Our good native friends get more and we get less..........now we get to wait and see what kind of slot limits we will have next spring!!!

whats your guess?

14-16 inches and one over 28
with maybe a 3 fish limit?

man I hate to wait....... 

Bobber wrote:

---

Indians get more and we get less..........now we get to wait and see what kind of slot limits we will have next spring!!!

whats your guess?

14-16 inches and one over 28
with maybe a 3 fish limit?

man I hate to wait....... 


We LOSE 28%, yet they GAIN 18%????????????????
HOW IN THE IS THAT FAIR????????????????????

---

-- Edited by avrgjoe at 16:28, 2008-01-31

We LOSE 28%, yet they GAIN 18%????????????????
HOW IN THE IS THAT FAIR????????????????????

---

its not fair! and if u dont agree with this like im sure most of us dont agree with them getting more and us less then boycott the casino's!!!!!!!!!!!!! i wont go in them. i wont support them!
BAN THE GILL NET!!!!

-- Edited by avrgjoe at 16:28, 2008-01-31

---

-- Edited by walleye warrior at 17:18, 2008-01-31

-- Edited by walleye warrior at 17:20, 2008-01-31

this is a bunch of bull.....i just did a school project on netting on mille lacs......infact bob when i was looking for some pics to put on my slide show there was a pic on there from you it was a coupel of native americans netting right out in front of your house........you no i think its alright to let them net but they could at least make it fare

walleye warrior wrote:

---

We LOSE 28%, yet they GAIN 18%????????????????
HOW IN THE IS THAT FAIR????????????????????

---

its not fair! and if u dont agree with this like im sure most of us dont agree with them getting more and us less then boycott the casino's!!!!!!!!!!!!! i wont go in them. i wont support them!
BAN THE GILL NET!!!!

-- Edited by avrgjoe at 16:28, 2008-01-31

---

I don't step foot in the flippin casino, and niether should anyone who thinks this ok.
are different for us!!!!


-- Edited by walleye warrior at 17:18, 2008-01-31

-- Edited by walleye warrior at 17:20, 2008-01-31

---

I'm sorry BigR,

it was much more than just that.

The Band would have been given the lower 1/4 of the lake...much like how it is up on Red Lake. The lake would have been divided as to Band waters and and open public waters. The lower part of the lake would have been closed to you and I and everyone else that was not a Band Member.

Not just the money......

-- Edited by Bobber at 12:53, 2008-02-01

Glen,
I have been trying to find some more printed material about that proposal. They were offered the lower part of the lake along with the money!!! Sure would have been a sorry sight for all those lakeshore owners on that part of the lake.....I might have to call Steve Fellegy and get the whole story

Steve you out there......

I am guessing they might go with a under 17 and 1 over 28 with a 4 fish limit just to try to keep some sanity up there.

One thing I always wondered is why they dont collect eggs out of these netted fish.Unless they are already spawned out by then.If they arent this would be pretty easy to do and planted back into the lake.At least we would get something out of the deal.

Quite a difference between 4.5% and 25%, right Bobber?

Hind sight is always 20/20. Either way, in the end, everybody loses.

I'm not a casino person, but I'm betting most of the band harvest is by Wisconsin tribe members coming to Mille Lacs. As far as deals, and test netting....The DNR has proved long ago that they are a failure. Why is there no accountability in the Fisheries division?

This was posted by Jack Dunn: Thanks for the work on this one Jack. Great information.

I just got an email from Rick Bruesewitz of the Minnesota DNR, in response to one I sent him asking for some info on the data so I could get my thoughts together for the "in put group" meeting.

Here is what he had to say......


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jack, This is probably more than what you asked for, but I know how active you are on the internet boards and it sure seems to be running amok with mis-information or poor speculation. Hope this helps to clear things up for you.

1) Increase in tribal quota while State's goes down. In December 2006, the bands presented their next 5 year plan to the state (2008-2013). Included was the declaration of 122,500 lbs as their first year take for walleye. With it, there are provisions for it to increase within that 5 years to a max of 140,000 lbs. We commented that this would put an increased burden on the state to manage its anglers within the remaining portion of the annual safe harvest level. Remember, that since the taking of 140,000 lbs is not a conservation, public health, or public safety issue, we have little recourse but to accept it at this time. Also, if the bands do not take their full allocation, whatever amount they are under their allocation can be used at the end of the year to offset any overage that the state may have in that year. In any event, the information about the increased allocation was shared with the public last summer (including the input group), and we do understand everyone's concerns about making it more difficult to stay in allocation.

2) In regards to our allocation going down, yes, it is. This has been unfairly blamed on everything from muskies and northern pike, to fishing tournaments, to too much hooking mortality. The fact of the matter is that we expected the decline simply due to the lower abundance of the 2004 year class.

Here's the basic scenario: Last year we started with about 2.3 million lbs of catchable walleye. Safe harvest was estimated to be about 550,000 lbs. We took that amount last year. That leaves about 1.75 million lbs of catchables remaining, but from that we need to deduct for natural mortality too (roughly about 0.45 million lbs - that's right, no matter what, we lose a lot of fish for reasons other than angling, netting, or hooking mortality!). That leaves about 1.3 million pounds for the coming season - of fish that were available in 2007. Now we add in a little for growth for these fish, about 400,000 pounds this year (pretty good because the 02 and 03 year classes are still growing reasonably fast). OK, that then leaves us with 1.7 million pounds. Now we get to add in for the new year class, which in this case is the 2004 year class. This year class only adds in about 90,000 lbs. (in comparison the 2002 year class added almost 1 million pounds of catchables to the population when they recruited to the fishery in 2006). So that results in a net population of about 1.79 million pounds. Multiply that by 24% and we get 429,600 pounds, which is essentially our safe harvest level for 2008 - 430,000 pounds.

As I mentioned earlier the "new" year class this year is not very strong - it never was. That year class was weak from the start and its current low abundance has nothing to do with cannibalism. Also, the next year class, 2005, is looking pretty darned good, and I would expect it to add substantially to the catchable population in 2009. Although the 2006 year class is much reduced from what it looked like last year, they are still there in decent numbers and should add to the catchable population when they recruit to the fishery in 2010. Also, the 2007 year class does not look too bad either at this point, although its way too early to tell its outcome.

3) Test netting issues. Yes, we observed a much reduced gill net catch rate last fall. It certainly is a mystery as to why they were so low in just one part of the lake. The strange fall weather may have been a factor(note that water temperatures were within the range we have observed in the past during the sampling); however we just cannot say for sure why they were low. At the same time, with regards to setting the safe harvest level, we have not put as much weight in them this year either. We recognize that they may be anomalous, but at the same time we don't want to be gambling with the Mille Lacs walleye population. That is why we need to stay within our allocation, and that is why we are going to conduct another tagging study this spring. This study will either confirm that the netting was indeed lower than it should have been, or will inform us that the population is indeed lower than we think.

4) Tribal fishery is composed mostly of males. Last year 84% of the 52,000 fish they harvested were male. That means that they killed only about 4,000 females. Also, in the spring gill net fishery, 85% of the fish they harvested were between 15 and 19 inches. The reason their catch is so skewed to smaller fish and to males is due to the mesh size of net they fish with (they are limited to between 1.25 and 1.75 inch mesh), and to the behavior of the fish. Males come into spawn, and hang out in the area for the entire spawning season; whereas, females come in to spawn, do their business, and then head back out into outer lake areas where they are not vulnerable to the nets. The ratio of females is a little higher now than when they first started fishing, because we have such a good female spawning stock now.

5) Mille Lacs has been compared to Red Lake. Not even close! You all have seen it. If we have concerns about the fishery - We do take action! On top of that, the Red Lake fishery collapsed after decades of overfishing. It resulted in a severely depressed spawning stock such that there was no hope for new year classes. Mille Lacs on the other hand has a robust spawning stock, with several new year classes waiting in the wings. To compare Mille Lacs to Red just isn't realistic.

6) Speculating about the status of the stock based on your fishing observations is tenuous at best. Here's why. If the stock is up, you should expect a better bite, right? Well, maybe, but if forage is up even more, then the bite will likely be worse. If the stock is down, then you'd expect a poorer bite, right? Same problem. If forage is also down, then the bite might be pretty great. What might be reasonable to speculate on is whether the bite might continue to be good or poor. In general, if the winter bite is pretty good you can expect a pretty good open water bite too. If winter is not so hot, then you can expect a not so hot open water season. The time that things change is in July. That's when new forage from perch and tullibee enter the picture and generally things slow down a bit. The amount they slow down is then dependant on how much new forage there is. Last year it slowed pretty fast because there appeared to be a pretty good hatch of perch (maybe tullibee too). That forage may very well be why the bite this winter is less than great.


I hope I've been able to clear up some of the questions you had. Feel free to contact me if you need more info, or have more questions. We are working on setting up an input group meeting, and I look forward to seeing you there.

Take care, Rick