Is it a keeper? - Mille Lacs Lake Fishing (Fishing Reports, Events, Tournament Information and more)

fishnpole · Veteran Member

Is it a keeper?

Muskymadness · Veteran Member

I really do like this idea, but Fife brought up a good point on another thread. How many people are going to stop fishing when they reach their 60 " limit. The way the fishing was this summer, you could easily do that in under an hour. If you stay out there and fish, you are still putting fish back that may not make it.

Are you willing to drive two hours and spend $$ on lodging, gas, etc. to fish for an hour?

Like the idea, just don't know if it is the answer.

Rickster · Member

I think the lake needs to be managed by numbers and not pounds or lengths. They sould have kept the one over 20 rule and went to 3 or 4 fish when this whole tribal mess started. IMHO I think the lake would be in better shape than it is now.

Jon Jordan · Member

Agree. All of these ideas still don't matter as long as the nets are there. 60 inch rule just means we hit our quota faster and then live through a lake shut down each year.

-- Edited by Jon Jordan on Tuesday 21st of August 2012 05:41:10 PM

fishnpole · Veteran Member

Muskymadness wrote:
I really do like this idea, but Fife brought up a good point on another thread. How many people are going to stop fishing when they reach their 60 " limit. The way the fishing was this summer, you could easily do that in under an hour. If you stay out there and fish, you are still putting fish back that may not make it.
Are you willing to drive two hours and spend $$ on lodging, gas, etc. to fish for an hour?
Like the idea, just don't know if it is the answer.

Okay, let's take a look at this point for a minute.........

1. How many people are going to stop fishing when they reach their 60 " limit.

Whoever this IS that has 60" of fish in their livewell, HAS 60" OF WALLEYE IN THEIR LIVEWELL TO TAKE HOME TO THEIR FAMILY. How much do ya need?

2. The way the fishing was this summer, you could easily do that in under an hour. If you stay out there and fish, you are still putting fish back that may not make it.

If you're going out JUST to fish, nobody says you HAVE to keep any at all, so you are free to put any back that you'd like.

3. Are you willing to drive two hours and spend $$ on lodging, gas, etc. to fish for an hour?

Is it better to spend the $$ and go home without any fish? (What are you gonna say when your wife asks ya,"So where's the fish?")

(No doubt that there are those that will abuse the rule, just like there are those that abuse the slot system and the 4 and six limit system before that. They're taking a chance that they won't get caught and fined.)

Muskymadness · Veteran Member

Didn't mean to ruffle any feathers, just was adding some points to the subject. Something else to think about. You are obviously for the 60" rule. I would be OK with that. But, IMHO, if they don't change the netting situation, I don't believe any rule will change the future of the lake.

Muskymadness · Veteran Member

Good point Jon. Very good chance the lake would be shut down.

Steve Fellegy · Veteran Member

Jon Jordan wrote:
Agree. All of these ideas still don't matter as long as the nets are there. 60 inch rule just means we hit our quota faster and then live through a lake shut down each year.

-- Edited by Jon Jordan on Tuesday 21st of August 2012 05:41:10 PM
Exactly! The "inches" rules could never work as long as the quota is in place based on harvested pounds. That quota of pounds could easily be reached by the 4th of July. With the law/rules as is, the open water season ends at that point.
The "slot" would change considerably if 70 tons of netting harvest wasn't be forced into the equation. GET THE NETS OUT OF THE LAKE--AT LEAST DURING THE SPAWN and life changes/slot limits change hugely.

fishnpole · Veteran Member

Yes, Jon, that IS a very good point. (No feathers ruffled, here, buddy.)

Sadly, as hard as we try to get around being able to make ANY kind of changes, it always comes back to the spring cleanout of walleyes during the spawn netting.

THAT'S what's killing the lake!!

muskiemania · Member

Maybe a survey should be done for who thinks netting should be stopped.

Muskymadness · Veteran Member

I think that would be like asking who wants $100. LOL Pretty sure everyone understands that it needs to be stopped, at the very least changed from during the spawn.

muskiemania · Member

I will pay the $100 for it to stop

Muskymadness · Veteran Member

Count me in too! Mr. Fellegy has been doing his best and with our support, maybe he can do more.

Glen Ertl · Gray Goose Captain

I have always thought a 60" rule would be nice. Why ? Because I won't hardly fish when it is 80+ degrees and the walleye are deep... why ? Because I believe that pulling big eyes from the deep water for my enjoyment in the hot weather, is too big of a price for the walleyes. That is just me. Now if I could go fishing, and KEEP an obvious floater eye, rather than have to motor away from a dead eye, I would probably do it more and feel better doign it. Talk about quotas all you want, your DNR is figuring in all these floaters, that you/we kill every summer. I would just rather have the option to stink up the pan, rather than the shoreline. Yeah, stop netting...duh !!!!

fishnpole · Veteran Member

Yes, you're all making good points and this is exactly what we need to do........ brainstorm.

Unfortunately, not fishing isn't any kind of an answer, either. Bottom line is as these pictures show, because of the slot, (which is a result of the netting) the slot wastes alot of walleyes that could've been a meal for someone's family. (Instead of a stinking mess on the beaches)

Even Brett Larson from the Mille Lacs Messenger, has an opinion on the mess..........albeit a really unpopular one.

(Except maybe with the tribe.)http://www.messagemedia.co/millelacs/opinion/our_columnists/brett_larson/article_2494af66-eba3-11e1-8abe-0019bb30f31a.html

-- Edited by fishnpole on Friday 24th of August 2012 11:05:59 AM

-- Edited by Admin on Friday 24th of August 2012 02:11:32 PM

Fife · Formica Flat Vet

Glen Ertl wrote:
I have always thought a 60" rule would be nice. Why ? Because I won't hardly fish when it is 80+ degrees and the walleye are deep... why ? Because I believe that pulling big eyes from the deep water for my enjoyment in the hot weather, is too big of a price for the walleyes. That is just me. Now if I could go fishing, and KEEP an obvious floater eye, rather than have to motor away from a dead eye, I would probably do it more and feel better doign it. Talk about quotas all you want, your DNR is figuring in all these floaters, that you/we kill every summer. I would just rather have the option to stink up the pan, rather than the shoreline. Yeah, stop netting...duh !!!!

Glen,

I think you made a good point on why the 60" rule would never work. If I read this correctly, you don't fish when its hot out to protect the fish. If the 60" rule were in place, you stated that you would fish because now you have the possibility of keeping the fish. That is saying the 60" rule would result in more people fishing and thus more fish being caught and either kept or released with the possiblility of dying and therefore we would hit the safe harvest levels much faster.

No matter what, we all agree the netting has to stop.

Glen Ertl · Gray Goose Captain

Fife, if everybody had my mentality, I would agree. I am in the minority. I didn't say I DON'T fish when it's hot, but I prefer not too, because of mortality and having to let them rot. How is it possible, when I occasionally fish in mid summer and catch a 24 inch eye, that no matter how hard I try, it floats, puttting it legally into my livewell, instead of letting it rot, will hurt mille lacs anymore one way or the other ? In the pan or flaoting, its done. The slobs will always keep every fish no matter what the slot is, so they are not in my thoughts. Again, we as fisherman need to be part of the solution and not the problem. Is it perfect ? No. Is it better ? Maybe..... I just know it is a shame to see a perfectly good walleye floating by, when it could be put to better use, than simple CPR enjoyment once.

Glen Ertl · Gray Goose Captain

What the ?? First he says..... and I quote "Fishing today is primarily for sport, not sustenance."

Then he says ....... and I quote "I know what some of you are thinking: Why should we have to embrace extreme measures when tribal members can keep dozens or hundreds of fish? My answer: Forget about it. Don’t worry about what you have no control over."

I thought it was about "managing" the resource ??? Then he says "forget about it" ????? WTF ????

tat2jonnie · Senior Member

Until a fisherman has put enough time in on this lake to be able to say he's truly paid his dues, he shouldn't be allowed by ANY paper (even a scuzzy one like the Messenger) to make ignorant remarks that some people might take for truth.......... evileye

Doug Ertl · Website Admin

That article I can not even come up with the words to comment on. bleh

Animal · Member

Brett's quote:

"It’s time to rethink fish limits.

Long past time, in fact.

The current model for fishing limits is a century old, and times have changed too much to keep tinkering with an outmoded system.

That reality is long gone, and it’s time to stop tweaking regulations that are based on the nostalgia of a dying breed of men.
Instead, spend your time advocating for a sane alternative — not an extreme one — to our ancient, outmoded regulations:"
_________________________________________________________________________________________

WELL, THERE, BRETT, I JUST HAPPEN TO BE ONE OF THOSE "DYING BREED OF MEN". AND YOU SIR, ARE NEITHER A FISHERMAN OR AN EDITOR FOR A REAL NEWSPAPER.

Since you think that anything a century old is "outmoded", you have obviously changed your stance on the treaty of 1837.

THAT'S WAY OVER A CENTURY OLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

tat2jonnie · Senior Member

This video pretty much speaks for itself. Alot of catching and little keeping........................

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VB2mx17qt0