Protecting fish during late ice-out

BigWerm wrote:

But to imply that netting thru the whole duration of the spawn (which is what happens now) is the best at minimizing impact on females is your opinion and it is false

Again I agree with what you are saying. Except you are only looking at one small piece of the picture. You can’t forget about the anglers. Anglers and nets cannot commingle. (Do you disagree with this?) As far as I see it this is NOT an option, so I have no idea what you are recommending?

Lets keep from recommending something that is not possible. The cards we are dealt at this point in time is that “netting will occur!” So with that said, they are netting at the best possible time unless you want to tell anglers they need to wait a few weeks until the netting is done… again what you said previously is true if anglers were not in the picture.

Joe Scegura wrote:

Anglers and nets cannot commingle. (Do you disagree with this?)

I do disagree with this. First of all netting and angling happen simultaneously, all over the world on a nearly daily basis. Including on many lakes in MN (Superior, Leech, Pepin, and probably more that I’m unaware of). If charter boats with 16+ lines spread out can avoid the nets on Superior, I think smaller boats with 1-4 lines out should be just fine on Mille Lacs. If anyone, angler or tribal member, breaks the law (fighting, vandalism etc) they should be caught/reported and punished to the full extent of the law. Also, it is my opinion, based off of what I follow on the subject, that the majority of netting is done by the WI tribes who have little to no positive impact on the local economy, and if they had to work harder by netting outside of the spawn many would not continue to do so imo. This should be our biggest push, imo, to move netting out of the spawn, and many of the problems all of us have with the management of the lake would slowly fade away. If I could have 3 wishes granted in regards to Mille Lacs management, it would be move netting out of the spawn, monitor the netting take by the DNR, and allow reporters or silent 3rd parties to document the DNR/GLIFWC “negotiations”. And if the tribes push back, propose a bill to allow public casinos, I’m sure there are locations in Shakopee, Princeton and Hackensack or Longville available…

Mike Klein wrote:

Some larger fish need to be harvested as well.

Agree. But not during spawn, which is what we are talking about.

I also agree with BigWerm 100%

BigWerm wrote:

First of all netting and angling happen simultaneously, all over the world on a nearly daily basis.

Interesting idea… real question here. Do you really trust people to act cordial? I think with all of the tension on this subject in this area this would end up with people in jail and maybe worse. That is completely my opinion though. I think we defiantly agree more than we disagree on this subject.

Joe Scegura wrote:

Do you really trust people to act cordial?

No more than in regular day to day life but seriously I think the vast majority of anglers would be just fine, especially knowing it’s due to moving it out of the spawn.

Move the netting to open season, like it.

People are so passive aggressive nowadays doubtful anything would happen except for alot of biatching on internet forums.

BigWerm wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Joe Scegura wrote:</div>
Do you really trust people to act cordial?

No more than in regular day to day life but seriously I think the vast majority of anglers would be just fine, especially knowing it’s due to moving it out of the spawn.

This is why I love “logical” discussions! You convinced me. I’d love to see this tried but the DNR is going to be a tough nut to crack. Especially when they would be somewhat liable when someone gets busted up or worse. I like the optimism though and this is the first valid argument I’ve heard in the right direction.

BigWerm wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Walleyestudent Andy Cox wrote:</div>
But this statement makes me think again what and who we should be looking at. Perhaps the mirror?
(Of course stopping them from netting would save the most fish if that was an option.)

If I change it a bit…”Of course if we stop keeping as many fish as we do, we would save the most fish if that was an option

The lake has been virtually Catch and Release since 2013, so are you proposing it just be closed entirely to anglers?

I didn’t compose that statement sequence very clear. I know the topic is Mille Lacs but my thought turned to the broader questions that apply to all fisheries when I made the second statement.

Regarding post spawn tribal netting, I’m going to have to agree with Joe on that. It would be my belief that if it ever happened, it would be ugly. Maybe over time there might be some acceptance, but initially it could be bad. There is alot of deep rooted resentment up in that area (right or wrong) that would rear it’s ugly head if tribal netting operations were out on the lake with state anglers out there too. Or likely not even anglers, just “protest” boats.

Remember when Guv Dayton jumped on the Fisher Resort launch with guests? Remember the boat rallye? And how ugly that turned out? I gotta believe we’d see the same behavior directed at tribal boats.

As far as netting in other locales, I don’t know. I was not aware that there was tribal netting on Leech at the same time as the hook and line season opened. Netting on Pepin? Is that tribal netting or some other commercial netting of carp and other rough fish?

Just my opinion though.

Walleyestudent Andy Cox wrote:

If I change it a bit…”Of course if we stop keeping as many fish as we do, we would save the most fish if that was an option

The lake has been virtually Catch and Release since 2013, so are you proposing it just be closed entirely to anglers?

I didn’t compose that statement sequence very clear. I know the topic is Mille Lacs but my thought turned to the broader questions that apply to all fisheries when I maded the second statement.
Regarding post spawn tribal netting, I’m going to have to agree with Joe on that. It would be my belief that if it ever happened, it would be ugly. Maybe over time there might be some acceptance, but initially it could be bad. There is alot of deep rooted resentment up in that area (right or wrong) that would rear it’s ugly head if tribal netting operations were out on the lake with state anglers out there too. Or likely not even anglers, just “protest” boats.

I should have added my question to you was a rhetorical one, as I know you would never propose closing the lake entirely. And as far as the coexisting being peaceful, I could be wrong, as I do see things optimistically (or try to). But protest boats could be out as things currently stand, or to go “crappie/Perch/tullibee” while netting is going on, but they are not. And as far as I know there hasn’t been a significant anti-netting in person protest at Mille Lacs in the last decade+. And I’d hope there wouldn’t be if we were able to get netting moved out of the spawn.

Dutchboy wrote:

Consider me a hardheaded Scandinavian. I still believe the nets are bad. I still believe the DNR fears GLIFWC. I still believe the DNR hides things and is fighting more of a PR battle then a battle to improve Mille Lacs. As long as the narrative is “nets” there is no concerns with why can’t non-native people be present when the nets are pulled. Why isn’t there DNR personal doing any counting / witnessing when the nets are pulled. Why isn’t there any transparency in the DNR dealings with GLIFWC.

You will never convince me the DNR has the Minnesota sportsmans best interest in mind with what they are doing on Mille Lacs. BTW, the year Dayton allowed fishing past the quota……….why didn’t GLIFWC haul the state into court? Were they afraid of opening the can of worms again or did they know they could leverage the DNR into closing the lake down?

I think they were lawyering up and Dayton reversed the action before documents/motions were filed.

I all for moving the netting out of the spawn. I sure there will have to be a CO following the netters to help keep the peace. But than we would have an accurate count of what was taken.

My issue with commingling the netting with the open season is the nets. It’s all fun and games until someone destroys a lower unit on their sparkly boat.

I’ve been a passenger on Vermilion when a boat (guide that spent 100 days a year on the water) ran over a poorly marked net that was too far away from shore. Luckily we cleared it.
I’ve heard the stories of the house boat rentals tearing up lower units on nets too.

ML has enough issues from bad sportsmanship and bad drivers. No need to add nets to the toll.

They have been closing down the fall for walleye fishing anyway. Why not try netting in November? There are large amounts of shallow walleyes then too. Close it to angling and see if this protects the spawn and produces more fry. I know this makes too much sense. The DNR will never do it.

I always thought that the natives could net when they wanted, and that the state walleye season had no bearing on their rights? Are they prohibited from netting during the regulat angling season?

I thought their netting timing was chosen due to concentrated fish plus lack of other boats…. and not due to legal restrictions?

Walleyestudent Andy Cox wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>BigWerm wrote:</div>

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Walleyestudent Andy Cox wrote:</div>
But this statement makes me think again what and who we should be looking at. Perhaps the mirror?
(Of course stopping them from netting would save the most fish if that was an option.)

If I change it a bit…”Of course if we stop keeping as many fish as we do, we would save the most fish if that was an option

The lake has been virtually Catch and Release since 2013, so are you proposing it just be closed entirely to anglers?

I didn’t compose that statement sequence very clear. I know the topic is Mille Lacs but my thought turned to the broader questions that apply to all fisheries when I maded the second statement.

Regarding post spawn tribal netting, I’m going to have to agree with Joe on that. It would be my belief that if it ever happened, it would be ugly. Maybe over time there might be some acceptance, but initially it could be bad. There is alot of deep rooted resentment up in that area (right or wrong) that would rear it’s ugly head if tribal netting operations were out on the lake with state anglers out there too. Or likely not even anglers, just “protest” boats.

Remember when Guv Dayton jumped on the Fisher Resort launch with guests? Remember the boat rallye? And how ugly that turned out? I gotta believe we’d see the same behavior directed at tribal boats.

As far as netting in other locales, I don’t know. I was not aware that there was tribal netting on Leech at the same time as the hook and line season opened. Netting on Pepin? Is that tribal netting or some other commercial netting of carp and other rough fish?

Just my opinion though.

The netting on Pepin is commercial for carp and other rough fish. I’m sure there’s some mortality for non-targeted species, but it’s minimal. There also seems to be fewer commercial nets in the past 5 years than there were 10-15 years ago. The prices aren’t great, and it can be gruesome physical labor.
The ones I see have been dispersed on the WI side from Pepin to Maiden Rock.

Timmy wrote:

always thought that the natives could net when they wanted, and that the state walleye season had no bearing on their rights? Are they prohibited from netting during the regulat angling season?

If anyone is curious to what their regs are.

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

I’ve been on the opposite side of this argument for a long time on these forums, but I just had a revelation. A plan.

I think we should look to develop an area adjacent to Mille Lacs with new housing developments. Build them adjacent to an extremely large hole in the ground. For argument’s sake, lets say this hole is exactly the same size as lake Mille Lacs. Affordable large houses where city folk can live, maybe even build a light rail up there, those always work! Remember, this is a long term plan, stick with me.

In a matter of years, tens of thousands of people will be calling Mille Lacs #2 home.

Here’s where it gets good. All these people need water right? Well where’s the most convenient fresh water resource in the area? LAKE MILLE LACS DUDE. These houses will tap the aquifer that feeds Mille Lacs #1, eventually completely draining it of water. In the mean time, a portion of that water will also start feeding Mille Lacs #2 until it starts to get deeper, and deeper, eventually becoming deep enough to support a fish population.

Then the DNR and everyone that lived near Mille Lacs will continually stock Mille Lacs #2 with walleye, until the population is overwhelming.

Meanwhile, Mille Lacs #1 struggles to support the fish population and the natives see their nets coming up with fewer fish every year, eventually, they start to wonder if it’s worth it anymore.

Then the DNR swoops in and says, ‘We’d be willing to let you net Mille Lacs #2 if you sign away your rights to net this now crappy Mille Lacs #1’. After they sign, you pull the plug on Mille Lacs #2, draining all the water back into Mille Lacs #1. You then reveal that all the houses in the area are actually just crudely built model homes with no real interior. But who was living in those houses they will say? Walleye student Andy Cox, who single-handedly funded the project to save Mille Lacs #1.

I call it, project Hugo. It’s worked before, and it can work again.

They would just net #2 because it is in the ceded territory.

Joe Scegura wrote:

Anglers and nets cannot commingle. (Do you disagree with this?)

Well, the DNR has been doing fish assessments on Mille Lacs using nets for years now during the month of September, during “what used to be” open season. It’s never been a problem then. Maybe a better solution would be to allow the GFLWIC to have their members spread the harvest outside of Mille Lacs, assess a total harvest allowed then let them spread it around so it doesn’t impact any particular lake too much. Maybe they could net walleyes out of Osakis, Ottertail, Carlos, Ida, Miltona, Gull Lake, Big Sandy. That way Mille Lacs doesn’t have to bear the brunt of all of it! Lower the limit to 3 and move forward. Looking at the arguments here, apparently many believe it would not make a difference anyway so stop focusing on Mille Lacs and let everyone share in the solution, because we need a solution.

They already net other lakes in the ceded territory. They won’t give up Mille Lacs because it makes them laugh what they are able to do. When you have 2 agencys (DNR & GLIFWC) that for various reasons don’t have the balls or desire to monitor the nets why should they go elsewhere?

If we took the border patrol away from the Mexican border and asked the Columbians to only bring in 1,000 kilos of coke a year do you think they would? See how ridiculous the netting really is?

philtickelson wrote:

Then the DNR swoops in and says, ‘We’d be willing to let you net Mille Lacs #2 if you sign away your rights to net this now crappy Mille Lacs #1’. After they sign, you pull the plug on Mille Lacs #2, draining all the water back into Mille Lacs #1. You then reveal that all the houses in the area are actually just crudely built model homes with no real interior. But who was living in those houses they will say? Walleye student Andy Cox, who single-handedly funded the project to save Mille Lacs #1.

I call it, project Hugo. It’s worked before, and it can work again.

Probably my favorite post of all time.

Sure, project Hugo is completely absurd, but it’s no less likely to save Mille Lacs than any of the hundreds of “we should just _______” posts that litter this place continually.

Oh man,
Alot of different opinions here.
What about forgetting about Mill Lacs and fish other lakes?
We all know Mill Lacs will provide easy catching but what about moving on?

Very easy to move on. If you don’t like or can’t deal with the subject just don’t click on it.

pool2fool wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>philtickelson wrote:</div>
Then the DNR swoops in and says, ‘We’d be willing to let you net Mille Lacs #2 if you sign away your rights to net this now crappy Mille Lacs #1’. After they sign, you pull the plug on Mille Lacs #2, draining all the water back into Mille Lacs #1. You then reveal that all the houses in the area are actually just crudely built model homes with no real interior. But who was living in those houses they will say? Walleye student Andy Cox, who single-handedly funded the project to save Mille Lacs #1.

I call it, project Hugo. It’s worked before, and it can work again.

Probably my favorite post of all time.

Sure, project Hugo is completely absurd, but it’s no less likely to save Mille Lacs than any of the hundreds of “we should just _______” posts that litter this place continually.

I can only respond by saying that I try (at least) to keep my comments thoughtful and respectful. Sure, I do have my own opinions and have not attempted to present them as facts. I have however posted facts regarding a lot of the happenings at Mille Lacs. I have not or do not accuse or belittle those with opposing views nor do I direct racial hatred toward native Americans.

I guess now I find myself bewildered as being the IDO forum “joke” regarding Mille Lacs. I’m learning a little more why Steve Fellegy has moved on.

I’m not crying (I’m a big boy now and have had plenty of bloody noses) and no, I won’t just go away.

A wise man says “one who lives in glass houses, shouldn’t throw stones”…just sayin.

Andy, always consider the source.

Some things are just funny Andy, I don’t think it was personal.

pool2fool wrote:

Some things are just funny Andy, I don’t think it was personal.

You don’t think? Yea…funny

Whoa man, I seriously just scrolled up until I found someone with ‘Mille Lacs’ under their username. Not personal at all.

Dutchboy wrote:

They already net other lakes in the ceded territory. They won’t give up Mille Lacs because it makes them laugh what they are able to do. When you have 2 agencys (DNR & GLIFWC) that for various reasons don’t have the balls or desire to monitor the nets why should they go elsewhere?

Didn’t some of the WI bands make a declaration that they were going to net Vermilion in the last year or two? What stopped that was the local band said no f’n way.

Exactly. The Mille Lacs band is complicit in everything that goes on up there. But, I’m speculating that GLIFWC has a thumb on the situation also. Much like the national political parties in our country. A candidate in Minnesota must adhere to the national spiel.