Why no chatter on the one fish slot on ML

Dutchboy wrote:

Well, aren’t you a ray of sunshine.

LOL… Sad though,ain’t it

GO GREYHOUNDS

I respectfully disagree. Man doesn’t just destroy nature. Sure we have abused it at times, but look at a couple success stories like the wild turkey or elk out west. Look at lake Erie. Man can work with nature successfully. One could argue nature isn’t so good at managing itself. Look at what the wolves have done to moose and deer populations. Look at Florida and New Jersey who are overrun with black bears. Look at the ridiculous rate of cougar attacks in California. Ma nature could use a little of our help at times.

In my opinion Mille Lacs will be Red Lake 2. The bands from WI could care less if they fish out the lake. The DNR has already set a precedent proving they will just restock the lake at our cost. Anyone who believes the bands from WI have any other reasons for netting besides for financial profit or to simply stick it to the white man is fooling themselves. The lack of oversight during the harvest season alone proves this year in and year out. NOONE will burn the political capital it will take to correct this. Being termed a racist has a tendency to end political careers. I applaud Mr Fellegy for taking this on!!

I am not on a committee. I know they first held these “input meetings” and it was mostly resort owners and guides and a few home owners. I know from one person who attended them, they were a dog and pony show, anything brought up in those meetings that suggested netting during the spawn was bad for the lake, just went in one ear and put the other. He quit going. I am not sure if they even hold public input meetings anymore, I think they might have a hand picked yes committee now. Anybody who cares about the lake and the surrounding area has given up trying to “talk” to the dnr and has either went silent or have taken it to a legality challenge. Just like the so called “heritage” legislation that was passed and challenged, turns out that legislation has more holes in it than a natives net.

“g” mentions that word that hangs up in my gullet every time I hear it regarding Mille Lacs…..”heritage”. I think the Indians should be able to adhere to their heritage and customs. Just not with motor vehicles being involved, or gas powdered anything on the water and the nets should be made from “native” materials strung using the bark canoes they had when their so-called heritage meant something to them.

And if they want to press on this “treaty” stuff, I am all for that too since they agreed to have or use alcohol, firearms and they also agreed to stay within the boundaries of their “new” homes. Everybody else in this country had HAD to grow according to the way the country grows. They has eminent domain rules for railroads back in the 1899’s when they country was expanding. They still have eminent domain rules today but as the country has evolved those rules have done like-wise. A rail-road cannot just knock on a door and say “I want this land”. Why can’t the governing bodies of this country simply man up and say it ain’t happenin your way any more? $$$$$ is why.

It sticks in my craw that a committee changed the Smallmouth regs without more of a public process. This just might draw Bass anglers into the fray

Buzz wrote:

It sticks in my craw that a committee changed the Smallmouth regs without more of a public process. This just might draw Bass anglers into the fray

They will change the regs again also. That Lake can support Smallmouth, Pike & Muskie in Trophy populations along with Walleye. Absolutely no reason it can’t. But, to keep dancing the dance the DNR has first decided to take a shot at the Trophy Pike population. In a couple years they will admit (maybe) they were wrong there. Then they will take a shot at the Smallmouth Trophy population. Again they will admit (maybe) they were wrong. So now we are 4-6 years down the road. By that time they will have developed a new AIS scare and that will be blamed for the demise of Mille Lacs. The only species that will be safe from the DNR is Muskie. The DNR fears Muskie Inc. as much as they fear GLIFWC. Their fear with Muskie Inc. is making them mad to the point Muskie Inc. quits doing their job stocking and maintaining the species. (Yes, that was a direct shot at the DNR.)

As far as stocking Mille Lacs…………..why, it’s the premier natural producing inland water lake in the country. Knock the elephant out of the room, shore up in some other ares and the lake will bounce back like a super ball.

kooty wrote:

I respectfully disagree. Man doesn’t just destroy nature. Sure we have abused it at times,

Destroy;that may have been a little strong, i’ll give you that.

But we all Know damm well that people will exhaust the resources of any abundant supply of game or fish if it is easily and readily available.

If that were not the case, there would never be a limit applied to any resource.

the treaty of 1837 means nothing to me, it should be ripped up. We took their land and now we all live together, the treaty is garbage plain and simple. -I don’t even fish mille lacs either..

Why do people treat humans as if we are not part of nature, but rather an abuser of it ? We Are part of the food chain and it is not changing. I’m fact I am pretty sure my ancestors had to gather fish/walleyes much like the natives as cub foods was not around back then. When did I give up my rights to gather my food ?

when you had to buy a License to hunt and fish

I have done a lot of reading about this, and feel the need to throw in my 2 cents.

First a short history lesson for those who have not read the treaties.

We have harmed the Native Americans way of life the same as every other concurring group over the course of history have. The concurred do not have anything. This may seem harsh, but it is how things have worked for hundreds of thousands of year. This is a tribe defeating and driving another tribe off their historic lands.

We sign a treaty with the Native Americans giving them some rights, but taking away many of the things they have had for hundreds of years, such as their land, some of their history, and certainly some of their tribe members. In exchange for these things, we gave Native Americans some concessions, such as the ability to continue their rights to hunt and fish within certain boundaries. (ie Mille Lacs Lake)

We also gave them certain cash concessions for a number of years for their lands (we bought land from them). These cash payments went on for about 25 years (it has been a while since I read the treaties so my dates may be off) and were based on full blooded vs half blooded Indians.

Here is my personal opinion (internet, get ready to roast me)
1. We signed a treaty (contract) with a group of people. We MUST fulfill our side of the contract. This is no different than any other legal contract we signed in the 1800s or today. We are legally and morally bound.
2. If we have to fulfill our portion of the contract, the Indians must also fulfill their side of the contract. This means we are not obligated to provide the bands with ANY monetary or any other help. The $2.5 billion budget for the Bureau of Indian Affairs can go away.
3. We are fulfilling our complete obligation per our contract, and they are obligated to fulfill their side of the contract.
4. You will NEVER find a judge who will rule that we can eliminate the treaty rights of the Native Americans. Hope in one hand and crap in the other and see what one fills up first.

Nobody is asking the treaty to be ignored.

You did bring up one very important fact. The BIA is funded 100% by tax payers. Quit funneling millions every year to Minnesota and see what happens. Don’t think for one minute that GLIFWC cares about anything except doing their part to destroy the local economy of Mille Lacs. If the lake has to suffer then so be it. The goal is to reclaim the lake any way possible.

If anybody read the treaties, they would surmise they have been so watered down and not followed/enforced. They are outdated and a joke. With the natives taking only the “good” from them and rubbing whiteys nose in it when it profits them and ignoring the parts that they do not like or agree with. Either follow it as written, or you might as well wipe your a55 with it. I prefer charmin but it would do in a pinch.

I’ve been following this thread and quite simply find it Fascinating.
Now here’s my $.02
As a pale face I believe we need to respect the 1837 treaty period.
If the Native Americans want to net and spear every fish in the lake so be it.
Its not a good idea but so be it.
Humans are a part of nature so however the lake ends up whether good or catastrophic its natural. If its catastrophic eventually something will fill the void and it might be better, and since man is part of nature it is impossible for man to destroy, alter, make better, etc. nature.
If local businesses go out of business it could/would be an opportunity for someone else. Once again something will fill the void.
and finally Big_G with all due respect your statement on gathering food – in todays world if you do “gather your food” you must be awfully rich. it costs my $500 to go to LOW for a few pounds of walleye fillets. Its cheaper for me to go to Manny’s, eat Fillet Mignon and drink the best bottle of Cab they sell.
For me going fishing with friends and being in the outdoors is the prize, catching fish is simply frosting.
Heck I pheasant hunt in my backyard with my neighbor after each Viking game and it’s been years since I put a shell in my gun.
One last thing, the politicians started this mess in 1837 and they still can’t fix it.

eelpoutguy, It would be way easier for me to net for a week during the spawn and fill my freezer for the year, rather than follow the natives nets with a single hook my point exactly. Can the natives buy their filet with casino $$$ ? Not my point but you bring that up…. we can agree, follow the whole treaty, right or wrong and good and bad.

Anyone care to take stab at what the last line of the 1855 treaty requires ?

and that they will abstain from the use of intoxicating drinks and other vices to which they have been addicted.

Dutchboy wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Dutchboy wrote:</div>
Please list all the lakes in the lower 48 states where gill netting is allowed during the spawn.

I’ll wait for the answer.

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Dutchboy wrote:</div>
Did you get your answers from Steve? If you really want to know about Mille Lacs he is your go to guy & I’m sure he would be willing to discuss it. However if you just want to dance we can do that also.

Answer these and I’ll continue with this, otherwise I’ll assume your motive is to kill the thread which is the currant strategy for some pro DNR guys. I’m sorry, I was willing to do this only as long as I thought you really cared about the issue.

Steve contacted me by PM and I thank him for that. My motive in getting involved in this thread was to give my point of view. I don’t see how that would kill the thread. Like I said, the amount of walleye’s in Mille Lacs or any other lake isn’t a major priority in my life . I am perfectly willing to concede the problem with the walleye population in Mille Lacs is directly tied to tribal harvest during the spawn. I don’t personally believe taking an adversarial position with my Indian neighbors on the matter is a productive use of my or anyone else’s time. As I said before I would prefer the Indians not choose to net. I don’t feel personally very wronged by their choice to do so. If my point of view frustrates anyone here I am sorry about that. If you have been personally wronged by the Indians netting I am sorry about that.

Pundit, it is not all “Indians” that are the issue… if your gonna throw your 2 cents in, read the posts first and educate yourself a little (peoples problem is with the DNR) now twist away. For all I care, we could shove firecrackers up all the BASS’ A55, as long as we are talking about our priorities… makes sense huh ???

I expect to see even more smallmouth fishing the coming season. I, myself, will be chasing smallmouth more as table fare than sport C&R. Friends that come up to the lake want to go out and catch fish and come back in and eat them. For those of you that have just recently found out about mille lacs smallmouth, you should have been here 30 years ago, and they were here long before that. If I want to walleye fish this year, it looks like I will be going to leech

Dutchboy wrote:

Dave,
The Blue Ribbon Panel never set foot in Minnesota much less actually came to Mille Lacs. They made their recommendations based solely off the data provided them by the DNR. BTW, thats the same DNR that hired them & paid them.

So you see the DNR still has no idea (that they will publicly admit)what to do with Mille Lacs. The latest idea of spearing the trophy Pike out of the lake will be a success, however I think we all know they weren’t a problem to begin with.

Buzz, tell your buddies down at the DNR that coming clean on what happens on Mille Lacs will be good for their sole. Just tell the Minnesota tax payers that they have no more to do with the management of Mille Lacs then our kids do. Admit GLIFWC (Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission) is pulling the strings.Tell them to grow a pair and man up.

I have read a number of comments reguarding “The Blue Ribbon Panel” which has left me here at the key board!
Not sure the general public has heard all the details about the costs for the panel. Originally we heard that the costs were around $100,000
As it turns out that 4 of the 5 experts from the panel did the review for free and the one that did receive payment was given $2400 for their efforts.
At the in-put group meeting two weeks again it was all explained to the attendees. So now I sit here thinking about the data given and the “done for free” deal……..well how do you all feel about this now??

I think it smells fishy??

The Dnr has their hands tied in a very similar manor to the wolf fiasco. They are unable to manage the lake do to factors outside of their control. The only item they can control is the amount of walleyes taken out of the lake due to sport fishing.

They are told the netting totals and have no control over mother nature, the spawn, or any of the numerous other factors in the quality of the lake. IMHO this is a very minor item in the grand Scheme.

you get what you pay for Bobber… the natives obviously paid for more than our DNR. Blue Ribbon… says who ???

That’s about right!

big_g wrote:

you get what you pay for Bobber… the natives obviously paid for more than our DNR. Blue Ribbon… says who ???

More like a “participation” ribbon.

Did the state get what they paid for when they stocked Red or did the local tribe get free inventory for their cannery?