor and he says " Try this medicine and if you don't fell better in 2 weeks come back " . We need a complete overhaul of our DNR. We need people who can figure out what the REAL problem is and do what ever it takes to FIX it !!!!

This is a joke, right?

I would love to hear what your fisheries management qualifications are. PhD in fisheries? many years of experience in fisheries? Professional biology experience of any kind? Knowing all the intricacies of trying to manage a changing ecosystem while trying to keep several groups of people happy even though they all want different things? Managing people with the unrealistic expectation that fishery biologists are God, and know everything that is happening and why it is happening, instantaneously, as it is happening, without any hypothesis forming or experimentation?

If you do not have every single one of these qualifications then you should probably keep your completely asinine comments to yourself.  

[delcecchi]

Logic is the way to deal with allegations about tribal netting.  As for transparency, the governing body for tribal netting maintains a web site with detailed information about what has been netted.  Netting is more closely and honestly monitored than angling is. 

Here is a link to their information

http://www.glifwc.org/Fisheries/Inland/inland.html

The DNR needs to limit harvest of walleye in many lakes in Minnesota.  They chose to use slots since that seemed to be the least objectionable to anglers.  In some lakes slots seem to have had adverse effects that weren't foreseen by the DNR when coupled with natural processes happening in the lake.  Mille Lacs is one of those lakes. 

I don't know what kind of secret stuff the PERM crowd fears is going on in the meetings.  Do you?

And also recall that the PERM guys and Bud Grant and others contributed to the problem by torpedoing the buy out deal the state had with the Mille Lacs band and forcing the case to the Supreme Court. 

 

[Bandersnatch]

2 hours ago, creepworm said:

This is a joke, right?

I would love to hear what your fisheries management qualifications are. PhD in fisheries? many years of experience in fisheries? Professional biology experience of any kind? Knowing all the intricacies of trying to manage a changing ecosystem while trying to keep several groups of people happy even though they all want different things? Managing people with the unrealistic expectation that fishery biologists are God, and know everything that is happening and why it is happening, instantaneously, as it is happening, without any hypothesis forming or experimentation?

If you do not have every single one of these qualifications then you should probably keep your completely asinine comments to yourself.  

Here are mine.

 

Master of Common Sense.

 

Here is my observation: The public had the wool pulled over their eyes with the Blue Ribbon Panel that was supposed to come in and help out with this issue.

 

What did the Blue Ribbon Panel do? They went over the very same data collected by the MNDNR and Rubber Stamped the findings.

 

I call this an Epic Fail.

 

Anyone have a different take on that?

Edited February 10, 2016 by Bandersnatch
spelling

[creepworm]

15 hours ago, Weathertite said:

 

21 minutes ago, Bandersnatch said:

Here are mine.

 

Master of Common Sense.

 

Here is my observation: The public had the wool pulled over their eyes with the Blue Ribbon Panel that was supposed to come in and help out with this issue.

 

What did the Blue Ribbon Panel do? The went over the very same data collected by the MNDNR and Rubber Stamped the findings.

 

I call this an Epic Fail.

 

Anyone have a different take on that?

 

The Blue Ribbon Panel agreeing with the DNR is the DNR's fault? I guess I am not quite understanding your post.

The Blue Ribbon Panel, made up of fisheries experts from around the nation, "rubber stamped" the data. So basically, if you say the DNR "has no clue" or "the DNR needs a complete overhaul" you are saying the leading experts in the fisheries field have no clue, and basically that you know more about fisheries than the leaders in the field collectively.

What people fail to understand when they get all emotional, is that there is more we do not know about nature, than what we do know. And it is not even close. We make educated guesses, we study things to try to understand them, but with all the variables involved in nature we have no way of knowing how Species A will respond to management style B. We can take an educated guess, but in reality that is all that it is and there is no way of knowing it will work for sure.

So, to expect the DNR to be right every time is unrealistic. Especially with something as complicated as a large fishery in a changing climate, with large changes happening to the water chemistry, large changes to fish populations, invasive species being relatively new to the mix, a diverse set of anglers and property owners around the lake, all wanting something different, and then throwing the treaty part in and you have a mess like has never been seen before.

So, the DNR really has no baseline when it comes to this situation to base their educated guesses upon. To expect the DNR to get it right on the first try is unrealistic. It would be great if they did, but unrealistic to expect it.

Edited February 10, 2016 by creepworm

[leechlake]

Mille Lacs is unsolvable.  Too close to too many people, too easy to catch and net fish.  Most of the people aren't invested in the lake.  Fish it when it's good, take what you can, and fish somewhere else when it stinks.  That's the mentality of many that ruin it.

We have a place that's pretty far away, the lake is hard to fish for anyone who hasn't fished it for years, and most that fish it have a place on it so they are invested in the lake.  Pretty lucky situation and the fishing has been great for years.

[delcecchi]

Bandersnatch,

Data is data.   Do you think the data is incorrect?  What would you have the DNR do?  Remember that they can't do anything that would affect the local economy, built around tourism/angling, too much or the political backlash would be Huge. 

Personally I think they are hoping against hope that the 2013 year class and some good perch hatches will get them off the hot seat.  In the mean time the resorts will be bailed out, a un-needed hatchery will be built, and the DNR will restrict harvest of walleye as best they can while throwing the bass and pike to the wolves. 

[Bandersnatch]

1 hour ago, creepworm said:

The Blue Ribbon Panel agreeing with the DNR is the DNR's fault? I guess I am not quite understanding your post.

The Blue Ribbon Panel, made up of fisheries experts from around the nation, "rubber stamped" the data. So basically, if you say the DNR "has no clue" or "the DNR needs a complete overhaul" you are saying the leading experts in the fisheries field have no clue, and basically that you know more about fisheries than the leaders in the field collectively.

What people fail to understand when they get all emotional, is that there is more we do not know about nature, than what we do know. And it is not even close. We make educated guesses, we study things to try to understand them, but with all the variables involved in nature we have no way of knowing how Species A will respond to management style B. We can take an educated guess, but in reality that is all that it is and there is no way of knowing it will work for sure.

So, to expect the DNR to be right every time is unrealistic. Especially with something as complicated as a large fishery in a changing climate, with large changes happening to the water chemistry, large changes to fish populations, invasive species being relatively new to the mix, a diverse set of anglers and property owners around the lake, all wanting something different, and then throwing the treaty part in and you have a mess like has never been seen before.

So, the DNR really has no baseline when it comes to this situation to base their educated guesses upon. To expect the DNR to get it right on the first try is unrealistic. It would be great if they did, but unrealistic to expect it.

I could take the time explain it to you, but I won't waste that time as you would simply ignore it, as evidenced by your post.

Instead I will deflect (as you have attempted to) an focus on your statement(s): "So, to expect the DNR to be right every time is unrealistic." "So, the DNR really has no baseline when it comes to this situation to base their educated guesses upon."

1) When have they ever got it right visa vi Mille Lac.

2) No base line? Then what the hell has my money been doing since 1960? Paying for their parking downtown?

 

You can play DNR apologist all that you care to. That is your right.

Just don't expect me to swallow that drivel.

 

[creepworm]

As I said in my post you quoted, "what people fail to understand when they get all emotional".

[Bandersnatch]

18 minutes ago, creepworm said:

As I said in my post you quoted, "what people fail to understand when they get all emotional".

I'm not emotional whatsoever.

 

But I won't stand by and be called an idiot either.

[leech~~]

3 hours ago, leechlake said:

Mille Lacs is unsolvable.  Too close to too many people, too easy to catch and net fish.  Most of the people aren't invested in the lake.  Fish it when it's good, take what you can, and fish somewhere else when it stinks.  That's the mentality of many that ruin it.

We have a place that's pretty far away, the lake is hard to fish for anyone who hasn't fished it for years, and most that fish it have a place on it so they are invested in the lake.  Pretty lucky situation and the fishing has been great for years.

Isn't that some where up by Cass Lake?

[delcecchi]

12 minutes ago, leech~~ said:

Isn't that some where up by Cass Lake?

BTW, how many trophy pike have the harpooners taken out of Cass and Mille Lacs the last few years?