Of course, IF the Tribal regime is allowed to net during the spawn, nothing changes for them...

At this rate, per the laws that are in place now, the sport fishing season could or would have to be closed by mid-summer--if it (the harvest including hooking mortality) is as good as it has been the past two years.

Johnsjr wrote:

---

I'm a new cabin owner and am trying to better understand this whole thing.  If it has been determined that netting during the spawn is a significant contributor to the decline of the walleye population, then why would the tribe continue to do so? Has anyone had a chance to sit down and talk with someone who currently nets during the spawn? From the outside, it sure sounds like entitlement is more important than the fishery itself.  I hope I'm missing something, please fill me in....

---

I have the head of GLIFWC (Jim Zorn) (GLIFWC is the entity that does the netting) on video answering the question, "why do you net during the spawn?" His answer--with a grin---"don't you shop for groceries when things are on sale?"

As a new cabin owner here--feel free to call or stop in and I will gladly enlighten you to the real world of treaty harvest...

Ain't what ya said, Dayton!

Seems everything is in order for the tribe - With closed, or catch and release fishing seasons , looking to be in the future resorts will start getting in finacial troubles with lack of turisum.  Some will sooner or later be forced to sell, and who will have money to by them?

With the tribe, in the future owning most of the resorts around the lake, besides a few outstanding well established busness men/women that will get to keep theirs, everything will go in full swing for them owning some prime lake realastate

When that happens, they will loosen up the netting on the lake (maybe quit durrning the spawn), then let it rebuild itself - then who will make the money on turisum? and "own" the lake, when it does rebound  

Just a thought, hopefully it will not turn out like that, but writing is on the wall for this type of outcome

Hope I was not being to rude or out of line, it just bugs me to have good hardwoorking peoples buisnesses in soon to be jepordy for issues like this - Do not have to live, or have a cabin on the lake to see this unfolding   

I am a Mille Lacs Lake shore owner and long time Mille Lacs fishermen (since 1952). It looks like to me we are screwed and Mille Lacs Lake is screwed.

It is a tragedy beyond description.

Nothing changes for the GLIFWC ( who is the entity that does the netting) and all fishermen and lake shore property owners and Resorts get screwed and WORST of ALL: the Lake gets screwed.

This is why there are wars. The political system and courts did NOT do their job.

Please write to Reporesentative Sondra Ericson:

* 209 State Office Building
100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155
651-296-6746 or 800-709-0578

rep.sondra.erickson@house.leg.state.mn.us

Message sent to tpt, keep those "keeper" catch ratios handy.

Sondra is one of a very few that has worked her tail off to end the netting and all the rest of the "issues" centered around the northern part of Mille Lacs county. She never gets any support though from the rest in St. Paul.  She is on our side--NO DOUBT!

I thought this might be a good time to refresh a writing I did a year ago or so. Is the Mn. DNR our best target to end and fix this mess? I think so!

The "input group" meets with the DNR this week for the umpteenth time. Maybe be they should read this?


"Most Minnesota walleye fans are aware of the basics when it comes down to the Lake Mille Lacs scene these days. Most recall the fact that the lake is being gill-netted by a Tribal regime during the spawn every spring dating back to a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1999. And most now know that there is grave concern about the direction the famed walleye population is headed these days.

This past December 12th, Minnesota DNR fisheries experts met with Lake MIlle Lacs resort owners and concerned residents to discuss the situation and potential options to protect it in the future.

Walleye population trends, according to the biologists, show a steady decline in male numbers for years and an overall 2011 population as the 2nd lowest since records have been kept. The lowest? 2007.

The experts say the reason for the decline is "speculative". Huh? Anything change since the gill-nets have been stretched out over miles of spawning grounds? Angler harvest has been, as usual, up and down during the netting era. Angler harvests have been about the same as the 30 year average...some years higher and some lower. So why is this happening? What can be done?

Many decades ago, Minnesota DNR fisheries biologists convinced Minnesota lawmakers to create a walleye fishing season. They decided it is best to not target walleyes during the time while they are congregated in vulnerable areas where over-harvest could occur if the season were open. To this day, the thinking must be the same as they closed lakes in the northeastern part of the state to hook and line anglers in 2011 because a late spring had spawning walleyes in a few lakes too vulnerable to target by the usual opening day angling crowd. Think about this now...and don't forget... gill-nets were deemed bad decades ago also. Are you thinking about this?

So at the latest meeting, questions were asked. "It doesn't seem fair" Terry McQuiod asked. Ed Boggess, director of Mn. DNR fish and wildlfe, said "the fairness issue doesn't really regard us. The fairness issue is for the federal courts and they've already ruled on that. If it is a CONSERVATION issue, then it concerns us." Now think about that statement...re-read this several times. Say what?? A population decline and it's not a "conservation" issue? Doesn't concern the DNR? Oh my....

Bill Eno, owner of Twin Pines Resort, pointed out the Tribal regime has been the "Alpha" and the DNR the "Beta". He asked, "when are you going to be the big dog and not just react?" The answer?? " .......we're under Federal mandate", the DNR director Boggess said.

WOW! Does anyone else think the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favor of destroying Lake Mille Lacs? Does anyone else agree the Judges meant, simply, to go back to Minnesota and defy decades of fishery management philospophy and allow targeting spawning walleyes with gill-nets? Did they really MANDATE our DNR to agree to this mess? Mandated?? Director Boggess says "...we have to follow Federal law." Say what??

It's NOW time to ask the Justices of the high court if, in fact, the Tribal regime and our own Minnesota DNR is in contempt of their 1999 rulings.......NOW!!!"

contact Steve Fellegy at 651-270-3383 or sf1954@embarqmail.com

Well, today is the meeting.  Will it be a "Wake" or a resurrection! 

Rick...sadly, I agree. Sound biology has played no role for 13 years. Politics has been the driving force.  And I have no faith whatsoever that will change anytime soon unless we take charge and force the scenario back into court. Give the DNR/Tribal regime a chance to explain and prove what is right versus wrong. Allow them the opportunity to explain how harvest with gill-net during the spawn "makes no difference".

-- Edited by Steve Fellegy on Wednesday 27th of February 2013 07:59:49 PM

Steve Fellegy wrote:

---

Food for thought--

 

Today--from a U.S. Supreme Court Justice and echoed by several others--"laws run their course--times change".

Don't ever think for a heartbeat this treaty rights stuff can't be changed and or go away all together!

---

 Let's hope so Steve. Today could be a very big event -- if it is not a Wake for Mille Lacs lake.

MM.

NortEnder wrote: Channel 11 news is on the scene!!!! Yes!!!! Finally some publicity on this issue!!!

Here is what the owner of Garrison Sports had to say to KARE 11.  I guess he wants to go out of business!

"We need it. We need it very much so. We're over fished," said Kari Hough, owner of Garrison Sports Bait and Tackle. "If we continue to over fish the lake, we have nothing to fish for and we did it many times in the past and since this new regulation came in with the Indians and everything we've had nothing but good years of fishing. I mean from the whole time since it started, we've had nothing but good fishing."

I can honestly say I dont know how to respond to that one!!!!!!

Rickster wrote:

---

NortEnder wrote: Channel 11 news is on the scene!!!! Yes!!!! Finally some publicity on this issue!!!

Here is what the owner of Garrison Sports had to say to KARE 11.  I guess he wants to go out of business!

"We need it. We need it very much so. We're over fished," said Kari Hough, owner of Garrison Sports Bait and Tackle. "If we continue to over fish the lake, we have nothing to fish for and we did it many times in the past and since this new regulation came in with the Indians and everything we've had nothing but good years of fishing. I mean from the whole time since it started, we've had nothing but good fishing."

I can honestly say I dont know how to respond to that one!!!!!!

 

Kari--from Garrison Sports, also allowed the netters to stay and clean all the netted fish at his place last spring. He has told us all we are nuts for being against the netters for years. 

 

---

Wow!  I never heard that one Steve.  That is typical.  The media goes to the area and finds the one fishing buisness owner on the side of the treaty rights....!  I guess we will will have to see what they come up with tonight. 

Did they let anyone from the public in or just the group(s)? 

lvmynewlund wrote:

---

It's obvious that the harvest regulations for Mille Lacs haven't been working. There needs to be some modification on the the spring netting along with angler harvest. Over the last few years we stopped counting the number of fish caught because you couldn't keep anything anyway. So we started keeping track of total inches of fish caught. This added bragging rights and new friendly bets on total inches.
So here's my thought. Let's not regulate how big each fish is. Let each license holder keep 35 inches of walleye per day with a two fish max. (plus a possession limit) This will let us keep some fish - balance the fish population and keep the local businesses busy.

 

Just as an example....a 20" walleye weighs 3lbs. and a 15" walleye weighs about a pound or hair more or less. So, the harvest rate by the pound would be BIGGER than we had last year for example because it is hard to catch any amount of little guys and most anglers surely didn't harvest 4lbs. a day on the average last year. But with the bigger fish available, everyone would harvest 4 lbs. or more! With this years quota, we would reach last years catch at mid-summer--easily--which was over 200,000lbs. by then in 2012. If I kept one 26 incher...that number grows faster-and odds go up per the numbers of available fish, that I will do that--and the quota is reached even quicker--right?

---

http://www.messagemedia.co/millelacs/news/local/article_52c2500c-81bf-11e2-8eba-001a4bcf6878.html

No mention or concern about the netting during the spawn. No mention of any effort to fight it by the DNR. Aamzing...

And this from the same writer.

http://www.messagemedia.co/millelacs/opinion/blogs/article_b4816f78-8050-11e2-ae9d-0019bb30f31a.html

NortEnder wrote:

---

Who is this Brett from the blog? "Nobody needs wild fish in the freezer that's what grocery stores are for" really!? I am by no means a "game hog" but come on, I am not going to buy walleyes plain and simple. I enjoy just catching them and honestly my family and I eat about 3 walleye dinners a season. But where does he think these fish in the grocery store come from, oh I know they make them from modified food starch!!! Pheww...sorry had to get that out. Anyways is there any type of organized group or plan formulated that I can help with the netting issue?

 

Stay tuned! I am impatiently waiting to get all the I's dotted and t's crossed on the next move where EVERYONE can and NEEDS to help.

---

Doug Ertl wrote:

---

Posted by Brad Hawthorne on his facebook.

From the meeting tonight it looks like we are going to have a two fish limit for the first part of the season possibly move to a four fish limit later in the season, 2 inch slot. Bass limit sounds like it's moving to a six fish limit with a lower slot.

 

I wasn't there as I knew what was most likely going to happen and it  did. Here is what I hear...and think of the it.

Quote of the meeting from the DNR was "we're rolling the dice". They show no intentions of making attempts to end the netting scenario. They continue to offer solutions that further restrict the sport fishing to accomodate the gill-nets. Basiclly...the same approach that has been the case for the entire gill-netting era. No sign of trying to build up the fishery--just to keep sport angling under the harvest quota while gill-nets are allowed to kill 35 tons of walleyes of all sizes. Amazing...

Yes....they make our case. Now we will allow them, in a formal setting, in the hot seat, to justify their lack of concern of the gill-nets. Their lack of effort and attempts to do away with the nets--at least during the spawn. Their lack of effort to manage the resource, per the law, in the best interests of the general public. Case is made.

 

---

Steve Fellegy wrote:

---

NortEnder wrote:

---

Who is this Brett from the blog? "Nobody needs wild fish in the freezer that's what grocery stores are for" really!? I am by no means a "game hog" but come on, I am not going to buy walleyes plain and simple. I enjoy just catching them and honestly my family and I eat about 3 walleye dinners a season. But where does he think these fish in the grocery store come from, oh I know they make them from modified food starch!!! Pheww...sorry had to get that out. Anyways is there any type of organized group or plan formulated that I can help with the netting issue?

 

Stay tuned! I am impatiently waiting to get all the I's dotted and t's crossed on the next move where EVERYONE can and NEEDS to help.

---

Malmo Mike and the Malmo Bay lakeshore owners will be there to give our support.

We must protect the future of our beauatiful lake and fight for what is reasonable and right.

The Malmo Bay Bomber Boat will surround them, but this is obviously a legal and court battle.

Everyone take care, MM     

-- Edited by Steve Fellegy on Thursday 28th of February 2013 04:25:57 PM

---

Mr Fellegy

Lord only kows how much the average everyday person who fishes ML would love to see the current regs go bye bye. But when the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwae just bought 3 different hotels in downtown st. paul, one would have to be just a bit curious as to wonder what will happen to these hotels over the next few years, a new casino in st. paul, or just an ivestment for a few jobs??? 

Bobber wrote:

---

Steve posted this on another site..

The lake, according to Mn. DNR figures, has about 1 million pounds of adult age/spawning size walleyes. Nowdays, I would guess the average weight is around 4 lbs. or a hair more or less. Now, on a big weekend, it is not unheard of having 3-4000 (or more on the Opener) boats on the lake. That breaks down to about 250,000 walleyes in the entire lake. (comparable to years back--pre-netting era-- when there was 2.5 million lbs. that averaged 2lbs. or less) So instead of having over 1 million adult walleyes to fish for--or about 200-300 or more fish per boat---you now have about 40-60 per boat. In other words, if the average boat lands 20-40 fish per day almost ALL the fish in the lake are potentially getting fished and or caught? To me....that is a very telling set of numbers.........half the weight of fish in the lake but only one fourth to one fifth the actual numbers of fish.

Unless my math or figures are off? LOL My weatehr beaten brain might be way off?

 

now think about that.......for awhile?

 

Here is more to "think about...for awhile".

 

If there is around 250,000 adult walleyes in the lake now and no new year classes coming since the 2008 group, how long before the lake is void of walleyes?

So if we harvest a few 18-20 inch fish and the total including mortality this year (2013) is around the quota number allowed (approx. 175K lbs.) that means at a 3-4 lb.s average, we kill around 40 to 50,000 walleyes right? And the nets, that average about 2lbs. per fish, kill 50K lbs., that total is around 25,000 walleyes right? So we kill around 75,000 walleyes in 2013.

 

Figure in a natural mortality as the big ones get old and die......

 

So--not much in year classes coming up , per the DNR, how long before the 250,000 we have in the lake are gone? It takes around 4 years for the 2013 hatch, if it survives well, to get to "adult" level, right?

 

Do the math? In 4-5 years, at the harvest rate you have now and projected into the future......what is left?

 

Maybe the DNR numbers are wrong or the year classes between 2009 and 2012 are big enough to keep things status quo? Or did they say those year classes are very small or non-existent--relatively speaking?

 

Now does anyone question how I can suggest  closing the lake to walleye harvest NOW? Or should we wait and see what's gonna happen? Maybe my math is wrong or my long term view is wrong or ??

---

No matter what happens this coming year, I will still have the 10x20 pulled onto the lake for a weekend get away for me and my wife. How soon b4 the ability to catch a walleye compares to red lake in the late 90's and early 2000's, one will find out.

I agree with a few of the 'posters', that until Mille Lacs bottoms out, and the walleye population is decimated to non-existantcy, the DNR will not touch a Politically hostile issue and piss off the treaty members. I honestly do not believe that they care about the businesses both on and off the lake, they just want the license money to keep coming in, remember The DNR is still a business, A GOV'T run Business. Where theres gov't there will always be POLITICS, good or bad.

Unless someone out there has some really BIG DEEP POCKETS, I do not see anyone trying to bring the treaty member tribes to court, the Mille Lacs Band has way too much money from their customers, half of which probably fish the pond. Now they own a few hotels in St Paul, just think of the casino business to be had if they can change the POLITICS in St. Paul for them to open a downtown casino. They can then sell Walleye fillets from both Mille Lacs and Red Lake, I am sure the red lake band of chippewa would love to have a steady customers for their netted walleyes.  

fishnpole wrote:

---

Any way you see it, co-management by the DNR & GLIFWC is not working to get the lake back healthy again. It's going to take all of us together, with all we can put in this fight to win it. 

We KNOW what needs to be done.

It just needs to get done.

---

 FULL COURT PRESS!!!!!!!! ALL OUT BLITZ!!!!

NortEnder wrote:

---

I have been stewing on this for some time throughout the week. Fishing for Ducks was a good turnout and went well aside from the poor fishing. Now, can't we find a reason to head up a not for profit fishing for Mille Lacs tournament? Get the resorts to pool some prizes together and do just what Muskymadness is talking about, people find it easier to spend some hard earned bucks with that 1-250 chance rather than a donation. And for the people who cannot afford to pony up a few bucks donated time would be just as valuable for such an event.
thoughts?

 

At this point, there is not a "non-profit" entity in place to hold such type of fund-raising activity--legally. Becoming a 501c3 is expensive and takes several months to get done. Now if a local established 501c3 will allow this form of fund-raising on their behalf, that might work--if the funds go to what I will call, for now, the Mille Lacs legal fund.

That all said, there is a process in the works to, hopefully, raise the funds needed to do what is needed from a legal effort standpoint. That will go live, hopefully, in the next few days. It is a complex process that is being worked on as I type. Stay tuned...be patient. ( I am not)

---