yep

your correct Jon, did not mention anything about tribal harvest at all

Sad isn't it - So will the tribes have to change anything up to better the lake?

Ice Man wrote:

---

what is the 5 year plan and how can the lake be managed like that if its going to all these changes?

---

 Here it is in all it's glory:

A Proposal for Walleye Management in Mille Lacs Lake 2013‐2017

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

June 11, 2012 

Summary 

  For more than  a  decade  harvest management  of Mille  Lacs walleye  has  been successful  at 

ensuring  that  harvest  (including  post‐release  angling  mortality)  does  not  exceed  estimates  of 

harvestable surplus.   Under the current management system it appears that conservative protected‐

length slot limits keep the angling harvest well within its share of the harvestable surplus in most years, 

in fact falling far below that share in most years.   Despite the large remaining harvestable surplus in 

most years since around 2000 and from both the Bands’ and State’s fisheries, some measures of the 

walleye population status have not necessarily responded expectedly.  Looking more closely at the sex, 

size,  and  age‐specific  harvest  information,  it  appears that  perhaps some size/age  classes  have  are 

exploited  at  consistently  high  rates,  and  differential  growth  between  sexes,  and  the  harvest 

management strategies employed by both fisheries may have contributed to size/age and sex‐specific 

patterns  in  population status  indicators.    It  is fair to  assume that  goals  between the fisheries  are 

common, focusing primarily on the health of the stock, but also on improving or at least maintaining the 

abundance of targeted fish.  Therefore at this time it is proposed that a modification to management of 

Mille Lacs walleye be pursued that focuses on establishing management targets/goals based on walleye 

population characteristics and design management actions that seek to get us to or keep us at those 

population characteristic goals. 

Background 

Walleye Harvest Regulation 

  The shared fishery on Mille Lacs has been executed for 14 years (1998‐2011). To date walleye 

harvest  is  being  managed successfully  with the  State  and  Bands remaining  within the  harvestable 

surplus most years.  Overall the State has managed the angling fishery such that total angling mortalities 

(angler  harvest  and  hooking mortality)  have  been substantially  lower than  its share  of  harvestable 

surplus (allocation) over the entire time period (Table 1).  The State exceeded its share of harvestable 

surplus in 1998‐1999 and again in 2002.  However, once protected slot limits were established in 2003 

(Table 2), only one small overage occurred in 2007, and in general very large underages in the State’s 

fishery have resulted (Table 1). 

Summing across all 14 years the State’s kill was approximately 75% of the State’s allocation.  

Over the same time period Band kill was 72% of its allocation.  During this period the State has exceeded 

its allocation 4 times, with 2 overages occurring during the grace period granted to the State by the 

court at the beginning of the shared fishery (Table 1).  These overages totaled 337,737 pounds; 151,211 pounds in 1998, 86,597 poundsin 1999, 82,060 poundsin 2002, and 13,869 poundsin 2007.  The largest

overage occurred in 1998 under a 15‐inch minimum angling regulation.  Since 1999 more restrictive size

regulations have been in place and overages have been smaller. 

Successive State overages occurred only in 1998 and 1999.  The 2002 overage of 82,000 pounds 

was followed by four  consecutive years of underage totaling more than 900,000 pounds.   The 2007 

overage of 13,869 pounds was followed by three consecutive years of underage from 2008‐2011 ranging 

from  140,000 to  273,000  pounds  and totaling more than  813,000  pounds.    Since the  beginning  of 

conservative protected slot limits for anglers on Mille Lacs (2003‐2011), the State’s underage of more 

than 1.73 million pounds has outweighed its overage (0.014 million pounds) 128 to 1. 

Regulations  imposed  on  the  State’s  angling  fishery  (Table  2)  have  influenced  walleye  kill.   

However,  factors  unaffected  by  angling  regulations  also  appeared  to  influence  walleye  angling 

exploitation, such  as forage  abundance  and  angling effort.    For example from 2004 to 2006, under 

identical annual angling regulations and similar safe harvest levels, State walleye kill ranged from 79,000 

to 479,000 pounds (Tables 1 and 2). 

Walleye Exploitation 

Age‐specific  exploitation  rates  estimated  by  a  sex‐specific  SCAA  model  shows  that  total 

exploitation rates have declined since 1998, averaging approximately 13% compared to an average of 

19% during 1987‐1997.   However, exploitation rates on age‐4, age‐5, and age‐6 male walleyes have 

generally increased during each five‐year time period since 1998 (Table 3; Figure 1).  Exploitation rates 

on age‐3, and age‐4 female walleyes were similar between time periods but have declined for older ages 

(Table 3; Figure 1). 

At some ages both males and females have been exploited at relatively high rates but generally 

the male walleyes in the age classes presented were exploited at a higher rate for more consecutive 

years (Tables 4 and 5). 

  Looking at exploitation rates by fishery type (angling and tribal) suggests that the size‐based 

regulations  have reduced  angling  exploitation rates for male walleyes  in  age  classes  4‐6,  but tribal 

fishery exploitation rates on these same age classes have increased over the same period resulting in 

the overall increase in exploitation rates on males in age classes 4‐6 (Figure 2).  In addition the angling 

regulations have successfully reduced female angler exploitation rates (Figure 3). 

  So perhaps these exploitation rates at or above historical levels combined with physiological 

differences between male and female walleye could be contributing to the decline in harvestable‐sized, 

primarily male, walleyes in Mille Lacs (Figure 4 and 5). 

 Conceptual Management System

The current management system may have some flaws that do not account for sex and size‐

specific impacts to the walleye population.  Therefore despite the apparent overall success at staying 

within harvestable surplus levels, maintaining levels of target‐sized fish has been unsuccessful to the 

point that continued harvest management under the same system may not be possible (Figure 6).  

What we are proposing is a significant departure from the current management system and 

considers four primary changes:  

1) Change to sex‐specific management of the Mille Lacs walleye fishery;  

2) Modification of sex‐specific target harvest levels;  

3) Adoption of a “sliding target harvest rate” that modifies the target harvest rate based on walleye 

population status; and 

4) Using model‐derived population status metrics in place of survey‐derived metrics.  

Lotta mumbo jumbo from a bunch of biologists that probably have never even SEEN Mille Lacs Lake, much less fished it.

Listening to this crap, they sound like there is no problem AT ALL!

HELLO, McFly !

40 year low? Remember????????????

Why do you think they're the only ones that don't see it all started with the netting?

Article by Dennis Anderson-


"The Department of Natural Resources can hire all the experts it wants to study the Mille Lacs walleye problem. And in fact the agency plans to do just that, given its announcement earlier this month that it will form a “blue ribbon’’ panel to review the big lake’s fish population surveys and other data.

But in the end, experts or no experts, two things should happen.

Should being the operative word.

• Mille Lacs anglers this summer should be limited to catch-and-release walleye fishing.

• The Chippewa should suspend their walleye harvest from Mille Lacs. If they refuse, the DNR should return to federal court to argue that the lake’s walleye dilemma qualifies as a legitimate “conservation’’ crisis to be decided by the court, in accordance with its previous treaty rulings.

• • •

Consider the following.

• The big problem at Mille Lacs is that, despite the massive spawning power its larger walleyes amass, and the spawning success they’ve had, baby walleyes aren’t growing up to be big walleyes.

• In fact, the last good-sized year-class of walleyes in Mille Lacs was hatched in 2008. These are fish that this summer will edge into the 18- to 20-inch harvest slot that governed Mille Lacs walleye anglers last year.

• DNR fisheries chief Don Pereira says neither he nor his staff knows exactly why, or how, the small walleyes are disappearing. They suspect — probably with high assurance — that the little fish are being eaten by big fish. The question is, by which big fish, exactly? The lake’s bigger walleyes? (Almost surely, to some degree.) The lake’s growing northern pike population? (Almost surely, to some degree.) Its many smallmouth bass? (Almost surely, to some degree, given their abundance in the lake — even though smallies don’t typically feast on walleyes.)

• Unknown is to what degree other factors are helping to accelerate, or perpetuate, the loss of young walleyes. The DNR suspects the lake’s clearer water plays a role in increasing predator efficiency (environmental regulations in force beginning in the late 1990s, together with the more recent arrival in Mille Lacs of zebra mussels, have increased water clarity). Additionally, invasive species other than zebra mussels are now in Mille Lacs in relative abundance, not least spiny water fleas and Eurasian water milfoil. Perhaps some combination of these, the DNR figures, could help big fish more effectively target little walleyes.

• Last summer, the DNR allowed Mille Lacs anglers to keep two walleyes between 18 and 20 inches — a slot some anglers hit early in the season but which became increasingly difficult to target as summer wore on (which is typical).

• Perhaps the DNR’s new panel of experts will in fact divine the exact reason, or reasons, why small walleyes in Mille Lacs aren’t reaching maturity.

• But regardless, if you’re Pereira, what do you do this summer? You can’t direct harvest pressure to the lake’s smaller walleyes, because they’re the ones that are increasingly rare. Nor can you focus pressure on the 2008 year class — fish that will be about 17 to 19 inches long this summer. And what of the lake’s tremendous spawning biomass, e.g., walleyes 19 to 24 inches? You probably don’t want these fish to be taken either — they’re the future.

• OK, but why not let anglers this summer keep one walleye over, say, 26 inches? Arguably, this would reduce the lake’s predator population while also giving anglers something to fish for. So maybe that could be done. But how many walleyes 18 to 26 inches would be caught and released — some of which would subsequently die — before an angler found one over 26 inches? Probably quite a few, especially as summer progresses and the lake water warms. So, the possible adverse effect on these smaller walleyes would have to be accounted for in the harvest calculus undertaken in the run-up to establishing this summer’s regulations.

• Now consider the Chippewa nets, which have been strung in the lake during the spring spawn since the late 1990s. In and of themselves, the nets are not the lake’s problem. Not entirely, anyway. But don’t forget: The harvest slots that govern walleye angling on Mille Lacs are a corollary of the nets. One (the nets) begot the other (the harvest slots) as the DNR and the Chippewa have attempted to manage the lake’s harvest cooperatively. But now it seems clearer that each, probably in combination with the other, has contributed to, or perhaps even entirely caused, the current Mille Lacs walleye problem.

• The Chippewa could increase the size of walleyes they take by requiring members to use nets of larger mesh size than is currently the case. The DNR also (as stated earlier) could steer the angling harvest toward bigger fish. But remember: The lake’s walleye harvest quotas are determined not by fish numbers but by fish pounds. So the quotas would be reached relatively quickly under these changes, thus limiting harvest opportunity.

• What to do? Clearly, in my view, Pereira and his boss, DNR Commissioner Tom Landwehr, should appeal to their boss, Gov. Mark Dayton, to let them ask the Chippewa to pull their nets from Mille Lacs until, and unless, the lake’s walleye population recovers. As a secondary possibility, the Chippewa should be asked to focus their harvest on bigger walleyes. If they refuse either option, the state should take them to court. That’s what the court’s for.

• • •

Regardless which actions are taken, the local economy will suffer.

Which is unfortunate. But perhaps one of the region’s savvy legislators can think up a relief plan, in working with the state tourism folks and the governor’s office, that can ramp up visibility of the lake’s, and the region’s, attractions other than walleyes.

Releasing a tagged smallmouth bass or northern pike in Mille Lacs every month this summer that’s worth $10,000 or more to the angler who catches it certainly would drive some traffic to the lake.

Got a better idea how to manage Mille Lacs walleyes?"

 .

Thanks Wallyhntr1 and thanks for a great write up by Article by Dennis Anderson!!!!

Now will the DNR do what MUST BE DONE?

We are all so tried of this terrible lack of action.

My God I hope so! MM

Malmo Mike Callies