So far, everyone I've discussed it with don't know why it's not being done. I'll have to see what needs to be done to make this happen. Anyone can milk fish while they're waiting for the creel check or whatever.
(What are all of our witness volunteers doing since the threat of violence has disolved?)
A lot of the fish they net are males and you need a lot more eggs than milk to make walleyes.
Unfortunately this has went from a few cerimonial fish to more of a commercial harvest and once the fish leave the lake no one regulates where they go. I can see a fish fry but you dont need a year supply. We also pay a big price to watch this and spend a lot of money manageing the lakes.
Times change and even we have placed limits,slot limits,seasons,stock and manage lakes to keep fish in them. Maybe its time for other people to grasp this concept.
As far as we came and took the land that isnt quite true. We bought and made deals for a lot of it and are still paying. Someone was bound to show up eventually and if someone else did I doubt they would have paid anything. Its been like that since the beginning of time and even the natives fought and took land without payment from each other.I dont even think the Mille Lacs band were the first ones at Mille Lacs.
wallyhntr1- this is reposted for your answer... http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Tribal/tribevideo.html( sorry for some reason this is not showing up as a clickable link.. you will have to copy and paste and watch it -its short of 15 minutes and well worth the time.. this video explains in laymans terms... just because a contract is 20 ,30 or 100 yrs old does not make it void.. and if the DNR you spoke with won't answer your questions well then you go over their heads.. believe it or no they too have supervisors. They probably don't answer your questions because they don't have the answers you need or don't have the knowledge required.. so if you don't like that "dance" they are doing with you well then you just go to the next partner...Tom S. as far as dumping oil and ani freeze down your drain goes-- its illegal to do so while netting is in fact legal. as far as explaining how to "fix" this situation goes.. I have PM'ed one of the members on this board who seems legit in thier concerns and I have told them exactly how to get a desired responce to questions... and also how to procede with the milking of walleys issue.. lets see if he runs with it and gets it going for you all...Good luck to all the fishmen on here.. hope you have a good season...
I just wish that the walleye population could multiply as fast as the human race is.
Every 50 years or so, the world population doubles.......
That's scary. We have a world population of 7 BILLION right now.
100 years from now, if the growth rate stays the same, there will be 28 BILLION.
If there isn't enough walleyes now, How about then?
I've been trying to enjoy this tread from a distance and have tried to stay out, but now I have say something. I am not bashing anyone, but I really don't care what someone's IQ is, especially when it has to be mentioned more than once.
And if you are left handed and that means you think outside of the box, then try thinking outside the box you are living in when it comes to this subject.
Thank-you and have a good evening.
We've kicked around alot of good ideas on this thread. Some people have come up with some really GOOD stuff.
I like the idea about milking the entire quota of netted fish the best, but one big problem existed. You just can't get live eggs and sperm from a dead fish!!!!!!!!! So what is the solution, then?
A fishery here on Mille Lacs!
In the spring of 1982 the walleye population of Lake Superior congregated in the Chequamegon Bay to begin its annual spawning run up the Kakogon and Bad Rivers on the south shore of the bay. While many observers doubtlessly expected some walleye to fall prey to Indian fishermen's nets, few expected them to be subjected to over-fishing of such an unprecedented scale. Nearly half the breeding population was destroyed as a dozen fishermen netted several thousand fish to sell from areas of the Kakogon sloughes reserved for the reservation fish hatchery which had failed to open. The men were fined in tribal court and publicly reprimanded by an Indian judge for heedless damage of an important resource. A flurry of reports, evaluations and recriminations sought to explain the causes for the failure of the hatchery and in part the aberrant behavior of the fishermen.
Spawning season is a traditional time for subsistence fishing among the Bad river Band of Chippewa. Gill nets are placed in the sloughes and Indians spearfish by torch light in the shallow rapids at night. Fish were a daily part of the diet prior to 1900 and are consumed regularly by over half the households today. Walleye and northern pike also represent a source of limited cash income. In the early 1900s members would exchange a portion of their catch for goods or as payment on accounts at the reservation store. Today a portion of the catch may be sold - under strict tribal regulation. The place of walleye in the local economy is clearly recognized, as is the need to protect them:
Walleye have been a nutritional staple...for generations beyond memory...high employment and a cash-poor economy [make] walleye a critical food source...effective regulation of member and non-member taking of walleye is essential to the preservation of the species in numbers sufficient to supply the economic and nutritional needs of its members. Tribal Code.
Walleye holds a special place in this Indian community. Even among those for whom "fishing is a dollar thing," trout are taken for cash, walleye for food.
The Chippewa Fish Hatchery
In 1974, the tribe established a reservation fish hatchery taking eggs from walleye netted during the annual spawning run. The development of the fish hatchery provided employment and income for the tribe while restocking reservation waters to assure the survival of the walleye and pike. The preservation of natural resources took on added importance during the early years of the Reagan administration as funding for various welfare and social assistance programs was reduced. Tribe members had two choices: to abandon the reservation in search of employment or to depend heavily on subsistence hunting and fishing. The hatchery represented to many an investment in the future of the tribe and, as expression of their will to survive, a source of collective pride.
Economic and Legal Dependence Limit Self-determination
Although tribal government was established under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, the reservation remained a community effectively under the control of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Early tribal councils had little responsibility, and essential decisions were made outside the community. No action could be taken without agency approval.
In his 1970 Message to Congress, President Nixon signaled a major shift in government policy regarding reservations. Under Nixon tribes were assured independent legal representation in resource rights cases and tribal councils were empowered to plan and operate programs on their own behalf. The Indian Self-Determination Act of 1972 allowed the government to contract with Indian tribal governments to operate programs previously administered through Federal agencies. This Act was a significant move away from the reservation as an administered community toward a potentially more viable alternative, the "sustained enclave." Theoretically, such a community would possess the political means to interact with the wider society while maintaining the distinctive cultural traits of its members and thus provide an effective buffer against assimilationist pressure. The tribal council became the locus of power in the reservation community: seeking funding for projects, allocating monies, administering programs and jobs and regulating the use of resources.
The potential benefits of self-determination to Indian culture are evident. The BIA employee with few links to the tribe is replaced by individuals serving at the discretion of the tribal council. Local administration is cost effective and politically frees the administration from the position of dominating a minority population. Importantly, it also shifts the locus of responsibility and the onus of failure away from the bureaucracy and places it squarely at the local level. At the same time, however, it in no way changes the tribe's status as a client population. While the particular form of administration on the reservation has changed and programs more responsive to local needs introduced, essential power relationships remain the same.
It is important to note that the Act did not convey actual powers to the tribes, only the administration of programs. The ability to initiate and fund programs for community and resource development, however, fostered a perception of the tribal council as a political entity capable of legislative functions. The phrase "self-determination" took on new meanings as tribal councils operating under provisions of the Act probed the limits of their power and challenged state government over the control of natural resources. Native-initiated projects, such as the Bad River fish hatchery demonstrate how project success or failure is tied to two fundamental problems that confront native autonomy and resource control. First, the legal concepts of tribal power have not changed - particularly concerning on reservation regulation of people from outside the tribe. Second, the economic dependency of the tribes on the Federal government continues. The consequences of these weaknesses become evident through an examination of the events affecting the tribal fish hatchery.
Problems of Enforcement
While few members of the reservation questioned the importance of the hatchery as a source of employment and as a mechanism to enhance the walleye and northern population, netting for subsistence directly completed with hatchery operations. Nonetheless, starting in 1979, people who normally fished the sloughes voluntarily stayed out or used the less efficient live nets supplied by the hatchery allowing the females to be milked by the hatchery. Females not ready for milking when caught were place in holding pens at the hatchery and returned to the sloughes afterward.
After a short interval of coexistence, suspicions emerged that certain individuals were netting in the sloughes in violation of the voluntary compliance pact. Complaints were brought before the tribal council but apparently never acted upon. Rumors circulated that females in the holding pens were being sold by hatchery employees to restaurants on and off the reservation. The sale of fry to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources angered others, and allegations of shady dealings were circulated. In 1980, an ordinance was passed to regulate fishing by members and non-members of the tribe within the exterior boundaries of the reservation. Under the ordinance no fish could be taken in the designed sloughes during the spawning run except those needed by the fish hatchery. Violation brought a $100 for the first offense and $250 for the second. The 1980 ordinance was given teeth by the hiring of tribal conservation wardens under a Right's protection program.
While voluntary cooperation sits well in the cultural scheme; enforced regulation does not. Previously, a muskrat cooperative that had nearly doubled the cash return on pelts for its members was disbanded when it attempted to establish and regulate trapping areas. "Indians do not like to be confined," remarked one former co-op member, "it's like being in jail. You have to stay there." The freedom to hunt and fish at will on the reservation is the most jealously guarded "right" of any Indian and the willingness of individuals to submit to the power of the council in this matter was conditioned by their growing confidence in the council's ability to affect change under the the Indian Self-Determination Act.
Regulation of Non-members
Regulation of tribal members on the reservation, although a sensitive issue, gained sufficient compliance for the success of the hatchery. Regulation of non-tribals was a more difficult problem. A 1978 report by the tribal planner had concluded that the supply of fish in the Kakagon and Bad River sloughes, two of the tribe's most valuable natural areas, was being depleted by non-Indian fisherman. Under the provisions of the 1980 ordinance, the tribal council claimed the ability to regulate the behavior of non-members (Whites and Indians of other bands), a power deemed essential to the preservation of the tribe's natural resources, yet the efforts of the Department of Natural Resources to regulate hunting and fishing by Indians off the reservation and tribal efforts to regulate non-Indian hunting and fishing on the reservation have long been a point of contention between the tribe and the State of Wisconsin. Tribal autonomy is non-territorial in nature (i.e. it includes rights to resources outside of areas currently controlled by tribes) and therefore not exclusive within reservation borders. In addition 56 percent of the land within the reservation borders has been alienated, purchased by non-Indians. Although most of this land is controlled by large lumber companies, some sections are privately owned and used as hunting and fishing camps. The decision to close the reservation to all non-Indian sportsmen was quickly challenged in court and in direct confrontations with tribal conservation wardens. The issue was resolved counter to Native interests when U.S. District Court Judge Doyle struck down a similar ordinance passed by the neighboring Lac Courte Oreilles Band, by holding that navigable waterways on the reservation remained within the domain of the State of Wisconsin and therefore could not be regulated by the tribe (the Baker Decision). This was only the first of several rulings which would begin a process of disillusionment among the members of the tribe.
Unable to protect the sloughes from fishing by non-Indians, tribal conservation efforts were further hampered by the Montana Decision handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1981, by which the Supreme Court placed limitations on the extent of Indian jurisdiction over non-Indians on non-Indian lands within the reservation. The Department of the Interior immediately advised tribes to analyze their ordinances in light of that decision and to use caution and consult with their attorneys prior to exercising and consult with their attorneys prior to exercising any jurisdiction over non-Indians.
This decision had a profound impact on the attitudes of tribal members. According to a former tribal game warden, "this inability to enforce fishing regulations on non-members made it difficult to enforce ordinances on our own people." It was a sense of importance in the face of the unequal application of laws of their own making that led people who were usually respectful of their resources to abuse one of great importance to them and to the success of the hatchery.
Meanwhile the hatchery opening was delayed because the funding became tangled in a bureaucratic web. A proposal from the tribal council, such as the one seeking funds for the fish hatchery, must travel to the BIA agency office in Ashland, Wisconsin, then to Minneapolis and on to Washington for final approval. Approval then goes to New Mexico where a check is drawn, sent to Minneapolis and retraces its way back to the council. In 1982 the journey took a bit longer then usual and the monies to operate the hatchery didn't arrive until the last day of the spawning run - in time to see it officially closed without opening. People have little patience with explanations of funding delays and although the request for funding had been submitted on time, the onus of failure fell on the tribal council.
At the same time a second funding problem eliminated tribal conservation wardens. The Rights Protection Program which had led to the creation of a group of trained, professional conservation wardens had worked well during its first two years. Despite their limited powers of enforcement, wardens had effectively supervised the walleye run and the wild rice harvest and enforced tribal hunting ordinances. The program was to run for three years and, if successful funding was to be taken over by a department within the Bureau of Indian Affairs. However, since no department was willing to carry the program as a permanent budget component, it was unceremoniously dropped in its second year.
Demoralized and lacking leadership, the conservation staff didn't challenge requests by a dozen or so fishermen for six thousand transportation tags for fish to be sold off reservation. This oversight set the stage for the slaughter of walleye in the Kakagon sloughes. Frustrated with the council and with the political system, these men, moved by what one participant described as a "heavy anger," went down to the sloughes and just knocked hell out of the walleye...it never should have happened." Nor has it since.
The Voight Decision
This event and the circumstances surrounding it serve as reminders of the client status of reservations and point to basic issues that still need to be resolved. The Indian Self-Determination Act may have redefined the reservation as a cultural enclave but the ability of tribes to regulate their natural resources remains a critical issue. A major step toward a resolution occurred in 1983 when the Lac Courte Oreilles Band, (whose power to regulate the use of reservation resources was curtailed in the 1982 Baker Decision), won a major victory determining Indian off-reservation hunting rights in the Voight Decision. The wording of Voight Decision protected Bad River in its claim that usufructory rights to hunt, fish, trap and harvest wild rice on the lands ceded by the treaties of 1837 and 1842 are retained in the absence of language extinguishing such rights, and are implicitly reserved in the Treaty of 1854. This time Judge Doyle agreed. Under the ruling, tribal attorneys and the State of Wisconsin have begun to resolve the jurisdictional disputes over the control of on and off reservation resources.
The Voight Decision has begun to restore Chippewa belief in the tribal council's ability to affect change and has strengthened the role of tribal government and tribal courts. Tribal chairmen negotiate with the Department of Natural Resources to develop resource use plans; Indian conservation wardens monitor off-reservation hunting and quota compliance, and Indian judges in tribal court enforce their actions on Indian hunters and fishermen. Through these actions the promise of self-determination and the potential of the reservation as a cultural enclave are being realized. But this decision (with clarifications still pending) effects only the Chippewa of northern Wisconsin.
Until the policy issues raised by the Indian Self-Determination Act are resolved, events such as those that occurred at Bad River in 1982 and the frustration that led to them, will inevitably be repeated.
The Voigt Decision and Doyle Decisions
On March 8, 1974, members of the Lac Courte Oreilles (LCO) Band were arrested by Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources wardens. They were found guilty of possession of a spear for taking fish on inland waters outside the boundaries of the reservation.
On March 18, 1975, the LCO tribe filed suit in Western Federal Court requesting that the State of Wisconsin be ordered to recognize Lake Superior Chippewa rights to hunt, fish, trap and gather as reserved in the Treaties of 1837 and 1842. Four years later, Judge Doyle decided against LCO, concluding that the tribe had given up off-reservation rights when they accepted permanent reservations in the Treaty of 1854.
On January 25, 1983, the LCO appealed Doyle's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals, which reversed the decision and returned the case to Doyle to "determine the scope of state regulation." This reversal (the Voigt Decision) judged that interpretation of Indian law must take into account the history surrounding the treaty, the negotiations and how Indians would have interpreted the treaty. Based on these factors, the court found that the Chippewa had not given up rights to land and resource use outside the reservation, and thus, those rights still exist.
On October 3, 1983, the United States Supreme Court refused the state of Wisconsin request for appeal of the Voigt Decision. Other treaty tribes affected by the decision include Red Cliff, Bad River, St. Croix, Lac du Flambeau and Mole Lake. The mandate of the Court of Appeals, while a clear victory for the tribes in that it reaffirmed the off-reservation rights of the Chippewa, was returned to Judge Doyle for judgement as to the extent and regulations of these rights.
On December 9, 1985, the trial began, to determine the types of Native resource use activities allowed, whatever boundaries might be applicable, allocation of resource base between tribal and nontribal and the extent of state regulation.
On February 18, 1987, Judge Doyle entered his opinion; his order, on February 23, 1987. The central principle guiding his decision stated that "treaty rights to a natural resource that once was thoroughly and exclusively exploited by the Indians secures so much as, but no more than, is necessary to provide the Indians with a livelihood - that is to say, a moderate living." His decision granted the tribes the right to procure natural resources by all the methods of harvesting employed in treaty times and those developed since; the fruits of these endeavors may be traded and sold to non-Indians, employing modern methods of distribution and sale; privately owned lands are exempted from such use, unless they are proven to be necessary to the sustenance of "a modest living" by the Chippewa; the state may impose conservation restrictions on resource use.
For some reason on this site, when I try to post using my phone I am unable to capitalize letters or write numbers so I apologize in advance if that is the case.
..typing like this..really doesn't help anyone prove their IQ..or credibility. Let alone help others understand...the point one is trying to make.
If a native wants to go out and net a meal or even enough meals to last an entire year, I say its their right under the treaty so go for it.
What I see every year on Mille Lacs is a small group netting way more fish than they need. When the fish are filleted, they don't take the time to properly clean the fish and leave wasted meat on the carcasses. I also see unwanted fish (Northern Pike and Muskie) wasted because they are not the intended target, but they are dead and can't be released.
Humana Insurance Representative-Brainerd and Mille Lacs Area
does this really happen. first I have heard of the inner ear bone removal.http://www.fdlrez.com/newnr/fisheries/spearnet.htm
made link clickable
I believe Tom's point has nothing to do with what white people do illegally. His point, and my thought as well, is ....... Why is it OK to adopt and follow certain parts of the treaty and not others. Then when these practices or "rights" are questioned, you just point to the treaty and say because the treaty says we can.
And I may be misguided in this, and I am sure you will correct if I am, but with "the miilions" of $$ the casino brings in (as mentioned by you), is there more poverty on the reservation than anywhere else in the area?
I cant get the link to work either Tom. Lady I get to the site with the direct url up to the point of midwest. Can you look at the link and see if you have it correct.
as far as I get. Cant find the tribal.
-- Edited by Doug Ertl on Tuesday 26th of April 2011 01:01:24 PM
I am going to have to bow out of this one. I have better things to do with my lower IQ.
You claim to be open minded, but talk in circles and miss the points others are trying to make. When one of your points is questioned, you say "lol" and "watch the video".
As mentioned, I will give you credit for jumping on here, but it is frustrating trying to discuss these issues with you.
Have a blessed day.
No Tom, you are not crazy. Your point was understood on this end. Some good points were made and I believe Jon is on the right track. Steve has some good ideas too.
This topic has raised awareness and that is good. I do not believe it was ever intended to become a racial or white vs. indians thing.
Ms lady has made some good points as well but, in my opinion, is not able to see others views for what they are. Also seems to be stuck on ONE part of the treaty and the past.
Good luck fishing.
I got the link from another user here. ThanksThe infamous video (doesn't hit on parts of why netting during the spawn is a good idea)
helped demolish a house not long back. anyway, from the old windows, I recovered several weights that when taped together, make perfect weights for the bottom of my nets. I must have fifteen, ten pound+ weights. enough for 3 nets of my own. Between my brother, nephew and myself, we have the max allowed. We plan on heading up this weekend and staying til our qoutas are filled to the gills. no pun intended. hehe. Plan on stuffing my freezer along with inviting family and friends over to share in the bountiful harvest! Can't wait as this is my favorite time of year!
Of course they will net.... we don't want them to starve....... <<posted by admin
thanks for your concern, Doug. and thanks to the gill netting season on Mille Lacs, my taste buds for the walleye will DEFINITELY not "starve".
ok swill cut the crap... we are trying to discuss things here and its gotten ugly several times already... finally most of us have calmed down and started discussing issues and you throw your trash talk in at this late stage? dam
last year, anglers were allocated 411,500 pounds of walleye. Tribes under the treaty were allowed to take 132,500 pounds. Over 3x more taken by anglers, don't see any1 bitching or crying about the raping of 411,500 pounds?
NO PERSONAL ATTACKS PLEASE
Yep, glad I got out. This is going to get interesting!
nahh, its actually really easy. just set it and forget it! Just like the infomercials
come back in the morning and harvest the bounty!
mn native lady wrote:musky madness- I am just concerned with the netting aspect. The reason I throw whites into the mix is I am just saying there are some people that don't follow laws requardless of their color..there are bad whites and bad natives.. never have I said any different. as far as the drinking existing hell if someone has the desease of alcoholism have you ever known a law to stop them? white or Native? no.... concerning the treaty again I will ask the same question I have asked others here - did you take the time (15 min) to view that video..Actually not sure on the figures of the second part of your question.. but I can tell you that the tribe has used some casino monies to better there comunity.. they built a new community center. they have decent schools, they have a college of sorts, they have a clinic and I believe maybe an elder care system in place now.. but I would guess that the Natives are fast catching up (if not already there) to the standard of living in the area..Also as I have stated there are a lot of white ppl that work there at the casino.. who otherwise would be on the welfare rolls..or would have to move out of the area to seek work elsewhere.. if you are looking at economic impact .. the casino has been a plus.. due to the job aspect alone. ( and no I do not work for the band) because even tho fishing is part of the eco structure of this area it really doesnt provide that many steady job.. resorts do employ ppl but it is on a seasonal basis.. dont know about the rest of you but my kids have this nasty habit .. its called eating.. those darn kids want to eat every day lol..not just during the summer months..but yes the Natives have come along way from 20 yrs ago.. In order for tatt2jonnys plan to work we have to stop looking at this as a Native versus White issue.. like it or not everyone will have to work together or his plan doesnt stand a chance.. but he does have a great plan that will potentially have a great economic impact on the lake ..but the people that pursue it are going to have to be a bit color blind and forget to look at the color of a persons skin and just look at the end result wanted.
musky madness- I am just concerned with the netting aspect. The reason I throw whites into the mix is I am just saying there are some people that don't follow laws requardless of their color..there are bad whites and bad natives.. never have I said any different. as far as the drinking existing hell if someone has the desease of alcoholism have you ever known a law to stop them? white or Native? no.... concerning the treaty again I will ask the same question I have asked others here - did you take the time (15 min) to view that video..Actually not sure on the figures of the second part of your question.. but I can tell you that the tribe has used some casino monies to better there comunity.. they built a new community center. they have decent schools, they have a college of sorts, they have a clinic and I believe maybe an elder care system in place now.. but I would guess that the Natives are fast catching up (if not already there) to the standard of living in the area..Also as I have stated there are a lot of white ppl that work there at the casino.. who otherwise would be on the welfare rolls..or would have to move out of the area to seek work elsewhere.. if you are looking at economic impact .. the casino has been a plus.. due to the job aspect alone. ( and no I do not work for the band) because even tho fishing is part of the eco structure of this area it really doesnt provide that many steady job.. resorts do employ ppl but it is on a seasonal basis.. dont know about the rest of you but my kids have this nasty habit .. its called eating.. those darn kids want to eat every day lol..not just during the summer months..but yes the Natives have come along way from 20 yrs ago.. In order for tatt2jonnys plan to work we have to stop looking at this as a Native versus White issue.. like it or not everyone will have to work together or his plan doesnt stand a chance.. but he does have a great plan that will potentially have a great economic impact on the lake ..but the people that pursue it are going to have to be a bit color blind and forget to look at the color of a persons skin and just look at the end result wanted.
I swore I wasn't going get back into this thread but the "facts" this MnLady dish out are anythng but reality in many cases.
For example--The info about how the Band at Lake Mille Lacs(let alone all over the country) that Casino $$ have been used to build schools, community centers, clinics and the like is simply NOT true!
Here is reality: ALL Band government $$ come from various U.S. Federal agencies. ALL Band salaries related to Band government are ALL paid , in total, by Federal $$. ALL infrastructure and all of the above the "Lady" speaks about, icluding all the new homes etc., are paid for with Federal $$--NOT Casino $$.
Facts only please? So the wrong "image" isn't created?
Last warning Swill
Swill wrote:I think the "image" is already permanent in your narrow mind.
I think the "image" is already permanent in your narrow mind.
Why is having a goal of everyone being treated equally narrow minded in your opinion?
No Personal Attacks
saying Indians will starve if not allowed to net is not racial?? Better warn me again Doug for defending myself in a calmly manner.
mn native lady wrote:so Mr. Fellegy do you think the millions the casio rakes in dont go to any infra structure improvement? give me a break.. are they stuffing the mattresses at the hotel with it?
so Mr. Fellegy do you think the millions the casio rakes in dont go to any infra structure improvement? give me a break.. are they stuffing the mattresses at the hotel with it?
I have no idea where the Casino $$ go( no one is accountable to the public there) but I assure you, unless you can show otherwise, that all of the projects/improvements etc. you speak to above were and are Federally funded. Maybe time for you to do some more research?
Another example would be the sewage treatment system on the west side. ALL media coverage implied that the Band paid for this whole project. And they did. With $$ they got from the Federal government--not the Casino income.
Now I swear--I am outta here on this--narrow mind and all. So get back to your netting thread. Anyone want to discuss this with me....feel free to call me.
Good idea, gonna go lay out the nets and mend any holes. Im out!
WOW! I wonder what Swill's IQ is????????? Left handed?
Again, you try and express yourself and get called pathetic. I think we just let this post die and for those interested in a solution, we can communicate through pm's, emails, or phone calls.
This is not going to go anywhere except to cause a whole lot of hot air.
Sorry Swill, but you are not helping.
Swill wrote:saying Indians will starve if not allowed to net is not racial?? Better warn me again Doug for defending myself in a calmly manner.
Where did this come from?
Whoa! Take it easy there sister. You mentioned it more than once, thought it was fair game. You seemed proud of it.
Glen Ertl wrote:Of course they will net.... we don't want them to starve.......
Of course they will net.... we don't want them to starve.......
idk, maybe this ^^^
Not admin and not me.
You say I am no better than swill and you are here to come up with a solution. Go back and read your posts. You do alot of "lol"ing and mimicing others.
I will agree that swill did probably not deserve a response, but he touched a nerve. I can admit to that. You, however, probably can't admit you have been wrong or reported non-facts in any of this.
You attacked one person just because of his/her avatar. What does "Swill" mean? It might be a proper name, but also is slang for alcohol. No-one had to lol and mention that.
This is not your site and you are not the almighty. And as mentioned before, if you want to pretend to be expert on this subject, check ALL the facts first.
If you go back and read all of your responses, I will watch your video. Then you tell me if you acted as the calm, open-minded, and knowledgable mediator you are pretending to be.
nor were the tribes quotas met, we came up about 9,000 pounds short. So, as with you, ours are not guaranteed either. Hopefully we can reach quota this year, its always a disappointment when we cannot meet our allotment.
Swill is neither, but merely a combination of my wife's and my names, Susie and Will - Swill, that we use as our online handle.
I go to work and come home, turn on my computer and it looks like we really got a heated discussion going.
I'm sorry, but this IS a passionate subject............
hmmm think every one is calmed back down and ready to go to work again tho captain!
This problem has been buggin' me for years. They say that normally the human brain only uses about 10% of it's potential. (More or less depending on the person)
I'd like to be able to get everybody (myself included) to dip into that unused part of our brains and figure out a solution to our walleye dilema, before we are sitting in our boat and wondering where all the walleyes went.........
When I was a young kid,(many years ago) I couldn't imagine that our fishing would become so screwed up that there would be a size limit.
The hardest thing about my job is to tell a five-year-old kid that just caught the first walleye of his life after he brought a 27 1/2 incher up from the deep, using all the skill he could muster, that we gotta throw it back. And watch his glowing face go dark as I release his trophy back into the water.
Try and explain your crap to that five-year-old kid......Mr. DNR biologist, that we can't keep a fish that this kid caught on my launch, because of some lake model statistics that you got from some assinine study on Lake Michigan on Lake Trout of all things!!!
Then the same kid'll see pictures like this in the paper:
It ain't right, and I'm here to tell you that if there's something I can do to change that for our kids, I'm gonna do it.
he nailed it right on the head..I wonder why they did'nt use there nice boats..hmm.
no life jackets..$80.00 fine
Do Not net during the spawn is simple enough. Net any other time, just not during the spawn. Heritage is kept in place and we all move forward.
This does not look anything like heritage and ceremonial to me. A commercial process plant comes to mind.
I sure hope Dennis Banks keeps representing and speaking out at these protests. That is unbelievable.
The way he opened up the interview? COMON,, he is right about about grass being green but what color the sky is in his world?
blah, blah, blah looks like one big run on sentence to me.
does any1 know the anglers and treaty quotas for this year?
I think we have lost track of the real issue here. The issue as I see it is the inequality of the regulations imposed on the sportsman. I've been fishing this lake for 32 years and can say to this day I have no problem getting some action on Ole' lady Millelacs. The problem for me is my inability to eat what I catch do to the slot regulations. I'm not asking for the lake to provide me with anything other than a walleye breakfast now and then. I will stock my shelf with necessities from TARGET. If the RED man wants to net and eat what they catch great, just allow me the same rights. If this were to happen then we all know what would happen, the "DEAD sea" would become reality. This lake is not meant to provide any nation with its food supply, or protein as it was previously referred to. Millelacs CANNOT and should not be expected to provide any people with their protein for a year. How about everyone, including the RED man come up to Millelacs, spend some money locally, catch some nice fish in their nets that are NOT left unattended and adhere to the same slot limit as everyone else. Sending 5 guys up to the lake to bring home Thousands of pounds of fish to Wisconsin will do nothing for the local economy EVER! The idea that the lake should provide these fish for life preservation is ridiculous enough. Let every Man, Woman, RED,WHITE, and let's not forget about our African American friends practice the same catch and release policies so EVERYONE can enjoy a shore lunch once and awhile. I vote NO to the fish stocking plan, Millelacs should not become a giant trout pond and should not be expected to solve any nations hunger problems.
according to a DNR employee that works at the Pine River egg collection site it takes 3-5 males to 1 female for fertalization. As long as the walleye are reasonably fresh, the eggs should be preserved by the water temp.
Its easy to tell good eggs from bad as the bad eggs will float to the top and need to be skimmed off.
This can be done, but the survival rate my not be optimum and if the eggs are going right back into the lake without hatching first, there is no way to track the rate of survival. so it would take some doing and some funding for experimenting and might not work or be worth it based on the percentage as a whole.
but it can be done if all parties were willing. Once the tribe members take posession of the fish, it is theres to do as they wish. They would have to be willing to let who ever handle their fish.
Hope we can figure something out for everyone to be happy.
In answer to the question about angling limits:
2011 DNR official website:
6262.0550 WATERS WITH RESTRICTIONS ON TAKING FISH.
The commissioner may modify seasons and limits under Minnesota Statutes, section 84.027, subdivision 13, or sections 97A.0451 to 97A.0459, to accommodate tribal declarations for fish harvest in the 1837 Ceded Territory in compliance with the court ruling in Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa v. Minnesota, 119 S.Ct. 1187 (1999). Changes
shall be posted at water access sites and the Department of Natural Resources Web site.
The following waters have restrictions on the possession of While a person is on or fishing in the following waters, all northern pike in possession must be less than 27 inches in length or greater than 40 inches in length. All northern pike that are 27 to 40 inches in length, inclusive, must be immediately returned to the water.
(Mille Lacs Lake and all tributaries.)
A person's possession limit may not include more than one northern pike over 40 inches
B. If walleye kill estimates for winter and open water fishing are 238,500 pounds or less on June 30, then the size limit changes according to this item:
1) while a person is on or fishing in Mille Lacs Lake or its associated tributaries to the posted boundaries, all walleye in possession must be less than 20 inches in length or greater than 28 inches in length; and
(2) all walleye that are 20 to 28 inches in length, inclusive, must be immediately returned to the water.
C. If walleye kill estimates for winter and open water fishing are 397,500 pounds or greater any time prior to July 16, then the size limit changes according to this item:
(1) while a person is on or fishing in Mille Lacs Lake or its associated tributaries to the posted boundaries, all walleye in possession must be 14 inches or greater in length and 16 inches or less in length; and
(2) all walleye that are less than 14 inches or greater than 16 inches in length must be immediately returned to the water.
D. If the regulations in item B or C are implemented, they are effective from five days after notice of the change is posted on the Department of Natural Resources Website until November 30.
E. Notwithstanding items A, B, and C, a person's possession limit may include one walleye greater than 28 inches in length.
Right On Fishing MilleLacsSince878!!!
I have been on Mille Lacs since 1954 as a very young kid. I have been a lakeshore owner since that time. I have a huge finanacial and ecological VESTED interest in the well being of the beautiful and exceptional Mille Lacs Lake. The premier walleye lake in Minnesota!
I love the lake. I love fishing the lake. But it is not intended for commercial netting operations from Wisconsin bands or any other group of individuals. Period.
If anyone wishes to fish the lake for a walleye dinner that is wonderful. That is not what is occurring with the out of state netting operations...
I'm all for building a hatchery, but only if the walleye were used to feed the Elders and Aunts and the rest of the family of the Native Americans suffering today in the year 2011. I also completely, 100% believe it should be the right of Native Americans to continue passing there culture and way of life to the next generation. I would honestly be upset if the culture was lost, what shame it would be. I just believe the fishery of Lake Mille Lacs should be managed in away that is equal for all. Whatever the regulation should be to sustain a healthy lake and economy locally. If you want to teach your Native grandchildren the "hot spots" and times of year to gill net Mille lacs go ahead, I just believe there should be a limit per person. The sad thing is the reasoning behind this all is human suffering. How sad is it that elderly people are wasting away without food when these casinos are raking in enormous profits. I really feel like our Government and the Tribal council are once again letting the Native Americans down. We should immediately start researching a plan to build a hatchery to feed the poor of the WORLD, including Native Americans and abandon the idea of stocking lake Mille lacs with Walleye, it is not needed. Proper management of the fishery, along with a Nation using it's business resource to setup a security plan for it's weak and elderly, this is what is needed.
Hopefully this puts this into perspective for EVERYONE. And just because this gets really racial... I'm not Norwegian. Thats all I'm willing to reveal at this time.
Thanks for your time.
A hatchery WOULD be a good idea if it were properly managed and maintained a pure strain of the walleye we currently have in the lake.
Unfortunately, this could only be a good idea if we used live nets. The irresponsible gil-netting indiscriminately kills whatever gets caught in it. Right now we have 17 lost nets that are still down there killing more fish, (unless they found some of them since it was reported to me.)
Gil nets are a bad idea. Anybody in the tribes that wants to can PM me and I'll teach them how to catch walleyes with a hook and line. You want to eat fish, we can catch them responsibly and so can YOU. Not only that, but you can keep those 26"ers if you have your tribal card and a fishing license.
tat2jonnie wrote:A hatchery WOULD be a good idea if it were properly managed and maintained a pure strain of the walleye we currently have in the lake.Unfortunately, this could only be a good idea if we used live nets. The irresponsible gil-netting indiscriminately kills whatever gets caught in it. Right now we have 17 lost nets that are still down there killing more fish, (unless they found some of them since it was reported to me.)Gil nets are a bad idea. Anybody in the tribes that wants to can PM me and I'll teach them how to catch walleyes with a hook and line. You want to eat fish, we can catch them responsibly and so can YOU. Not only that, but you can keep those 26"ers if you have your tribal card and a fishing license.
We as in YOU ? I hope they get recovered asap. Why nets are set with ice blowing around out there is.....well, I will stop now....
Don't worry, Doug, we can send in the lake rescue and retrieval crew. But we'll have to charge 'em $1000 bucks an hour.............(We're good, tho!)