Are you nuts ? there wouldn't be a lot less locals, they are all transplants to begin with.

Mille lacs went in the crapper after netting started, Red Lake closed walleye fishing after being netted out. There is a reason fishing is closed during the spawn.

We all know that makes waaaay too much sense for the Minnesota DNR.

And that's where the similarities end.

Walleye fishing was closed on Red when there were too few mature females for successful reproduction. Fry stocking was needed to replace inadequate reproduction. Once spawning stock recovered to sustainable levels it was reopened, first moderate, and then gradually more aggressive harvest.

Walleye fishing was severely restricted on Mille Lacs while spawning stock was fine. There are litterally tons of mature female spawners in Mille Lacs, far more than needed for successful reproduction. Thin the adult population and reproduction and recruitment of young Walleye will improve.

So the effect of netting had no bearing on Mille lacs, just a coincidence.

Actually yes, since the population is currently underharvested. Believe it or not, harvest can be a very effective tool for managing Walleye populations.

Les you are starting to talk like the no freedom Dems. Take away the tourism then you wii be on the welfare train

Really, Flipper ? It sounds like you don't know much about tourism. Up here, and most places the folks that do the actual work, live in the back lots in the trailer houses in poverty most of the time, bar tabs, owing the resort bar, seasonally employed, low wage , unemployment comp types.

Some of your most touristy areas are the poorest counties in the state . A manufacturing base is a better deal.

Quota for 2020 combined is about 150,000 lbs, back in the day of 10,000 boats that quota would have been met in the first few days of the season. Say what you want, netting has ruined the lake.

If you insist, I suppose it has, indirectly because shared management has led to the rediculous low quotas from "safe harvest estimates". The amount of Walleye harvested by netting plus angler harvest is a pittance of what this lake could support, and be much better off for it.

Joint management has ruined the fishery. The lake and Walleye population is fine.

Buggs Bunny might have said of this thread..... "Shoulda toined left at Alba-koikee"

All depends on what Town and who is being paid off!

City owned liquor stores should be abolished or at least let private companies compete on a level playing field. I don't believe Government should compete with private business let alone have an exclusive business with no competition.

We sold our municipal to a private party. That party is afraid to open because they are licensed by the state.

True, but to listen to her, you'd think she was an expert in the field of contagious diseases when nothing could be farther from the truth. I think Walz relies and acts on her information.

The netting has a tremendous negative effect on the lake. I've had a place on the lake for more than 20 years. The Indians net and spear during the spawn in the spawning beds. If that doesn't have any effect on fish, then why do so many lakes in MN have posted signs on them restricting boats from some areas that are spawning beds?

There are a lot of walleyes in MilleLacs, but the majority of them are large females. Not that many of the smaller males. The DNR even attests to that.

The problem with MilleLacs is two fold. The netting in the spawning beds during the spawn by the Indians. And poor management practices by the MN Fisheries Division.

The problem with MilleLacs is two fold. The netting in the spawning beds during the spawn by the Indians.


How many pounds do they take on an average year?

Trapper 7 and gman,
I am not condoning netting walleye on the spawning beds, and understand your frustration observing that activity while open water anglers cannot even harvest a fish. Netting during the spawn is a social/ethical issue but is not the biological problem on Mille Lacs. It would be a problem is spawning stock was low and fry production was limited, but that is not the case. Wild fry production is through the roof on Mill Lacs and has been for multiple fry estimates spanning a number of recent years. These estimates are not slightly high, but 20-30 times the fry densities needed for good walleye production, yet these year classes consistently fail. Those extremely high fry densities are a clear indication that spawning stock is much higher than needed.This method of quantifying spawner abundance and spawning success is completely independent from other estimates of abundance such as gill net catch rates or population modeling, and is consistent with angler observations of high abundance of large fish. So, given the current spawner abundance, the Band harvesting their fish during the spawning period is not significantly reducing egg or fry production.

So why do these year classes consistently fail in spite of high fry production? Density suppression and carrying capacity. High densities of large fish will suppress recruitment of new young fish.

I don't know why people have such a hard time understanding and accepting the basic biological principle of density suppression.
Why do ranchers only graze so many cattle on a given tract of land? Why not just double the number and make more money? Carrying capacity.
Why don't farmers just plant 2-3 times more corn per acre and double or tripple their profits? Carrying capacity.
What happens when fur bearer abundance gets to high, above carrying capacity? Density suppression, disease, starvaion, reduced litter size, etc.
The priciples of carrying capacity and density suppression apply to fish populations as well.