|
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | ^ Hall of Fame Post … Castmaster!
Troy … go catch 2 non slot-fish in Mille Lacs and report back how easy it was ...
Edited by jonnysled 3/27/2014 11:17 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | Masqui-ninja - 3/27/2014 8:44 AM
I agree that being good stewards of our lakes and streams should be our #1 priority. People's interests should come second.
Yep! |
|
| |
|
| They finalized this FAQ page this morning, I'm not sure if the other link will still work for long. http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/millelacslake/index.html |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | "Propster, Who in the MDAA admitted that they are trying to legalize muskie spearing?
I know some of the board members and have never heard any of them say that."
Roger Geshal (sp?).
Edited by Muskie Treats 3/27/2014 2:06 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Castmaster with a towering blast......way back....way back....get up, get outta here, gone!
One of the best posts I've read in some time.
Excluding my own of course 
(The last comment is heavy in sarcasm, for those of you that struggle with it) |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | Concerning the pike issue: While I am for large pike and quality pike management, I think anyone who's been fishing that lake has seen a change in the esocide populations over the past 10-15 years. I think we can all say that muskies (and walleye) peaked around 2005-2007ish. If you look at the pike population from 2007 on, you'll notice how much more robust their numbers and size has become and the DNR numbers confirm this. Add the additional biomass of bass and you can see a defiant shift in the predator base of the lake.
Now, will these changes turn "The Pond" back into a walleye/muskie factory? Maybe. Should we do something to get things back to the way "we" want them? Yes.
N |
|
| |
|
Location: MN | Kirby Budrow - 3/27/2014 8:24 AM
As for the economy, I don't really care about it. I would rather see a lake become healthy than see some resorts flourish. The lake was here long before men, and will be long after men. In my opinion, it's more important to protect the lake itself.
Were muskies in Mille Lacs before man?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2389
Location: Chisholm, MN | Nershi - 3/27/2014 3:03 PM
Kirby Budrow - 3/27/2014 8:24 AM
As for the economy, I don't really care about it. I would rather see a lake become healthy than see some resorts flourish. The lake was here long before men, and will be long after men. In my opinion, it's more important to protect the lake itself.
Were muskies in Mille Lacs before man?
Good point |
|
| |
|
Posts: 45
| According to Larry Ramsell there has always been a small population of muskies in Mille Lacs. He has some early pictures. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 60
| So the DNR is trying to solves the walleye problem by eliminating night fishing and getting rid of Pike and Bass. Perhaps the netting of 600,000 lbs of walleye a year had something to do with the problem??? lol |
|
| |
|
Posts: 910
Location: Hastings, mn, 55033 | mbuck - 3/29/2014 10:49 AM
So the DNR is trying to solves the walleye problem by eliminating night fishing and getting rid of Pike and Bass. Perhaps the netting of 600,000 lbs of walleye a year had something to do with the problem??? lol
600,000 lbs a year eh?? This is exactly the kind of nonsense that drives me nuts!!
Lets see for 2014, the TOTAL take of SIXTY THOUSAND POUNDS is split as such...just over 42,000 lbs to the "state" and just over 17,000 lbs to natives. So for 2014, the TOTAL take is 1/10 what you claim netting is taking EACH year, while the actual netting take is less than 3% of your claim.
I can only remember a single season where the TOTAL safe allowable harvest was 600,000 lbs let alone the native take. That was 2006. I was there and I remember very few of us that voluntarily released the majority of our fish, and chose NOT to fish in times where even C&R would lead to high mortality. Funny thing is its the same folks at the resort who were keeping limits for the boat every chance they had in good years biatching loudest now that they cant do it, or that a measely 2 fish limit makes it "not worth it". Unfortunately IMO when it comes to walleye anglers that type far outnumbers the other.
Heck we have whats probably the BEST trophy walleye fishery in a metropolitan area in the entire US here in the Twin Cities in Pool 2 of the Mississippi River. BUT its a total C&R pool. No game fish can be harvested period. No one trophy for the wall, no couple eaters for the pan. Because of that one can often fish prime spots, at prime times, any day of the week and be the only boat on em. I guess most arent really in it for the experience and enjoyment of being on the water, but rather to fill a cooler. At least from my observations over the years.
Now, seems to me the DNR has offered proposals and attempted various changes going all the way back to the time leading up to the first nets ever being set. Most if not all of the proposals that would have led to a reduction in allowed harvest by the regular joe was fought by the resort lobby and various special interest groups that didnt want their "members" to feel any sort of pain to offset the new harvest input. Nope, keep a 6 fish limit. Keep taking limits because ya might as well keep em all before the nets get em right? Keep fishing 30' of water in mid July, with live bait rigs yet to boot, and bragging how you released 80-100 fish. The fact most of them ended up feeding for the gulls surely played zero part in any of this. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32955
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | http://www.startribune.com/sports/outdoors/149383675.html
'The bands' quota this year -- the last in a five-year agreement reached with the state in 2007 -- is 142,500 pounds, up from 122,500 pounds in 2008, the first year of that agreement.'
That's been adjusted as mentioned above, I believe. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 910
Location: Hastings, mn, 55033 | I should add that the netting harvest during that 2006 season was 60,000 or 70,000 lbs and if I remember right that was the highest netting take on record.
Id also say the numbers we see on the netting take are far more accurate than angler take based on creel surveys!
So even in the highest take years the netting total is at most 10-12% of total harvest? But the full blame lies solely on them??? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | castmaster - 3/29/2014 12:02 PM
I should add that the netting harvest during that 2006 season was 60,000 or 70,000 lbs and if I remember right that was the highest netting take on record.
Id also say the numbers we see on the netting take are far more accurate than angler take based on creel surveys!
So even in the highest take years the netting total is at most 10-12% of total harvest? But the full blame lies solely on them???
You're asking some guys to think logically. Unfortunately, not going to happen.
You're on fire in this thread. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 441
| Good points, guys!
I run into "walleye" guys on Vermilion, and surrounding lakes, that always good guy about how the muskies are eating "their" walleyes. That's why they aren't catching as many walleyes, anymore.
How they hate the slot limit.
Also, while I'm bass fishing, I hear, the bass are taking over, and when they catch a bass, they slit their bellies, and throw em back.
I always tell them, look in the mirror, and you will see part of the problem. Most of the walleye guys are meat hunters. Go catch some bluegills, or perch, if you feel the need to fill your freezer!!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 134
| Go catch some bluegills, or perch, if you feel the need to fill your freezer!!!
But wait....classic commet from "boat landing guy"- 'Before they stocked muskies in here Fritzzy and I used to be able to come catch a limit of (bluegills, crappies, perch-chose one at random) when they were spawning before lunch and come back and get another limit in the afternoon. But now the muskies have them all gone!!" |
|
| |
|
Posts: 65
Location: Garrison, Mn | How many of us have seen those old black and white photos of the big stringer? No Joke, I'm taking my 3 boys out and my neighbor will come out with his 2 boys. We are going for the 70 fish stringer, not every time but at least once. I'll do my part to save the walleye. I think a couple 10' 2x4's and 75 nails will do the job. I'll post a picture if we can pull it off. It will make an awesome photo for the cabin. Just once...just saying |
|
| |
|
Posts: 999
| Where did the other mille lacs thread go ? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1760
Location: new richmond, wi. & isle, mn | It was terminated. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20278
Location: oswego, il | jchiggins - 3/29/2014 8:54 PM
It was terminated.
I liked that horse! |
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | Having to leave for work at 4 am every day for 35 years when I was still working meant I was never big on crack of dawn fishing. I know nothing about this lake but I would think loosing the period of first light from predawn till 6am would be as big an issue as the period past 10 pm. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | figuree - 3/29/2014 6:30 PM
Go catch some bluegills, or perch, if you feel the need to fill your freezer!!!
But wait....classic commet from "boat landing guy"- 'Before they stocked muskies in here Fritzzy and I used to be able to come catch a limit of (bluegills, crappies, perch-chose one at random ) when they were spawning before lunch and come back and get another limit in the afternoon. But now the muskies have them all gone!!"
There's no boundary to Fritzzy's resource management, especially when he's on the drink.
Edited by Reef Hawg 3/30/2014 7:06 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 69
| castmaster - 3/29/2014 1:02 PM
I should add that the netting harvest during that 2006 season was 60,000 or 70,000 lbs and if I remember right that was the highest netting take on record.
Id also say the numbers we see on the netting take are far more accurate than angler take based on creel surveys!
So even in the highest take years the netting total is at most 10-12% of total harvest? But the full blame lies solely on them???
What percentage of the mille lacs fishing population is that 10 to 12% of the harvest going to? If it was any normal licensed angler we would call them a meat hog and be breaking out the pitch forks and torches. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 910
Location: Hastings, mn, 55033 | northernmn - 3/30/2014 11:10 AM
castmaster - 3/29/2014 1:02 PM
I should add that the netting harvest during that 2006 season was 60,000 or 70,000 lbs and if I remember right that was the highest netting take on record.
Id also say the numbers we see on the netting take are far more accurate than angler take based on creel surveys!
So even in the highest take years the netting total is at most 10-12% of total harvest? But the full blame lies solely on them???
What percentage of the mille lacs fishing population is that 10 to 12% of the harvest going to? If it was any normal licensed angler we would call them a meat hog and be breaking out the pitch forks and torches.
So instead should break out the pitch forks and torches because of what exactly? We should completely ignore the ways WE have contributed to this and focus solely on one group?
If that harvest was removed you believe the lake would be just fine, or did the other 80-90% of the harvest play into that as well? Does hooking mortality of released fish, especially off deep water in summer heat play a part in it? Does the advancement in equipment play a part in it? Heck I remember the days heading out to the mud was akin to Columbus sailing the ocean blue. Back then if you had a 18' with a 40hp you were like todays Ranger crowd. Most fished out of 14' and a few ran 16's. No GPS graph to get you right to the "spot on the spot". ETc Etc Etc....bit naaa none of that has anything to do with anything.....its ALL because of those darned nets.
I have said this a thousand times....maybe if WE as sportsmen cleaned up our own backyard we'd have more of a leg to stand on when asking the bands to reconsider netting in general and especially during the spawn.
Without doing so WE just look like a group of impetulant children who feel entitled to get exactly what WE want, i.e the full take of fish from the lake. WE look like a group that doesnt really give a shat about the lake, rather who is getting to harvest from it. Continue to take ZERO responsibility for the problem and just point fingers at another group, be it natives, bass/musky/pike guys, the kid that struck you out in little league 35 years ago.....but certainly dont ask yourself how you contributed to the problem because you didnt. It was everyone else.
(I use "WE and "YOU" in the generic sense) |
|
| |
|
Posts: 910
Location: Hastings, mn, 55033 | I am going to bow out at this time. Just repeating the same things.
Lets all help in the ways we can to improve those things in life we believe need it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 69
| Castmaster you obviously missed my point. What I was saying was I don't care who is doing it if someone is taking what would amount to gross over limit people should have a problem with it. Forget that they have a different ethnicity. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 34
Location: Forest Lake Minnesota | castmaster - 3/29/2014 1:02 PM
I should add that the netting harvest during that 2006 season was 60,000 or 70,000 lbs and if I remember right that was the highest netting take on record.
Id also say the numbers we see on the netting take are far more accurate than angler take based on creel surveys!
So even in the highest take years the netting total is at most 10-12% of total harvest? But the full blame lies solely on them???
http://www.startribune.com/sports/outdoors/149383675.html
From sworrall link
In some years, neither the bands nor the state reaches its Mille Lacs walleye quota. The closest the bands came in the past five years was in 2010, when they netted 124,000 pounds out of a quota of 132,500 pounds.
This information is readily available if one wants to look for it. Not pointing fingers just posting information. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 60
| You are right there has not been 600,000lbs netted in one year. Perhaps I have read to many PERM articles in my life. But they have been predicting exactly what has happened for the last 15 years. All the netting is done in the spring and mostly only one sex is caught. Compound that with bad slot limits and bad things happen. I wonder what the total pounds of fish netted in the last ten years is?
Also I do not fish Mille Lacs and I don't fish for walleye. I haven't kept a fish of any kind in probably ten years but I certainly don't begrudge anybody who does. I always get a laugh though when someone starts complaining to me how the muskies have eaten all the bait fish on his favorite lake. I usually try to ask them how many fish they kept last year and just get an angry growl.
Just curious, do we know that the lbs of fish netted are accurate? |
|
| |
|
| The lake changed, water clarity, weed locations, climate is changing. Things change, would be great to the lake back to healthy, but do the biologist feel it is possible to turn it back into a walleye factory? Or are those days gone? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | mbuck - 4/1/2014 11:11 AM
You are right there has not been 600,000lbs netted in one year. Perhaps I have read to many PERM articles in my life. But they have been predicting exactly what has happened for the last 15 years. All the netting is done in the spring and mostly only one sex is caught. Compound that with bad slot limits and bad things happen. I wonder what the total pounds of fish netted in the last ten years is?
Also I do not fish Mille Lacs and I don't fish for walleye. I haven't kept a fish of any kind in probably ten years but I certainly don't begrudge anybody who does. I always get a laugh though when someone starts complaining to me how the muskies have eaten all the bait fish on his favorite lake. I usually try to ask them how many fish they kept last year and just get an angry growl.
Just curious, do we know that the lbs of fish netted are accurate?
if you keep reading, investigating you will find that it's not a spawning, reproduction problem but a problem of hatch growing the first 2 years due to habitat change triggered by water clarity, change in balance and predation.
or keep with the inaccurate information supported by a guy who has doesn't fish Mille Lacs.
it's not hard for castmaster to be "right", it comes from him being informed.
if you look for the information and read it, you could be informed too. |
|
| |
