Outside panel to review Mille Lacs & DNR policy

[Doberfishman]

AutumnFever wrote:

Simple. They are not netting the remote ones and destroying year classes of fish. A unbalanced lake of if only a couple year classes will destroy a lake. Similar to have a slot and eleminating on a certain year class

Hey, hey, hey, logic and reasoning will get you nowhere with a DNR sympathizer!

Just like with global warming/climate change or next it will be continental drift, all the models in the world are not going to tell you what is happening in the real world if your models are flawed due to human error or you are using flawed data.

Fishing relaxes me. It's like yoga, except I still get to kill something - Ron Swanson

[IronDioPriest]

I’m no expert on maintaining fisheries, but I do have a knack for logic. It seems to me that the problem with slots is that they protect fish of a certain size, and weed out fish of a certain size, and the end result is imbalance in the ecosystem.

Why not impose a “slot” limit that randomizes the harvest? Instead of saying, only fish between X” and Y” may be harvested, why not place a hard limit on the number of inches worth of fish can be harvested? Let’s say 36″ total inches of walleye, just to pick a number…

That can be two 18″ fish. It can be one 22″ fish and one 14″ fish. Or, if a guy decides he’s gonna take a 28″ fish home, that’ll be it for him. If he takes a 25″, he’ll have to decide if keeping that 11″er is really the kind of fisherman he wants to be.

This would have the net effect of randomizing the harvest, encouraging the taking of fish in the classes that are currently allowed, while leaving decisions up to fishermen, and in the end, perhaps it would solve some of the imbalance that seems to result from slot limits.

[FFBFishing]

I haven’t chimed in on this debate for awhile now, but I think IronD has a good point about the slots and how they should be varied. Case and point: Winnie the last two years has been awful. They’ve had a slot now for about nine years and its now only big fish being caught and it is very hard to find any fish under 18 in. with any consistency. The problem doesn’t seem to be the perch pop. as they are in there in great numbers.

Questions
1) Are the smaller fish only feeding on the perch and not the big ones? (This doesn’t seem likely)
2) Or are there a vast majority of big fish in the system now?

I don’t know what the answers are but it seems slots are a big factor in these lakes.

P.S. don’t get me wrong, netting during spawn isn’t great either but there’s something else going on here too.

Just my thoughts.

"A bad day fishing is still better than a good day at work"
Go figure I own my own company and it still rings true.

[smackem33]

IronDioPriest wrote:
I’m no expert on maintaining fisheries, but I do have a knack for logic. It seems to me that the problem with slots is that they protect fish of a certain size, and weed out fish of a certain size, and the end result is imbalance in the ecosystem.

Why not impose a “slot” limit that randomizes the harvest? Instead of saying, only fish between X” and Y” may be harvested, why not place a hard limit on the number of inches worth of fish can be harvested? Let’s say 36″ total inches of walleye, just to pick a number…

That can be two 18″ fish. It can be one 22″ fish and one 14″ fish. Or, if a guy decides he’s gonna take a 28″ fish home, that’ll be it for him. If he takes a 25″, he’ll have to decide if keeping that 11″er is really the kind of fisherman he wants to be.

This would have the net effect of randomizing the harvest, encouraging the taking of fish in the classes that are currently allowed, while leaving decisions up to fishermen, and in the end, perhaps it would solve some of the imbalance that seems to result from slot limits.

Sounds good only that means we hit our small poundage quota by June 1st and season closes till December

Your down! Your down!!! Just kidding

[snow]

Good to here from you fishpole,still kickin…Is hunter’s sending folks home with walleye,herd thats catching on @ some places,good concept to get folks to come up and fish on your launch and take a few canadian walleye fillets home.

[lindyRig]

I think that’s what the one over 20 inch and one under would accomplish as well, without being super complicated

[fishnpole]

According to the treaty negotiation, it’s time for mediation.

[fishnpole]

Seems like the DNR is looking for another “Blue Chip Panel of Experts” to verify publicly that they know what they’re doing by showing them all the fake numbers and their virtual reality machine that generates them when they input “estimates” and round off digits and “anticipate” data from things that are in Lake Erie (of all places to compare Mille Lacs to)

Look, we all know what’s happening.

Let’s sit down with the Tribal Leaders and cut the crap.

[dew2]

fishnpole wrote:
Seems like the DNR is looking for another “Blue Chip Panel of Experts” to verify publicly that they know what they’re doing by showing them all the fake numbers and their virtual reality machine that generates them when they input “estimates” and round off digits and “anticipate” data from things that are in Lake Erie (of all places to compare Mille Lacs to)

Look, we all know what’s happening.

Let’s sit down with the Tribal Leaders and cut the crap.

Seems to me some outside group called for a outside group to assess the Mn DNR assessments of the lake.Then when the reassessment agreeded(blue ribbon panel) with the MN DNR that same group called it bunk!!
Where to now?maybe a assessment from WHO?
Jeeze time to accept what you wont or cant.
Push push soon the natives may go to court where youve lost so much $$ an gone nowhere cept down!
Supreme court decided accept it thats the law of the land at its highest!
How many signatures on that 100,000 minimum in 30 days?So many so interested in the ban the nets EH?

Of all the things I've ever done,
I aint never had Too much fun.

[chris63]

Guilt keeps us(and them) from “cutting the crap”……Not sure if we’ll ever agree on even and equitable fishing and hunting “rights”for ALL mankind!Once you do agree you still have to have everyone abide by said “Laws/rules/ordinances”…………good luck!c63

[fishnpole]

dew2 wrote:

fishnpole wrote:
Seems like the DNR is looking for another “Blue Chip Panel of Experts” to verify publicly that they know what they’re doing by showing them all the fake numbers and their virtual reality machine that generates them when they input “estimates” and round off digits and “anticipate” data from things that are in Lake Erie (of all places to compare Mille Lacs to)

Look, we all know what’s happening.

Let’s sit down with the Tribal Leaders and cut the crap.

Seems to me some outside group called for a outside group to assess the Mn DNR assessments of the lake.Then when the reassessment agreeded(blue ribbon panel) with the MN DNR that same group called it bunk!!
Where to now?maybe a assessment from WHO?
Jeeze time to accept what you wont or cant.
Push push soon the natives may go to court where youve lost so much $$ an gone nowhere cept down!
Supreme court decided accept it thats the law of the land at its highest!
How many signatures on that 100,000 minimum in 30 days?So many so interested in the ban the nets EH?

I, for one have been humbled trying to get things right on this lake, dew.
What can we do to make this lake work for EVERYBODY?

[fishnpole]

If you were making the regs, what would you do?

[chris63]

This probably won’t ever happen but I would make one set of regulations/game laws that apply to all humans!Difficult to do for so many reasons.Keep up the good fight for your/our lake fpole.Dew seems to be an instigator of sorts.Instead of pointing out all the negative and faults with others bring and/or suggest ways to improve the situation.c63

[EasyPeezy]

I do not think he is trying to be negative. Everything about this amongst anglers spins off poorly and further pits people on one side of the fence.

There are some things about this that are the way they are and is very difficult or troubling to accept for some. To continue on labeling or deeming individuals in bad light due to their opinions does nothing good and causes further angst. Difficult as it may be, one must look beyond the emotion.

There are many layers to this and one I believe that is buried is the racial tension up in that part. If you know of the area and the people then you know the history and whats current. It is not pretty.

To think that politicians are unaware of that is a bit short sighted. Whether their own investigations or handlers, they have that knowledge.

And in this political climate we live in, it is dangerous ground. To try to garner support for the cause is very difficult. I understand that.

I think if any resolve is to come in the future, it is going to begin from the community mending relationships between parties. Develop some sort of trust. Develop an understanding. Compromise is going to be critical.

Then you can go from there. At least then, it appears this whole thing is not racially and financially driven.

Just an opinion, of course.

[BrianHoffies]

To have a compromise BOTH parties need to…………

1) Admit there is a problem.
2) Want to solve the problem.

[Author]

Posts