New Slot Limit on Mille Lacs! [Archive]

Tommy Mac

02-01-2001, 02:55 PM

LAST EDITED ON Feb-01-01 AT 05:01PM (CST)[p]Spinner,
Thanks for the info. I suppose the next thing we will hear is that the proposed limit reduction (to 4) is partly becouse, with the skinnier slots no one will be able to catch a 6 fish limit. So in order to have a higher satisfaction rate, a limit reduction is necessary. Huh? Sometimes it is hard to understand just how our DNR thinks, or with what.

Look whats going on over in South Dakota. They have this huge limit, (14 day/42 possession ????)on Oahe. Now, do you suppose that maybe just a few non resident motel buying, cabin rentin, bait buyin, guide hiring good guys might go elsewhere this year?

I am all for the slot limits. I don't understand why they are talking about a reduction in numbers here in Minnesota when they are attempting to control the biomass of the fish population with slot limits. At a DNR meeting last winter I heard a high DNR offical say that it didn't matter how many walleyes under 14 inch's were taken from Winnie. He said that they had a certain mortality rate anyway. At the time I had proposed protecting the smaller fish as well as the prime breeders. Now they are telling us that we can only keep 4???? I sure hope they know what they are doing. Can someone please help me understand this type of thinking? Thanks. TM

Irish

02-01-2001, 05:40 PM

What size will the nets generally gather up? Are they 4,6 or 8 inch squares? What time of year are they being dragged? This is were the problem starts!

eye crosser

02-01-2001, 05:51 PM

I think it's great,won't have another bad day again this year!
Ohae-no big fish anymore,raise that limit up so they can keep all those 13&14 inches.
Mille Lacs has pleny of 20 to 25 inch fish so 4 years from now just think of all the GIANTS!!!

Tim

02-01-2001, 06:42 PM

For one, the limit on Mille Lacs hasn't gotten any skinnier. The slot last year was 14-18 and one of 28". My understanding about wanting to reduce the limit to four is based on the number of letters they receive each year from the public. Reducing the limit by 33% will only reduce the harvest by 17%. I think that this is the reason that the DNR is holding meetings across the state. They want input from anglers, guides, and resort owners. I have heard DNR spokesman say on the news that none of the proposed changes will have much of an affect on the already strong populations.

Tommy Mac

02-01-2001, 07:42 PM

My question is WHY are they going to reduce the limit when they themselves say it won't have any real effect on the basic fish popultation? Maybe they don't want us gettin fat on eye's? TM

dunns

02-01-2001, 09:55 PM

tm
you're way off. the limit is actually still six. I wouldn't mind a four fish limit though. the reason for the slot in oahe is because there are no big fish let due to the loss of whitefish that were killed in the dam two years ago. if four walleyes between 16-20 aren't enough i'd consider you a game hog.

curt quesnell

02-02-2001, 03:58 AM

if i decide to keep a legal limit of 6 fish in the legal
lengths......i guess i dont worry if dunns is gonna think
i am a game hog....!!!!!!!!

now according to dunns, if you keep more than 4 fish you
are a game hog.......

ohhhhhhhh dunns where will it all end.......can i keep one
fish to show my wife.....or would that, in your mind, make
me a game hog?

curt quesnell

Lee Ericdkson

02-02-2001, 07:31 AM

It doesn't make any sense to me either. The numbers I heard the DNR use didn't have a significant impact untill they dropped the limit to 3 fish.(ouch) I made my call to the DNR I hope we can keep it at 6. This doesn't mean I'm a game hog!

Tommy Mac

02-02-2001, 08:54 AM

dunns,
Four fish in a 16 to 20 inch slot would indeed be enough. In fact personally, I do not like keeping anything over 18 inch's. I havn't for years. So I guess my slot is a little skinnier. I'm not a game hog. Never have been. I only keep the ones I plan on eating and in my book there is nothing better than a 14 to 16 inch fish for a meal. Next to a roasted Mallard or a nice venison chop or stew there is nothing better.

Now I know that the Oahe thing is unique, as are all of the individual lake systems. I still have a hard time figuring out how the MN DNR is coming up with these regulations. You hear one thing from one person and another from someone else. I get the feeling that the PROPOSED limit reduction is baseless. The reason's given for the move show no merit. It will not effect those that go for a weekend as much as those that fish only one day a week, or only keep fish they catch one day a week, as is my situation most of the time. All regulation change's effect everyone in a little different way. Yesterday I talked to a Winnie resort owner who said that business is now down 33% form last winter. She reported that some of Winnie's resorts are close to closing the doors. I have the feeling that if the slot had been introduced 10 years ago Winnie would be in better shape now. But look what happened to Leech last summer. Leech got pounded early and hard. Why? Part of the reason was that it had no slot limit and Winnie did. The results? I guess we will have to wait and see. Got any ideas as to why they did not put a slot on Leech last year but are likely to do it this year? It just seems to me that there is to much bull crap (politics) associated with rule making within our DNR. Seems to many of the upper management types are trying to justify their jobs.

Hey maybe we should make a new law:
No fishing till noon on the opener and no fishing after 4 pm the first month of the season. Perhaps that will reduce harvest sufficiently enough and we won't have to worry about slot limits. Later. TM

Lip Ripper

02-02-2001, 09:22 AM

I think that concern about the limits by Dunns here is valid. If the anglers harvest was to exceed the quotas set by the dnr then the DNR made it clear last year that their "fix" would be to shut down the season. I think with the bigger slot the harvest could quickly exceed the quotas if there is a good bite like we all hope for. The 4 fish limit would probably at least extend the season which is better than no fishing at all. I personally would like to be able to fish Mille Lacs all year and if a 4 fish limit could help to ensure that I will be able to go out for the fall trolling bite then I have no problems with it. But then again, I don't have a wife to show my fish to either, so I can't see where you're coming from Curt.

EAGLE EYES

02-02-2001, 09:40 AM

This slot seems to be about perfect for Mille lacs. However, just wait until the warm water season and you will see why slot limits are not the answer. "Hey Fred, this 25" eye I just caught isn't gonna make it." "Oh well Joe, ya gotta throw him back in ya know." The Seagulls need ta eat too! What a shame, that the DNR doesn't see this! If you think I'm over exaggerating, head up to Mille lacs on a Saturday afternoon in early august and take a look for yourself! The lake looks like a spring die-off, with all the hogs floating around out there! I really liked the proposed 3 fish limit. Nothing good will ever come from a slot limit on such a walleye factory like Mille lacs! Save a Walleye, Harpoon a DNR official! :-)

curt quesnell

02-02-2001, 09:52 AM

lip ripper,
i agree that mille lacs is on going project...changes will
always be either comming or underway. whatever the limits
they should be strictly adhered to and punishment should
be swift and severe to game violators.

i dont like the term "meat hog". i especially dont like the
term tossed about lightly (as in the dunns post)when tied in
with a 4 fish catch. a "meat hog" is a double and triple dipper
a knucklehead with a cooler full of 9 inch walleyes, or 6 inch
crappies or 4 inch perch who doesnt care about limits or
sportsmanship. a "meat hog" is a very bad person in the eyes
of ethical anglers.

i release small fish, i release big fish but if i decide to
keep the legal amount of the proper sized fish for a fish
fry i really dont expect to take any guff about it.

thats my point....
peace brothers and sisters

curt quesnell

02-02-2001, 09:57 AM

harpoon a DNR agent? That is about the most ignorant comment I have ever heard on this board. I would love to see any of you bashers do better. They can have all of the scientific data they want in place but as soon as the polititians get involved non of that matters, it all gets thrown out. They have to balance the real data with the cryers and whinners. Personally I know they are trying to do the best they can without much help other that idiots wanting to harpoon them. What happened to all of these hog walleye before man came along? They were wasted right? They were recycled into the eco-system and the young and small fish benifited. Yes it is a shame these fish die, what would you prefer, an open season on anything caught in deep water? The individual should shoulder as much if not more of the blame. They know those fish will die caught out of deep water, what the ##### are they doing fishing there then? The DNR made you do it right? Common sense does not seem to be a common thread here. It is so easy for all of these know it alls to sit on thier fat ##### and have the solutions to thier world.

EAGLE EYES

02-02-2001, 10:07 AM

rd, Take a chill pill! I said that stated with a followed up Smiley face. (meaning: just kidding around). I know they try their best, but sometimes their best just is'nt good enough! You can never tell fishermen, guides and others, not to fish in the deep water. This is where the eyes are forced to go in the warm water months! I feel as though a lowered limit regulation, is an all season management method! EE

Lip Ripper

02-02-2001, 11:09 AM

Thanks for clarifying Curt, I had originally thought that you were shooting down the idea of a reduced limit solution for Mille Lacs. I agree that the term "game hog" is a strong statement and shouldn't be used lightly. Ideas and opinions just somehow seem to get taken the wrong way with this sort of discussion. Nothing personal I'm sure
Peace
LR

Dave in Mpls

02-02-2001, 11:14 AM

rd-

Your post seems to imply that the MN DRN is doing "the best they can". That, my friend, is a myth!

Ask any of the upper dogs in the fisheries department (like Steve Hirsh, for instance) where they stand with the "Accelerated Walleye Stalking Program" (I use the term loosly), and they will tell you that it is LOW on their priority list. This is not due to a lack of $$, nor is it politically motivated. It is simply due to a lack of interest on their part.

Regards

eye crosser

02-02-2001, 12:04 PM

Maybe you should just find another lake to fish!!

#1-The DNR has a tough job-trying to please nobs like you,trying to please all the folks that own resorts&all the people that really care about the lake!!!
#2-This so called problem started with a slot size to keep the lake in balance i.e. eaters an trophy fish!! An I for one that it was great!
#3-Now with that said alone comes the tribel issue,this put an even greater strain on the DNR to try to maintain this great fishery!

So "PLEASE FEEL FREE TO FISH ELSEWHERE!!
The rules will never please everyone,but if we all play by them it seems to all work in the end!!!!

curt quesnell

02-02-2001, 12:26 PM

thanks to you ripper

curt quesnell

EAGLE EYES

02-02-2001, 12:29 PM

The DNR is not trying to please anyone but the tribe pal! I realize I may have different opinions on this subject than some people. This is no reason to call me a nob. A little respect for other people's opinions is all you need to offer here Eyecrosser! Because you don't agree, you feel the need to bash. This is the main reason there is a sour issue here in the first place. I know I made a little joke bash towards the DNR, I have the Right! I pay their salaries! So, get off my freakin back! If you pay my salary you can bash me all you want! Until then expect a come-back for every word!

Snickers

02-02-2001, 03:22 PM

I have a questions for you guy's, why is it when I take a fishing trip in MN for 4 - 5 days or maybe a week and spend my time buying gas, renting a cabin, food and bait. But I can only have one days limit of fish when I go home and now it could go to 4 or less on Mille Lacs.
I just used this as an example, I my self am within driving distance for a day trip. But with all the limits they are putting on I can see some real issues people would have with our DNR. So lets not say they are doing every thing right or wrong, I agree they are not going to please everyone but going on a fishing trip for a week with the guy's and bringing home 4 fish to the family is a little hard to swallow. Enjoying the sport of catching fish is great but if size and bag limits need to be the guide lines then lets pick one.
The one thing the DNR won't talk about is dropping the amount of your license but they will keep putting on more restrictions.
I also have seen the white bellies of floating eye's on Mille Lacs and it's hard to take. These fish don't all come out of deep water they are out of the slot and have been hooked hard.
I don't know what the answer is but I don't think the DNR has them either.

Rip Lips

02-02-2001, 04:12 PM

You couldnt be more original with the name???????Get a Life.

eye crosser

02-02-2001, 06:20 PM

Well maybe they sould just close the lake!As you stated the DNR does'nt care so we should all just sell our boats for casino money!When is the last time you were out helping an under staffed DNR stock a lake,or strip spawn?Have you even talded to your congressmen on how you feel?Thought so your just another complainer!!

dunns

02-04-2001, 10:01 PM

tm
it seems your the one that needs the satisfaction. i didn't call you a game hog because you're going to keep your limit. slot limits are there for a reason. if your pissed at the dnr your wrong. without them mille lacs wouldn't even have a fishable population left.

dunns

02-04-2001, 10:03 PM

curt i wouldn't call you a game hog if you kept your legal limit. but if you were to piss and moan about i would.

night_eyes

02-05-2001, 06:24 AM

I guess maybe im seeing things backwards but if the DNR didnt care or was just trying to please the tribe they wouldnt even put a slot limit up. The DNR is ahead of the game solving the problem before it is fixed. Can you imagine this lake with no slot limit???? Jesus the amount of 20-25"ers you can catch on that lake...you all know ##### well without a slot that a lot of people would take those fish out of there. You all know we would see people at the resorts and landings coming in with 6 fish limits of 20-25"ers. Yeah that would be great for this world class fishery now wouldnt it. Yeah its a shame to see the fish floating in mid August...but if you compared it to the number of fish that would die if the slot limit was not in effect it wouldnt even be close. I for one wouldnt be opposed to a 3 fish limit either. I'm sorry but if 1 person cant be satisfied with 3 fish between 16-20" there is something wrong. Or maybe we should just have a straight 6 fish limit with no slot then in no time Mille Lacs can be like most lakes around where you can catch all the cigar walleyes you want to and catching a walleye over 25" is pretty much impossible. We can have a big lake like Winnebago in WI where you cant catch a walleye over 13". We have a world class fishery where we can catch walleyes over 20" at a great pace...lets keep it that way. And if it means dropping the limit from 6 to 3 in the future...so be it. I want to be able to catch 20+" fish 20 years from now too.

EAGLE EYES

02-05-2001, 11:23 AM

Snickers, You raise a very interesting point. I for one will not say the MN DNR doesn't do anything right. I commend them for at least attempting to stop Mille lacs from ending up like Red lake. I do however, feel that by only putting a slot on a lake like Mille, you'll end up destroying a set of year classes and then what have ya got? No fish to take home ever that's what. So, In my opinion if a lowered limit regulation such as a 3 fish limit would come into play, not one particular year class or set of year classes would get beat up and destroyed. There are many reasons for my feeling this way. I also know for a fact that the Yellow Perch population in Mille lacs is taken a beating from the huge amount of larger fish predatation. I don't like slots like this one for the harm it does to other species management. I have voiced my opinion on this issue to way more than this message board so not to sound like a W/C complainer. I just wish more voices could be heard and listened to, without shooting them down for feeling differently. Good fishin' to ya! :-) EE

Minnesota

02-05-2001, 06:07 PM

Are you serious? No exageration? Like winter kill? Stacked up like cord wood? I cant imagine that the amount of egg layers released "over the course of a year" is exceeded by the amount that die. Am I wrong? If I am, then I stand corrected. Are you saying that so many fish die during the hot months that releasing all those breeders during the rest of the year does no good?

Minnesota

EAGLE EYES

02-06-2001, 04:53 AM

No! I'm not saying it doesn't do any good! It's just one reason why I don't like slots.

Frank from TBay

02-06-2001, 05:29 AM

Curt as a neighbour I like your answer. A mans limit is his limit and if legally caught is his to do with how he sees fit. I fish a lot, never freeze fish, and release a lot of larger walleye. There are days when we are in the mood for fish for supper and if a larger fish (within reason) happens to be "the only catch of the day", that fish was in the wrong place at the wrong time. This is my choice and my choice alone.
Good fishing: Frank

night_eyes

02-06-2001, 05:32 AM

Maybe this will make you think a little differently. Pick up the Outdoor news and read their article about the slots. With the slots we will harvest about 320,000 pounds of fish next season...give or take i dont recall the exact numer. Without slots....we would harvest about 630,000 pounds. Thats twice the poundage of fish. How can anyone say that slots dont work? How can anyone tell me that these slots arent protecting our fishery? I for the life of me cant figure out why people would have a problem with trying to keep this lake producing at a world class level...and slots are a must if you want to keep it that way! If you look at the big picture slots have to be in place to make sure in 20 years we can still all enjoy this body of water at a world class level. Even during the hot months the DNR says over 85% of the fish survive. Compare it to without slots and you see my point. The big picture guys....

GullGuide

02-06-2001, 06:59 AM

To my knowledge, there is no netting on Mille Lacs...just spearing, which occurs in the spring.
>"////=<

GullGuide

02-06-2001, 07:21 AM

As far as the dead fish go I have 3 theorys...one of them is quite sinister....

1) The fish that die, die because they are pulled from deep water quickly and released because of the slot....everyone seems in agreement with this one.

2)Many fish die because Joe Schmoe lets the fish take the bait too long, hook gets in the stomach, and he is too cheap to let his 10 cent hook remain in the fish, so, instead of cutting the line, like he should, he ripps it out with whatever means nessesary. he then throws the bleeding, dying fish back in the lake because it is not in the slot. Hey!...at least he got his hook back!! :(

3) Now I come to the really bad theroy....
This winter, a number of regular Mille Lacs anglers have made posts on other sites, maybe even on this one, about people who have approached them with this line- "We are catching as many walleyes as possible, taking a knife and slitting their gills, then throwing em back down the hole in protest to the Indian spearing....blah, blah,blah...we are trying to leave a million dead walleyes under the ice in this protest..." Anyways, the DNR was alerted to this activity...do not know if they were caught or not. I guess they were going from fish house to fish house trying to get other anglers to do the same. Point is- if they are doing this in the winter, dosnt it seem logical they would do it during open water too?
I'm not saying that they are the only cause, but put all 3 together and there you have it.

GullGuide
>"////=<

GullGuide

02-06-2001, 07:21 AM

EAGLE EYES

02-06-2001, 07:25 AM

night_eyes, I see your point! I understand where your coming from. I know that Mille lacs could not be left the way it was. I commend the DNR for at least trying something different. This however, is not the point I personally am trying to make. I would like the slot to go away, but in it's place I would like to see a 3 fish limit not 6. This would also greatly reduce the total poundage taken each year. Also you could add back to the lake the 15% that didn't survive! This # of survival is based on a yearly bases by the DNR. not just the warm water months. I like to fish Mille lacs for more than just eyes. Perch are alot of fun and I tarket them sometimes also. Read post 29 and you'll see my view on this. Good Fishin' to ya! EE P.S. I think most of the serious anglers throw back the larger eyes if they seemed to be healthy. I know I never keep a piggy if it's healthy when returned. But a management method is for all people and on Mille lacs, a very difficult one. I love the Lake and have fished it for 20 years I would never want to see it destroyed!

Minnesota

02-06-2001, 07:37 AM

I see. By the way we are in agreement on the limit thing. I would like to se the limit reduced from 6 to 3 or 4.

Minnesota

EAGLE EYES

02-06-2001, 07:43 AM

;-)

Hans

02-06-2001, 08:27 AM

I'd support a daily limit of 3, possession limit of 6 on all Minnesota lakes.

Hans
--

eye crosser

02-06-2001, 08:45 AM

Gull Guide;
Think again,over 90% of the walleyes taken by the tribes are taken by gill nets!
The Wis. bands are taken most of the walleyes out of the lake!They already destroyed the larger lakes they can harvest in there own state,an would not have a problem doing the same to Mille Lacs!Just look at Red lake,now your money is going towards trying to re-build it!We really need this to end!What do 5or6 tribel members from Wis. need with 25,000lbs of walleyes anyway?This was not what the treaty was intended for!The tribe has a right to take what they need as per the treaty,but this is just out right abuse!!!Our government is so afraid of any issue that they punish the average "Joe" to say out of a conflict!Sometimes laws change,things are re-done,in the best interest of everyone involved but not on any "racial" issue!I don"t beleive this tobe a racial issue,but if one "community"threatens to make it one our elected puppets fold like paper!!!

Sometimes the truth hurts,in more ways than we could even believe!!

GullGuide

02-06-2001, 12:31 PM

Eye crosser,
Is this the case on Mille Lacs? I am quite aware that gill netting takes place on a number of other lakes, but wasn't it part of the settlement that they would not net Mille Lacs....I could be wrong...please enlighten me here. I've spent a ton of time on Mille Lacs and have yet to see a gill net, maybe I'm in the wrong place at the wrong time.
GullGuide
>"////=<

eye crosser

02-06-2001, 04:14 PM

Gull Guide;
This is what is happening at Mille Lacs!!!
All the people crying about walleyes floating dead should see this up close!Hundreds of walleye dead in nets,so lost last year they had a picture in Mille Lacs fishing digest last spring!the picture showed 100 or so very large walleyes with alot of others washed up on shore stuck in the net!These walleye did count towards there quota,but thats sick to see!I would'nt mind if they speared them only,because they would have to work for them!!

GullGuide

02-06-2001, 04:18 PM

Thanks man,
Did not hear about that one. My real question is weather the band acctually nets, or was this a band member doing it on the side without the blessings of the tribe. It was my understanding that they were only going to spear.
>"////=<

night_eyes

02-07-2001, 04:32 AM

Here is the problem i see with having no slot and having a limit of 3 or 4. Next year we will be taking 16-20"ers. Most wont limit out...most will go home with 3 or 4 keepers for the day in that range. With the no slot rule you want...people will go home with 3 or 4 fish...but you and I know that a lot of them will be 21-25"ers. Yes you've probably reduced the overall take from what it would be at 6 fish...but your taking a lot more prime spawners. Which in turn will also affect the fishery in the long run. We know how easy it is to catch 3 or 4 22-24" fish in a day...we all know that a lot of people arent going to willingly put these fish back. Thats why the DNR has the slot at 16-20" so those fish MUST go back.