Outside panel to review Mille Lacs & DNR policy

[otter]

The people who are anti-netting and in favor of a regulation that would allow harvest are so transparently greedy it’s not even funny. Even if the tribes quota was lumped together with the state quota and it was “fair” for everyone. And then a 1 or 2 fish limit was implemented the total quota would be shot past in no time. That means the lake is shut down in the middle of June or earlier. Or you get rid of the quota, and harvest all year. Now you’re in favor unsustainably harvesting when the Walleye population is near a historical low. How low does the population have to get before you say maybe we shouldn’t take any fish?

Right now harvest/kill is at a sustainable rate, what reason can you have to change that? And don’t start anything about the fisheries science used, the methods used are similar to about a 1,000 other fisheries. So you’ll have to be ready to denounce the entire field of fisheries science and the contributions of thousands of people.

[fishnpole]

The fish population is NOT down.

[bottlebass]

It’s been a few months since I fished the lake but from that trip and the reports I’m getting from friends who have fished it this spring the walleye population is no where near a “historical low” like you state, otter. The lake is on fire.

[otter]

fishnpole wrote:
The fish population is NOT down.

So the lake is perfectly fine and it’s catch-and-release just for ****s and giggles? So the DNR fixed the lake?

[bottlebass]

It’s also not catch and release right now, its closed.

[Bandersnatch]

otter wrote:
The people who are anti-netting and in favor of a regulation that would allow harvest are so transparently greedy it’s not even funny. Even if the tribes quota was lumped together with the state quota and it was “fair” for everyone. And then a 1 or 2 fish limit was implemented the total quota would be shot past in no time. That means the lake is shut down in the middle of June or earlier. Or you get rid of the quota, and harvest all year. Now you’re in favor unsustainably harvesting when the Walleye population is near a historical low. How low does the population have to get before you say maybe we shouldn’t take any fish?

Right now harvest/kill is at a sustainable rate, what reason can you have to change that? And don’t start anything about the fisheries science used, the methods used are similar to about a 1,000 other fisheries. So you’ll have to be ready to denounce the entire field of fisheries science and the contributions of thousands of people.

After reading this I must say that I am surprised by your turn around from previous posts.

” How low does the population have to get before you say maybe we shouldn’t take any fish? “

Now advocating that there should be no netting either, is quite the change from your previous stance(s).

[otter]

Bandersnatch wrote:

otter wrote:
The people who are anti-netting and in favor of a regulation that would allow harvest are so transparently greedy it’s not even funny. Even if the tribes quota was lumped together with the state quota and it was “fair” for everyone. And then a 1 or 2 fish limit was implemented the total quota would be shot past in no time. That means the lake is shut down in the middle of June or earlier. Or you get rid of the quota, and harvest all year. Now you’re in favor unsustainably harvesting when the Walleye population is near a historical low. How low does the population have to get before you say maybe we shouldn’t take any fish?

Right now harvest/kill is at a sustainable rate, what reason can you have to change that? And don’t start anything about the fisheries science used, the methods used are similar to about a 1,000 other fisheries. So you’ll have to be ready to denounce the entire field of fisheries science and the contributions of thousands of people.

After reading this I must say that I am surprised by your turn around from previous posts.

” How low does the population have to get before you say maybe we shouldn’t take any fish? “

Now advocating that there should be no netting either, is quite the change from your previous stance(s).

No the netting is perfectly fine. They take barely anything compared to state anglers. What pole and the rest want is to harvest all they want with zero regard to the population. The tribes have consistently been cautious about the quotas and staying within them.

[smackem33]

otter wrote:

No the netting is perfectly fine. They take barely anything compared to state anglers. What pole and the rest want is to harvest all they want with zero regard to the population. The tribes have consistently been cautious about the quotas and staying within them.

Thanks for the laugh otter.
No one counts the poundage the tribes take. We all just take there word on how much they Take. It would make it a lot easier to accept if the dnr posted up at all the accesses during the netting and actually counted. And if you are going to ask w where the money is to pay for it. … well they just spent millions on the bull **** hatchery didn’t they?

Your down! Your down!!! Just kidding

[CaptainCoors]

smackem33 wrote:

otter wrote:

No the netting is perfectly fine. They take barely anything compared to state anglers. What pole and the rest want is to harvest all they want with zero regard to the population. The tribes have consistently been cautious about the quotas and staying within them.

Thanks for the laugh otter.
No one counts the poundage the tribes take. We all just take there word on how much they Take. It would make it a lot easier to accept if the dnr posted up at all the accesses during the netting and actually counted. And if you are going to ask w where the money is to pay for it. … well they just spent millions on the bull **** hatchery didn’t they?

No one counts the poundage the tribes take.

Anyone ever pay attention in the grocery store? look at the fresh fish display. Most of that walleye, to my knowledge comes from MN netting done by the tribes. Ever seen the size of the fillets in the case? They’re huge!

now, is that good or bad, idk. I guess at the end of the day i really don’t care if they are netting the lakes or not. I do however feel that they should be held to a standard like the rest of us. Look at the regulation that crab fisherman are held to. I see no reason they shouldn’t be held to the same standard.

[otter]

smackem33 wrote:

otter wrote:

No the netting is perfectly fine. They take barely anything compared to state anglers. What pole and the rest want is to harvest all they want with zero regard to the population. The tribes have consistently been cautious about the quotas and staying within them.

Thanks for the laugh otter.
No one counts the poundage the tribes take. We all just take there word on how much they Take. It would make it a lot easier to accept if the dnr posted up at all the accesses during the netting and actually counted. And if you are going to ask w where the money is to pay for it. … well they just spent millions on the bull **** hatchery didn’t they?

No they didn’t. The hatchery was never approved. If you don’t think the tribal harvest numbers are correct then talk to GLIFWC. The DNR has zero authority over the tribes.

[otter]

CaptainCoors wrote:

smackem33 wrote:

otter wrote:

No the netting is perfectly fine. They take barely anything compared to state anglers. What pole and the rest want is to harvest all they want with zero regard to the population. The tribes have consistently been cautious about the quotas and staying within them.

Thanks for the laugh otter.
No one counts the poundage the tribes take. We all just take there word on how much they Take. It would make it a lot easier to accept if the dnr posted up at all the accesses during the netting and actually counted. And if you are going to ask w where the money is to pay for it. … well they just spent millions on the bull **** hatchery didn’t they?

No one counts the poundage the tribes take.

Anyone ever pay attention in the grocery store? look at the fresh fish display. Most of that walleye, to my knowledge comes from MN netting done by the tribes. Ever seen the size of the fillets in the case? They’re huge!

now, is that good or bad, idk. I guess at the end of the day i really don’t care if they are netting the lakes or not. I do however feel that they should be held to a standard like the rest of us. Look at the regulation that crab fisherman are held to. I see no reason they shouldn’t be held to the same standard.

Walleye in the stores are from Canada, tribes can not commercially sell walleye. Only exception is the Red Lake tribe. Also they are held to the exact same level of standards as crab fishermen.

[fishnpole]

otter wrote:

fishnpole wrote:
The fish population is NOT down.

So the lake is perfectly fine and it’s catch-and-release just for ****s and giggles? So the DNR fixed the lake?

Neither the MN DNR or GLIFWC are responsible for the rebounding walleye population. Mother Nature did that with 2 late ice-outs. The political decisions made by the MN DNR have no biological base to them, so their “science” is bull puckey.

From the Mpls. Tribune May 17th, 2013:
Lost as well to the eight bands of Chippewa that net and spear the lake in spring is anything near their quota of walleyes, which was 72,250 pounds this year.

As of Wednesday, the bands had collected only 13,500 pounds. And most tribal netting and spearing is likely complete for the spring because the lake’s walleyes are done, or nearly done, spawning.

How could spawning be complete when most of the lake has been ice-covered until the last day or so?

Easy: The fish began their reproduction process under the ice, triggered by the length of the day, if not by water temperature, which this month generally has remained below 40 degrees Fahrenheit throughout much of Mille Lacs.

“But when you get a sunny day and have a little open water along the shore, those areas can warm up into the 40s,” said Rick Bruesewitz, DNR area fisheries supervisor. “And fish can move in to spawn.”
http://www.startribune.com/anderson-mille-lacs-study-of-walleye-population-on-thin-ice/207811961/

[fishnpole]

otter wrote:

otter wrote:

No the netting is perfectly fine. They take barely anything compared to state anglers. What pole and the rest want is to harvest all they want with zero regard to the population. The tribes have consistently been cautious about the quotas and staying within them.

Walleye in the stores are from Canada, tribes can not commercially sell walleye. Only exception is the Red Lake tribe. Also they are held to the exact same level of standards as crab fishermen.

In 1999 the Supreme Court held that the Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians retained hunting and fishing rights on ceded land that were granted to them in the 1837 Treaty of St. Peters. Part of this ruling allowed the Mille Lacs tribe to continue their commercial walleye fishing operation on Mille Lacs Lake.

This article explores the various causes of the fishery decline since 1999, specifically focusing on the effects of continued enforcement of the 1837 Treaty. Following an overview of Native American treaty formation and interpretation canons, this article discusses the Supreme Court’s holding in Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians. The article proposes that native commercial harvesting is the main cause of the decline in the Mille Lacs Lake fishery. Section III of the article explores how the State of Minnesota is able to regulate Native American fishing rights under current treaty interpretation when regulation is “reasonably necessary.” Finally, the article discusses the inherent problems that accompany regulation of Native American rights.

http://digitalcommons.hamline.edu/jplp/vol35/iss2/4/

[fishnpole]

Here’s a little more background for you, too….. (If you are going to try to make an argument, it helps to have the true facts.)

http://digitalcommons.hamline.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=jplp

Mille Lacs Lake. Gillnetting in Mille Lacs Lake is allowed year around. Only subsistence netting may occur from March 2 – May 31.
Subsistence nets during this and other times may be up to 100 feet in length and 4 feet deep. The allowable mesh sizes (bar) for
subsistence nets during this and other times are 1.25 to 1.75 inches. From June 1 – March 1 both subsistence and commercial netting may be authorized. If authorized by your tribe, allowable mesh sizes (bar) for commercial nets are the same as for subsistence nets (i.e. 1.25 to 1.75 inches); however, commercial nets may be up to 300 feet in length and six feet in depth. All nets must comply with lifting, marking, and safety requirements. For gill-nets targeted at tullibee, only 1.75 inch mesh (bar) is authorized.

http://www.glifwc.org/Regulations/MN_SpearingNetting.pdf

[Author]

Posts