Red Lake DNR continues work on Red Lake Walleye Recovery Project

By Michael Barrett

Freelance Writer

            During a presentation by Professor Welle of Bemidji State University to conduct a special economic and environmental study of the Red Lake fishery presentation at the September 9, 2003 Regular Tribal Council Meeting, other discussions came about the Red Lake Fisheries Technical Committee.

            The Red Lake Fisheries Technical Committee was formed by the Red Lake Tribal Council and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources when the Red Lake Walleye Recovery Project first began in 1999. It consisted of representatives from the Red Lake Tribal Council, both the Red Lake and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Red Lake Fisheries Association.

            Conners explained that the memorandum charged that committee to meet as often as necessary, yet they have only been meeting twice a year. The purpose was to oversee the scientific basis of the recovery of the Walleye Project.

            Red Lake Representative Jim White asked Conners about why the committee did not share information with the public.

            “We do try and share that,” Conners answered.

            He added that they had a newsletter that usually did summarize the activities of the committee.

            “We don’t print the minutes word for word, but we do summarize it,” Conners said.

            White also inquired about the time frame of the Walleye Recovery Project, and also that people have been hearing rumors of 2-years, 4-years, 6-years. That needed to be explained to the people.

            Representative Pemberton said he had planned on having Pat Brown, DNR Fisheries Biologist, come in and give a presentation on the project that would explain where it currently was at, maybe at the October 2003 Regular Tribal Council Meeting. In an earlier statement he had said DNR experts figured they had about another four years to go.

            According to DNR studies, walleye stocking reports taken as far back as two years will not indicate fishing success on a lake on the third year, because it takes several growing seasons–summers–to reach a catchable size, which is about 1 pound or 14 inches. That time frame from stocking to reaching 1 pounds varies by region. In south Minnesota it takes about 3-4 years for a stocked walleye to reach 1 pound, while near the northern Minnesota border about 5-6 years.

            After the Red Lake Fisheries collapsed in 1996, former Chairman Bobby Whitefeather initiated a meeting with then-Minnesota DNR Commissioner Rod Sando in February 1997. That meeting led to the formation of the Red Lake Fisheries Technical Committee, a team of Red Lake Tribal, state, federal, and University of Minnesota fisheries experts. Reservation and Waskish citizens also offered their input.

            The Red Lake Fisheries Association voted to suspend all operations in 1997, and the Red Lake Tribal Council banned all gill net use.

            After more meetings, an agreement was signed in April 1999, which called for stocking 40 million walleye fry up to five times during the next ten years, a zero-walleye limit on all Tribal and state waters until walleye stocks recover, and increased enforcement efforts. The Red Lake Band would pay $40,000 of the $68,000 annual cost of the project, with the state DNR paying the remaining $28,000 from money generated by fishing license sales.

            According to Red Lake representatives on the Technical Committee, it wasn’t easy reaching an agreement and the committee nearly folded because the Tribe felt the Minnesota NR was dragging its heels on reducing the walleye limit in the state portion of Upper Red Lake.

            State fisheries managers wanted to reduce walleye harvests, yet they also felt the need to gain public support before making those changes. Eventually the walleye limit was reduced from six fish to two in the state waters of Upper Red Lake.

            “...Down the road when the fisheries is moved up, and it’s managed on a sustainable basis, the key role of the Technical Committee has been designed to determine what the state harvest is of those walleye on an annual basis,” Conners said.

            In reviewing the Red Lake Fisheries technical Committee Meeting minutes of their meeting of December 28, 2002 held at the People’s Natural Gas building in Bemidji, those in attendance included Minnesota DNR Fisheries and Enforcement personnel; Red Lake DNR Fisheries and Conservation Enforcement Officers, Pat Brown, Charles Grolla and Pat Graves; a Bureau of Indian Affairs representative; representatives of the Red Lake Fisheries Association, Bill May and Roy Nelson; a representative of the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and representatives from the University of Minnesota.

            It also listed members of the committee not present, which included Dan King, former Red Lake Fisheries Manager and Tribal Treasurer, Dave Conner and Allen Pemberton of Red Lake DNR.

            At this meeting the “2002 Population Assessment Results” were distributed by Pat Brown of Red Lake DNR and Andy Thompson of the Minnesota DNR.

            Brown reported that 2002 was the fifth year of trawling on Band waters. They have since expanded to state waters. Last year the committee recommended to continue trawling. Brown also reported that Red Lake DNR supported stocking in 2003. They have discussed internally (with Dave Conner) and they feel another stocking is warranted. George Sprangler of the U of M said it was uncertain that if they stock that it would suppress a 2004 year class, and the way it was looking it may be the last chance for additional stocking.

            Bob Jackson of the BIA asked if 58 million fry was the projected stocking range, for which Gary Barnard of the Minnesota DNR Fisheries answered it would be the quota needed to reach the 1,000 fry/littoral acre target. However, Barnard added, they have had excellent success the previous two stockings with much less than the 1,000 fry target.

            Jack Wingate also of the Minnesota DNR Fisheries, stated their department had to balance other stocking commitments, but was willing to commit to a nminum of 20 million depending on the Pine River egg take and statewide needs. If that egg take went well, he said 40 million fry would be no problem. The DNR was getting pressured to stock more walleye in other lakes and Wingate expected that pressure to increase.

            They discussed more about identifying a minimal level to stock, concluding that the target amoung should be 432 quarts which would equal the previous stocking efforts in 1999 and 2000.

            Bill May did not agree, but instead questioned the discussion about minimal stocking levels. He said since the Band was providing funding and Minnesota DNR had agreed to provide up to 500 quarts, Red Lake should be the highest priority. Jackson of the BIA said that since Red Lake is putting $40,000 into stocking efforts, that should have influence on priorities.

            Enforcement updates were also given at this meeting, first by Jim Dunn with state DNR enforcement, and secondly by Pat Graves’ Conservation Report.

            Graves reported that work efforts entailed 634 lake patrol/man hours, 973 fishermen checked, and 1 violation. They were currently working with five conservation officers and hoped to hire one more in the coming months. He also reported that officers would be patrolling the lake on a daily basis. They have also set up check points at the shoreline and lake, and have an underwater camera this year. He concluded that overall, things went well during the year, fishermen were cooperative and concerned about walleye recover. He said they had one problem getting a conviction after catching suspects with walleye in their possession. He added that they needed to educate the courts on fish and game laws.

            Other items reported on at this meeting including the University of Minnesota project update, along with media and public relations reports.

            At their next planned meeting held on March 26, 2003, according to the draft copy of the minutes, members not present included Jackson of the BIA, Roy Nelson and Dan King of the Red Lake Fisheries, Allen Pemberton of Red Lake DNR, and Sprangler of the U of M.

            The first item reported on was the Joint Assessment Report by Andy Thompson and Pat Brown, as well as some discussions on the finances and when the lake reopened.

            Bill May said he had been thinking about the finances involved in further stockin. He was concerned about what Don Pereira of the Minnesota DNR Fisheries said about the proposed 2003 stocking not making much different in the rate of recovery. May asked if they were going to be wasting dollars stocking 40 million fry and was up in the air about supporting it.

            Pereira clarified his statement by saying even if the stocking did little to help recovery it was still very valuable to provide another estimate of natural fry production. He recommended some continued stocking of marked fish even in later years for evaluation purposes. He said probably as few as 10 million, but they didn’t need to decide that now.

            We have to hake sure the lake is stable before we reopen, May said. The Red Lake Band had been gill netting all those years. The people are split about what they should do in the future. From what he was hearing more are leaning towards no more gill netting. But they also know that the fishery is valuable; they can’t just sit back and leave it alone, but need a plan. Everyone saw what was happening on the east end with the crappie fishery and the money that it was generating. Most Band members are against opening to outsiders.

            Lt. Dunn of Minnesota DNR Enforcement asked him why that was, for which May answered, fear, and Dave Conners answered, encroachment.

            On Nett Lake the Band has guided duck hunting as a means of generating some income from the resource, Dunn exlained.

            May said Red Lake didn’t have the laws in place to deal with a sport fishery and the number of anglers it would generate.

            Some have expressed fear that in order to take advantage of tourism, it would not be conductive to independent ‘mom and pop’ operations, Conners said. This would be a switch from commercial gill netting which was independent to a sport fishery operated by the Band.

            Pat Graves said it would also require a lot of investment to get infrastructure in place for sport fishery. They do not have the dollars for that.

            When asked if it would take a change in the Red Lake Constitution for non-members to be allowed to fish, May answered that, yes, it would. He added that we have much to do to gear up for eventual harvest. He said they needed to get going on developing some plans for the reservation before they were ready to resume harvest.

            Other issues discussed were issues involving stocking, the University of Minnesota Project, and the contribution of stocked fry to the walleye population in the Red Lakes 2002.

            The draft copy of the minutes was incomplete, therefore no further information was available to report on. However, there next meeting was scheduled for December 17, 2003 at the probable location being the People’s Natural Gas Building in Bemidji.

            As for adding more current Tribal Council members to the committee, the Council voted unanimously to appoint Representatives Rudy Johnson, Jim White and William Green to be added to the Red Lake Fisheries Technical Committee.

            Now in its fourth year, the Red Lake Walleye Recovery Project still continues and everyone wonders when the moratorium on walleyes will end–both Tribal members and non-members who fish on Upper Red Lake.

            At the Red Lake Fish Hatchery in Redby on Monday, September 13, 2003, Pat Brown, Fisheries Biologist for Red Lake DNR, along with Herb Mountain, Pat Spears, Pam May and Marlys Schoenborn, were busy collecting data from the fish caught in the special nets that were set on the prior evening.

            Once a year they had twelve settings they did, putting four nets out on the lake in twelve separate locations. They started doing this in 1997.

            Brown measured, weighted and took scale samples from each fish, while Spears and Mountain gathered the ear bones from the fish and placed in plastic containers. The ear bones resembled a small contact lense, but were a little smaller in size. They would cut the heads off the fish and pick them out with a small tweezers. Spears said there were 3 ear bones in a fish, whereas a human had five.

            “We’re getting bigger fish also from the previous fish that had already been in the lake prior to restocking,” Brown said.

            He added he thought they might have a record year on the fish they caught in their special nets–a gill net with different sized meshes that allowed all sizes of fish to be caught and sampled for testing. In previous years their nets had yielded much less fish. During this particular setting, they had over 100 fish that consisted of walleyes, perch, sheepshead, northerns, suckers, whitefish, and crappie.

            But on some occasions there was even more fish than that caught.

            Brown said the 1999 fish they stocked were starting to mature now–getting more females, which was good news.

            “It’s coming back strong,” Brown said of the walleye. “The biggest problem was they had a lot of young fish out there. But the future is promising.”

            He predicted the fish would be ready for harvest in probably 3 years, which would be 2006. They had to wait for the 1999 fish to start laying their eggs, as well as the 2001 fish to mature.

            The Minnesota DNR was also doing this type of netting on state waters.

            Stocking had taken place first in 1999, 2001, and this spring of 2003.

            The speed of growth of a fish depended on the location of the lake. Southern lake fish grew faster than northern lake fish because of the water temperatures–fish grew more during the summer months.

            The reason the DNR stocked every other year rather than yearly, was because a generation of walleyes stocked one year will eat much of the food needed by the next walleye year class. That phenomenon iscalled year class suppression. To prevent this from happening to stocked walleyes, fisheries managers usually don’t stock two years in a row and instead stock every other year or even every third year.

            According to the Minnesota State DNR Fisheries Website, the best way to maintain walleye numbers is to protect the variety of lakes and streams they inhabit through existing laws, limiting pollution and regulating reservoir and tailrace water levels. Shoreland zoning and related laws aid walleye and other fish by controlling lake and river shoreline development and protecting aquatic plants that walleye or forage fish use for cover. It is important to protect rocky spawning shoals from pollution and sedimentation.

            Sometimes, walleye spawning areas can be enlarged or rehabilitated by trucking loads of carefully selected boulders and cobble over the ice and dropping it at a precise location over the spawning area. Warm weather melts the ice and deposits the substrate. However, these artificial spawning reefs have their limits.

            The water level of large reservoirs can be manipulated to increase walleye reproduction. Low water during much of the year allows waves to crash over rocky reefs and shallows, clearing sediment from spawning areas. By raising the water level during early spring, as would happen under natural conditions, reservoir manager cover these reefs with water of adequate depth for the walleye to spawn.

            On most waters, closed seasons protect walleye during spawning. Possession limits distribute the total catch among many anglers. Lately, fish managers have been looking at special regulations as a way to protect walleye.

            For many years fish managers operated under the principle of maximum sustained yield. Their goal was to provide to anglers year after year the greatest possible poundage of desirable fish - either as a few lunkers or as many small walleye.

            Managed in this way, Minnesota's large lakes have yielded to anglers millions of walleye every year. In total weight of walleye, Minnesota lakes are as productive as ever. But anglers have complained that the fish are getting smaller.

              Several things may be at the root of this. Modern walleye fishing techniques are perhaps better at catching medium-sized fish than large fish. Also, a strong year-class can dominate the walleye population; when these abundant fish are small, it will appear as though the lake is filled with nothing but small fish. Then, as these abundant fish grow larger, the angler will begin catching large fish.

              Nonetheless, evidence suggests that the average size of walleye in the creel from the large walleye lakes is indeed declining - not because of some temporary aberration, but over the long term. In Winnibigoshish, for example, fishing pressure increased more than 700 percent from 1939 to 1977 while walleye yields (in pounds per acre) increased 150 percent. Most dramatically, however, the average weight of walleye that were kept declined from 2.2 pounds in 1939 to 1.3 pounds in the 1950's to 1.1 pounds in the 1970's. If Winnibigoshish is any indication, the average angler is catching fewer and smaller walleye. The problem apparently stems from fishing pressure.

            Not only are more anglers spending more time at their sport, they also are better educated in their fishing techniques and better outfitted. This intense fishing pressure is like a mower blade, chopping off the seed and blossom and leaving the stubble - in this case the small walleye that proliferate to fill the void left by the larger fish. As the average size of the fish drops, anglers are willing to keep smaller and smaller fish, and the problem of fishing pressure is compounded.

            While our lakes produce as many pounds of fish as ever, anglers have noticed that each is catching fewer fish (because they're sharing the yield with other anglers) and that these fish are smaller. As each person's catch declines in number and size of fish, the old management philosophy of maximum sustained yield - large fish or small - comes increasingly under attack.

            Stocking large lakes is futile, the DNR says. Mille Lacs can produce more than 2 billion walleye fry a year--seven times the DNR's annual hatchery production. Besides, there are plenty of small fish. Anglers want more ‘large’ fish. And raising and releasing lunkers is prohibitively expensive.

            If we can't add large f ish, we have one option: we can ‘take’ fewer large fish.

            Ways of limiting the take include shortening the season and outlawing depthfinders and other sophisticated equipment. These measures would be unpopular. The DNR would prefer to limit directly the number of fish kept rather than to cut down on the amount of time anglers spend on the water or to dictate the equipment they can use.

            Many fishing groups have suggested that anglers practice more "catch-and-release" fishing and that the DNR institute size limits to protect large fish.

            When complaints erupted about poor fishing on Mille Lacs, the DNR and local anglers group developed just such a plan. Early-season night fishing was closed to limit the take when fishing pressure was greatest and walleye were most vulnerable. A new size limit allowed anglers a daily bag of only one fish longer than 20 inches to protect large fish and put more pressure on small fish.

            The Mille Lacs regulations are unusual in that they apply only to Mille Lacs. They do not affect the statewide seasons and limits. Thus, they are called "special regulations." Special regulations are tailored to characteristics of the fish population, fishing pressure and other problems unique to a single lake or river. They may also be designed for a particular goal. Therefore, one lake may be managed to produce a few trophy fish while another may be managed to produce many smaller fish for the frying pan.

            Though the DNR is just beginning to experiment with special regulations for walleye, it appears likely they will become increasingly important.

            One kind of special regulation that has been uses with other species and may be useful in walleye management is the "slot" limit, which protects a certain size fish. For example, anglers may be required to return all fish between 18 and 22 inches but can keep fish outside that slot. The slot limit would allow anglers to keep "eating-sized" fish as well as a few trophies. Medium-sized fish would be protected to make for better fishing (not to protect brood stock, which usually exists in sufficient numbers). The number of small fish would be reduced through angling pressure and cannibalism by large walleye. Often, growth rates improve as the small fish become fewer, and the number of large fish increases in this way as well. The secret lies in finding the proper slot for the productivity of the lake and the growth rates of the walleye in it. Success depends on good survey data

            What about the familiar minimum-size limit? For example, a regulation may require that all fish under 12 inches be returned to the water. That way, the little ones will have a chance to grow to be big ones, right? Well, no. They'll have the chance to grow to about 113/4 inches and then likely will be yanked from the lake. A minimum-size limit will produce big walleye only if it is pushed up to lunker size--22 inches, for example. That kind of restriction is nearly catch-and-release requirement.

            Though size restrictions have been a hot topic, there are other ways to limit the kill and improve fishing.

            One way is to greatly reduce the possession limit - perhaps from 6 to 1 - and thus encourage catch-and-release fishing.

            Minnesota’s cool-water hatcheries and rearing ponds each year produce 2-5 million walleye fingerlings and millions of fry. The major value is to provide walleye fishing in areas of the state void of natural walleye populations.

            Over the years, the mixture of ever-increasing walleye mania and the lure of tourism bucks has produced an over-reliance on stocking. As a result of this emphasis on hatchery production, many anglers wrongly believed that stocking was a panacea for poor fishing, that any lake could be a walleye lake, and that the walleye could not thrive without artificial propagation. None of that is true.

            Simply put, stocking a lot of small fish does not guarantee catching a lot of big fish.

            Furthermore, native Minnesota walleye have flourished since the Ice Age without our help. But having relied on the stocking program for several decades, the DNR has found it difficult to convince anglers of other effective management tools.

            Still, the effect on the state's total fishery is limited. One fish manager estimated that perhaps only 5 percent of the walleye that anglers catch come from a hatchery. The rest were the result of natural reproduction. "We survive on Mother Nature's bounty," he said, "which is a heck of a lot cheaper than stocking fish."

            In the words of one DNR report: "There is no evidence that the walleye population of the stocked natural walleye lakes sampled were increased over that which might occur naturally without stocking." The point is this: Given the great cost of raising walleye, why put them in lakes where walleye already spawn successfully or where stocked walleye do not improve fishing?

            There is evidence that stocking can be harmful as well. Stocked walleye may compete for food with other game fish, particularly largemouth or smallmouth bass The result may be fewer or smaller bass. And because the bass is a more efficient predator of small sunfish than the walleye (which feeds more on perch), the introduction of walleye may contribute to stunting of the panfish These are all issues that are just now being studied. It seems, however, that stocking is not the benign activity it once was assumed to be.

            Despite its limitations, stocking is a useful tool for some purposes. Walleye are introduced to lakes that have been ‘rehabilitated’ (that is, where the previous fish were deemed undesirable and removed). Where habitat is suitable, these introductions often establish self-sustaining fisheries.

            In one of the most popular and effective uses of stocking, walleye fry are put in heavily used lakes that occasionally winter-kill. These lakes–many of them in southern Minnesota–are fertile, and walleye fry quickly grow into ‘keepers’. The fish maybe be given some protection with aerators to increase winter oxygen, but still, stocking these lakes is a gamble. The risk is losing great numbers of game fish before they can be caught. The payoff is desirable game fish where otherwise nongame fish would swim. Heavey use by anglers makes the gamble worth taking.

            Walleyes are also stocked in lakes with all the elements necessary for survival except suitable spawning areas.

            This approach works in lakes that once were natural walleye producers but that since have succumbed to farm runoff and lakeshore development. As fertilizers, septic-tank seepages and other sources of nutrients have enriched waters, algae proliferate and smother walleye eggs. In this instance, stocking is a prosthesis for an injured body of water.

            Occasionally, walleye are stocked to bolster the number of catchable fish where heavy use or poor reproduction justifies the expense. This is extremely expensive, however. Only occasionally is it a good investment.

            So what does the future predict? According to the Minnesota DNR, loss of habitat and increasing fishing pressure will continue to be the biggest issues in walleye management. 

            If walleye are to have good areas to spawn and grow, regulations must prevent water pollution, control agricultural runoff, restrict lakeshore development, and control the clearing of aquatic vegetation. If habitat can be protected, anglers and fish managers still must contend with fishing pressure. As more people fish more effectively on the state's big walleye lakes, they will have two choices: Put up with reduced quality of walleye fishing; or reduce the kill of desirable fish through catch-and-release fishing, size limits, preference for other species, or other methods that limit the walleye catch. Some lakes may be managed for trophies; others for many pan-sized fish. Anglers may find first-rate walleye fishing on lesser-known streams and small lakes.

            Walleye stocking, that popularly imagined panacea, is a useful took in correcting problems and maintaining fisheries in special circumstances on a modest scale. But as medicine for walleye fishing statewide, it isn’t the answer.

            For further information on the Minnesota DNR Fisheries, check out their Website at www.dnr.state.mn.us,

            Red Lake DNR Fisheries Biologist Pat Brown said he would have all his data collected and analyzed in October of this year, which should provide more information on the Walleye Recovery Project and any changes.