Another Catch-and-Release Walleye Season on Mille Lacs Seems Likely

Kyhl, you are correct in what you have explained. I thought last night about repeating myself with the same explanation but was too tired to reinvent the story again. The only exception I would have with what you said would be this…

“In my mind, the blame for what happened to Mille Lacs lands squarely on the DNR.”

“We should be angry. Angry at the DNR.”

We need to remember the reason for the slots.
The DNR were more or less “forced” or handcuffed to establish those unsustainable slots in the first place. When the treaty co-management was first established, the allowable harvest was divided between state anglers and the collection of Ojibwa bands.

Even back when there was a 500,000 lb allowable harvest to be divided amongst the state/bands, there was still great concern of the state exceeding their allocation. Allowing harvest of 4,5,6 lb walleyes would eat through that harvest allowance much faster than 1 lb walleyes. Back when this all started, one could keep their limit of four or six 1 lb fish and not subtract nearly as much if they were keeping a limit of fish up to 6-8 lbs.

The distorted imbalanced slot allowances were to keep the season going all open water and winter.

So, I disagree that “blame for what happened to Mille Lacs lands squarely on the DNR.”

Walleyestudent Andy Cox wrote:

So, I disagree that “blame for what happened to Mille Lacs lands squarely on the DNR.”

Andy, I was caught up on this comment as well and thought it through. I’ll admit I can’t disagree with it.

I don’t totally agree the DNRs hands were tied either. Against better judgment they implemented slot limits that damaged the walleye population. They were warned this would happen and it did.

They had/have all the resources and power to implement something that is much more effective. Even if it had to be a catch and release season 2 decades ago. They failed to heed the warnings and now here tgey are today still spinning their wheels.

“They failed to heed the warnings and now here they are today still spinning their wheels.” biggill

face it, everyone but the tribes are spinning their wheels simply because their focus is on immediate answers as far as FISHING is concerned and all of this mess is wayyyyy beyond fishing.

The railroads way back when has eminent domain protections afforded them by the federal government and the high courts in more recent years have whittled those powers down to more modern standards. This crap with a treaty from back in 1837 or whenever needs serious re-visiting. Its been said that the President can rescind such treaties and that may be what is needed here for the courts to get their thinking caps out of their rear ends. Not one single tribe member was alive when the treaty was signed and the biggest issue they can offer regarding the treaty is that whey want to protect their heritage. However, they step well outside of “treaty based” heritage by using any modern equipment for either fishing or hunting. This treaty crap is nothing more than forced prejudice against white people using a piece of paper that in its own essence is so passe and outdated its laughable.

Every sportsperson in this state [white, black, Asian, physically impaired…..anyone but an indian….are all being discriminated against] should be writing to their FEDERALLY elected representatives asking them to review this so called treaty and asking them to contact the President and asking him to overturn this treaty that is not prejudicial in the purest sense of the term. Once this gets done, then you can address fishing.

Just consider the impact all of the staes sportspeople could have if the mere mention of future taxation on casino earnings and auto licenses/associated taxes. Everyone else in this country and state has to pay taxes, why not the tribes. They claim to be “natives” but they crossed a land bridge to get here so they’re really just as much an import as the rest of us. Think about it.

As long as I can fish it, I’m happy.

Tom, as right as you and others may be about discrimination and treaty rights, the fact still remains that the lake has been mismanaged. Yes, the management decisions were result of the treaty rights, but again, the DNR was warned about their plan to manage the lake with slots. In my opinion, this is the leading cause of the decline. There was a better solution.

I’ll go so far as to say our harvest practices do far more damage than than the nets ever will. Even with highly restrictive limits. Can anyone tell me how many wheel houses + permanent fish houses were on that lake 30 years ago. My guess is less than 10% what’s out there now. The way I see it fishing pressure could have increased by as little as 200% and as much as 1000%.

Add in the kids and wives in those wheelhouses that never would have been there 30 years ago and you easily increase pressure by 200% alone.

The DNR was forced to co-manage. Doubtful that the plan was forced. The original plan protected big fish through slots. When that started causing a problem they tightened the slots and reduced the limits. Apparently more restrictive slots was better. Again protecting big fish.

It looks like they may have learned their lesson and have changed the slots on other lakes, Red for example, where there is a slot plus one over. That makes much more sense then a narrow target.

If we ever get to a season with a harvest I would hope they would try the one over method, assuming that continues to work elsewhere.

Part of me is skeptical that they will get the lake back open before the next crash. After a couple more years without a harvest the 2013 year class will be gobbling up every fry in sight wiping out new year classes again.

Or worse yet. They will open up a harvest which will coincide with the 2013 year class eating up everything and the non-native harvest will receive the blame. Worst case scenario.

I don’t argue mismanagement at all. I do think Mille Lacs woes came about because of the discriminatory chokehold placed on the DNR. They [the DNR] have tried many things to keep the fishery working, all held in check by that 180 year old paper that in today’s world should not hold water, and as we can see they haven’t found a solution that works yet.

Everyone here that’s PO’d about this travesty should be writing their local elected officials right out the those in Washington DC and demand action to eliminate this single segment of society’s discrimination. Holler about the loss in tax revenues due to this discrimination which we as state residents have to make up. Holler about the same tax losses at a federal level.

Forget about the frickin fish and address the real issue here.

Kyhl wrote:

Or worse yet. They will open up a harvest which will coincide with the 2013 year class eating up everything and the non-native harvest will receive the blame. Worst case scenario.

I would venture to guess it’s already too late and damage has already been done. I think we are well on our way to what we saw in the early 2000’s.

Tom, it’s my opinion that retracing the treaty rights will do little or nothing to help Mille Lacs.

Yes, by all means write your/our elected officials to demand equal rights. I just feel that this is a separate issue, especially now. THe damage was done many years ago when the DNR committed itself to a poor plan to try and compensate.

We all have our opinions on this matter. Me? I say we get right to the heart of the matter and clean up what should have been done many years ago what with all the discrimination and prejudicial pandering that we’ve seen unfold over the last five years even.

Now I’ll ask you this BG…..the dnr committed itself to a poor plan WHY? Because anything they could do on a favorable note was held in check by guess what and who.

biggill wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Walleyestudent Andy Cox wrote:</div>
So, I disagree that “blame for what happened to Mille Lacs lands squarely on the DNR.”

Andy, I was caught up on this comment as well and thought it through. I’ll admit I can’t disagree with it.

They had/have all the resources and power to implement something that is much more effective. Even if it had to be a catch and release season 2 decades ago. They failed to heed the warnings and now here tgey are today still spinning their wheels.

biggill, what could they have done different? They were set up to fail no matter what. They were damned from the time the co-management began and it matters little what they did or didn’t do, when, how, or why.

Catch and release 2 decades ago?? Keep in mind that the safe allowable harvest was 550,000 lbs as recent as 2003. If you think the current C&R is unpopular now, imagine trying to implement that 20 years ago…or in 2003.

Kyhl wrote:

The DNR was forced to co-manage. Doubtful that the plan was forced. The original plan protected big fish through slots. When that started causing a problem they tightened the slots and reduced the limits. Apparently more restrictive slots was better. Again protecting big fish.

It looks like they may have learned their lesson and have changed the slots on other lakes, Red for example, where there is a slot plus one over. That makes much more sense then a narrow target.

This does make more sense now. 20/20 hindsight. It took Red to crash before this was thought of. If only they knew then what they know now…

Walleyestudent Andy Cox wrote:

This does make more sense now. 20/20 hindsight. It took Red to crash before this was thought of. If only they knew then what they know now…

What they have proven is that they didn’t know what they where doing even though they were warned 15 years ago. I’d like to think that they know more about it than some poor schlep on a forum (me). The results don’t really bear that out. I’m not saying that I would have done better because I wouldn’t have, but it’s not my job. Likewise, I wouldn’t expect them to be proficient at my job either but the leadership seems to be lacking where they should be a specialist.

Then throw in back room contracts hidden from the public. The department is ridiculous and is due for a change.

Walleyestudent Andy Cox wrote:

biggill, what could they have done different? They were set up to fail no matter what. They were damned from the time the co-management began and it matters little what they did or didn’t do, when, how, or why.

Catch and release 2 decades ago?? Keep in mind that the safe allowable harvest was 550,000 lbs as recent as 2003. If you think the current C&R is unpopular now, imagine trying to implement that 20 years ago…or in 2003.

Walleyestudent Andy Cox wrote:

This does make more sense now. 20/20 hindsight. It took Red to crash before this was thought of. If only they knew then what they know now…

You answered your own question. C&r is only an extreme example of what they could’ve done that would’ve been better than the slots.

“If they only knew what they know now…”

They knew. Unless I’m missing something here, the Sternberg report predicted and formally warned the DNR about the biological and economic impact their management plan would have.

The one thing I would like to see the DNR and State do is regulate the tribal netting. They need to get accurate netting data. Right now it is self regulated by the tribes. The state just accepts what ever number they claim to net.

We need spotters on every boat out netting/spearing. Right now netters are tossing back dead bass, northerns, muskys ect. Those dead fish need to be counted towards their total poundage.

We need regulated access points where the fish taken ashore are counted and weighed by an independent 3rd party. Right now there is no accountability. No one knows for sure how many pounds of fish are taken. Many of us who have watched over the years believe the tribes are taking literally tons of fish over what they claim. Make it 6-10 points (or what ever number makes sense.) where they can enter and exit the lake. Manned 24/7 during the netting. And immediately close the netting once quota is hit.

This can and should be done no matter the cost. And it should be on every lake in Minnesota that is netted or speared.

-J.

Jon Jordan wrote:

The one thing I would like to see the DNR and State do is regulate the tribal netting. They need to get accurate netting data. Right now it is self regulated by the tribes. The state just accepts what ever number they claim to net.

We need spotters on every boat out netting/spearing. Right now netters are tossing back dead bass, northerns, muskys ect. Those dead fish need to be counted towards their total poundage.

We need regulated access points where the fish taken ashore are counted and weighed by an independent 3rd party. Right now there is no accountability. No one knows for sure how many pounds of fish are taken. Many of us who have watched over the years believe the tribes are taking literally tons of fish over what they claim. Make it 6-10 points (or what ever number makes sense.) where they can enter and exit the lake. Manned 24/7 during the netting. And immediately close the netting once quota is hit.

This can and should be done no matter the cost. And it should be on every lake in Minnesota that is netted or speared.

-J.

Bravo Jon…… Totally agree!

Jon Jordan wrote:

The one thing I would like to see the DNR and State do is regulate the tribal netting. They need to get accurate netting data. Right now it is self regulated by the tribes. The state just accepts what ever number they claim to net.

We need spotters on every boat out netting/spearing. Right now netters are tossing back dead bass, northerns, muskys ect. Those dead fish need to be counted towards their total poundage.

We need regulated access points where the fish taken ashore are counted and weighed by an independent 3rd party. Right now there is no accountability. No one knows for sure how many pounds of fish are taken. Many of us who have watched over the years believe the tribes are taking literally tons of fish over what they claim. Make it 6-10 points (or what ever number makes sense.) where they can enter and exit the lake. Manned 24/7 during the netting. And immediately close the netting once quota is hit.

This can and should be done no matter the cost. And it should be on every lake in Minnesota that is netted or speared.

-J.

For the netting, I agree 100% that the tribes should be monitored and as you put it, held accountable. This would be a huge step forward for Mille Lacs and any other water being resourced in this state. I suppose the argument would be that the cost of manning these check points could get prohibitive, but the front office of the dnr has plenty of people sitting on their duffs for most of the year thinking and they could be shifted to these areas during the netting….put Mr. “smiles” Cornicelli out there to greet the tribes. And count. Earn his keep.

Another thing that could be done at the state level is to set guidelines for what constitutes being “indian enough” to be allowed to net or spear. Anyone wishing to spear or net should have to prove that he/she is at least 75% indian blood. Blonde hair and blue eyes shouldn’t cut it and if they’re found out there they should go to jail and be charged with aggravated poaching of a game fish and their equipment and vehicle confiscated. And I am not talking about tribal jails or being seen in tribal courts. Yes, they’d fight this tooth and nail but the more cases that get PUBLIC attention to this problem the more likely this wall of prejudice can be cracked.

I agree with the netting oversight. Might as well throw in the creel surveys and hooking mortality studies too. I fished the lake about 5 times last summer and was never surveyed.

How much do they survey in the winter when there was an actual harvest?

18% hooking mortality seems unlikely to me.