Fishing too good – likely to exceed quota

  • jon_jordan
    St. Paul, Mn
    Posts: 10908
    #1289318

    From the Star Trib:

    http://www.startribune.com/sports/outdoors/139554718.html

    Fishing too good: Mille Lacs group asks for relief from special limit

    Article by: DOUG SMITH , Star Tribune Updated: February 18, 2012 – 9:41 PM

    State anglers are likely to exceed their portion of the lake’s walleye harvest. Local business owners hope to avoid a change in regulations.

    GARRISON, MINN. – Fishing has been so good on Lake Mille Lacs that officials might have to tighten walleye regulations come spring or summer to prevent anglers from exceeding the state’s walleye allocation in 2012.

    And that prospect, delivered by Department of Natural Resources officials last week to the Mille Lacs Fishery Input Group, frustrated local business owners and led them to make an unusual request.

    The group directed the DNR to ask the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, which represents 11 Ojibwe bands, permission to exceed the state allocation this year.

    The Mille Lacs input group, made up mostly of local business owners, noted that angler walleye harvest has been far below state allocations for years. Last year, the state was allocated 397,500 pounds, but anglers harvested just 230,000 pounds.

    Allowing anglers to exceed the 2012 allocation of 357,500 pounds by perhaps 30,000 pounds wouldn’t hurt the walleye population, they argued. Under the current lake status, the state isn’t allowed to exceed the allocation.

    The Mille Lacs business owners have worked with the DNR in recent years to maintain consistent walleye regulations. Currently anglers must release walleyes 18 to 28 inches — a protected slot that has been in effect the past four years. The group fears that tightening the slot — and reducing the number of fish anglers can keep — would hurt their businesses.

    “Anglers will go somewhere else, to Lake of the Woods or Upper Red Lake,” if the slot is tightened too much, said Terry McQuoid of McQuoid’s Inn.

    “This is a small anomaly putting a $60 million fishery at risk,” said Steve Johnson, owner of Johnson’s Portside bait shop.

    Said Bill Eno of Twin Pines Resort: “It would be an opportunity for them [bands] to do the right thing.”

    DNR officials told the group at a meeting Thursday night at the Hazleton Town Hall that the walleye catch rates this winter have been high and likely will remain high come spring and summer.

    While it’s difficult to predict how fishing will be the rest of the winter season and next spring, DNR officials said most of their scenarios show that if the 18- to 28-inch protected slot is retained, anglers might exceed the 357,500-pound state allocation this year by perhaps 30,000 pounds.

    “The bottom line is we may have to make regulation changes ahead of time, or we could chance it and start out at 18 to 28 inches and see if we have to make a midseason change,” said Rick Bruesewitz, DNR area fisheries supervisor.

    Among the scenarios: going to a 17- to 28-inch protected slot; retaining the 18- to 28-inch slot but reducing the bag limit from four to two fish; or going with the 17- to 28-inch slot with a two-fish bag limit.

    “I sure don’t want a two-fish limit,” McQuoid said.

    It doesn’t help that the recommended safe harvest for walleyes has been reduced from 540,000 pounds last year to 500,000 pounds this year, which also dropped the state allocation by 40,000 pounds. The bands’ allocation was 142,500 pounds last year and this year.

    DNR officials said they will likely decide on the open-water walleye regulations next month.

    smackem
    Iowa Marshall Co
    Posts: 956
    #1040975

    I didn’t hurt em any

    jakeh
    White Bear Twp
    Posts: 997
    #1041011

    A 2 fish bag limit does not sound good at all…

    scott-k
    Red Wing
    Posts: 539
    #1041021

    Sure, sure, sure…didn’t THEY say that the walleye population was very low just a while ago? According to fall net checks??

    Now, we’ve caught too many OF FISH THAT DIDN’T SUPPOSEDLY EXIST???

    So, the WAY to get what THEY want is to say “Too many fish caught, let’s adjust the harvest…” Kind of contradictory.

    Sounds fishy to me!

    big_g
    Isle, MN
    Posts: 21845
    #1041039

    Saturday at the Hunters tourney, George said that at the meeting, the DNR said to prepare for protected slot of 17″-28″…

    Jesse Krook
    Y.M.H.
    Posts: 6403
    #1041090

    Sweet another great year of fishing Mille Lacs

    steveo
    W Central Sconnie
    Posts: 4102
    #1041093

    We’ve been living with a two to three fish limit for the last 6 years in N Sconnie.

    Grouse_Dog
    The Shores of Lake Harriet
    Posts: 2043
    #1041112

    Why bother?

    This whole argument gets so bizzare when they are netting and piling the fish in the woods from April 30 – May 10th.

    Dog

    walleyefisher87
    Central MN/ SJU
    Posts: 183
    #1041125

    well the tournament scene is gonna suck even more for me if this happens……gawd……

    walleyeben
    Albertville,MN
    Posts: 963
    #1041197

    I could almost triple quote on this thread!
    Nets SUCK and the politicans that support them are even worce. There is no heritge behind monofiliment nets and out boards! Lets reduce the harvest because of the tonage hooks and lines produced on this body of water but then say on other bodys of water that hook and line cant damage the fishery

    Gasman1
    Posts: 2
    #1041266

    With everything said, this is not a good situation for the lake and resorts!!

    Will Roseberg
    Moderator
    Hanover, MN
    Posts: 2121
    #1041335

    Even if we do exceed the quota this year it will only be by a small ammount so it seems like a huge overreaction to change to a 17-28″ slot since had we stayed with a 18″ slot all summer last year IMO we would have stayed under our quota. I know I’m preaching to the choir here, but why can’t we just use some common sense and quit overreacting

    jeff_huberty
    Inactive
    Posts: 4941
    #1041362

    It’s a recipe for disaster considering the money the resorts lost this winter.

    I still plan to fish up there no matter what they do to the regs.Bringing home fillets is no longer one of my top prioriteis.

    Palerider77
    Posts: 630
    #1041582

    yep, catch fish eat beef. no slot on steers.

    Brad Juaire
    Maple Grove, MN
    Posts: 6101
    #1041814

    I hear ya Jon – how did it go from having a fishery in such bad shape back in Nov. to a concern of exceeding harvest limits?

    Quote:


    It doesn’t help that the recommended safe harvest for walleyes has been reduced from 540,000 pounds last year to 500,000 pounds this year, which also dropped the state allocation by 40,000 pounds. The bands’ allocation was 142,500 pounds last year and this year.


    So if I understand this correctly – last year state anglers were 167,500 lbs under the allocation number.

    For 2012, state anglers allocation quota is 40,000 lbs less than last year but the band allocation is exactly the same. One would think if the overall allocation quota is to be decreased, both parties would participate in that reduction equally or based on a percentage of the total harvest. In other words, why do state anglers have to make up all of the 40,000 lb reduction for this year?

    walinutz
    Cologne, MN
    Posts: 370
    #1041828

    Sounds like perfect sense to me

    Just more proof the DNR has no idea what they are doing.

    jeff_huberty
    Inactive
    Posts: 4941
    #1041957

    Probably the same Guy who made the budget defict disappear.

    Sartell Eye Guy
    Sartell, MN
    Posts: 624
    #1042266

    Totally agree Jeff. Some of the resorts have to really be hurting after what has to be one of the worst “earning” winters in recent memory. Slap on the tighter slot and the possible lower limit….

    What the heck would they (the DNR) be doing if we had a normal winter, with a normal amount of angling hours? 14 to 16 with a 2 fish limit?

    What a damn mess.

    Mike W
    MN/Anoka/Ham lake
    Posts: 13182
    #1042295

    Not sure if “earning” is the right word to use. Loosing might be better. Talked to one NW resort owner tonight that claimed he lost 50k this winter by trying to keep open for ice fishing. He has less than 15 houses out and most of them had to go out a public access. Asked him about this coming summer and he didnt even want to talk about it.

    lancew
    Posts: 65
    #1042870

    As far as the resorts go, if fishing is good, people show up. When its not, they dont. Thats what I have seen on the lake. Slot size has very little to do with fishing pressure, but the bite quality and internet reports have a big impact. Of course, its tough to ice fish when there is no ice…..

    chris-tuckner
    Hastings/Isle MN
    Posts: 12318
    #1043297

    I have said it before and I’ll say it again, let the Natives fish with hook and line with no limits during their netting season. Put the nets away. After all…it’s for sustainance, right? Just like my ancestors, I did not give up netting. Netting rights were taken from me, Limits and laws have been imposed on me and every non-native American. And that is what Steve Fellegy is fighting. It is reverse discrimination.

    ptc
    Apple Valley/Isle, MN
    Posts: 612
    #1043520

    I agree with what Steve Fellegy is doing and hope he is successful.

    However, I think a more sure fire method is for sportsmen to stop visiting tribal casinos. I believe that loud, clear message would change the way the tribe “manages” the resource.

    kooty
    Keymaster
    1 hour 15 mins to the Pond
    Posts: 18101
    #1043893

    I’ve only been by the Mille Lacs casino twice this winter, but both times it was so packed with cars I’m not sure you could get another in there. While I believe you have a noble point, I’m not sure sportsman provide even a small dent in the revenue for that place?

    ptc
    Apple Valley/Isle, MN
    Posts: 612
    #1044163

    I’d bet more than 50% of the people in that casino have a fishing license. Even a 5-10% drop in gross receipts would get their attention.

    puddlepounder
    Cove Bay Mille Lacs lake MN
    Posts: 1814
    #1044267

    most, if not all the money that the natives spend on netting is supplied by the federal goverment, not the casino’s. if you want to make a impact, we have to jam up the access’s when they are here netting, or do what steve did, go out and catch walleyes right along with the natives. not 50 or 100 boats, 500 to 1000 boats or more, fill up the livewells. the dnr don’t have enough wardens to handle something like that. that would make a impact!!!

    ptc
    Apple Valley/Isle, MN
    Posts: 612
    #1044520

    I understand where the funding comes from. But I also understand that the tribe regulates their portion of the catch. i.e. how much and methods used. If the casinos feel a drop in revenue, and they understand why, I promise you it will impact their decisions on how much and methods used.

    steve-fellegy
    Resides on the North Shores of Mille Lacs--guiding on Farm Island these days
    Posts: 1294
    #1044542

    PTC….money is not important to the Tribal regime. This Treaty harvest thing is much bigger than $$.

    The head of GLIFWC, on video, was asked “why not stop netting during the spawn?” His answer? “Don’t you people grocery shop when things are on sale?” And then, on video, when asked “why not just buy the walleye fillets, costing around $150K per year, with the Federal $$ that fund GLIFWC and not net them, therefore not creating diviseness?” (GLIFWC gets over 5 million $$ from the Feds annually)His answer? “If we did that, we would not be exercising our rights.”

    The Tribal regime, statewide and nationally, gets funded in full, by Fed $$. No matter how good or bad Casino profits are. They get MORE $$ now than before the Casino’s were built. And they fight you with Fed funded lawyers…not Casino funded lawyers! So go figure…

Viewing 29 posts - 1 through 29 (of 29 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.