Someone's not very happy. PERM

  • Brian Klawitter
    Keymaster
    Minnesota/Wisconsin Mississippi River
    Posts: 59992
    #1711953

    This letter from PERM really confused me. I don’t follow the troubles up there very closely so I’m not a person that can start pointing fingers and such.

    I know I couldn’t get paid enough to be working with the DNR and assigned to Mille Lacs. No matter what a person does, there will be a group not happy. At least that’s what I’ve picked up over the last couple years of reading here.

    What confuses me is why the DNR didn’t talk to the group that was selected by the DNR to help? If what’s in the letter below is true…

    I truly hope all the issues around this lake can be worked out peacefully and based on what’s good for the lake.

    No one from DNR ever spoke to MLFAC about this agreement

    The following is a letter being sent today from Dean Hanson, Mille Lacs Fishery Advisory Committee to DNR Commissioner Tom Landwehr. It is very troubling to say the least. Please read his letter and see my comments below.

    Doug Meyenburg

    Dean Hanson’s Letter

    Dear Commissioner Landwehr,

    We recently acquired a copy of an agreement called “Consensus: Mille Lacs Fishery Harvest Plan, 2017-2020”, dated March 31, 2017 between the DNR, GLIFWIC, the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe and the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa (copy attached).

    We were shocked to say the least. No one from the DNR had ever spoken to MLFAC about this agreement, either before or after its signing. This agreement was never disclosed to the public at any time. Why would the DNR secretly negotiate a settlement like this without disclosing it to anyone? This is exactly the type of thing, which reinforces our position that more transparency is needed in connection with DNR and Band discussions and negotiations. It is an example of why we have requested participation of some kind in FTC meetings.

    We also need to consider that this agreement resulted from an overharvest of 6,800 pounds in 2016. It was an estimated hooking mortality, not an actual harvest. These numbers come from expansions of creel census data, which have always been suspect to us, as well as an estimated hooking mortality study, which we have questioned since its release. We also believe that this overage may well be within the margin of error of all of these calculations, as well. In addition, the DNR has stated several times that they do not believe that any harm was done to the spawning stock biomass, the 2013 year class or any part of the walleye population as a result of the overage. So why, given the insignificant overage and its minimal impact, did the DNR give up so much?

    The DNR gave the Bands 50% of any harvestable surplus over 64,000 pounds. They set harvestable surplus levels, which could severely reduce our potential harvest in the future. They locked us in to a hooking mortality based on the suspect hooking mortality study. They locked us in to an overage program which all comes due in 2020 and will probably significantly reduce our harvest potential in 2018-2020.

    At this point, what did you have to lose by letting them go back to court and fighting it? Maybe a Phase II lawsuit would settle the allocation issues with a more favorable outcome for Minnesota sportsmen.

    We believe MLFAC, as well as the public deserves answers to these and many other questions and we request an open meeting with the DNR, MLFAC and anyone else who is interested within 2 weeks. Please respond to this as soon as possible.

    Dean Hanson
    Co-Chair, MLFAC

    My Take On Dean Hanson’s Letter

    The agreement was negotiated entirely in secret. This shows the DNR’s leadership has no regard for the MLFAC members whom they appoint. It ignores the constituencies MLFAC represents and the suggestions they have been making for improving the “co-management” of Mille Lacs.

    It must be infuriating to find out that Mille Lacs “co-management” regarding walleye angling has been hard-wired–for the next three years! Especially galling is having an agreement based on research methods and data challenged as faulty by MLFAC members at every meeting.

    The agreement leads one to believe all the meetings with Governor Dayton and DNR officials have been nothing more than dog-and-pony shows.

    If an agreement like this has to be done behind closed doors, and the results known only if leaked, is there more going on than meets the eye? At a minimum it look like a one-sided sweetheart deal of a payoff, extracted over a measly 6,800-pound overage.

    It is time to hold the Governor and DNR accountable for their actions!

    ** DNR Commissioner Landwehr and Fisheries Chief Don Pereira must resign.

    ** Other parties to this agreement, tribal management and the taxpayer-funded GLIFWC, should also be held accountable. They should be exposed for breaking trust with the citizens of Minnesota, and violating the spirit of the Supreme Court’s affirmation of 1837 Treaty harvest rights.

    ** Governor Dayton should call for a priority investigation by the Office of the Legislative Auditor to be conducted as soon as possible.

    ** The appropriate House and Senate Committees should not only review the Auditor’s report, but also look back at all DNR-Tribal/GLIFWC meetings since Court ordered negotiations began.

    ** The appropriate House and Senate Committees should also review and prioritize previously submitted legislative proposals related to fixing Mille Lacs “co-management.”

    Doug,
    Douglas J. Meyenburg
    President PERM

    Please FORWARD this message to your friends
    LIKE US on Facebook!
    DONATE!
    Email PERM
    Link to PERM’s website

    big_g
    Isle, MN
    Posts: 22456
    #1711954

    DNR …”we invite your input.. now shut up.” devil jester rotflol the stumbling and bumbling just keeps getting worse.

    Eelpoutguy
    Farmington, Outing
    Posts: 10426
    #1711955

    I wish I could say I’m shocked and surprised, but I can’t. You had to pretty much figure something was rigged.

    Brian Klawitter
    Keymaster
    Minnesota/Wisconsin Mississippi River
    Posts: 59992
    #1711957

    DNR …”we invite your input.. now shut up.”

    That’s sure the impression it gives. There will be a spin. There’s always a spin.

    BigWerm
    SW Metro
    Posts: 11636
    #1711958

    I saw this on Walleye Student’s FB post, and I’d love to see the agreement they reference. If anyone knows a MLFAC member that has access to the document, please post.

    gr8ful24
    Posts: 2
    #1711966

    Can someone post the agreement?

    Brian Klawitter
    Keymaster
    Minnesota/Wisconsin Mississippi River
    Posts: 59992
    #1711976

    Odd that a public document can’t be found on line. I have a request into the DNR. We’ll see how that goes.

    Utness
    Mille Lacs
    Posts: 10
    #1711978

    Here is the document!

    Attachments:
    1. DisputeResolution.pdf

    Dutchboy
    Central Mn.
    Posts: 16650
    #1712007

    The DNR in bed with GLIFWC.

    Whoda thunk it. coffee

    Hot Runr Guy
    West Chicago, IL
    Posts: 1933
    #1712014

    Hmmmm, somebody will be going to jail,,,,,,

    HRG

    Attachments:
    1. legal.jpg

    Dutchboy
    Central Mn.
    Posts: 16650
    #1712042

    Hmmmm, somebody will be going to jail,,,,,,

    HRG

    Ask us again why we don’t trust the government. smirk

    Iowaboy1
    Posts: 3789
    #1712045

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Hot Runr Guy wrote:</div>
    Hmmmm, somebody will be going to jail,,,,,,

    HRG

    Ask us again why we don’t trust the government. smirk

    another problem is it wont be the right ones involved going to jail.
    if that document is the real deal,kudos to whoever leaked it.

    Walleyestudent Andy Cox
    Garrison MN-Mille Lacs
    Posts: 4484
    #1712052

    another problem is it wont be the right ones involved going to jail.
    if that document is the real deal,kudos to whoever leaked it.

    I think the document is legit in that it is consistent with the management actions so far this year regarding closures, harvest quota #’s and “some” of what information has been communicated to the public. What is truly scandalous is the “selling out” in future years that now appears to be in yet another binding legal agreement (document) that was not at all revealed OR discussed with MLFAC which was established by the DNR to keep the public interests involved in the management. This was drafted and committed to by the DNR that was again hidden from the court of public opinion. This treaty management does in fact allow them to do that, which makes all this smell even more rotten. How can there be any trust when these secret negotiations happen while the wool is continually pulled over our eyes. Yes, the state and DNR are legally bound to the treaty ruling, but nowhere in the treaty ruling does it mandate this kind of agreement on the “co-management”.

    BTW, perhaps this was not leaked. Who knows…maybe the governor or commissioner gave permission?? roll

    pool2fool
    Inactive
    St. Paul, MN
    Posts: 1709
    #1712059

    Man this is an awful look for the DNR.

    That said, reality time: the MLFAC are an advisory group. The extent of their power is to write “recommendations.” And from what I’ve read they can’t even agree with the DNR on a process for doing that. And PERM have even less clout. A testy letter demanding resignations is going to achieve nothing.

    Dutchboy
    Central Mn.
    Posts: 16650
    #1712065

    Man this is an awful look for the DNR.

    That said, reality time: the MLFAC are an advisory group. The extent of their power is to write “recommendations.” And from what I’ve read they can’t even agree with the DNR on a process for doing that. And PERM have even less clout. A testy letter demanding resignations is going to achieve nothing.

    Ummm, seems to have gotten this document public. It’s always been suspected the DNR is the puppet and GLIFWC the puppeteer. Ever wonder why all the cries for transparentcy fell on deaf ears? How much of this goes on? My guess is this is the tip of a iceberg.

    pool2fool
    Inactive
    St. Paul, MN
    Posts: 1709
    #1712071

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>pool2fool wrote:</div>
    Man this is an awful look for the DNR.

    That said, reality time: the MLFAC are an advisory group. The extent of their power is to write “recommendations.” And from what I’ve read they can’t even agree with the DNR on a process for doing that. And PERM have even less clout. A testy letter demanding resignations is going to achieve nothing.

    Ummm, seems to have gotten this document public. It’s always been suspected the DNR is the puppet and GLIFWC the puppeteer. Ever wonder why all the cries for transparentcy fell on deaf ears? How much of this goes on? My guess is this is the tip of a iceberg.

    My guess is you’re right. We should all assume there’s a lot of this crap going on. And yet here we are. What can that document prove beyond the fact that the DNR never intended to include the MLFAC in any real discussions? So we have a document that confirms what we already thought. If the DNR intended otherwise then MLFAC would’ve been given an actual seat at the table. How is anyone feigning shock here?

    Until someone can speak up and say “this is the law and here’s the proof that the DNR and GLIFWC conspired to break it”, and here’s how we make them pay,” then all I see are people that are angry that the government isn’t doing what they think it should. (Which is like 98% of the Internet in 2017.)

    Kyhl
    Savage
    Posts: 749
    #1712126

    If I read this right, the tribes get 50% of any allocation over 64,000 lbs for the next three seasons.

    Nice precedent to set. Ugh!

    Expect three more seasons of closures and C&R.

    Dutchboy
    Central Mn.
    Posts: 16650
    #1712131

    No, not 3 years. This will morph into forever.

    biggill
    East Bethel, MN
    Posts: 11321
    #1712136

    How is anyone feigning shock here?

    That’s because it was predicted with such accuracy. That’s the only shock for me.

    Hopefully those people who commented on the Mille Lacs protest article now understand why the protests happened in the first place. Finally proof.

    Seeing how much gov goofy has been involved in this lately, I’m hopeful that he might actually get involved.

    Although I am fearful that this gets swept under the rug by denial that this is real. Fortunately though it is hard to deny when it will actually predict the the future harvest plans to a T. I guess they could always renegotiate behind close doors to make it inaccurate.

    buckybadger
    Upper Midwest
    Posts: 8169
    #1712142

    Honest Question:

    How many people truly think that there will ever be a legal public harvest of walleye again on Mille Lacs?

    I would say this cements C&R (at most) from now through 2020. I’d also expect closures quite regularly. The precedent has been set.

    There are so many increasing biological factors working against the lake – while netting, politics, and increased pressure are also factors. I’m nearing the point where I’d like to have the “plug pulled” on Mille Lacs. Open it up to the statewide walleye limit, stop funding studies, staffing COs on it, and let the walleye fishery crash.

    Brian Klawitter
    Keymaster
    Minnesota/Wisconsin Mississippi River
    Posts: 59992
    #1712621

    I can’t answer the honest question…but I did get a response from the email I sent to the DNR on Aug 25th. Busy time of year I guess.

    Attachments:
    1. Consensus-Doc-fully-signed-12apr17.pdf

    BigWerm
    SW Metro
    Posts: 11636
    #1712632

    I would encourage anyone on Facebook to follow Johnson’s Portside, he does a good job of explaining his perspective on the DNR created mess up there. And for anyone who disagrees with our DNR entering (us) into legally binding agreements on one of our largest resources without public input, discussion or agreement, I’d advise contacting your legislator here:

    https://www.leg.state.mn.us/leg/legdir

    BK so did you get a reply?

    Also, here is the DNR’s definition of the role of MLFAC, including Landwehr’s quote on it:
    The commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has appointed 17 Minnesotans to a newly formed Mille Lacs Fisheries Advisory Committee that will give input to the DNR on fisheries management programs and related issues for Mille Lacs Lake.

    Members of the committee will contribute to the broader understanding of biological, social and economic aspects of the Mille Lacs fishery and develop recommendations to advise the DNR on potential approaches and regulations to solve identified issues.

    “Group members will represent diverse perspectives and interests and provide us with valuable understanding and advice about Mille Lacs Lake,” said DNR Commissioner Tom Landwehr. “We are pleased at the pool of applicants and believe the people on this committee will give solid and meaningful input.”

    Appointed to the committee by Landwehr are members who represent a diversity of angling interests; local business and tourism interests; tribal and academic representation; and local county officials.

    news.dnr.state.mn.us/2015/10/06/dnr-names-17-to-mille-lacs-fisheries-advisory-committee/

    Denny O
    Central IOWA
    Posts: 5821
    #1712642

    ^^^
    Your link to the 17 names seems unresponsive.

    Brian Klawitter
    Keymaster
    Minnesota/Wisconsin Mississippi River
    Posts: 59992
    #1712664

    BK so did you get a reply?

    Yes, I posted it above. The first five lines changed a little.

Viewing 24 posts - 1 through 24 (of 24 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.