Who's home/which lake is next?

Pretty simple. Say you have one egg that produces one more egg every day. One man takes one egg every day and cooks it, therefore he has an endless supply of 1 egg a day going forward. Now if a second man also does this, after one day neither will have any more eggs.

Is the lack of eggs any more the result of the second man than the first?

Simply because you used a resource first, does not mean it is only on the new party that the resource is running low. Adding an extra pressure onto the lake may have been the reason the lakes ran dry, but the solution may be each party has to sacrifice instead of one party should get no rights at all. The natives claim to the fishery is as strong as yours (strictly legally speaking, stronger). We offered natives fishing rights at their own terms in the treaties that served as payment for the land the state sits on. Whether you (or me) disagree with that is irrelevant, it is the law.

I think we need to focus on management solutions within the context of these laws instead of trying to work around a treaty we, as a state, clearly agreed to!

Could go on forever so I will leave the thread alone with that post, i think my position is pretty clear. feel free to disagree

Nate your egg story said it all. You, my friend, just don’t get it. We will have to agree to disagree…RR

“I think we need to focus on management solutions within the context of these laws instead of trying to work around a treaty we, as a state, clearly agreed to!”

********************************************************************************************

It takes two to tango. As long as the bands won’t admit their nets could be part of the problem there will be a problem.You can reduce limits, change limits, hours, presentations all you want but until GLIFWC agrees to stop netting during the spawn nothing changes.

There is a group that won’t quit harping this fact and pushing for transparency from the DNR until those nets are gone during the spawn. It has nothing to do with treaties or race, it’s just a common sense thing. Never once has anybody advocated to lower the GLIFWC’s allocation, we just don’t want it taken during the spawn.

to your point RR about why did it work before the netting and not now I think there are lot of factors at play there you are not including in the discussion – environmental changes, water quality changes, land use, chemicals spilling into the water from farm/housing construction, water levels, invasive species, more/less fisherman/fishing pressure, advancement in fishing techniques, introduction of different fishing species…. I could go on. im not trying to argue that netting hasn’t had a big impact. simply pointing out that this is not a two horse race – to suggest it worked in the past and it doesn’t work now is all because of 1 activity might be a little narrow minded.

crappie55369 wrote:

to your point RR about why did it work before the netting and not now I think there are lot of factors at play there you are not including in the discussion – environmental changes, water quality changes, land use, chemicals spilling into the water from farm/housing construction, water levels, invasive species, more/less fisherman/fishing pressure, advancement in fishing techniques, introduction of different fishing species…. I could go on. im not trying to argue that netting hasn’t had a big impact. simply pointing out that this is not a two horse race – to suggest it worked in the past and it doesn’t work now is all because of 1 activity might be a little narrow minded.

All things to think about but nothing has been as big of a change to the lake as the Netting and the DNR’s slot(s). That cannot be denied…RR

roosterrouster wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>crappie55369 wrote:</div>
to your point RR about why did it work before the netting and not now I think there are lot of factors at play there you are not including in the discussion – environmental changes, water quality changes, land use, chemicals spilling into the water from farm/housing construction, water levels, invasive species, more/less fisherman/fishing pressure, advancement in fishing techniques, introduction of different fishing species…. I could go on. im not trying to argue that netting hasn’t had a big impact. simply pointing out that this is not a two horse race – to suggest it worked in the past and it doesn’t work now is all because of 1 activity might be a little narrow minded.

All things to think about but nothing has been as big of a change to the lake as the Netting and the DNR’s slot(s). That cannot be denied…RR

agreed

crappie55369 wrote:

to your point RR about why did it work before the netting and not now I think there are lot of factors at play there you are not including in the discussion – environmental changes, water quality changes, land use, chemicals spilling into the water from farm/housing construction, water levels, invasive species, more/less fisherman/fishing pressure, advancement in fishing techniques, introduction of different fishing species…. I could go on. im not trying to argue that netting hasn’t had a big impact. simply pointing out that this is not a two horse race – to suggest it worked in the past and it doesn’t work now is all because of 1 activity might be a little narrow minded.

You can feel free/need to call me and get the FACTS too as you are not in tune with reality either –here at Lake Mille Lacs in this regard–past present and future. My # is in my signature…if you miss me, leave a message and I will gladly return your call.

steve-fellegy wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>crappie55369 wrote:</div>
to your point RR about why did it work before the netting and not now I think there are lot of factors at play there you are not including in the discussion – environmental changes, water quality changes, land use, chemicals spilling into the water from farm/housing construction, water levels, invasive species, more/less fisherman/fishing pressure, advancement in fishing techniques, introduction of different fishing species…. I could go on. im not trying to argue that netting hasn’t had a big impact. simply pointing out that this is not a two horse race – to suggest it worked in the past and it doesn’t work now is all because of 1 activity might be a little narrow minded.

You can feel free/need to call me and get the FACTS too as you are not in tune with reality either –here at Lake Mille Lacs in this regard–past present and future. My # is in my signature…if you miss me, leave a message and I will gladly return your call.

Steve, look at your signature, there isn’t a phone number. You might need to fix that if you want people to call you

I ran into the issue with steve’s phone number too. Google his name and you can find it quite easily.

Click on my name at the bottom of any of my postings and my phone # comes up. Sorry for the confusion.

I was confused, now I am less confused. I did not know I could do that and get your web page.

Steve you are the last person I would contact if I wanted facts about this issue

walleye216 wrote:

Steve you are the last person I would contact if I wanted facts about this issue

LOL Dispute/prove wrong what I say with on the record science based info and you got me…but until then….whatever. LOL “null” in your profile…

NateD wrote:

Pretty simple. Say you have one egg that produces one more egg every day. One man takes one egg every day and cooks it, therefore he has an endless supply of 1 egg a day going forward. Now if a second man also does this, after one day neither will have any more eggs.
Is the lack of eggs any more the result of the second man than the first?

Your analogy is perfect, but adjust it for what is happening on Mille Lacs. Say you have 1000 chickens that lay enough eggs for you to eat 500 chickens a year, but still have 1000 chickens at the end of the year. You and your family have been able to do this for decades and know that it differs slightly year to year, but in general that is a safe chicken harvest amount. Then a second party comes and starts taking 100 chickens before they lay any eggs. Combine that with the 500 chickens you are used to eating per year, and soon enough you only have 800 chickens (less the 100 chickens the new harvest groups method took and the 100 eggs/new chickens they would have produced) at the end of the year. And so it continues until you no longer have enough chickens to survive off of, and are now asking the government to stock your chicken coop.

BigWerm wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Nathaniel J Dykes wrote:</div>
Pretty simple. Say you have one egg that produces one more egg every day. One man takes one egg every day and cooks it, therefore he has an endless supply of 1 egg a day going forward. Now if a second man also does this, after one day neither will have any more eggs.
Is the lack of eggs any more the result of the second man than the first?

Your analogy is perfect, but adjust it for what is happening on Mille Lacs. Say you have 1000 chickens that lay enough eggs for you to eat 500 chickens a year, but still have 1000 chickens at the end of the year. You and your family have been able to do this for decades and know that it differs slightly year to year, but in general that is a safe chicken harvest amount. Then a second party comes and starts taking 100 chickens before they lay any eggs. Combine that with the 500 chickens you are used to eating per year, and soon enough you only have 800 chickens (less the 100 chickens the new harvest groups method took and the 100 eggs/new chickens they would have produced) at the end of the year. And so it continues until you no longer have enough chickens to survive off of, and are now asking the government to stock your chicken coop.

Based on actual on the record studies, I over the phone, showed Nate what and how it happens at Lake Mille Lacs–and elsewhere. We talked yesterday–good guy Nate is.

walleye216 wrote:

Steve you are the last person I would contact if I wanted facts about this issue

That’s fine Walleye, just look at the Blue Ribbon Report. I assume you trust the DNR and Blue Ribbons facts? Look at the biomass and recruitment nose dive post netting on page 20. And if you believe, like the DNR and I do, that that has a lot to do with the # of big fish in the lake. Look at page 17 for the history of the slot, and guess what? Starting in 1999 the slot was set to manage it for an increase in big fish. Both of these facts point a pretty obvious finger (imo) at the nets, and start of treaty management.

https://www.d.umn.edu/biology/documents/Ahrenstorff2_000.pdf

BigWerm wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Walleye216 wrote:</div>
Steve you are the last person I would contact if I wanted facts about this issue

That’s fine Walleye, just look at the Blue Ribbon Report. I assume you trust the DNR and Blue Ribbons facts? Look at the biomass and recruitment nose dive post netting on page 20. And if you believe, like the DNR and I do, that that has a lot to do with the # of big fish in the lake. Look at page 17 for the history of the slot, and guess what? Starting in 1999 the slot was set to manage it for an increase in big fish. Both of these facts point a pretty obvious finger (imo) at the nets, and start of treaty management.

https://www.d.umn.edu/biology/documents/Ahrenstorff2_000.pdf

Spot on but I think we have heard the last of Walleye216. He tried to take his shot at Steve but failed. Facts cannot be denied…

NateD wrote:

Pretty simple. Say you have one egg that produces one more egg every day. One man takes one egg every day and cooks it, therefore he has an endless supply of 1 egg a day going forward. Now if a second man also does this, after one day neither will have any more eggs.

the problem with this is the nets during spawn don’t take the eggs, they take the chicken that lays the egg, so now you don’t have the egg or the chicken to lay a new egg.

Based on actual studies—each female is good for about 5 walleyes per year –to reach adult levels. So when one is killed, 6 walleyes are killed for that year–no matter how or who killed the fish. ( same year is key here as DNR records show ” 85-90 percent” of gill net fish/randomly trapped fish ( in a healthy fishery as Lake Mille Lacs was BEFORE the nets) that are tagged do NOT get harvested /caught by hook and line anglers in the same year or even the 2nd year…soooo—that means that a HUGE amount of the “tribal harvest” would have been able /allowed to spawn MULTIPLE years if NOT gill netted by the Tribal Regime. Add those impacts up over 16 plus years and see where it gets the fishery? 10K to 30K of females ( using a 2 lb. average per fish) for years on end via Tribal nets–times 6 fish per year?

Now we all know-1. past hook and line harvest was not an issue as the biologists called Lake Mille Lacs “boring to manage” in 1998 (before the treaty harvest management was put into place) It was “as stable as stable can be” per the Aitkin office… 2. Since the netting/treaty harvest management—overall numbers have crashed across the board of sizes/year classes–as hook and line harvest numbers has NOT changed to being bigger as some say took place in the early years of the netting era. Using DNR/GLIFWC Tribal harvest numbers, about 20-25 percent of the “gill net” harvest has been female–some years being as many 25K- 35K of females in per year. Again do the math using 6 per fish…for 16 plus years? NOT normally done/killed by hook and line anglers EVER–per year!!

Add the ramifications of slot limit into the scenario, backed up by the Blue Ribbon panel findings and predicted by Dick Sternberg, retired DNR biologist, and you have a CRASH 100 percent due to Treaty Harvest–the nets themselves and the related management rules to accommodate the netting.

WHO and WHAT is and has been the problem???

Now argue/dispute that…based on science that disputes that science. LOL

Just to clarify you guys are getting your facts from the DNR right? Hasn’t the DNR taken a lot of heat for basically handling the Mille Lacs situation horribly and themselves contributed to the problem with their actions? I’m not saying I believe the data to be wrong, I just find it ironic that the same group that is being labeled as incompetent by many in this mess is the same group many of you are relying on to provide this fool proof data.

crappie55369 wrote:

Just to clarify you guys are getting your facts from the DNR right? Hasn’t the DNR taken a lot of heat for basically handling the Mille Lacs situation horribly and themselves contributed to the problem with their actions? I’m not saying I believe the data to be wrong, I just find it ironic that the same group that is being labeled as incompetent by many in this mess is the same group many of you are relying on to provide this fool proof data.

I for one, have NEVER disputed the DNR ACTUAL record’s/numbers but LOUDLY HAVE DISPUTED THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE ALLOWED/AGREED TO THIS HAPPENING WITHOUT GOING BACK TO COURT AND THAT THEY ALSO HAVE LEFT OUT MOST OF THE INFO I OFFERED ABOVE–THUS SHOWING THE PUBLIC/MEDIA REALITY.

So–YES–I blame the DNR!! And YES–I dispute the numbers the DNR makes public as they are not only incomplete but by not being complete–they are a lie in a sense.

Steve,

First, thanks for laying out your position. I agree that on a macro level the problem is the netting combined with policies, ie. slots.

There is one issue that I am not able to wrap my brain around and maybe you have figured this out. The counter argument to the anti-nets is that a fish killed in summer is also not able to reproduce the following spring. So as long as the total kill does not exceed acceptable levels, whatever that means, how does it matter if a fish ends up on a plate by hook or by net?

Deep down I feel like the nets are the issue but this is one argument that I am unable to resolve in my head.

Kyhl wrote:

Steve,

First, thanks for laying out your position. I agree that on a macro level the problem is the netting combined with policies, ie. slots.

There is one issue that I am not able to wrap my brain around and maybe you have figured this out. The counter argument to the anti-nets is that a fish killed in summer is also not able to reproduce the following spring. So as long as the total kill does not exceed acceptable levels, whatever that means, how does it matter if a fish ends up on a plate by hook or by net?

Deep down I feel like the nets are the issue but this is one argument that I am unable to resolve in my head.

You are RIGHT–a dead fish is a dead fish via net or hook and line…. but then READ my posting! The netting KILLS 1000’s of fish that would NOT be killed the SAME year via hook and line. Understand the impact/effects of the netting long term now? READ slowly…or did I say it so it is confusing?

ALL aspects of the problems lead indirectly and directly to the nets/treaty harvest management!! Simple…

Another day—another Vermillion article today: http://www.startribune.com/lake-vermilion-it-s-complicated-and-it-s-familiar/375149761/

“and it’s familiar”…nuff said.
BOTH Bands mentioned here DO NOT NEED “SUBSISTENCE” WALLEYES FROM ANYWHERE– let alone Vermillion! Simply embarrassing to allow it to go on in the 21st century. Casino $$ can’t even buy food??? Embarrassing…

DNR speaking with forked tongue again?___”A better option, Evarts said, would be to tighten the lake’s protected slot so more fish would be available for anglers. Last fall’s test netting results, she said, show that more walleyes across a larger size spectrum can be safely harvested from the lake.”—But how can that be at Vermillion after all these years gone by at Lake Mille Lacs ( and now other lakes like Leech Lake) and NOTHING was/is changed??? Go figure…

They should just issue native vehicle license plates to the fisheries guys in St. Paul.

Dutchboy wrote:

They should just issue native vehicle license plates to the fisheries guys in St. Paul.

That would be good! LOL The GLIFWC members drive “U.S. Government” license trucks…go figure.

In reading Anderson’s article, I took away that long term slots just don’t work, on any lake. I would like to see the limit dropped to 4 walleye with 1 over 20″ state wide. Special circumstances slots can be implemented for short term in lakes that have a issue. I would also like to see a law that says a lake CAN NOT be netted for 2 to 3 years after it has been netted. I think this will spread the netting around and lakes won’t hammered year after year. The state also needs to get involved full on and be there side by side with glifwc and record the actual take. There are plenty of lakes within the ceded territory that can be utilized.

puddlepounder wrote:

I would also like to see a law that says a lake CAN NOT be netted for 2 to 3 years after it has been netted. I think this will spread the netting around and lakes won’t hammered year after year.

Great idea! Since we can’t trust GLIFWC to manage their side of things maybe we can force your idea on them. I’m against netting during the spawn but if they would get into some sort of rotation to give the lakes a break it would certainly be good. Biggest problem I see with your idea is the DNR would have to admit that the nets are damaging the resource. To date they are too afraid of GLIFWC to do that.

Kyhl wrote:

Steve,

There is one issue that I am not able to wrap my brain around and maybe you have figured this out. The counter argument to the anti-nets is that a fish killed in summer is also not able to reproduce the following spring. So as long as the total kill does not exceed acceptable levels, whatever that means, how does it matter if a fish ends up on a plate by hook or by net?

Deep down I feel like the nets are the issue but this is one argument that I am unable to resolve in my head.

Kyhl, true a dead walleye in May = a dead walleye in August… as far as spawning and the lake naturally reproducing, what needs to change as far as the netting, in order to “manage” the lake, is for the DNR (who is charged with protecting the resource for all by court order) to close netting in May, during the spawn (100’s of fish in a net per night, easy pickings) and let them net in August (maybe 10 in the net).. I can almost guarantee you, the lake repairs itself, with “no other management” by the DNR. Anybody who thinks that the DNR or the Bands are counting/weighing the walleye they take netting, need to spend a day at the Cedar Creek landing and watch the lack of oversight…. they are only there when the cameras are there shooting a story.

This year it’s Mille Lacs.
2019 it will be Vermilion.
2021 it will be Rainy.
2023 it will be Leech
2025 it will be Gull.
2027 it will be Red again.

As long as GLIFWC is allowed and willing to net during the spawn on the STATES waters we will have these same discussions. Now, keep in mind it likely will happen much faster then the years I listed.