DNR deal rejected by tribe

[avrg.joe]

I just heard on the radio that the tribe has rejected the DNR's proposal. They said the matter will be brought before an arbitrator.

What do you think will come of this?

[Kidd]

I believe the Band is confidant that an arbitrator will rule in their favor; otherwise they would continue to negotiate. The one fact in their favor is that we are 70,000 pounds over our limit and if you believe the DNR projected safe harvest limits we truly are damaging the resource. One hope we have is that an arbitrator can ask the DNR to reevaluate the safe harvest limits. Let's hope this works out for the best.

[Guest]

If this is true, this means there will be no night ban.

------------------
MILLE LACS AREA GUIDE SERVICE
651-271-5459 http://fishingminnesota.com/millelacsguide/
click here

[Guest]

What ever happened to good ol' Mother Nature controling it's own resources?

If we NEVER touched the lake in the first place, the MUSKIES wouldn't be in there, and the WALLEYES would be just fine.

At some point we will ALL be taught a valuable lesson on taking matters into our own hands that are way too huge and complicated for us to possibly comprehend. By that I mean the DNR and all the "special regualtions" that supposedly "protect" the lake.

Just how I see it: Leave it alone, and let it do it's own thing.

PCG

[Guest]

PCG,

Jkrash has this posted in the Vermilion forum. I don't think that the problems that are occuring on MilleLacs have anything to do with the current Muskie population.

Join the sportsman club of Lake Vermilion. If your not a member you should be, they put out some great articles in there news letter so people don't have to speculate on the health of Lake Vermilion and it's fishery.
Here's a article that I copied.

"But the ?#!@% things eat all the walleyes." From the minute muskellunge, or muskies, are introduced into a body of water, that is the usual response from anglers. They have concerns about their fishing because the muskie is the top predator (with the exception of the angler!) in an aquatic ecosystem. Muskies have a reputation for being voracious predators as well. But do anglers have anything to be concerned about? Let's take a look.
What exactly do muskies eat? If you answered "Anything they want to" you pretty much hit the nail on the head; however, they do have definite preferences. The size and shape of the prey are important factors in determining whether or not it is prime eating for a muskie. For instance, it seems that they really don't like bluegills. In a northern Wisconsin lake that contained a tremendous number of stunted bluegills, muskies were stocked in great numbers. However, the size and number of bluegills remained the same. Shape of bluegills probably had something to do with this. Bluegills (as well as crappies and bass) have a body shape that is deeper than most other fish. Combine that with some wicked spines, and you don't have a really great meal. Muskies prefer a more slender, less *****ly meal. They
also prefer to eat the largest possible prey item they can find so they don't have to eat as often. This feeding strategy saves them a great deal of energy and may be why they are more difficult to catch! Preferred forage of muskies varies from region to region, but they all share similar characteristics. For example, in the St. Lawrence River, redhorse suckers are a favorite meal; in Wisconsin white suckers are the main fish in the muskies' diet. Here in Minnesota and into Northwest Ontario, whitefish and tulibees are the choice of muskies. Notice, all of these prey species have several similar characteristics, they lack spines and can be quite large.
What about walleyes? In a recent study conducted in Wisconsin, researchers looked at the contents of some 224 muskie stomachs and found only one walleye (13 inches). Ah! So muskies do eat walleyes! Of course they do, but not very often. In fact if you think about it, because of their spines, even a modest-size walleye (>14 inches) is too big to be eaten by all but the very largest muskie. Since large muskies are uncommon, even in the best lakes, they aren't going to eat a great deal of walleyes. But what about the small walleyes you might ask. Obviously, small walleyes are the most vulnerable to muskie predation. Most likely, young walleyes eaten by muskies are mistaken for or are eaten in addition to yellow perch. In the years which young walleyes are plentiful, more are going to be eaten by muskies; that's just the way the odds are. Conversely, when they aren't so plentiful, not as many are going to be eaten because the chances of a muskie encountering a young walleye drops. This is just Mother Nature's way of protecting the species. Sure, muskies eat walleyes, so do largemouth bass. Crappies love small walleyes, as do predators! For young muskies, the tables are often turned. Several studies have shown that largemouth bass just love muskie fingerlings. In fact, as few as 10 percent of stocked muskies may survive the first year of life because largemouth bass predation is so great!! Simply put, predators (man included) are opportunistic feeders and take the excess of what nature has to offer.
Finally, there is another way to look at the walleye-muskie relationship. The fact is, walleyes and muskies have naturally co-existed in the Upper Midwest and Southern Canada since the last ice-age, some 10,000 years ago. If muskies ate, walleyes at the rate that many proclaim, they would have finished the job centuries ago! Lake of the Woods, Leech Lake and Mille Lacs all have world-class walleye AND muskellunge fisheries. Why? Because they have excellent supplies of forage fish needed to supply muskies AND walleyes with food. The fact that a lake can support both species indicates a very healthy fish community.

Since the muskie stocking program began, there have not been major changes in the populations of the other species present in Lake Vermilion. Test net catches of walleye have been stable throughout the period and are currently above the long-term average for the lake. There are several reasons it is unlikely the introduction of muskie will impact the walleye population. Studies have shown muskie and northern pike prefer prey species with soft fins, such as tullibees and suckers as previously mentioned. Muskie maintain a population level much lower than other species and are therefore unlikely to cause large changes. Also, muskie and walleye generaily occupy different habitat types and tend to be geographically separated from each other. Although muskies probably consume some walleyes, this low level of predation has not affected the walleye population and it is not anticipated that it will in the future.

If your intrested in Muskie fishing join you local chapter of Muskie Inc.

------------------
Paul
[email protected]

[avrg.joe]

D-man

You may be right, the night ban may not happen for now.? But it is obvious the band wants even more restrictions than the DNR offered. I heard they want to shut the lake down to hook & line fishing though the end of the year. Then next year, barbless hooks, a fish sanctuary ( an area of the lake off limits to fishing ), plus even a tighter slot. Heads up, its going to get nasty!

[Guest]

I don't think the tribe is doing the right thing by going arbitration, but iam not going to tell them that. I don't think we will see a tighter slot, i think we will see the barbless restriction and maybe a bigger slot to get people fish and off the lake. The 4 limit will stay. The heat is on the DNR. I think they know something about the tagging study that is suggesting there are far more fish in the lake that they think there is. They know what they are doing know is not working. I think we will see the harvest of both the sportsperson and band will increase. I think the DNR knows the kill rate needs to go home with the sportsperson and not with the seagulls.

------------------
MILLE LACS AREA GUIDE SERVICE
651-271-5459 http://fishingminnesota.com/millelacsguide/
click here

[SuddenlySummer]

Is this "Fish Sanctuary" proposal for all fishing or just those of us who don't get to use a net?

Might as well draw a line down the middle of the lake.

Eventually it will keep moving further and farther East. (URL)

But hey, after the population is decemated, WE get to pay to fix it.

You never know. Maybe we'll get a new crappie hole.

[Guest]

That article basically tells me that Muskies create competion for the same prey that the ol' Walleye Gator likes to eat.

I havn't heard that there isn't enough Walleyes; I keep hearing that the Walleyes are too skinny...Malnurished.

What does that mean??? Mille Lacs has always had alot of Walleyes. Why is there a shortage of prey for them now? And why does everyone keep sayign that the next Record Muskie will come out of there?

Anyone see a corralation?

PCG

[Guest]

I think the lake has turned the corner as far as the bait fish are concerned. The last couple of trips I took revealed large masses of some type of fish that has lit up my graph. I wish I had a camera to confirm what I have been seeing. The few fish that have come to my boat are looking very healthy. There was an article in the St Paul paper last week that told about the DNR test netting and the amount of perch that are showing up. This part looks good.
Now the down side , the newest action by the "keepers of the land" who claim they would never do anything to harm the balance of nature. (their quote) I wish we could all live by 2002 standards and rules that are for one nation under God!
Dino

[bigeyes]

Ok, what exactly would be the benifit of a fishing sanctuary? Assuming it work, which I don't possible see how it could, That would mean fish in this area would go through more natural cycles of boom bust since angling pressure wouldn't be affecting them. Isn't the whole point of DNR lake management to moderate these affects by active management? Walleye and the baitfish they feed on in this lake are very much roaming fish, I belive on some days they may go a few miles. How are they going to keep them in a sanctury and why would you want to?

[Guest]

BIGEYES

Why would anyone want to? C'mon man, I'm sure you've kept up with the threads on "the Mille Lacs issue".

So . . . consider which DNR would be most likely to be in favor of a "fish sanctuary" (hint: it ain't the one that's headquartered on Lafeyette in St Paul).

With that in mind, the MN DNR may have as one of their objectives to moderate boom and bust cycles by active management. But I believe that one of the main objectives of the "other DNR" is to test the limits of how severly they can restrict HOW, WHEN, AND WHERE you and I can fish Mille Lacs (or more acurately how, when and where we CAN'T fish Mille Lacs).

If a fish sanctuary is successfully imposed, we have gone a looooooong way (I'd say waaay to far) down the road of how restrictive the "other DNR" can be toward those of us who don't even fall within their jurisdiction. I could even be convinced (pretty easily I might add) that we are too far down THAT road already.

Brace yourselves guys, avrg.joe was right "this one could get naaaasteey"!

[This message has been edited by GEM EYE GUY (edited 09-19-2002).]

[james_walleye]

I think someone in another post hit the nail directly on the head. The tribe is doing what it can to keep anglers off the lake and out of the resorts and baitshops on Mille Lacs. Make the businesses suffer and force them out of business. Buy the businesses and create a monopoly on the whole lake.

I've always been on favor of slot limits. I think they create better fishing. I wish other lakes in MN would have them. But this crap the tribe is trying to bring about now is really pi@@ing me off. What do we have to do to get a casino built right down the road from theres. Hit them in the pocketbook is what would fix them.

[Guest]

See...I hate to tell ya "I told ya so"! More slots, less fish, tighter regs, and now barbless? Ya right, so I suppose now it'll be illegal to have barbed hooks on your lures(in your tacklebox) while out on the lake--At least it'll give the CO's something to do..."Pull over, I want to check your hooks and smash down all your barbs"! It won't be long now until the indians(and I use the word lightly) own the whole kit-and-kaboodle. But then, that's just my point of view.
Geez...drain the lake!

[This message has been edited by HtchEyeCatcher (edited 09-20-2002).]

[avrg.joe]

This article may be of interest to some of you.

Go to www.outdoornews.com

Click on, Band to DNR: Choose a mediator

[Guest]

Oh, i see. i think they should have a recount. Maybe the DNR can say the total harvest was 200,000 pounds lower as well.

------------------
MILLE LACS AREA GUIDE SERVICE
651-271-5459 http://fishingminnesota.com/millelacsguide/
click here

[Schnauzer]

Well, it looks like arbitration won't happen until at least the end of October if not some time in November. So, even if they rule in favor of the indians, it appears at LEAST October and the next full moon are saved. That is the good news. The bad news is potentially the future of Mille Lacs and I hope the arbitrators use common sense.

[Dan97]

And what of ice fishing with a night ban. Think about it. Is going to arbitration just a ploy to bring this (possible) ban closer to the hard water season? Would this be a final blow to the "non-native" businesses around the lake?

WHAT A MESS!!!!

Dan

[Hoyter]

I've seen several references over the past many months about going to a barbless hook requirement for the lake. In case you haven't tried it, start thinking about how you're going to keep a minnow, leech, or night crawler on your hook without a barb! (If we can fish the lake at all.)

[EconGuy]

Hoyter,
Try cutting a short piece of small rubber or plastic tubing (about 1/8th inch). After you hook your minnow or leech, slide the tubing over the point of the hook. Make sure to use as small a piece as possible so it doesn't interfere with your hookset.
EconGuy