My thoughts are the fall survey nets are set in a very wide range of the various lake features and areas. If one type of area or more is not lived in by the fish at the time the nets were put in, but were in the lake, the net numbers would rise elsewhere.

"Shallow nets" ( around 200ft. long) for example, are laid across a wide swath of depths. Most shallow nets can and do cover water from 4ft. to 15ft. NOT just  real  "shallow". They usually are set so they cover both the top, edge and bottom of any structure they are set relative to. Some "shallow" nets are set on flat bottom as well.

Deep water nets cover structure in the same way and "no mans" land nets cover the whole water column in some cases.

Some question the survey numbers due to water temp being warmer certain falls. Thus--having less fish in the shallows. Should the numbers be higher than  (even out numbers wise for the lake?)  in the deep water? The warm water thing, in fact, should play no role! In fact, at the peak of warm water temps, historically, countless walleyes live in Lake Mille Lacs in LESS THAN 7FT. In fact, if warmer water is in place later than usual in the fall during the surveys, MORE walleyes could or should be in those shallow nets. WARM WATER DOES NOT DISPLACE WALLEYES FROM THE SHALLOW WATER.

In the end, it is very hard to question the wide ranging survey nets over a period of years of consistency in timing and placement.

The smallmouth thing could play a role, no doubt. BUT!! Everywhere else, (other lakes) where walleyes and smallies co-habit, they only separate by school, not location. In other words, you might have a rock pile with schools of smallies on one end and a school of walleyes on the other end. On Lake Mille Lacs, a few years back while scouting shallow rock for a muskie event--sight scouting--as usual, we found countless schools of walleyes on most reefs in less than 5ft. of water in August at the height of the days sun. But also on  most of those same reefs, we saw schools of smallies--but not too clsoe to the walleyes. (Over the years, I have seen this scenario countless times before and after that day)  So with that said, the survery nets should catch walleyes in the shallows even with smallies living on the same reef as they did over the years. And again, if the smallies have displaced the walleyes, then the deeper nets should should show a consistent higher average per net than over the survey history--right?

My conclusion? As I said many years ago in an In-Fish article, "they ain't got wings and they ain't got shovels". So--if the walleyes are in the lake, the survey nets would find them......I have no sound reason to doubt the survey nets based on how, where and when they are set from year to year.

I just got off the phone with Pat Schmalz who is a biologist with the MN DNR. He does alot of work with the fish caught each year in the fall survey nets to assist in assessing overall health and status of the walleyes in Mille Lacs to aid in developing biological "models" to show a "safe allowable havest". 

Even though he admits the surveys aren't perfect, due to an abundance of variables, they are essential in ascertaining the walleye population of the lake, which he uses in his work.

So this is what they have to go by. Obviously, you can't count every fish in Mille Lacs. (Although given our current trend, it may not be long before you can count them on one hand.)

I asked if the smallmouth explosion in the lake is being researched and he told me that none was being done in his office in Duluth, but said the Aitkin office may have more info. So I called Eric Jensen, an Aitkin office fisheries technician to get further info.

Eric told me he was working on the 2012 survey report right now. He said it won't be made available to the public until May or June, when it is finallized.

He DID tell me that the smallmouth surveyed in the nets hasn't gone up. Just one per net. Same as last year. The catch rate was highest in 2009. While he said that it's too early to tell if the smallie population was leveling off, from what information they had, it was more the particular year class (larger) that was the most remarkable. Of course, a bigger smallie is going to eat more than a smaller one. When examined, the contents of their stomach were overwhemingly crayfish.

Schmalz told me that there were alot of walleye and perch in the walleyes' stomachs being examined. He said that although walleyes prefer other forage, when that isn't available, they DO canabalize their young and that is what seems to be happening. 

Hmmm. Alot of large walleyes in the lake + limited reproduction due to gill netting + hungry muskies & northerns who like walleye and perch + zebra mussels eating ALOT of zooplankton = not much forage

Hey Steve, I can speak from personal experience this last winter season on catching the same walleye twice within 6 hours, still had the same red hook my brother had cut off, stuck at the bottom of its mouth. I am curious as to some of the mid-lake mud flat people who had 10 plus fish a night on how many were a re-catch over the weekend.

Like what was said earlier, their are no walleye fry, and if there was, is there any bait for them to eat. The zebra mussels in our area seemed to be about the same in numbers as last year, but the water was more cloudy. Maybe the SE corner had a heavy water current before ice up, wierd though.

If the netting season sucks this year will the wisconsin members continue to come back? They seem to be the bigger hoaders out of all of them. Lets hope the spring netting season sucks, and some how the perch numbers increase, yeah I'm blowing smoke now.

Good article.