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. 

Due to the request of my wonderful girl friend, I stayed off this thread for the easter weekend because she didn't want me all fired up over fishing. She understands this is my passion and to one day make a living out of it weather its guiding or turnament fishing or whatever. This is no way a racial thing for me. The fact is a wonderful resource is being killed. If was about race, inequality, or wanting what others have I would attack the rez, the casino, and everyhing that goes along with the treaty and the american native indians. I have asked for a reason that netting needs to continue and I have yet to receive one ligitament reason. The only answer I get is basically "because we can". Well ya know what, I CAN dump motor oil and anti freeze down my storm drain, but I know the negative affects it will have on the enviroment and all who live here so I don't do it. I would love to meet with whoever I can and be more involved in this and hopefully come to an agreement so all parties are happy. Jonnie and steve, the walleye slayer brings up a good point. I think the three of us should really attack this issue.

I think I am done posting opinions on here because honestly it gets us no were. If any one has a contact name or number for a higher person with in the tribe I would love to have it.

If any on would like to set up a meeting or help in any way send me a PM or email

Again thanks for all the help and input from everyone. Hope to see y'all on the water in a couple weeks. I'll be on the north end in a black alumacraft and if its cold ill be in the same yellow coat as in the pic. say hi if u see me and ill toss ya a beer or two.

Ok your right I was just trying to make point and I used a bad example. So ill switch my example to something as simple as recycling. It is not illeagal to not recycle but I would bet the vast majority people do it and I'm willing to bet that holds true to all genders, back grounds and races. I am willing to bet u do and so do most the people that net. We need to preserve what we have so our children and our childrens children have something wonderful to enjoy. And continueing to net is not the answer. I think we can all agree that our forefathers did not foresee the industrial revolution and the population that we have now when the treaty was signed and changes need to be made at some point and makeing those changes sooner rather then later would best for everyone. And altho u agree with netting simply because it is leagal u have to admit that it does cause concern for the future.

this is just a quick off the top of my head answer.. but here is a question for you... has anyone ever done a study as to the walleye population for the last 20 or 30 yrs on Mille Lacs Lake.? I am wondering if you have hard data to back up a claim that you think netting is harmful instead of just saying -- well it just has to be.... because as I state before my parents ran a resort for yrs.. and I am talking in the yrs before netting- there were some yrs that fishing was good and some that fishing was poor- my father who was a wonderfully wise man said it was due to weather and food availability. not sure how that data would process out in the end tho due to the fact of increased use of underwater cams and more sophisticated fishing methods and also the number of ice houses in winter varies...but I am sure there are studies out there..just a matter of finding them..
lol- not sure if you realize it but I am left handed, and have a very high IQ on top of being a Native American woman-- so i tend to analize things and think outside the box on most things..
there is one amongst you all that is actually seaching out the knowledge that you need to come to a compromise on all this instead of just wringing his hands and saying "woe is the walleye!" hopefully he will come up with the answers we all need... and this discussion won't be happening again next yr..
And tom--- did you or did you not take the time to look at that link? just wondering... a treaty is a contract between two parties same as a home loan is or any kind of legal contract is..
I know you don't believe me or just brush it aside but the Natives I know believe that the fish and wild rice and other things from mother earth in this area were given to them by the maker...so they are not going to willingly abuse it..they want those gifts here for their grandchildren for many generations to come..

I think the WHOLE point here is "netting". Lady you discuss fishing being good some years and bad others. This is a very true statement. BUT a net- gill net does not have bad years. A net will not sometimes work and sometimes not. Fishing is tough, as you know. I get very frustrated at times. I know they are down there but I can not catch them. Once again the point is the nets. It's one thing netting for a few fish but come on. 142,000 pounds this year. And then you can still go fishing year round as well. Each year the tribes allocation rises. When will it be enough??? Good luck fishing all. Opener is getting close

-- Edited by RussDaBuss on Monday 25th of April 2011 08:34:56 PM

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.

Tom - I will try to see if I can get a written copy of that video.. other wise pop into a local library and watch it on there computors.. its well worth the 15 minutes it takes. As far as Mille Lacs being a former walleye capitol - there are many places that claim that .. in Minnesota and other states.. Jon is working hard on resolving this problem and hopefully by next yrs season we will see the fruitations of his work.. You won't see the Natives give up there right to net.. esspecially in this economic time. but like I said Jon seems to have worked out a solution that is win/win for everyone involved.. requires some hard work but his plan is very doable..

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.

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

-- Edited by Doug Ertl on Tuesday 26th of April 2011 09:49:46 AM

fish lips-apparently they are doing it .. not sure if all the bands do that or no.. will check around a bit and see what I come up with..

Tom S.-yes tatt2jonny has a plan! and it will require lots of hard work and input.. but it is very doable..and maybe can be in place by next year..
lol I am an analizer so you really cant expect me to answer a yes or no question with just that lmao..! because if I do that then it leaves it open for wrong interpitation..so there fore I give reasons for my conclusions..
Do I think netting is hurting the lake? honestly at this point in time no..it does nothing to improve it tho and that is the crux of the matter..it involves lots of misconceptions on both sides..a way around this is to offer help to tatt2jonny.. ignorance is the enemy here. we are not enemys.. thats one of the reasons I keep hammering away at this keyboard of mine. We all want the same end result and that is for the walleye to be here for our grandchildren.
Do I think bussiness would improve if fishing improved? hmm loaded question.. I am pretty certain that most people come to this area or i should say the biggest majority of ppl come here to go to casino..its in the millions per month I think) and they do in fact spend money at gas stations and other attractions in area..like it or not fishing comes second as far as bringing people to the area. This area has seen its economic ups and downs before.if you go far enough back Wahkon was once a boom town. But I degress- people that like to fish are going to come here reguardless. It is a great lake and many people grew up spending there summers or at least a portion of the summer up at lake cabins or state parks in the area... and now they are trying to share that feeling they got with their own kids . Many factors figure into it.. with so many people out of work or working at jobs that don't pay as well and gas costs on the rise people don't have as much money to spend on recreational activities. for many that $50 tank of gas to come here might be enough to pay the light bill so the light bill gets paid and they stay home.
When looking at things there is never just a black and white answer.. the older I get the more I realize there are areas of grey to just about every question..
As to the drinking and addiction problems of this area..that also cant be answered with yes or no. the drinking goes back to the abject poverty many grew up with yrs ago.. and it was terrible ..no jobs no way to get to one if you had one.. living on goverment subsidies instead of being able to support your family.. depression often goes hand in hand with alcohol abuse.I remember as a child before resort days we had a farm.. I remember an elder walking over 30 miles out to our place and knocking on the door and crying to my dad that his family was starving. my dad helped him butcher one of our steers and then loaded the back of his pickup truck with potatoes from our garden and canned goods my mom and grandmother had canned and giving him a ride back to his place.. but then again it is also not a white or native issue.. there are gangs in our schools. there are deaths on both sides . yes it may be illegal but people still do it.. people that waste their lives and brains. It is a terrible waste on both sides.. we as parents can try to raise our kids right and keep involved in there lives. the tribe is trying to get to the younger ones now by immersing them in tribal culture before they loose them to gangs and violence and addictions. wich is why hunting and gathering of natural resourses is so important to them.
so yes the drinking is illegal.. but then again so is it illegal for the white kids to be using and making meth and drinking.. its not just a native thing .. and you cant make it into one.. that just divided the community even more.. instead of looking at it as a area problem you are trying to look at it racially and you cant..
sorry for the long answer ( not really lmao) but you know you can't get an answer from me with out me stateing the reason for my conclusions or at least by this far into the game you should realize that lol
sunshine on your face. stars to light your way at night , and a rain bow after ever storm. blessings on you and yours Tom.

Tom S- I have tried to find a written word document of that link I sent you.. I can't. I really wish you would go to a library and take just 15 minutes to watch it.. it explains alot..
About the alcohol thing.. there are people that ignore it. yes.. but how is that any different than say white poachers.. both illegal .. its an apple and oranges thing.. we are talking about netting -not alcohol abuse.
and as far as the natives having a hard time when the settlers came? no I was talking about as recent as the 70's.. so it is a fairly recent wound.. as far as beng economical that is not the only reason Natives harvest.. It is a cultural thing.. I tried to explain that in the thing about getting the kids back to the cultural ways of their ancestory. you look at it as trying to save a few fish.. or alot of fish maybe.. they look at it partially as trying to save the next generation of their people..so yes netting is about the future to them in a very big way..

Muskymadness- I thought I was going crazy. I just couldn't figure out why my point was so difficult to understand. I'm glad at least one person gets it.

Lady- libraries are government run therfore have short hours. I work for a living so won't be able to make it. I would if I could but I can't. Just for fun try to pm the link to me. Might work. Prolly won't work but we can try.

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.

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/

as far as I get. Cant find the tribal.

-- Edited by Doug Ertl on Tuesday 26th of April 2011 01:01:24 PM

 



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.

 

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!

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

**Post Deleted**

NO PERSONAL ATTACKS PLEASE

 

nahh, its actually really easy.  just set it and forget it! Just like the infomercials

Doug- I originally posted that due to the fact ppl were asking why ? as to why the treaty that was soo old should be honored? I do think that explains that question.. it was made in good faith thus it should be honored.. there is an old saying a man is only as good as his word........

here is a cherokee legend i just shared with someone...

An old Grandfather said to his grandson, who came to him with anger at a friend who had done him an injustice, "Let me tell you a story.

I too, at times, have felt a great hate for those that have taken so much, with no sorrow for what they do.

But hate wears you down, and does not hurt your enemy. It is like taking poison and wishing your enemy would die. I have struggled with these feelings many times." He continued, "It is as if there are two wolves inside me. One is good and does no harm. He lives in harmony with all around him, and does not take offense when no offense was intended. He will only fight when it is right to do so, and in the right way.

But the other wolf, ah! He is full of anger. The littlest thing will set him into a fit of temper. He fights everyone, all the time, for no reason. He cannot think because his anger and hate are so great. It is helpless anger,for his anger will change nothing.

Sometimes, it is hard to live with these two wolves inside me, for both of them try to dominate my spirit."

The boy looked intently into his Grandfather's eyes and asked, "Which one wins, Grandfather?"

The Grandfather smiled and quietly said, "The one I feed."

so ... I am asking as a woman, a mom, and a Native American... let us not feed the wrong wolf.. let us continue to discuss the matter in good faith and not feed the hatred.. I want better than that for my kids.. I would really love to see the racial tension in this area stop.. so my childrens kids dont have to go to school and be called trash or mutts or rez dogs or woods niggers... someone made ajoking comment early on about getting picked on in school... but I think they had no idea what actually goes on if you are native.. the name calling..being followed in a store because of the color of your skin and the store owner thinking all Natives steal etc... I WANT BETTER THAN THAT FOR MY KIDS... sooo lets get back to discussing a fishery or hatchery on Mille Lacs and tend to that matter and quit asking why? and solve the problem with open discussion..

ok lets all be part of the solution and not part of the problem

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.

---

 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?

 

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 ask for the fish to be left alone during the spawn and thats racial?

I am going to go respool line and clean some tackle. Im out!

saying Indians will starve if not allowed to net is not racial??  Better warn me again Doug for defending myself in a calmly manner.

Good idea, gonna go lay out the nets and mend any holes. Im out!

Swill - altho u r happy that is not why we have this post. No need to add fuel to an already blazing fire. U have a native defending netting and even she is smart enough to see that u are not helping....... thank u lady for stepping in there


Lady- I am trying to keep this as a non racial conversation, it is very hard to word or name both sides of the subject with out it sounding like a racial attack. Maybe for all of us that are trying to keep this as a netting issue only we should rename both sides. Instead of natives vs whites it should be called netters vs non netters. Possibly less offensive too. Also musky is right u r vary hard to talk too. I get what your intent is tho. Everyone needs to defend what they say and u r being attacked by many people. My only request is that u also try to keep this as a netting issue also, and not a racial thing. I hope u r taking what I am saying the right way. The words people use r only about 10% of what a person is saying. Unfortionately when typing people are not able to display or take in the other90% of what is said. I am very interested in all your views and opinions and I would be more then happy to have a phone conversation with u to gather those views and opinions. That goes for u too tat2jonny.

I really hope that this topic doesn't get put on the back burner till next year once the netting is complete. I think that many people from both sides (including u) r ready to start seeing some changes made in the near future.

I really want to know why u (lady) think netting should be allowed. And not from the treaty standpoint but from a personal reason. Not from the video either, but from u specifically. I know u have listed reasons, but I want your reasons for your reasons. Basically I want to listen to u talk me into agreeing with u as messed up as that is. I feel the only way to fairly fight the netting is to fully understand why it is done. U have posted and posted and u haven't convinced me yet. (U r getting there tho) I think a 15 minute phone conversation would go further then 15 days of posts on here. I just think it semi immature of a person to argue about something they don't fully understand. That's why right from my very first post I asked questions.

enough of this backstabbing and bullshit.. lets get back to the solution folks... get back to helping tatt2jonny and stop this bickering.........solves nothing.......he needs input as to how to make the fishery happen here... so we can have it up and running before next yr.. we need input as to how to make it happen... from the ground up.. so if you want to be part of the soulution and not part of the problem then stick around.. we need info on fertility rates of walleye eggs... what it takes to get a great hatch..the basics.. and then from there we can move forward. I have already given jon some links i had that may be useful .. if any of the rest of you have any send to him or post on here..

Tom:

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.

Whoa!  Take it easy there sister.  You mentioned it more than once, thought it was fair game.  You seemed proud of it.

Not admin and not me.

Swilly- the quotas you mention above are no where close to being met on the state side. Look it up. This quota is for the fishing side(a vast majority more people percentage wise then the tribes). Also to meet this qouta- WE need to FISH for them. No gaurantees. A net- pretty much gaurantees your lbs. Does this make sense? This is a great site Doug you have here and plan on being back but not on this thread. If someone has time read all this in a row. Someone is missing the whole idea here! It is NOT racial!!! It is wrong!

-- Edited by RussDaBuss on Tuesday 26th of April 2011 03:47:49 PM

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.

musky - wasn't thinking of booze when I saw the swill name.. swill to me is hog food .. I am a farm girl . and maybe it is a last name .. it wasnt a avatar about women or booze... so I didnt give it a second thought
as I stated before lets get back to helping jon with the suloution. and quit bickering.

cool handle then swill

hmmm think every one is calmed back down and ready to go to work again tho captain!

BINGO FOUND SOMETHING FOR YOU ALL TO STUDY... this has lots of the info we need and the ppl that need to be talked to with the knowlege we need.........

http://www.mnafs.org/

Lady doesn't bother me sound rather regal lmao call me wolfs shadow...my native name
to the non leftys here if you are left handed you use the right side of your brain and if you are right handed you use the left side..

how to pay for it? hmm lots of ways.. there are grants out there for ecological projects.. there are also the good old fashioned american way.. spaghetti dinners or what ever... pot lucks.. contributations.. start a club of sorts and ask for dues... become a non profit and we can hold meat raffles at the bars.. lots of ways.. but yes we need money.. but before we need money I think a trip should be planned to a functioning fishery and see how its done.. and then study a bit and see what we could use to fit our needs here or what needs to be changed for this area

On behalf of the American Fisheries Society and the 2012 Annual Local Arrangements Committee, we
appreciate the interest your company or organization has in the American Fisheries Society’s (AFS) 2012
Annual Meeting. The AFS is the world’s oldest and largest international professional fisheries organization
with a membership of fisheries science and management professionals from academia, government agencies,
and the private sector. Our mission includes (1) advancement of conservation and intelligent management of
aquatic resources within a context of sound ecological principles, and (2) the gathering and dissemination of
information pertaining to aquatic science and fisheries management.


ok i think that link above is definately the place to start......that is off there web page.. i am wondering if there is a way to "join" them and thus get benifits from them... something to think about jon and tom....

anyways i am back to work for the weekend so i wont be on here much the next few days.. ( what was that I heard? a big sigh of relief from you guys? lmao) but hoping you will have some of it hashed out when i peak on here off and on..... peace to all and happy hunting of information.......

Hey jon. Where would a fishery be built. Do we have a rough estimate of start up and annual costs. I know of a few companies that r giving away money for ideas some as high as 150k.

W.S. in your opinion do u think the casino would help out at all. Maybe with the game room I mentioned a while back and with the option to donate on reciepts. I mean let's face it one day of that would raise way more money then a years worth of pot lucks.

Maybe I can affiliated with hunters and start guiding and all the money my boat brings in will go to fund a fishery. That comment was a joke but at the same time I have been planing how to start a guide service and stand out from the rest. I have on key product I can offer that no local guides can. Can't let out all my secrets but I can talk to u jon (I have a feeling doug has some pull as well) or some others more in depth privately if its something people are intersted in at least exploring.

One word, Racino. www.racinonow.com

the DNR will have to be involved... so will the bands. also the GLIFW . the LCO has a fishery in wisconsin and stocks lakes there.. we are still in the gathering of info stage.. there is money out there in the forms of grants for this kind of ecological thing. hopefully it will be set up as a non profit type of entity... there is more money available to non profit groups..
years ago I remember the lake being stocked with musky fingerlings..so its been done before..just a different type of fish.
this is doable tho .. its being done in other states so why not here? no one said it was gonna be easy..but alot of great things have started from just an idea that got hashed out into reality...

he nailed it right on the head..I wonder why they did'nt use there nice boats..hmm.

no life jackets..$80.00 fine

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.

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.

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

in length.

 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.

 

-- Edited by tat2jonnie on Wednesday 27th of April 2011 06:20:04 PM

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.

Yours Truly,

Sir Walleye.

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....