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

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

But thats not the exclusive problem! I think its relevant, esp. in a body of water where anglers takes more than the natives do. Netting part of the problem, angling part of the problem, poor management, invasive species, and weather ARE ALL PART OF THE PROBLEM. I absolutely did mean that towards the natives.

natives and anglers have legal rights to use these resources. That isnt going to change. Whining that the other group should not be allowed has no legal or logical grounds to stand on, i believe anglers who value the resource should be focused on finding a common ground solution.

RR,

I never said nor implied that “us white guys filling our coolers” was the issue. Please go back and check, I clearly state that the problem is unequivocally a mix of angling, netting, spawning, stocking, and other factors. Anything that adds or removes walleyes from a lake is relevant, and all must be managed. And i disagree with the popular sentiment that all netting is evil and removing netting would solve all of our issues. Every aspect of a fishery should be managed and cared for to ensure strong numbers going forward, the idea that one group “filling their cooler,” or one group filling their nets is simple minded and more than likely inaccurate.

Not sure how I would call you, feel free to walk me through it here!

There are no “facts” which state what caused a decline. How do you know which thousand pounds of fish harvested cause more damage? Since natives have LEGAL FEDERAL TREATIES giving them rights to the lake, why not shift “our” harvest down 5k on the lake? Problem solved and then some, correct?

Way too many people are dead set on eating/keeping as many fish as they can. Walleye fishing should be about the fun and taking a small meal, not how many pounds can i stock my fridge with. If people would take an hour out of their trip and catch gills/smallies (abundant across the state) this really wouldn’t be that much of an issue. Should absolutely be able to have 2.5k be netted (again, meeting federal treaties we traded to acquire the land our state sits on) without killing off an entire lake.

Steve,

I absolutely see why you and others are upset (esp. given what has happened on Mille Lacs). However, they are considering to harvest 2500 lbs of fish! Compared to 60 some k for angling fisherman? and sure, i see the argument of “the nets kill more eyes/other sepcies than actually harvested”, but isnt that also true in relation to “our” 60k?

Courts interpret laws, but they ALSO rule on the constitutionality of new laws. If you simply create a new law that directly violates a treaty it will be ruled unconstitutional, and be discarded. Federal courts (only courts that apply to native treaties) have consistently ruled in favor of upholding the treaties since the Indian Movement of the ’70s, and would continue to do so in this situation.

Its very hard to blame indian netting for the situation on Mille Lacs or other lakes in the midwest, and certainly we cannot expect the same only due to netting on Vermillion. As always, it is a mix of stocking, nat. spawning, food supply, weather, invasive species, predators, weather, anglers, and native netting. Each must be managed to find a strong balance-simply suggesting we should oust the group that doesn’t best fit our own best interest is no way to approach a problem. Or at least that is my two cents