Resorts & Lodging
Fishing Guides
Bait & Tackle Shops
Products & Services
Important Links
Classified Ads
Contact Us & More
Minnesota Fishing Reports



« 1 ... 4 5 6 (7) 8 9 »



Re: New Petition to eliminate Treaty Management on Mille Lacs
LSF Member
Joined:
01/23/2012
Posts: 56
Signed, sealed and delivered,

Posted on: 6/18 18:54:26
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer


Re: New Petition to eliminate Treaty Management on Mille Lacs
LSF Member
Joined:
03/29/2013
Posts: 101
Quote:

whiskey- wrote:
Quote:

LOW1 wrote:

I think there are many reasons to not sign the petition, including:

- Harvest rights by the Bands, according to the scientists, are not the cause of ML's problems

- Not wanting to waste time/energy/money in pursuing yet another route which almost certainly would fail in the courts

- Recognizing that the era of virtually unlimited walleye harvests on ML may be permanently over and wanting to promote and develop the other attractions of the area

-Not wanting to be a part of our country's unfortunate history of denying Native Americans their treaty rights.

-Recognizing that what the area needs is civility and compromise rather than continued controversy

-Recognizing that under treaty management the situation is getting better

I am sure there are more. I am also sure that some people consider the above thoughts to be wrong, "snowflakey," or otherwise inappropriate. But I also think that they are, at least to many, real and need to be recognized.


Thank you for sharing an opposing viewpoint in summary. I would like to know more about your first point. What exactly do ecologists say about the lake's issues?


For years the biggest argument against the Bands' harvest rights was that the Bands' practice of gillnetting during the spawn was a major factor in the crash of the ML walleye population. It was claimed that this practice killed walleye before they spawned and interfered with others that were trying to spawn.

Biologists studied the matter and concluded that the decline in ML walleye was not caused by a lack of walleye spawn but was instead caused by a failure of the spawn to live to maturity. Predation by walleye and other fish was apparently a big part of why this failure to reach maturity was occurring.

FishnPole, in a post below, argues that treaty management should be eliminated because the quotas agreed to as part of this process are too low and that by removing more larger walleye that more spawn may reach maturity. (I hope FnP corrects me if I have mistated his view)

If FnP is correct, it seems to me that if treaty management has succeeded to the point where there is a need to harvest more ML walleye, that the last thing we want to do is get rid of treaty management. Instead, if FnP is correct, the thing to do would be to adjust the quotas upwards.

I don't think either side wants to keep the quotas low. For example, if the state wanted to keep the quotas low it would not have harvested over its quota last fall. Let the biologists hash it out and give us their view of the current situation.

Posted on: 6/18 20:04:35
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer


Re: New Petition to eliminate Treaty Management on Mille Lacs
LSF Member
Joined:
05/06/2012
From North shore of Mille Lacs
Posts: 1642
Quote:

LOW1 wrote:

For years the biggest argument against the Bands' harvest rights was that the Bands' practice of gillnetting during the spawn was a major factor in the crash of the ML walleye population. It was claimed that this practice killed walleye before they spawned and interfered with others that were trying to spawn.

Biologists studied the matter and concluded that the decline in ML walleye was not caused by a lack of walleye spawn but was instead caused by a failure of the spawn to live to maturity. Predation by walleye and other fish was apparently a big part of why this failure to reach maturity was occurring.

FishnPole, in a post below, argues that treaty management should be eliminated because the quotas agreed to as part of this process are too low and that by removing more larger walleye that more spawn may reach maturity. (I hope FnP corrects me if I have mistated his view)

If FnP is correct, it seems to me that if treaty management has succeeded to the point where there is a need to harvest more ML walleye, that the last thing we want to do is get rid of treaty management. Instead, if FnP is correct, the thing to do would be to adjust the quotas upwards.

I don't think either side wants to keep the quotas low. For example, if the state wanted to keep the quotas low it would not have harvested over its quota last fall. Let the biologists hash it out and give us their view of the current situation.


While you and I will probably always be at loggerheads on the timing of netting walleyes while they're trying to reproduce, I think we are in agreement about the predation caused by adjusting slots to keep larger fish protected from harvest.
I still have to say, LOW, my patience has expired waiting for the "biologists" to "hash it out".
If they haven't figured it out by now, they never WILL!
We need to thin the herd right now, while there's still enough forage in the lake to support a healthy population,
This concept is supported by the above report from the biologist that used to work for the MN DNR, Dick Sternberg. If they are this slow to respond to changing fluctuations in the walleye population of Mille Lacs,( because of mired abilities to change regulations to best adjust harvest to coincide with what would be appropriate in a timely manner), they need to change what they're doing management wise.
I wouldn't have ANY problem with Treaty Management if we were still at a limit of six fish any size like we were when this farce called Treaty Management took over, instead of C&R for the second year WITH CLOSURES.




It's indefensible, LOW, and everybody knows it.

http://www.startribune.com/how-to-fix-mille-lacs-one-man-s-perspective/250480771/

Posted on: 6/18 22:57:23
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer


Re: New Petition to eliminate Treaty Management on Mille Lacs
LSF Member
Joined:
05/06/2012
From North shore of Mille Lacs
Posts: 1642
The Underlying Problem
During the 2002 fishing season, Mille Lacs anglers enjoyed the bite of a lifetime. With the lake s baitfish population at an all-time low, fishermen caught walleyes at ten times the normal rate, prompting the DNR to dub the phenomenon a 10X bite. But the lack of forage during the early part of the season left the walleyes in extremely poor condition.
Most fish were 20 to 30 percent underweight and some of the larger fish were close to 50 percent underweight. Many of the 28-inch plus walleyes brought into fishing tournaments weighed 5 to 6 pounds and one 29-incher registered 4.73 pounds.
As the season progressed, it became apparent that there had been a good perch hatch, despite the scarcity of adult perch. The smaller walleyes soon regained much of the weight they had lost, but the larger ones showed little improvement. Evidently, the young perch were not enough to sustain the bigger walleyes and the larger perch and tullibees that they normally eat were in very short supply.
By late June, fishermen were reporting an alarming number of dead walleyes either floating or washed up on shore. Anglers using underwater cameras also saw large numbers of dead walleyes on the bottom. Because of the narrow slot and shortage of walleyes within that slot, anglers had to catch from 20 to 40 walleyes for every one they could keep. With the water warming and that many fish being released, hooking mortality was bound to be high. But with the fish being so hungry, they were taking the bait even deeper than normal, lowering the chances of a successful release. And the fact that many of the fish were in a weakened condition no doubt reduced the survival rate even more....................................................Dick Sternberg




If we don't start harvesting some fish, we're doomed to make this same mistake as 2002. The DNR says "It's hands are tied. (By the "Treaty Management")http://www.fishinghalloffamemn.com/hall-of-famers/dick-sternberg/

Posted on: 6/19 0:40:57
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer


Re: New Petition to eliminate Treaty Management on Mille Lacs
LSF Member
Joined:
02/28/2005
Posts: 2965
Quote:

LOW1 wrote:

For years the biggest argument against the Bands' harvest rights was that the Bands' practice of gillnetting during the spawn was a major factor in the crash of the ML walleye population. It was claimed that this practice killed walleye before they spawned and interfered with others that were trying to spawn.

Biologists studied the matter and concluded that the decline in ML walleye was not caused by a lack of walleye spawn but was instead caused by a failure of the spawn to live to maturity. Predation by walleye and other fish was apparently a big part of why this failure to reach maturity was occurring.

FishnPole, in a post below, argues that treaty management should be eliminated because the quotas agreed to as part of this process are too low and that by removing more larger walleye that more spawn may reach maturity. (I hope FnP corrects me if I have mistated his view)

If FnP is correct, it seems to me that if treaty management has succeeded to the point where there is a need to harvest more ML walleye, that the last thing we want to do is get rid of treaty management. Instead, if FnP is correct, the thing to do would be to adjust the quotas upwards.

I don't think either side wants to keep the quotas low. For example, if the state wanted to keep the quotas low it would not have harvested over its quota last fall. Let the biologists hash it out and give us their view of the current situation.


I would add here that "more fish" should not be confused with "more BIGGER fish".

It has always been my contention that the DNR managing the lake for Trophy Fishery though the Slot has and is what is screwing up the lake.

As I said previously, with two seasons now of no harvest on the Sports-persons side, I fear that we are in for a lake collapse if the DNR and GLIF folks don't stop the Tinkering.

How did we get here? Net sizes and Slots targeting the very same year classes year after year, with the DNR being the worse for this, as they would adjust their Slot to actually follow a year class, in effect decimating that year class of fish.

Yes there are those that yell about netting during the Spawn, and if nothing else it is s PR nightmare when fish populations are low, to be taking them before they drop their eggs.

That said Mille Lac has about 86 Miles of shoreline to Spawn on, so I hardly think that the 100 or so boats netting and/or spearing are making the impact on the lake that I am talking about.

The Slots make a much bigger impact over all with the numbers of Sport Fisher-persons. Real numbers are hard to argue about. (as in real numbers of people taking fish, not bogus hooking mortality numbers that include every boat that drives by the lake on 169, whether they put in or not /s)

JMO (as usual)

Posted on: 6/19 10:41:20
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer


Re: New Petition to eliminate Treaty Management on Mille Lacs
LSF Member
Joined:
07/31/2007
From central mn
Posts: 4312
quote:
It's indefensible, LOW, and everybody knows it.

sums it up fishpole~

Pony up folks~We need your signature!

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remedy-eliminate-bilateral-control-mille-lacs-lake-mn-save-walleye-population-lake

Posted on: 6/19 13:39:59
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer


Re: New Petition to eliminate Treaty Management on Mille Lacs
LSF Member
Joined:
03/29/2013
Posts: 101
Quote:

fishnpole wrote:
Quote:

LOW1 wrote:

For years the biggest argument against the Bands' harvest rights was that the Bands' practice of gillnetting during the spawn was a major factor in the crash of the ML walleye population. It was claimed that this practice killed walleye before they spawned and interfered with others that were trying to spawn.

Biologists studied the matter and concluded that the decline in ML walleye was not caused by a lack of walleye spawn but was instead caused by a failure of the spawn to live to maturity. Predation by walleye and other fish was apparently a big part of why this failure to reach maturity was occurring.

FishnPole, in a post below, argues that treaty management should be eliminated because the quotas agreed to as part of this process are too low and that by removing more larger walleye that more spawn may reach maturity. (I hope FnP corrects me if I have mistated his view)

If FnP is correct, it seems to me that if treaty management has succeeded to the point where there is a need to harvest more ML walleye, that the last thing we want to do is get rid of treaty management. Instead, if FnP is correct, the thing to do would be to adjust the quotas upwards.

I don't think either side wants to keep the quotas low. For example, if the state wanted to keep the quotas low it would not have harvested over its quota last fall. Let the biologists hash it out and give us their view of the current situation.


While you and I will probably always be at loggerheads on the timing of netting walleyes while they're trying to reproduce, I think we are in agreement about the predation caused by adjusting slots to keep larger fish protected from harvest.
I still have to say, LOW, my patience has expired waiting for the "biologists" to "hash it out".
If they haven't figured it out by now, they never WILL!
We need to thin the herd right now, while there's still enough forage in the lake to support a healthy population,
This concept is supported by the above report from the biologist that used to work for the MN DNR, Dick Sternberg. If they are this slow to respond to changing fluctuations in the walleye population of Mille Lacs,( because of mired abilities to change regulations to best adjust harvest to coincide with what would be appropriate in a timely manner), they need to change what they're doing management wise.
I wouldn't have ANY problem with Treaty Management if we were still at a limit of six fish any size like we were when this farce called Treaty Management took over, instead of C&R for the second year WITH CLOSURES.




It's indefensible, LOW, and everybody knows it.

http://www.startribune.com/how-to-fix-mille-lacs-one-man-s-perspective/250480771/




I'm certainly not a biologist, but I can't see how returning to a six fish limit could be sustainable, especially if the lack of baitfish continues to be a problem.

Wouldn't that six fish limit get ML back to the point where 400,000-500,000 pounds of walleye were harvested annually? How long could that last?

And if that number is correct, the Bands would probably be entitled to an additional 150 - 200,000 pound harvest.

Why do the DNR and Band biologists see things differently than Dr Sternberg, or do they?

Posted on: 6/19 14:07:20
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer


Re: New Petition to eliminate Treaty Management on Mille Lacs
LSF Member
Joined:
05/06/2012
From North shore of Mille Lacs
Posts: 1642
Quote:

LOW1 wrote:

I'm certainly not a biologist, but I can't see how returning to a six fish limit could be sustainable, especially if the lack of baitfish continues to be a problem.

Wouldn't that six fish limit get ML back to the point where 400,000-500,000 pounds of walleye were harvested annually? How long could that last?

And if that number is correct, the Bands would probably be entitled to an additional 150 - 200,000 pound harvest.

Why do the DNR and Band biologists see things differently than Dr Sternberg, or do they?


We always had a six fish limit before Treaty Management. While it seems like a LOT from where we are now, it was plenty for all the years prior. The thinning of predator walleyes is as big a necessity as letting them spawn.
If we went to a two fish limit, any size, we would NOT be targeting a single year class, and if we eliminated Treaty Management, there would be no need to try and figure out quotas. The Tribes would STILL be able to hunt and fish, but would have to do so within the MN DNR's framework like everyone else and management would go back to the way it was when we had reasonable regulations and a HEALTHY fishery.

Posted on: 6/19 15:15:29
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer


Re: New Petition to eliminate Treaty Management on Mille Lacs
LSF Member
Joined:
03/29/2013
Posts: 101
Quote:

fishnpole wrote:
Quote:

LOW1 wrote:

I'm certainly not a biologist, but I can't see how returning to a six fish limit could be sustainable, especially if the lack of baitfish continues to be a problem.

Wouldn't that six fish limit get ML back to the point where 400,000-500,000 pounds of walleye were harvested annually? How long could that last?

And if that number is correct, the Bands would probably be entitled to an additional 150 - 200,000 pound harvest.

Why do the DNR and Band biologists see things differently than Dr Sternberg, or do they?


We always had a six fish limit before Treaty Management. While it seems like a LOT from where we are now, it was plenty for all the years prior. The thinning of predator walleyes is as big a necessity as letting them spawn.
If we went to a two fish limit, any size, we would NOT be targeting a single year class, and if we eliminated Treaty Management, there would be no need to try and figure out quotas. The Tribes would STILL be able to hunt and fish, but would have to do so within the MN DNR's framework like everyone else and management would go back to the way it was when we had reasonable regulations and a HEALTHY fishery.



I think you are running into problems by wanting all the additional "safely harvestable" fish that you think are in ML to be made available to sport anglers.

Why not share this additional harvest with the bands? If you are right biologically, sharing the additional harvest would be a lot more tolerable to most folks than trying to eliminate the Bands' treaty rights. I realize that the Bands could still fish under the DNR's regulations, but they can do that now and that's not a substitute for treaty rights. It's when you try to take away these treaty rights that you run into something that's politically and legally almost certainly unobtainable.

Posted on: 6/19 16:50:30
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer


Re: New Petition to eliminate Treaty Management on Mille Lacs
LSF Member
Joined:
05/06/2012
From North shore of Mille Lacs
Posts: 1642
I guess I missed the part where the opinion of the Court said it was okay to gill net walleyes, LOW. This is one of the areas I have a problem with.
The Supreme Court upheld the 1837 Treaty, yes. Hunting, fishing and gathering nuts and berries, yes.
Gillnetting walleyes to the point of extinction, no.

Please show me where they said gillnetting against the laws of the State of Minnesota hunting and fishing regulations will be allowed.

Follow this link to get to the opinion of the Court:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/97-1337.ZO.html

The Bands can share in the safe allowable harvest all they want as long as they follow the same rules and regulations the rest of us have to follow. The Bands should not be "priveledged" to do what is not allowed to everybody else.

In fact the opinion goes on to say: "We do not mean to suggest that a President, now or in the future, cannot revoke the Chippewa usufructuary rights in accordance with the terms of the 1837 Treaty. All we conclude today is that the Presidentís 1850 Executive Order was insufficient to accomplish this revocation because it was not severable from the invalid removal order."

Posted on: 6/19 18:48:31
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer



« 1 ... 4 5 6 (7) 8 9 »




[Advanced Search]


 

 
Copyright © 2004-2013 Lake State Fishing P.O. Box 577 Deerwood, MN 56444 612-414-5593
All logos and trademarks are property of their respective owners. |  Lake State Fishing |   Login lakestatefishing.com Facebook Page lakestatefishing.com Twitter Page lakestatefishing.com LinkedIn Page lakestatefishing.com YouTube Page