Of this state’s 10,000-plus lakes, none is more tightly regulated, more closely scrutinized and more wildly popular among anglers than Mille Lacs Lake.
Knowing that, also know this: There will be plenty of disappointment (and probably anger) later this month when the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources announces rules drafted to guide the lake’s 2013-14 harvest levels, especially involving walleye.
Emotions aside, those rules must be built on three priorities: Improve the fishery’s long-term health. Protect the region’s economy while achieving the first priority. And be willing to step away from past management and harvest practices, some or all of which likely have contributed to current problems.
The most notable, short-term problem facing Mille Lacs is a rapidly declining walleye population, especially of fish in the size range anglers are allowed to keep — roughly 13 to 17 inches. Anglers have believed that for a few years. An October netting survey by the DNR validated it when results yielded the lowest walleye counts in 40 years. The DNR’s response: Cut by 50 percent — from about 500,000 to 250,000 — the total number of pounds of walleye that can be harvested in the coming year.
Walleye, though, aren’t the only fish struggling. The hot summer of 2012 took its toll on tullibees, a key part of the food chain. And anecdotal evidence points to very few jumbo perch now, which have long been another angling staple of the lake.
Finally, other factors not to be overlooked as contributing to the problems could include invasive species, warmer water, and, as mentioned, harvest practices that make Mille Lacs truly unique.
Indeed, no other Minnesota lake faces the dual threat of intense angling pressure year-round and tribal spring walleye netting.
The basic challenge is to rebuild the walleye population, ideally with more balance. But that won’t be easy — and not just because you can’t control Mother Nature.
The regional economy relies heavily on angling, which means stricter limits might keep anglers away. Plus, the impacts of tribal netting must be publicly examined. Now, when DNR and Indian fishery experts discuss netting the lake, the meetings are closed to the public.
Knowing the top priority is protecting the fishery in the long term, that needs to change. Similarly, both anglers and netters need to recognize they might face tighter restrictions in the short term.
After all, it makes little sense to keep doing what’s been done. Didn’t such practices help put the fishery in this precarious position?
— St. Cloud Times
Comments (9)
Add commentNetting
put this lake in such a precarious position and no one want's to believe or do anything about it.
No other lake
Mille Lacs is unique in a number of ways:
Generally very shallow, and therefore a little more susceptible to the effects of climate change. Walleyes, Tullabees, and even Muskies are a cool-water species. Connect the dots.
Treaty rights. Whitey has a long history of telling the Red Man that his word doesn't mean much. In this one small area, the Red Man finally has the appearance of getting the upper hand. Maybe if a few more of us took on the affect of a petitioner, asking for something, rather than the tone of the "angry old white man" demanding that the Red Man "get off our lake", we'd see some new responses.
Proximity to the Twin Cities created the appearance of an easy jaunt, and resorters and other entepreneurs were quick to recognize the opportunuity.
But things change, don't they? And the sniveling whiner class, hiding behind a faux pop-conservatism mindset, will demand that someone else give them something. The resorts, the beaneries, the tackle outlets, the gas stations, all of them could care less is you catch your limit of fish every time you go.
If we really cared, we'd go anyway, wouldn't we? But the fact that we're living in the "Narcissist era" (its all about me) justifies demanding that "my solution" take precedence, doesn't it?
Nothing will be solved. The lake will slowly fade away into memories. Life will go on.
Or not.
Brown Eye, I think you are so
Brown Eye, I think you are so right, it is time you FLAMING DEMOCRATS fix this problem.
Statements like "demanding that the Red Man "get off our lake", is so delusional, no one has said this. Perhaps your blue hair die is causing a chemical imbalance in your brain.
What do you expect, we have a
What do you expect, we have a "narcissist" as our President setting an example.
There seems to be an "angry white man" theme today on here. Makes me wonder if the writers are the ones who are the angry white guys.
Brown Eye, Thank God for the
Brown Eye, Thank God for the "Angry White Man" because your Flaming Democrat tail depends on him for your survival.
Conservation vs Conservatism
one cannot become lost between good science(conservation) and social ideology(conservatism).
i don't think one needs a degree in fisheries biology to determine what is causing the decline in year class fish in this case. this could turn out to be test case that results in both sides taking a step back and formulating new management models for shared resources( having another red lake helps no one).
if you look back to the time of the treaty agreement, more than fish was needed to nourish those who inhabited the area. why only traditional netting of fish?why not having a buffalo hunt that runs a herd of buffalo over a cliff or a deer/moose hunt that drives them off a island then harvested in the water trying to escape?
i don't think at the time natives and settlers were thinking of traditional values or rights . back then it was about having or not having food.
Trouble is
There are centuries of bad blood between us and the original inhabitants of this continent.
The Red Man has the upper hand on this one issue; the treaty seems to say the Red Man gets his cut first. Is it the Red Man's fault that the white man didn't value the fish very much, and didn't think he ever would?
The problem won't go away until either the fish are gone, or one of the "sides" is. It might not be necessary for one of the sides to dissappear, but it would be necessary for both to agree on each other's rights.
You know,
they want to protect us all from health dangers like guns, big sodas, fast food and a gazillion other control tactics. I think they should outlaw ALL gambling. State lotteries and Indian casinos. Also outlaw ALL forms of tobacco. All doctors that lose a malptactice lawsuit should then be criminally charged and incarcerated or execuited, depending on their crime. If they lose in court their lawyer should get a sentence for defending them. The UN should pass a resolution that mandates only clubs and stones may be used to kill people and all the leaders presently in charge of the UN should be subjected to trial for their persecution of their own citizens.
Ooops, I forgot that some of the more loving religions already do condone stoning, sorry.
I'll have to continue later.............