bands to up limit to 125,000 lbs for 2008

Just a FYI saw it in the sunday paper. No need to vent, it’s just how it’s gonna be.

This is going to be interesting to watch. The bands have never reached thier quota and do not need to. Yet they can legally request an increase which can have an impact on our quota.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought the unused tribe quota is typically added to the states’ quota. Although, I think the DNR designs the management around the original quota without any anticipation of the unused tribal quotas rolling over.

I have a couple friends who belong to a certain band/tribe up north. They go out “netting”(these nets are nothing like the nets used to be) and dump the entire net into the box of their truck, take the catch home and dump everything out in the field-except the walleye. Northerns, Crappie, Sunnies, perch, carp etc all to waste. But they will sell you 10lbs of good walleye for $10 or a 12 pack-depends on the mood. So I’m wondering if this new weight max. includes all species caught or just the ones they want to count???

Quote:

---

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought the unused tribe quota is typically added to the states’ quota. Although, I think the DNR designs the management around the original quota without any anticipation of the unused tribal quotas rolling over.

---

That’s incorrect. Both the Tribe and States quotes are never rolled over for unused portions. The quotas were set in 2000 and reviewed every year. Safe harvest levels are 600,000 pounds per year but the tribe rarely reaches 80,000 pounds. By law, they are entitled to half of the safe harvest, meaning they could take (or request) up to 300,000 pounds. By requesting an increase for 2008, this could be a warning the Tribes are sending out that they will continue to request an increase. The DNR met with the Tribes last week and the info I received was the meetings did not go well. The DNR is not satisfied with their request for the increase which the Tribes have stated they are allowing more members from Wisconsin to net the lake.

If this all boils down to a bluff, this could damage the DNR/Tribe relationship, IMO.

So in a nutshell, legally the Tribe could request 300,000 pounds per year and the DNR could do nothing but slash the current daily limit down to two fish and shrink the slot back to 16-18 inches. Will this happen, probably not, at least not for a few years. It will all depend on the current Tribe request for the 2008 increase and making sure they reach that request.

That where this all sits wrong with me. The Mille Lacs band is actually taking less but allocating more to the Wisconsin tribes. However I am not educated to the extent I need to be to know why thy are doing this or why it is allowed.

Any insight would be great!

If they do request (or assert) the 300,000lbs. yet only harvest 60,000lbs, would that not adversely affect the fishery? I’m just thinking since the target harvest is partially based on sustainability of the fishery, taking significantly less than the target of 600,000lbs. would likely create a reduction in the forage base and ultimately a drop in walleye numbers.

Not sure where I heard about the unused quota rolling over, but I know I’ve heard it more than once. Thanks for clearing that up.

Bucky,

The Mille Lacs Band is entitled to 50% of the native indian harvest quota by terms of the treaty. It is solely their choice if they “give” any of that quota to the Wisconsin bands. The Mille Lacs band has never taken their full share of the indian quota, but are being pressured by the Wisconsin bands to give it to them if they are not going to take it all themselves. To date, the Wisconsin bands have maxed out their take each year, and what is not taken usually is what the Mille Lacs band leaves unharvested.

Derek,

I just got an message from Joe Fellegy about this so called 50/50 split. Yes, the indians are entitled to 50% of the safe harvest allocation for pike, pout, perch, and tullibees. There has never been any statements made or record of the indians being entitled to 50% of the safe allowable harvest of walleyes……until Jack Wingate’s interveiw in the St. Paul paper just recently. Now what neither he or myself know is; 1. Was Wingate misquoted in the paper. or 2. Is there in fact a ruling that does entitle the indians to 50% of the walleyes and nothing has ever been made public about it till now?!?!?????

Trust me on this….that point will be brought up by me as well as several others in the “Input Group” meeting coming up in a couple weeks.

Also, I have seen reported 2 different quota numbers for indian walleye harvest this year, 125,000, and 122,500. Which one is the correct one, I do not know.

Quote:

---

That where this all sits wrong with me. The Mille Lacs band is actually taking less but allocating more to the Wisconsin tribes. However I am not educated to the extent I need to be to know why thy are doing this or why it is allowed.

Any insight would be great!

---

The majority of netting members come from the Wisconsin Tribes. The Mille lacs tribal members have not shown much interest and they are a smaller tribe. IMO, its easier to sell the fish in Wisconsin.

The treaty court ruling included 8 tribes, not just the mille lacs band.

Quote:

---

If they do request (or assert) the 300,000lbs. yet only harvest 60,000lbs, would that not adversely affect the fishery? I’m just thinking since the target harvest is partially based on sustainability of the fishery, taking significantly less than the target of 600,000lbs. would likely create a reduction in the forage base and ultimately a drop in walleye numbers.

Not sure where I heard about the unused quota rolling over, but I know I’ve heard it more than once. Thanks for clearing that up.

---

The 600,000 pounds is a “safe harvest” that means thats what the DNR thinks the lake can handle each year. The truth is, nobody knows how many fish are in the lake. There could be 1 million pounds or 500,000 pounds. The 600,000 pound quota is a number that seems to be working so the DNR is running with it.

Also….with a safe harvest total for walleyes set at 600,000 lbs., and the tribes allocated say, 125,000, that still means sportsmen will have a 475,000 lb. quota available to harvest. That is a very good number for us, and I doubt there will be any changes in the “slots”, unless of course for some biological reasoning we need to change what we have been doing the last several years.

Quote:

---

Bucky,

The Mille Lacs Band is entitled to 50% of the native indian harvest quota by terms of the treaty. It is solely their choice if they “give” any of that quota to the Wisconsin bands. The Mille Lacs band has never taken their full share of the indian quota, but are being pressured by the Wisconsin bands to give it to them if they are not going to take it all themselves. To date, the Wisconsin bands have maxed out their take each year, and what is not taken usually is what the Mille Lacs band leaves unharvested.

Derek,

I just got an message from Joe Fellegy about this so called 50/50 split. Yes, the indians are entitled to 50% of the safe harvest allocation for pike, pout, perch, and tullibees. There has never been any statements made or record of the indians being entitled to 50% of the safe allowable harvest of walleyes……until Jack Wingate’s interveiw in the St. Paul paper just recently. Now what neither he or myself know is; 1. Was Wingate misquoted in the paper. or 2. Is there in fact a ruling that does entitle the indians to 50% of the walleyes and nothing has ever been made public about it till now?!?!?????

Trust me on this….that point will be brought up by me as well as several others in the “Input Group” meeting coming up in a couple weeks.

Also, I have seen reported 2 different quota numbers for indian walleye harvest this year, 125,000, and 122,500. Which one is the correct one, I do not know.

---

Its always been my interpretation they are allowed 50% of the total walleye harvest. If they were just limited to 50% of the other specie harvest, then I would think the DNR would have regs on those species as well and would be counting our harvest during creel checks. Like I said, its going to be interesting to watch this pan out..

Quote:

---

Also….with a safe harvest total for walleyes set at 600,000 lbs., and the tribes allocated say, 125,000, that still means sportsmen will have a 475,000 lb. quota available to harvest. That is a very good number for us, and I doubt there will be any changes in the “slots”, unless of course for some biological reasoning we need to change what we have been doing the last several years.

---

The quota for the Tribes remain at 100,000 pounds for 2007. We should not see a change in the slot or limits for the 2007 season..

And yes, even only requesting a 25,000 pound increase does not seem much, if there are any indications during creel/netting checks that the lake cant handle it, the DNR will reduce our quota before the Tribe’s quota.

I dont think the DNR is concerned with the 25,000 pound increase, I think they are more concerned that someone is trying to screw up a good thing..

We’ve been spoiled over the last few years.

I haven’t recieved anything from the state about the meetings yet, so what I’ve seen here and in the peper is all I have to go on.

Thanks, after looking futher into it and reading the court ruling and treaty I am even more confused. I guess I just don’t like the fact that there is no way to control what they take in thier nets. eyes, pike, skis, ect all get pulled out not just eyes. Mille Lacs can handle the eye populations but what about the others?

Oh well I don’t think there is much I can do but show support for what I believe and donate to org. that I see fit.
JLDII If there is anything else we can do as anglers please let us know.

I hate netting as much as the next guy. I think that giving any People/Group/Band rights that cannot be granted to others is racist. And I am against it.

That being said, I know they limit the diameter of the net to 1.5 or 2.5″. This restricts the bigger fish from getting caught for the most part, and targets more of the “Eaters.” That being said, year after year I catch 20+ inch fish with gills sliced off.

Bucky,

One thing about the indescriminate netting is that as soon as the indians hit their quota on any species , all netting stops immediately. A couple years ago they came to within 48 pounds of hitting their quota on northerns, which would have cut off their netting before they got their walleye quota. That is one of the hidden reasons for all the northern pike tagging studies. The indians insist that the northern quota is set too low, and that there are more northern in the lake than had been figured. Of course, they managed to stick Minnesota with the cost of doing the studies to disprove their claims.

Now come on guy’s ….. lets get along with our native friends!!

Here are a boat load of natives and walleyes leaving the spawing beds!!!!

I still do not understand how the government can pick apart a treaty to surfice the natives. They should have all or nothing IMO. If they want there rights, then get a canoe, a candle, and a woven net!

We had nothing to do with the push to reservations in 1837, but in 2007 we “pay” for it through our liscense fees,casino donations(lol),etc…Not to mention a year long deer season and small game season as they see fit. Where has the love and relationship with mother nature GONE?

Quote:

---

I have a couple friends who belong to a certain band/tribe up north. They go out “netting”(these nets are nothing like the nets used to be) and dump the entire net into the box of their truck, take the catch home and dump everything out in the field-except the walleye. Northerns, Crappie, Sunnies, perch, carp etc all to waste. But they will sell you 10lbs of good walleye for $10 or a 12 pack-depends on the mood. So I’m wondering if this new weight max. includes all species caught or just the ones they want to count???

---

This is where my frustration comes in with netting. We have NO idea how many pounds of any fish are being taken by the native americans. Fine, our court system ruled we have to follow the treaty. Then why can’t we enforce what is taken and how much??

I wish our media, in all it’s glory, would do a “To catch a walleye predator” expose`. Maybe bringing light to the abuse this fishery takes on an annual basis would raise awareness enough that the outsiders would quit thinking we are simply prejudice. I think as sportsman we should prepare for the consequences though. The tribe could simply take whatever they want and quit working with the DNR. I’m truely saddened that the officials on the native side don’t appear to care about the fishery, they simply are driven by hatred towards the white man and greed for $$$. Since we can’t police them, I wish they would police themselves!!

Quote:

---

This is where my frustration comes in with netting. We have NO idea how many pounds of any fish are being taken by the native americans. Fine, our court system ruled we have to follow the treaty. Then why can’t we enforce what is taken and how much??

---

That is incorrect. We have a lot better idea of how many pounds of fish the natives are taking than we do the sportfisherman. The DNR sets up at accesses and weighs the fish the tribes bring in. I’ve witnessed this firsthand several times. I encourage everyone to check it out sometime.

And yes, I’m sure there are some fish that are netted without being counted, but there are also sportfisherman who get busted poaching every year. There are individuals who are not stewards of the land from every walk of life. Unfortunately, I encounter too much of their trash every ice season and ice out.

Like was already stated, this is a minor increase. However, I also understand the concerns that this may lead down a slippery slope.

I will say as of right now, there is no other place I’d rather fish. Mille Lacs is and will continue to be one of the premier walleye, muskie, smallie, and pike lakes in the world. I just consider myself fortunate I am able to fish it just about whenever I want. If that means I need to endure seeing the locals harvest fish by alternative means, so be it.

Then how the heck do these guys get away with wasting these fish by dumping them in the field. OK, that one is tough to police unless they get a tip about wasting the fish, but then what can the DNR do on tribal land anyway?? How about the pics at landings where large numbers of fish are cleaned and the pike and other species are left to rot on the ground?? I personally do not believe we have enough DNR staff to watch all the landings diligently for poachers or natives netting. So, in my opinion, a poacher taking 10-20 fish over his limit is minor in comparison to the boat loads taken by the natives that doesn’t get counted against the quota. Please reference the pic above to see boat load. I don’t condone either, I’m just frustrated we have no idea how many fish are actually taken from the lake.

Now obviously something is working with the current solution, the fishery is awesome and as you said can’t think of a better place to fish. I just hope our management strategies today don’t screw up the fishery so bad my grandkids don’t get to fish it.

I completely agree we need more conservation officers. But the state doesn’t have the funds, notwithstanding surpluses. Despite what you hear, my observations have been that there is fairly good compliance with the check points. Most of the guys who come over from WI go out of the same access so it’s fairly easy to get to them all. Also keep in mind a lot of the DNR personnel are college interns (the same ones that take the surveys of fisherman on the water). Sportsman owe those interns and volunteers a round of applause. There’s no way the DNR could do it all with permanent full-time staff.. There is usually a CO looking over things (or to keep the peace).

It’s an honor system once away from the lake (just like sportfisherman). I just don’t buy into any assertions about any ethnic group that paints a broad brush . I’ve seen that pic above many times, in person. It used to upset me, but the fishing just seems to get better and better so I’m kind of numb to it.

Kooty,

These natives netting Mille Lacs have some very strict rules governing how they can net, when they can set their nets, and where they can launch their boats from for netting purposes, as well as when they have to have those nets pulled and where exactly they have to have their harvest counted.

Trust me on this, they have more than a few eyes watching their every move on Mille Lacs. I’m willing to guess that the instances you are refering to happened on Wisconsin waters, or possibly on some Minnesota waters other than Mille Lacs.

Although I hear of at least one or more net that turns up full of dead walleyes every year someone has lost or never pulled out in the first place.

Nothing would make me happier than to be completely off base on this one Jack!!!

What I don’t understand is I have stopped by some of the landings when the netting is going on in the spring and the lot is full of trucks with WI plates but not too many of the guys netting appear to be natives. Are they hiring someone to do the netting for them??

remember when this all came to a head in the Supreme court? The slot size restrictions were put in place, and alot of us were sworn never to fish the lake again. Well, I can’t speak for all of you, but at that time I quit going to the casino, period. And I do speak for all who join us for opener, we had always gone to the casino to eat and gamble, not anymore. They don’t need their cake and frosting on my dime. It is too bad that there is demand for illegal walleye sales, if there was no demand….