2004 DNR regulations meeting

[bigeyes]

Looks like keeping a Mille Lacs walleye may no longer be an activity only practiced by criminals and law breakers. LOL. I can live with any of them, but don't think we need to start taking the 26.5-28" fish. I don't suppose there was any talk of bumping the top from 28" to 30" or better yet 31"? That idea never seems to be very popular. Too bad too because a 30-31" is only a nine pound fish in the summer and there is no need to put a 9 on the wall or carve it out.

[Pro Fishing Guide]

THeres no need to let a 30-31 inch fish die of old age either if you can put it on the wall.

[dewoutdoor70]

why is there no need to put a nine on the wall?

[dpfish]

Adam, Thank you for the very informative report. I really like the sound of where this is going. And it actually makes sense. If the numbers work out to allow a 21-28 PS, great, if not, the 20-28 still sounds positive. The "examine" date idea may be just what this fishery needs for flexibility in managing the fishery while keeping things simple enough for people to maintain interest.

dpfish

[Fathead]

Hi guys,

I like the sounds of a 21-28" PS. It will be a much more reasonable limitation to what needs to be protected. I really like the proposal of keeping a 4 fish below 18", or one between 18 and 22 or one over 28". But I do agree that some people (like my father) would be too confused and would add to another reason for to complain.

Regarding switching one over 28 to one over 30... I myself would not keep a 28" fish, but I know some people who would consider this a trophy. I think they should be allowed the option to keep it if they want to.

My two cents

[Adam Adler]

Bigeyes, I like your thinking on trophy fish, but like PFG said, some fish will die of old age before they hit the 30" mark. Increasing the upper end could possibly deter tournament fisherman from coming to the lake. The 28" mark is now an obtainable mark to reach. Although some may not like tournament fisherman, they bring the resorts and local economy added revenue.

I have broken the 28" mark many times and the 29" mark a few times this winter. None were kept. The option to keep them is there and the potential attracts people. During most times of the year the real big fish are hard to catch.

At the meeting I was thinking what a 26" upper limit would do and if anyone would have kept one that size this winter. A few of these fish may have been kept, but not many. A 26" upper limit would definitely make tournament fishing interesting this summer and could attract more boats....... Just some thoughts to ponder.

------------------
www.millelacsguideservice.com
Minnesota, the land of 10,000 fishing trips....

[Beckman]

Thanks for sharing this information Adam. I'm betting it's going to be a busy one out there with an expanded slot this summer whether it's a good or bad bite. Bottomline is that this will make most people happy because they can take more fish home. I'm more happy because it will clear some room for that massive year class that is coming up.

[Beckman]

On the upper size limit issue... are many 30" Mille Lacs walleyes even possible? I seem to recall reading some data about the ages of Mille Lacs walleyes, and there were some old females that never even cracked the 28" barrier. You just don't hear about many 30+"ers from Mille Lacs, I don't know if it's genetics or what, but I don't think it's because of the 28" max. A 28"er is a trophy to most. I think I could only keep a 30+ anyway so it doesn't really matter to me, just wanted to offer my observations/thoughts.

[This message has been edited by Beckman (edited 02-05-2004).]

[Jeff S]

Thank's for the info Adam.

Here is my opinion. I prefer the 20 to 28 PS. But I'll be the first one to admit I'm no bioligist. As far as a 28" max on the PS, I think that works well for everyone. I believe that anyone who fishes the lake often will release those fish anyway. It also allows a tourist to bring home a fish of their lifetime if they so choose. Not a bad thing for anyone, especially the resorters, which we all need. I believe if we continue to loose resorts we will all be in bad shape and they need our support. I've fished the lake for 12 years and caught (and released) many thousands of walleyes, about 45 of which were over 28" . My boat has kept 2-+28" and 1 30 1/2" fish. I doubt keeping those three fish had much effect on the fishery.

Just my opinion.
Jeff S

[This message has been edited by Jeff S (edited 02-05-2004).]

[Jeremy Donabauer]

First of all--Thanks to Adam and anyone else who offers their opinions and the DNR for realizing that changes can be made. The forecast was to keep the slot the same for x number of years, but the DNR studied and sounds like they studied well.

As for me I would love to see any slot that is as liberal as possible due to the tournament fishing aspect. A ps of 21-28 would make for better weights than the present. However if their needs to be a slot (its obvious that a slot is needed) for the sake of a tournament I would favor a 20-26 ps. This enables fishermen to bring 2 large fish and try to fill the limit--imagine the excitement and the fun fishing in a tournament like this. In my opinion nost anglers will not keep a 26" fish a few might but the bigger fish are harder to catch and I believe better anglers are more apt to release larger fish.

A ps of 21-28, 20-26, or 21-28 will help businesses that rely on the fishery. Launches will perhaps be full again and more people will visit especially if the bite is consistent.

I feel this is a good place to voice my opinion but I don't know if the people that need to see this are seeing it. It's seems like Adam is in a way a representitive of what our opinions are here. Adam, Scott, whoever,-- does anyone know who to call where my opinion will be heard and taken into consideration. I know I can call my local congressman but I would like to talk directly to the people in control. If this is something shouldn't be posted freely and someone has an idea email me at [email protected]

Thanks

Dunns

[Adam Adler]

Just checking in before I get to bed. I have an early trip in the morning. As part of the input group of resort owners, local guides, lake association reps, muskie inc. reps, etc... we are taking input from whatever sources we have to get opinions in front of the DNR. Keep the thoughts and ideas coming.

------------------
www.millelacsguideservice.com
Minnesota, the land of 10,000 fishing trips....

[Adam Adler]

Scott and I attended the Mille Lacs Fishery Input Group Meeting last night at the Hazelton Town Hall. The meeting covered a hooking mortality study, fishing pressure, the tagging study, our harvest quota, and the proposed slot limits for 2004. Here is a summary of the information they covered:

Hooking mortality varies by month, with little or no mortality in May and about a 2% mortality in June. It then rises as the water warms and decreases again in the fall. For July the mortality is the highest at 14% and August drops down to 12%. By October the mortality is back near 0. Fishing is slower during July and August and the fishing pressure is less. Basically less fish are being caught when the mortality is high.

For 2004 the DNR plans to use hooking mortality factors on a monthly or bi-monthly basis. For example, they will use a 1% mortality rate for May and June (when the fishing pressure is higher and the overall fishing is usually better) compared to 6% in August. Last year 6% was used across the board even though most of the fish are caught from opener to June when the mortality is a lot lower. This new information will help give more accurate mortality rates.

The temperature of the water was the biggest factor in determining survival. The size of the fish affected the survival rate as well. Very small and very big fish had a lower survival rate. Medium sized fish had the best survival rate. A deep hook has more of an impact on the small fish. The odds of hitting vital tissue are greater when dealing with a small fish. As the fish get bigger the odds of hitting vital tissue are less, but stress of fighting the fish becomes a factor. This is why medium sized fish have a high survival rate. As the fish get real big, the stress of the fight factors in. 80% of the fish that were hooked deep survived. There was no difference when jigging was compared to rigging in the mortality study.

Here are a few interesting tagging notes. 85-90% of fish return to the same spawning grounds, but mixing occurs during the summer. Significantly more older (not necessarily all bigger) fish were tagged on the East side of the lake. There are many fish that have been caught several times. The most recaptures for one fish was 8 times. This isn’t including the times that fish may have been caught and the tag number wasn’t recorded. There is a high number of tagged fish that aren’t being called in.

On to what everyone wants to know: What are they going to do with the 2004 slot? We covered many different options for regulations for the year. These are the options the DNR brought. (PS-protective Slot) (HS-Harvest Slot)

All include one over 28 provision with a 4 fish limit

17-28 PS (current situation)
20-28 PS (DNR Favors this option)
14-20 HS
17-21 HS (potential to go over harvest quota)

They are offering these same options as above with change to a 22-26 PS, one over 26 on June 14th.

Prior to entering the meeting I was in favor of a lower length limit. I figured this would let the small fish currently in the lake get bigger before they are harvested. DNR biologists are not in favor of a minimum size limit for a couple of reasons. The 2002 year class has an extremely large population. These fish are the 9-11” fish we are seeing this winter and their numbers are in the millions. They are worried about growth problems if they start stacking fish below the 14” mark. These small fish are aggressive feeders. They don’t want anglers keeping the dinks, but they want to allow a small fish to be kept if it’s not going to survive. They also feel a minimum size will result in harvest of more young females. The females grow faster, would be the first ones over the minimum size, and would be the first ones harvested.

There were other options proposed from the committee. One of these options was going with the 20-28 PS and having a date such as July 15 to "examine" harvest. If are harvest is low again (like last year), then liberalize it some. This seemed to be very popular. It gives us the chance to error on the side of caution but yet have an opportunity to open things up if harvest is down. Other more detailed options were brought up, but they want to keep the regulations as simple as possible. A regulation with a 4 fish limit, up to 4 below 18, one fish 18-22" or over 28" could keep us within the quota, but the regulation would be too confusing. The biologists are crunching some numbers this week on some other options like seeing if a 21-28” or a 20-26” protected slot is feasible.

Changing the limit won’t affect the harvest much, but it will affect the PR the lake receives. This is factoring that the average angler will not catch their limit. It becomes a factor when the bite gets good like in 2002. The 4 fish limit was put in place showing we are willing to give up the number of fish we can keep if we have the opportunity to at least keep some. The limits won't be lowered, there is even talk about bumping Mille Lacs up to 6 like the rest of the state. If the limits are lowered further the resorts feel they are going to lose more business………………

We are milling over this information for a week and meeting again next week. Any input on this info would be appreciated.

------------------
www.millelacsguideservice.com
Minnesota, the land of 10,000 fishing trips....

[Jeremy Donabauer]

Besides here... How do we(the public) get our voices and concerns heard? I applaud your concern and input into the meetings. I think Adam and his counterparts add a significant excellent opinion to the mix.

Keep on voicing your ideas, we depend on you.

Thanks

[bigeyes]

No big deal, I pretty much knew the 30+ idea is not too popular. Like everybody said most anglers will put them back anyway and yes the tourney guys would not like it. I would only say to pro fishing guide and dewoutdoors that a nine is a great fish on many many lakes, but with Milly specifically the problem with putting them on a wall is that they are not all that rare here, but an 11 pounder is vertually none existint. I was just hoping to grow this into a world class trophy fishery that also is a great #'s lake.

[Pro Fishing Guide]

I see your point but mother nature rarely lets them grow that big in Mille lacs. You have any idea how many 28 inch 7 pound fish are in Mille lacs? If you get a true 9 pound fish, consider yourself lucky.

[Scott S]

There are plenty of 28+ inch fish in mille lacs and with all those other now 25-26 inch fish coming up, theres going to be even more. I myself have pulled a 31 and a 30 out of mille lacs and my dad has also pulled a 30. I think that a 30 inch slot isnt all that bad. Im not saying a 28 inch fish is small just that and 8lb walleye isnt wall size. The reason you dont see amyn 28+ inch fish caught is that they're out suspended feeding on tullibee, not perch. Just thought id throw my opinion out there.

[tjwierz2]

I support the release of all fish between 22 and 28 inches. 25 to 27 inches is way too big to be an eating fish...but too small for the wall. I would like to see a minimum size limit...and a max limit of around 18.

I would like to see the slot grow a little to make some of the people happy that would like to keep some fish...

This is by far the best lake in the Midwest for a chance at a trophy, and I hope the DNR does everything possible to keep it that way.

[bigeyes]

Scott I agree with you. He also gave out a really good piece of info for those of you who are looking for big fish. If a 7-9 pound fish is your trophy then yes, this would be one of the very best lakes to hit in the midwest. If you are talking about 10+ fish then this would be a very poor choice. The last fish vefied over 11 pounds I saw was 1999 there were several that year including one just over 12lbs. The fish now are fat and healthy, but I have never since then seen them with the girths like they were sporting that year! There may and probably are others since then I am not aware of but very few.

[Scott Steil]

The DNR's main concern is keeping the spawning bio mass at or near its current level. Without recuitment of the 2000 & 2001 year classes adding to the mix, we will actually soon see a decrease in the spawning bio mass. With that said, the DNR is not to excited to have that top end of the slot decreased to 26. When you start havesting 26 inch fish you are talking about adding up pounds fast and taking prime spawners that have a lot of years of reproductivity left. My guess is it will stay at 28, which has been working fine.

There is a lot riding on this huge 2002 year class and large 2003 class. I don't think we have had a class this big since 1988 and we know how the fishing was in 1992. The 2002 year class has made it throught that critical stage and their numbers remain VERY high.

I am in favor of the 20-28 PS with an adustment date of July 15th. I think it is reasonable and fair and according to the DNR it makes the most biological sense.

------------------
Mille Lacs Guide Service
(320)293-3287
www.millelacsguideservice.com

[bigeyes]

I like the idea of having adjustment dates too. Lately this lake has just been swinging too extreme and there are soooo many variable to try and prodict.

[Adam Adler]

All the fish are currently fat and healthy. 11lb fish could be more common in the near future. The tullibee population is on the way back up and as of this fall the 7-9" numbers are high as they have been in a while. Tullibee are a huge key in getting big eyes.

------------------
www.millelacsguideservice.com
Minnesota, the land of 10,000 fishing trips....

[walleyehawk]

I don't envy the job the DNR has to do. Hard to please everyone.

That said, I prefer the 20-28 PS. It allows the angler to decide the size of eaters and covers the eaters most people prefer. It also will allow a few more to be harvested.

I think the top side should stay at 28 inches. Some of my friends that fish the lake frequently say it is not uncommon to catch the 25-28 inch fish. But it is tough to break that 28 inch mark. We need more of the monsters.

The DNR also needs to educate people a little better on the cost of hanging one on the wall. I think most people are surprised when they find out. And they can always go graphite for about the same money. From what I have read a 28-30 inch walleye can run over $300? That might put a few back in the lake that are cleaned-or tossed-once they call the taxidermist.

Bottom line, the businesses in the area need the perception you can catch/take a few home but maybe don't need the crowds of two years ago that will put the fishery over the limit right away.

[muskyon]

Big Mille Lacs walleye?

Strange side story here! I visit Minneapolis frequently (my daughter is enrolled at the "U") For the last three years I've been eyeballing a walleye mount they had for sale at of all places a gift shop in the IDS tower. Low and behold when I went in there last, they had it marked at 50% off and I couldn't resist. It was labeled as a 13 lb walleye. So I bought it and when I got home I found on the back markered in the driftwood was "Mille Lacs 13+ "00". I have no history on this fish and have no idea if it was even taken legally. The clerks at this gift shop had no idea and were just happy to get rid of it. This girth is tremendous! Could this be for real?