Mille Lacs Advisory Committee Meeting Tonight

I had planned on heading up to the “villa” for the weekend and gave thoughts to attending this meeting tonight at McQuoids in Isle. Turns out my boss had the day off today which then leaves me as the boss. You’d think me being the boss, I could give myself the afternoon off. Doesn’t work that way though…
Anyway, this meeting I am thinking is when the DNR will present (to the committee) their results/conclusions of the negotiations with the Tribal representatives. There has been some speculation on what that might be, but there also could be some surprises. Hoping there will be some information available later tonight after the meeting concludes. Stay tuned…

Thanks for the reminder. Hopefully some of the information is shared here.

The word “negotiations” is misleading however. The Tribal Representatives have to negotiate with exactly nobody, and this “Advisory Committee” is at their mercy regardless of their title or thoughts otherwise.

My unpopular opinion is that hopefully both groups agree to set low quotas (mortality formula for general public) and let the lake continue to recover. The Governor’s decisions this past season are likely in the forefront of the Tribal Representatives’ minds.

Please keeps us updated, would love to know how this turns out

The word advisory seems misleading too. It’s my understanding that these meetings are to receive information and provide feedback to people that can’t act on any of it.

Andy is this a public meeting or another one of those where afterwards we are told what they decided is good for us?

“Minnesota DNR staff will provide an update on this year’s safe harvest level and summer walleye regulations, as well as the latest winter creel information. Members of the public are welcome to attend and observe these meetings, and 15 minutes at the end of each meeting is reserved for public comments and questions.”

Pulled this from Airkin article two days ago. I also was planning on going up to sit in on this but schedule didn’t allow. I think Eddie Lybak will have something posted in the next day or two after the meeting on his page. He’s very blunt and honest and I enjoy reading his thoughts on things he has a lot of time and insight on that lake!

biggill wrote:

The word advisory seems misleading too. It’s my understanding that these meetings are to receive information and provide feedback to people that can’t act on any of it.

Ok to answer this and other’s questions, the Advisory Committee is assigned to offer and advise back to the DNR as “stakeholders” that would and could steer DNR direction. In reality one could easily assume that this is an appeasement. In fact, these “stakeholders” have in fact had significant influence on DNR decisions. Example would be the ” decision” by the governor in hand holding with the DNR to allow continued walleye fishing beyond the state allowance of quota last open water season. So they, the committee is more than just a dictatorship recipient assigned only to deliver the DNR commands.

Dutchboy wrote:

Andy is this a public meeting or another one of those where afterwards we are told what they decided is good for us?

The public is allowed to attend, however they are limited to mostly observation with a brief question opportunity the last 15 minutes.
Bowtecmike, yes…have already been in contact with Eddy Lyback and Tim Chapman. Reporting that only 3 DNR representatives were present and only half the committee?
DNR reps basically were shoulder shrugging, asking the committee what should they do??
My hypothesis is that they have hit the wall on negotiations with the tribe after last years folly and are at their wits end!

To “negotiate” you need two parties or more involved. Just because GLIFWC lets the DNR sit at the table doesn’t mean there are any negotiations going on. More like a family meeting where the Great Father tells his children what is going to happen.

Well in this case no news is not good news. Not trying to forcast gloomy weather but personally had hoped that information would be revealed on what we can or hope to expect for this season open water walleye fishing. The meeting last night would typically be when the DNR would propose or actually disclose what the upcoming season will be limited to?
It is most certain all C&R for state anglers, the BIG question is what amount of the allowable harvest will be assigned to state anglers and tribal harvesters.
Unless those in attendance at the meeting were sworn to some “secrecy”, which I am sure they are not…there was nothing disclosed by the DNR regarding any indication on what has been negotiated with the tribal and/or Mille Lacs band which were the most irritated at the state angler overreaching last season. That was the governers call along with the DNR “high chief”…and now word is that G-Dayton has given his executive order to the DNR not to challenge them on anything treaty related. Surprise!
This would explain that the only thing presented by the DNR(half of which attended) was shoulder shrugging and only asking the committee (of which only half attended) what do you want us to do?
Well now that’s a poop! :???:g

Well Andy, the upside is we should have a early ice out which will help the population of Walleye. The downside is the DNR has as much clout to “negotiate” with GLIFWC as the people down at the old folks home.

We can legitimately ponder if there will EVER be a catch and keep season of over 1 Walleye per angler.

Nothing is set until the allocations are agreed to but I will predict that the most likely scenario is a complete shutdown of walleye fishing starting in mid July extending into August when water temps are warmest. This would be the time period that both AIM and MTT have tournaments scheduled for Mille Lacs so I hope I’m wrong.

Will

Just curious, are either of those tournaments hq at the casino or tribal owned resorts?

MTT always goes out of Nitti’s.

This synopsis is from Steve Johnson owner of Johnson’s Portside in Isle. Steve is a member of the Advisory Committee. What he is saying is exactly what I and many others were concerned about!

“Payback or Management?
MLFAC was informed at the last meeting that the Tribes comfort level seems more at home getting its paybacks than allowing the anglers of Minnesota to enjoy the resources of Mille Lacs Lake.
It appears that a modest harvest level would have allowed the walleye season to remain open for the most of the summer, yet the conversation leaned more towards what happened last year and how they could get paid back for the decision made by Governor Dayton to keep the season open for a couple more weeks. There was no negative conservation issue that came from the decision made by Dayton to help the economy in the area. It was simply a move by a Governor to assist his constituents in an area that has been constantly beaten down.
Mille Lacs is changing in many ways, some would argue in good ways, but the Walleye population IS IMPROVING, and with that news the DNR advised raising the harvest modestly to remain very conservative yet allow both sides to enjoy the resource. The Tribes would have harvest for the table and the anglers of Minnesota would have had a summer long (at minimum) catch and release season. The negotiations seem to have gone south until there is no common sense left to manage the resource and only a”payback and posturing” position by the Tribes that has left the DNR in a position of defeat.”

The thing that bugs me the most about this is that there seems to be 2 sides with no moderator. The most concerning part is that sound biology isn’t represented.

Until biology comes before tribal rights and business, no progress will ever be made. Ever.

The MN DNR is supposed to represent the third part and biology but they never will as long as politics continues to rule over them.

What I want is a third party to determine harvest levels, limits and slot restrictions. The harves can be split up by a predetermined agreement. There are agencies out there that do this for a relatively low cost.

The word negotiations needs to be removed from the discussions and descriptions surrounding this topic. A negotiation means that both sides have some control or power to bring to the table – which clearly isn’t the case. The Tribe has no incentive to listen to the DNR or any powerless “Advisory Committee.”

Hopefully the DNR, legislators, and the Governor agree to an all but extinct season this Summer…in hopes of restoring relationships with Tribal leaders. Admit that a mistake was made, and look at the problem holistically. I’ll gladly give up one Summer on Mille Lacs to help fish populations recover and restore trust between all parties involved. If anglers want a season with a bag limit of 2-3 fish at any time ever again, this is the best move. If people want to have a bitter argument over a half-@$$ed C&R season every Spring…then keep pushing and anglers’ fates will be sealed for good.

The anglers fate is already sealed. They just haven’t been told that yet.

buckybadger wrote:

Hopefully the DNR, legislators, and the Governor agree to an all but extinct season this Summer…in hopes of restoring relationships with Tribal leaders. Admit that a mistake was made, and look at the problem holistically. I’ll gladly give up one Summer on Mille Lacs to help fish populations recover and restore trust between all parties involved. If anglers want a season with a bag limit of 2-3 fish at any time ever again, this is the best move. If people want to have a bitter argument over a half-@$$ed C&R season every Spring…then keep pushing and anglers’ fates will be sealed for good.

With this method, the anglers fate is certainly sealed.

The constant boom and bust of the fishery will continue. The political influence over the lake will continue.

While the decision made by gov goofy was quite irresponsible, it only reiterated how severely corrupt this whole issue really is. He clearly made the decision based on the FACT that the fishery would not be harmed in any way. The only hope that came out of that for me is that someone might finally stand up and question how this lake is being managed.

To be fair here………..at the time Dayton made his decision if you would have taken a poll it would have ran at 95% in favor of his decision. However, we would all have also assumed it to be round 1 of a discussion / plan to alter the management of the lake. I don’t think anybody would have foreseen the State (DNR) just laying down as they have. Somebody gave the State and the Governor some real bad information I suspect. So now, GLIFWC has their feathers all puffed up and they are bound and determined to make us pay for that.

While that sucks what is really disheartening is the continued hiding of information thats going on.

Transparency, transparency oh where have you gone!!

The child in the middle is the DNR. They are powerless, frustrated, defeated. Many blame the DNR for most of the lakes problems…mismanagement, not standing up to the tribes or other authorative parties (the parents). They are the child in this scenario, cannot tell the parents what to do.
The governor and State of Minnesota is on the left, can only stand by and act impotent, which they are.
The tribes now…they are blonde in this “caricature”.

Attachments:

1. 

   shutterstock-91-ff84f102121-original-web.jpg
   

Dutchboy wrote:

To be fair here………..at the time Dayton made his decision if you would have taken a poll it would have ran at 95% in favor of his decision. However, we would all have also assumed it to be round 1 of a discussion / plan to alter the management of the lake. I don’t think anybody would have foreseen the State (DNR) just laying down as they have. Somebody gave the State and the Governor some real bad information I suspect. So now, GLIFWC has their feathers all puffed up and they are bound and determined to make us pay for that.

While that sucks what is really disheartening is the continued hiding of information thats going on.

Transparency, transparency oh where have you gone!!

I’m glad to have been in that 5%. Not happy though.

Last August

Kyhl wrote:

I guess I don’t see anyone standing up to the tribes here. I see them as going against the rules that were set by the DNR. So this is the Gov going against the rules that his DNR chief set, therefore, the governor going against himself. The rules were supposed to be based on biology. The rule was the DNR decided on a safe harvest limit for the year with the thought that going over that limit would cause harm to the future of the lake. So now they say we past that limit.

Willy nilly overriding the DNR without explanation does not mean things are suddenly fixed in my book.

If you want to make an argument that the DNR rules were set based on bad data, then I may agree based on the anecdotal evidence that I’ve seen this summer. Until proven otherwise, I’m with the tribes on this one when they ask, where is the evidence that would support overriding the original plan?

I’m not keen on setting a precedent of allowing any sitting governor to have the power to set fishing regulations as he sees fit. That should be the purpose of the DNR and hopefully based on science.
They should show us the science that says that the safe harvest limit was set too small.
Or they should show us the science that says the DNR’s original model was flawed.
Until then, I think they should stick with the original plan until disproven.

On another topic, it does seem that the DNR has become too politically motivated. I’ve written my congressman before to express this concern. I’d suggest others that feel that way should also contract their congressmen about it.

Maybe we need to start being more vocal with our gov’t.

Is there any official meeting minutes available to read?

I listened to Tom Nuestrom on the radio last night and he was quite heated. There were several things.

One was how the the excellent bite the last couple years is a big sign of a growing problem. Food is becoming scarce. If these protected 15-17″ fish are allowed to get too big, there’s going to be yet another massive crash.

The other bing the lack of redundancy on the projected walleye population. They’ve been using very limited methods to determine population and diversity along with a computer model that seems to have a large amount of error. Starting off with bad info leads to bad harvest quotas, which seem to be a mystery how they are even determined.

He too agreed that the DNR is caught in the political crossfire and isn’t to blame for this.

That brings me back to hiring a true third party to manage the lake. Take out the political aspect and we will make some tru progress. Until then, what’s changed?

This is some information that Steve Fellegy has (I’m sure some of you here remember him?), regarding the “discussion” (I’ll no longer refer to it as “negotiations”). Disclaimer that this is not documented fact, however the sources are typically reliable and furthermore almost exactly what I was envisioning what would, is, and will play out. He seems to agree.

Steve’s post on FB;

So the Mn. DNR is “offering” a 50/50 split of Lake Mille Lacs walleyes to the GLIFWC for the 2017 season. I think that is A VERY BAD PRECEDENT!! This “offer” is based on a proposed 90K lbs. total harvest. “Bands are not happy with that” per the MN. DNR.
The GLIFWC is “offering” a 70/30 split—70 percent of the walleyes going to the non-Tribal anglers. This “offer” is based on 64K lbs. total harvest. The GLIFWC is also asking for a 6800lb. “pay back” for the overage last year by non-Tribal anglers–spread out over a 4 year span. “The Bands take a conservative approach to Lake Mille Lacs management. The restoration and long term health of the walleye population comes first,”– Quote from Charlie Rasmussen–spokesperson for GLIFWC. 3/10/17
So–if the Tribal offer gets the nod, the non-Tribal summer allocation is about what last years was–including 14K “kill/harvest” by non-Tribal anglers this past winter. Most likely closing the season for walleyes by July or earlier–all “mortality” as the non-Tribal anglers would not be able to keep any walleyes–all catch and release.
The DNR offer keeps the season open longer….maybe– but sets a 50/50 spit precedent down the road. One percent or less of Mn. “citizens” get 50 percent of the walleyes…..go figure.
Now can I say to everyone “I TOLD YOU SO!!!!!!!!”.

Thanks for keeping the info flowing Andy. After following the politics surrounding that lake last year, I made a point of fishing Mille Lacs exclusively this winter to support the local economy. Turns out, I was the beneficiary. Good fishing, good people.

I’ll be back next winter.

Aaron

Woodshed wrote:

Thanks for keeping the info flowing Andy. After following the politics surrounding that lake last year, I made a point of fishing Mille Lacs exclusively this winter to support the local economy. Turns out, I was the beneficiary. Good fishing, good people.

I’ll be back next winter.

Aaron

X’s 2!!!!!! The Drifter family had a ball this winter! 6 weekends in a row for me.

Lots of memories!

Attachments:

1. 

   IMG_1053.jpg
   

2. 

   IMG_0057.jpg
   

3. 

   IMG_0055.jpg
   

4. 

   IMG_0050.jpg
   

5. 

   IMG_0044-2.jpg
   

6. 

   IMG_0041-1.jpg
   

7. 

   IMG_0037.jpg
   

8. 

   IMG_0034.jpg
   

I’m not saying Steve’s post is incorrect but the numbers absolutely do not make sense. If the DNR is proposing a 50/50 split of 90,000 lbs that would mean 45,000 lbs of non-tribal harvest. While on the other hand if the GLIFWC offer is a 70/30 split of 64,000 lbs with 70% going to non-tribal members that would be 44,800 lbs. Both of those options have statistically identical likelihood of ending up in a shutdown.

It would make much more sense for the percentages to be reversed. If the tribe was offering 50/50 of 64,000 lbs that would be 32,000 lbs each while a 70/30 split of 90,000 lbs would get the tribal harvest up close to that value at 27,000 lbs.

Will

Will Roseberg wrote:

I’m not saying Steve’s post is incorrect but the numbers absolutely do not make sense. If the DNR is proposing a 50/50 split of 90,000 lbs that would mean 45,000 lbs of non-tribal harvest. While on the other hand if the GLIFWC offer is a 70/30 split of 64,000 lbs with 70% going to non-tribal members that would be 44,800 lbs. Both of those options have statistically identical likelihood of ending up in a shutdown.

It would make much more sense for the percentages to be reversed. If the tribe was offering 50/50 of 64,000 lbs that would be 32,000 lbs each while a 70/30 split of 90,000 lbs would get the tribal harvest up close to that value at 27,000 lbs.

Will

Will,
I would not argue that what you are saying/questioning does not seem to make sense. But when has much of anything regarding Mille Lacs treaty management made any true sense?

In this mornings Strib there was an article on the back of the sports page and here electronic version. The article by Tony Kennedy does seem consistent with the information reported by Steve Fellegy yesterday. The part spoken by Don Periera does not specifically mention the 50/50 split, however he does seem to imply it.

Who knows…?

http://www.startribune.com/mille-lacs-business-owners-say-walleye-strife-is-politics-not-biology/416182164/

Walleyestudent Andy Cox wrote:

“The Bands take a conservative approach to Lake Mille Lacs management. The restoration and long term health of the walleye population comes first,”– Quote from Charlie Rasmussen–spokesperson for GLIFWC.

But still going to gill net during the spawn…:???::???::???:

Honestly I’m tired of the bs we are force fed every year. I love Lake Mille Lacs, and I plan on fishing it every opportunity I get this summer regardless of the regs. And if walleye closes I will be chasing those pig smallies or ridiculously huge musky.

This is an Opinion article from a couple years ago. A good read and I couldn’t agree more! Especially the last paragraph.
http://www.startribune.com/how-to-fix-mille-lacs-one-man-s-perspective/250480771/

But, all in all, I’m with Big Werm on this one. I’m sick of the politics that surround this lake that we all hear year after year. Its ridiculous to say the least. I’ll be fishing walleye for as long as the DNR will let me on the Big Pond, then, on to those G-G-G-GIANT Smallies!