Anyone think that it is a coincidence that 2008 and 2013 both resulted in notable year classes and both of those years the netting was delayed because of late ice outs?
The fisheries chief position should be an elected position, then maybe we could get someone that has a clue. I'm not a smart man to begin with and have now lost a few more brain cells by reading that article. Thanks Bob
In the current issue of Outdoor News, he says that the DNR is looking at all venues as to why the walleye population is low and talks about new regs for Northerns and Smallies. Yet he never mentions Muskies as a possible addition in the walleye populatioN decline. Later in another article he discusses the possible increase in the minimum size regs to 50 inches from 48 inches statewide. Decrease in toulibees as well as walleye and perch and the biggest predator and one stocked by the DNR is being protected with a possible increase in minimum length size. Plus the season closes before ice fishing starts. Just say thanks to the DNR.
As usual, the DNR's response fails to recognize several important factors that we all see clearly on the lake.
This response --its questions and answers --loses credibility in a hurry because they will not discuss the netting and other predators in the lake. With that said, no wonder the decline in male walleyes continues to occur -- with such great non-management of the issues they will not discuss.
Muskies are amazing eating machines To a muskie — large, toothy, eating machines that they are — feeding is all about efficiency and maintaining a balanced budget. Will the energy collected by eating this meal outweigh the energy expended to catch it? The fat-rich cisco, piled high on the “In†side of the scale, is an excellent return on investment to the weight and girth of the fish. In the last weeks of open water, the ciscoes are manna from heaven, helping muskies make up for a lazy summer of goofing off, snacking on perch. Deep under the dark winter ice, those fish that successfully bulk up now on ciscoes will have the fat stores they need. Think polar bears and seals. Think grizzly bears and salmon.
The most successful of these muskies have been doing this, year in and year out, for almost 20 years in this lake. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources planted truckloads of muskie fry and fingerlings in Mille Lacs back in the late '80s and early '90s. These fish not only have survived, but also grown and thrived to mythical proportions. The DNR will tell you that the oldest of these fish is probably 20 years old. And well above 50 inches.
Now, most of the tullibees are gone. Their next favorite food is small walleyes. These things are walleye vaccumes.
Everything that Rises Must Converge
Like many of what are now Minnesota’s premier muskie waters, Mille Lacs had muskies introduced by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) beginning in the early 1980s.
According to Tom Jones, DNR Large Lake Specialist for Mille Lacs, stocking began in 1984 with fish from hatcheries in Wisconsin. Stocking of Wisconsin-strain muskies continued until 1989, when Leech Lake-strain muskies became the brood source for the Minnesota muskie program. Initial stocking occurred annually and at intense levels—5,000 fish per year, with one year in which 10,000 muskies were planted.
With a limited amount of competition from Mille Lacs pike, newly stocked muskies thrived in an environment rich in forage—perch and suckers, and later, as muskies matured, Mille Lacs’ massive cisco population.
It’s fish from these initial intense stockings, according to Jones, that have produced exceptional trophy numbers in recent years. “Anglers talk about the sheer numbers of big fish right now,” he says. “It’s not just their perception. Our survey numbers support that observation. Fish from the initial years of stocking are 15 to 16 years old, and there are some huge year-classes of fish that age.
“In our most recent survey, if you look at female muskies, there are more fish in the population over 49 inches in length than under. We surveyed 72 females and 26 of them were over 50 inches, 5 of them over 53 inches.
“The biggest we surveyed was a 54-incher, which died,” he says. “We found her the next day. She was empty of eggs at the time and was still in the high 40-pound range. Full of eggs, she’d have been in the mid-50s, probably. That fish had a tag from a study that was ongoing in the mid-1980s—before the change to the Leech Lake strain—so it was a Wisconsin-strain fish from one of the first 3 or 4 years of stocking.”
The muskie is a voracious predator. Fry 15 days old and 1 1/2 inches long eat live forage fish. They consume 6.4 percent of their body weight per day. Adults eat mostly minnows, suckers and shad. They seem to be opportunists and when hungry will eat any living thing they can catch and swallow. Average growth of muskies is reported as 10.5,17,22.4,26.4 and 30.2 inches at the end of successive years of life and a 48-inch fish would be around 14 years old.
Hello muskies..................goodbye walleyes!
This planting of at least 5000 fry a year makes no sense if you are managing a fishery for walleye. This, combined with spring netting during the spawning season with nets that target 14" to 20" males and slots that target the same year class of fish for anglers borders on total stupidity.
YET THEY DON"T KNOW WHAT"S CAUSING THE 40-YEAR LOW IN WALLEYE POPULATION NUMBERS ???
GET A FRICKIN' CLUE, YOU DUMMIES !
-- Edited by fishnpole on Tuesday 21st of January 2014 02:07:20 PM
Nope, never said muskies were gay. That picture wasn't meant to imply that at all. All I'm saying is, if I was REALLY trying to bring back the walleye population here on the lake I surely wouldn't be planting 5000 fry of a species that eat so many smaller walleyes every year.
I'm still TOTALLY against netting during the spawning season as ANOTHER way to help the population survive, along with getting rid of a "SLOT" that encourages targeting the same year classes as the indians and ALL the other predator fish, including musky, northerns, smallmouth bass, and bigger WALLEYES.
I think we need to do EVERYTHING we can to preserve the walleye population of the lake. If we don't, we'll have another Red Lake fiasco in 2 years.
I know the musky guys like yourself don't agree and I don't by any means think they are the ONLY problem we got and don't mean to step on anybodies' toes, but that was the discussion that wasn't addressed by Perriera. If he's going to make a difference in the lake I think it needs to be included in the formula for the rehabilitation of the lake to it's former greatness before netting, introduction of muskies and the biggest boner of them all; THE SLOT!
-- Edited by fishnpole on Tuesday 21st of January 2014 07:38:38 PM
Anyone think that it is a coincidence that 2008 and 2013 both resulted in notable year classes and both of those years the netting was delayed because of late ice outs?
Musky are an invasive species in Mille Lacs and should be treated as such. Just another brilliant DNR idea gone bad and waste of money. The DNR should be trying to protect lakes' natural ecosystems and not trying to introduce their own idea of one.