I have always looked at the DNR from an outdoorsmans perspective, but they do way more than just manage our hunting and fishing regulations, studies and science. This was evident right away as there were approx 200 attendees (at least 50 of whom were DNR employees), and a small percentage were representatives of hunting and fishing organizations. Meaning the rest were from Environmental groups, which isn’t inherently bad, and we have some opportunities for shared interests/projects. I was told many of the usual fishing attendees were guides, who couldn’t make it to the summer Roundtable instead of the traditional January Roundtable. And to attend the Roundtable you need to represent a larger organization, and since I have no official role or relationship with IDO I tried to make clear I was there representing myself and my opinion only. The following is also my opinion only on the day, and in no way represents IDO nor James.
The first breakout that I attended was Fishing Regulations: Why and How we use regulations to manage fisheries with Head of Fisheries Brad Parsons. I was very much looking forward to this, as I had a lingering question that I had never received an answer to, despite reaching out to Brad and Sarah Strommen multiple times previously, so my main goal was to hear both of their answers. “On August 15, 2019 Head of Fisheries, Brad Parsons, was quoted in the Mille Lacs Messenger saying he didn’t think fishing on Mille Lacs would need to be closed although we were approaching the quota thru Hooking Mortality. Fishing was closed 2 weeks later, was that decision made by the Commissioner or Governor (2 people above Brad)? And if we can’t have transparency on that question, is there any chance of having transparency in quota negotiations with the tribe? Mille Lacs, as the Walleye Capital of MN, historically supported 200k or more pounds of actual harvest for decades, and we are now coming up on a decade of virtually no actual harvest (1 or 2 fish limit in a highly restrictive slot since 2014), and a fraction of the traditional harvest amount as basically a catch and release quota.”
Brad answered that he didn’t recall saying that, and that he may have been misquoted. But even if he wasn’t misquoted the state HAS to shut it down once we hit quota. And the tribe is very opposed to opening the quota negotiations to the public, and there is not much benefit from the State’s side on opening it up, so they don’t challenge that aspect. Brad was asked another question and moved on, but offered to chat with me later around lunch. We sat down and chatted after lunch, and he basically reaffirmed what he said earlier, and I offered that we had gone over quota previously, and he implied that was terrible for the relationship with the tribe and why it wouldn’t happen again. He also was confident the tribe acts in good faith regarding negotiations (which he said are challenging for both sides), and tribal netting take and their system for monitoring it (very similar to our creel surveys). Overall I left with a lot of respect for Brad who seemed very open and honest, and extremely skilled in his role.
When I asked Sarah Strommen this same question at the end of the day, I started by saying I had already asked Brad, but wanted to ask her as well since it involved her, she did not seemed pleased and shot daggers at me the rest of the meeting and that his answer should be sufficient. When I pushed back, she said the state has to shut down when we hit the quota, and that the tribal negotiations are contractually required to be closed and she would not debate it further. I’m not sure what contract established that, but I appreciate them both fielding a challenging question which was my main motivation for going.
A couple other notes, Brad Parsons said he didn’t think Mille Lacs was capable of ever supporting a 500k quota again (highest harvest ever was over 1 million pounds FYI). Also, in the CWD breakout Kelly Straka was awesome, and I anticipate you will hear more from her going forward. I asked if the DNR looked at CWD as something that could be eliminated or controlled? And she didn’t think we’d ever get rid of it entirely, but was optimistic our efforts to minimize the spread were working and monitoring sites would be growing. Also, she just started in September, but seemed to have a really good grasp of the situation here and is very well credentialed if you want to Google her. FWIW the Fishing Regulations breakout had 24 attendees, at least 8 were DNR employees, and the CWD had 44 attendees with about 8 DNR employees in attendance. The Wolf Management Plan will be going online soon as well, so keep an eye out for more discussion there. And there was no discussion of the 2 line bill that I heard.
My overall takeaway was this was an awesome event, and we have an extremely skilled and educated DNR staff. However, they are a growing bureaucracy, and corporate/woke speak buzzwords ruled the day it was a constant barrage of, “continuing conversations” “sustainable/sustainability”, “climate crisis”, “buy-in”, “forming partnership”, “points of intersection”, “diversity”, “inclusion”, “equity/equitable”, “cross-funding”, and “forward looking”. None of these things are bad on their own, obviously, but I feel they are an indicator of where our DNR’s focus is, and none of them revolve around the numbers in our deer herds, flocks of birds, or schools of fish. They didn’t mention walleye until near lunch, and the only deer herd talk was in the one CWD breakout and it regarded the possibility of them being decimated by CWD. If the average joe outdoorsman wants an increased focus, it’s pretty clear we will need to be much more organized and carry a louder role with the DNR and at the ballot box.
