Safe harvest levels set; angling rules similar to 2013 anticipated - Mille Lacs Lake Fishing (Fishing Reports, Events, Tournament Information and more)

Doug Ertl · Website Admin

Safe harvest levels set; angling rules similar to 2013 anticipated

Muskieman · Miller Muskie Guide Trips

WOW

fishnpole · Veteran Member

DUMB.

Rickster · Member

So I'm guessing the walleye season will be shut down by June 1st??????

Willy · Member

Yep. disbelief Well, there's always smallmouth. bleh

Can a walleye tournament be held if the allowable harvest is met? How many are already scheduled?

-- Edited by Willy on Monday 3rd of February 2014 11:46:22 AM

fishnpole · Veteran Member

They're guessing at mortality rates the same they're guessing at creel numbers. They come up with some creel numbers and add it up, multiplied by ESTIMATED fishing hours, add in a whole lot of official sounding mumbo-jumbo, so it sounds like they've REALLY spent alot of time on it. Add in some biological fisheries vernacular and spoon feed it to the public.

On a side note, the 17,100 lbs the tribes can take will boil down to 0.48857142857 lb. of walleye per tribal member. (If they don't have to sell any to get back home.)

The angler's take will be around 0.03818181818 lb. per angler.

Ain't much to fight about any more.
This was all predicted by anglers AND biologists 15 years ago.
Click on this link:

P.E.R.M.

This is a pertinent excerp from that study that was concluded in 2003, over ten years ago.

Is the Number Valid?
Mille Lacs historian Joe Fellegy describes the DNR’s population estimate as, “one of the most
important, powerful, controversial, costly and disputed high-impact numbers in the history of
applied fisheries science on Minnesota’s inland lakes.” Fellegy’s assessment is based on the
fact that “the number” serves as the basis for all regulation decisions. But the validity of the
number has been challenged not only by Mille Lacs anglers and business owners, but also by
well-respected biologists from inside and outside the DNR.

Once the DNR agreed to a treaty-management system requiring annual population estimates,
they were faced with the immense problem of how to make meaningful estimates using the
data they had available. So they devised a complex computer model, called the VPA (Virtual
Population Analysis) that would generate the number they needed to satisfy their
responsibility to the Court.
But even the biologists who devised the VPA have little confidence in its ability to generate
an accurate population estimate. The problem is, every piece of information fed into the VPA
has a wide margin of error, most of which cannot be accurately measured. So the combined
error is unknown, and so is the usefulness of the VPA. The DNR continues to “tune” its
model in an attempt to improve its accuracy, but the underlying problem of insufficient or
unreliable data cannot be solved anytime soon.

Dubious Data
One of the biggest concerns is legitimacy of the data used in the models. In some cases, where
critical information was missing, the blanks were filled in with what the DNR called
“guesstimates.” In other cases, the missing data was “simulated,” “assumed” or “generated
randomly.” Sometimes, figures were even imported from studies done on bodies of water in
other states. In a candid assessment of VPA results, DNR researcher Paul Radomski noted
that the estimates provide guidance in setting the safe harvest level, but cautioned that
“different assumptions can produce substantially different results.”
Data fed into the population model include gillnetting, creel survey, electrofishing and
trawling results. The model also requires accurate aging of walleyes caught by anglers and in
sampling gear over a long period of time. Here are some of the specific concerns in data
collection and analysis that cast major doubt on the accuracy of the population estimates they
generate:
•Gillnetting. For more than 25 years, the DNR has sampled walleyes in Mille Lacs using
250-foot “experimental” gill nets, which have five 50-foot sections with different mesh sizes.
In most years, 32 sets were made, all within a short distance of shore. The nets have been used
to provide managers a measure of relative abundance of walleyes and other fish species. In
other words, the netting results indicate whether fish populations are increasing or decreasing,
but they don’t provide an estimate of how many fish are in the population. The original sets
may have been adequate for giving managers an idea of population trends, but they were not
intended to provide the more accurate information needed to make population estimates.
Nevertheless, that is exactly what the data is being used for—gillnetting results are a major
component in the DNR’s modeling efforts. But the gillnetting operation has been widely
criticized, not only by anglers but also by prominent fisheries scientists. Drs. J.R. Bence and
T.J. Quinn, who were hired by the DNR to review their modeling methodology, noted that the
gill net sets used in modeling are near shore in shallow water and there are no gill net sets in
mid-lake. Consequently, there is no way to know if the data is representative of the entire
body of water. Eight deeper sets have been added in recent years, making a total of 40 nets set
each fall.
In his 2002 report to the Technical Committee, Band consultant R.A. Myers observed that,
“In all cases, using this data [the new offshore sets] decreased the estimated fishing mortality
and increased the estimates of abundance.” DNR biologist, Tom Jones, in his 2002 report to
the Technical Committee, concurred with Myers, noting that, “The inconsistency between the new and original sets may support the concept of a fall migration, and may suggest that the population is higher than appeared based on the original 32 nets.”

The addition of the 8 new sets clearly provided a more unbiased look at the Mille Lacs walleye population. But as Bence and Quinn point out, “there is a large region of the lake further offshore that is not sampled at all.”
In a meeting with the DNR, Bence and Quinn
pointed out this shortcoming, but the DNR maintained that the large mid-lake area need not be sampled, because the region is generally “homogeneous and unstructured.” Of course, the mid-lake zone contains most of the famous “mud flats,” which often hold tremendous numbers of walleyes. And surprising numbers of walleyes are also found in the unstructured areas between the flats.
About two-thirds of the lake is not being netted. If it were, it is entirely possible that the mid-lake sets would catch even more walleyes than the new offshore
sets. It’s understandable that the DNR wants to preserve their neat data string, but until they
distribute their nets to sample the entire lake basin, they will not have a valid population
index—or safe harvest level.
The gillnetting results in 2001 show how the near-shore nets, by themselves, can yield biased
results. Although the near-shore nets had a lower-than-normal catch, the offshore sets had the
highest catch in history. With the unseasonably warm fall, it’s possible that the walleyes stayed offshore longer. So what appears to be a population decline could simply be a difference in the seasonal distribution pattern.
Another problem with the gill nets: They do not provide a good sample of large walleyes.
Fisheries Director Ron Payer recently acknowledged that the number of big fish presently in the lake can cause inaccuracy in the DNR’s population surveys, because “they don’t sample
as well.” For that reason, he conceded that “we might be dealing with an error rate closer to
30 percent than to 10 percent.”

saldan · Member

Seeing how the Walleye season will be finished halfway thru summer, this next winter will be a resort killer. Between skyrocketing propane costs, can we say $200.00 for a 100 pound tank if supplies dont get better, and a closed Walleye season, just how many resorts will still be open in 2016. Now the Mille Lacs band still wants to bulldoze Eddys and build a new $10 million dollar resort, why? They probably figure that half the resorts will be bankrupt in a couple of years as people stay away from Mille Lacs. They will have the monoply on resorts with all the bells and whistles, thanks to a new Walleye fishery provided by the state tax payer and the MN DNR. Smart business move. Destroy the Walleye population with gill nets, watch all the resorts go out of business, uild a new resort with gambling proceeds, and have the DNR supply all the money to rebuild the fishery. Still going to the casino, the Tribal leaders are laughing all the way to the bank!!!

fishnpole · Veteran Member

Everybody that doesn't think this is what's happening are just fooling themselves.

Our DNR are being played like a sacrificial pawn.

wallyhntr1 · Member

Saldan got one past the goalie, bullseye.

Native Industry is plowing ahead full force to gain complete control, regardless of the resource.. And doing so while all us 'other' races fund their whole process.. Why the hell any sportsman would step foot on Native casino property is beyond me, I consider the people that do- a problem.

Trying to wrap my brain around it is the same as trying to wrap it around the fact that all other races pay the MAJOR, VAST, IMMENSE majority of Native Attorneys fees, to fight us...

I'll need a straight jacket & a rubber room if my mind ever makes sense of this..

Willy · Member

I'm not sure the casino's revenue stream has anything to do with the walleye population. Adding attractions to the casino business is an 80 year old idea started in Vegas and it doesn't always prove to be profitable. Opening a resort on Mille Lacs hasn't proven to be a get rich quick scheme. Any resort owner's wanna weigh in? (I'm not so sure they're as business savy as you think). With your premise in mind, perhaps lobbying for an indoor racino in Brainerd or Saint Cloud, similar to Running Aces, would be a better course of action rather than focusing on the netting. My point is business is business and you can't point a finger at them for playing the game. It only draws attention away from the real issue here and that's the DNR taking the control of the lake and pulling their head out of their rear. Not to mention the monopoly idea doesn't hold water because look at what happened to Hinckley. When given the choice, the majority of people will choose a nontribal venue first. Which means, should the lake's viability return, so to will the private resorts' business. There's no doubt that some resorts may fail. The ones that are less leveraged and better prepared will fair better. But if you know anything about business investment, it's save for the rainy days and buy, buy, buy. Do not be surprised to see some resorts expanding if lake property starts to fall with the decline of the lake. We all agree the lake will come back.

saldan · Member

Willy, I never said that the profits from the casino has depleted the Walleye population. What I said was that between the DNR and the tribal netting both attacking the same size walleyes has depleted the Walleye population. The profits from the casino are going to allow the various Tribal entities to acquire more resorts and land for possible business attractions once all the other PRIVATELY OWNED resorts have gone bankrupt due the Walleye season closed, high LP prices, and gas prices as well as many people not going to the Mille Lacs area for recreational purposes.

Someone needs to do a poll with all the resorts on the lake who currently run summer and winter operations, and ask how many skid houses never left dead storage, how many skid houses in summer lots never moved, what percentage drop in rentals, in wheel house weekend passes, etc. Thats just this year, now throw in the fact that the Walleye season may very well indeed be closed halfway thru the summer this year. How much money in lost revenue??? The new owner of the Red Door will need all the support he can get. I know its a well run operation now, but the next couple years are going to be a B*#ch, not just for him but for all businesses in the area.

Yes I still say that any sportsman who drops their money at a casino here or in Wisconsin, should understand just where all the profits are going to. They are essentially paying twice, once thru their tax money having to be spent to fix Mille Lacs, and thru the money they just donated at the slot machine. If you want to donate money, donate to save mille lacs, or find a pull tab booth for the local snowmobile club or pee wee hockey league. If we all only knew just how much the casinos profit in any one year, i think you would be surprised.

Mille Lacs: