Bemdji Pioneer - Netting Back

[Ogema]

Hi guys, thanks for the welcome back. Did anyone see the 6OT NCAA game lastnite? I love basketball. As I was reading lastnite, I did see alot of the same, but also some good posts on the past few pages. I didn't read it all, but the first few pages and the last 2 pages. Nice find on the article KellyP. There are some lakes up here that can be fished, and I can be your guy to take you out, I often enjoy the smaller lakes versus the big lake, I like the action of bass fishing, plus I've seen some mighty big waves on the big lake.

If you ever want to come Kelly, let me know...

[cbrooks]

Ogema,I have question.Has there ever been consideration of the tribe to open there side of the Red to nontribual members? Sorry if this question was discussed before in pervious forums.

[Ogema]

Yes it has. It was voted on very recently by the general membership.Many points have been presented, however one thing remained the same, that is the decision as it is now.

[cbrooks]

That's to bad they could generate some good revenue from there resource.

[kelly-p]

"I've seen some mighty big waves on the big lake."

My Grandfather always talked about how when he was freighting fish across the lakes from the Waskish area to Redby how the Indian women would paddle their canoes out from shore to meet him. They would load their canoes, baskets of fish and whatever they had on his boat and they would all head for Redby together. When everyone was done doing what they needed to do they all headed back across the lakes together and Grandpa would drop them all off where they lived on his way back home. BUT, if a storm came up or they ran into big waves they all threw their canoes over the side and jumped off his boat. They felt safer in their canoes then his 50 foot boat.

[walleye101]

Sure, just leave it to Kelly to ruin another perfectly good Bitchh session with thoughtful reasonable posts.

[kelly-p]

Sure, just leave it to Kelly to ruin another perfectly good Bitchh session with thoughtful reasonable posts.

Believe me it wasn't always that way. Remember that the netting issue has been a part of my life for most of my life. It's a little hard for me to admit but that is twice as long as many of the posters here have been alive. I've spent the times yelling and screaming and fighting and all that resulted from them was aches, pains, tired and a lake with very few walleyes left. I have learned from some of my mistakes,,,,other ones I'm still working on.

[cbrooks]

There is article in GF herald this morning that covers the bands decision to start netting. I would post a link but I'm not sure if we are allowed to post other websites on these forums.

[DTro]

There is article in GF herald this morning that covers the bands decision to start netting. I would post a link but I'm not sure if we are allowed to post other websites on these forums.

Here is the article by Brad Dokken:

It won’t be like the old days, but the Red Lake Band of Chippewa plans to resume limited commercial netting this summer on tribal waters of Lower and Upper Red lakes.

According to Pat Brown, tribal fisheries biologist for the Red Lake Department of Natural Resources, the band is implementing the netting program as a way to bring the tribe’s walleye harvest closer to the annual quota.

Since fishing resumed on state and tribal waters in 2006, the Red Lake Band has limited its walleye take to hook-and-line. But the harvest, Brown said, hasn’t been anywhere close to the quota.

Last year, for example, tribal anglers harvested about 400,000 pounds of walleye, Brown said, less than half the annual quota of 820,000 pounds.

That’s not enough to keep the band’s fishery plant in Redby, Minn., running at full capacity.

“We’ve been kicking it around for two or three years, but the tribal council, they saw (the numbers) and said, ‘we’ve got to do something,’ ” Brown said. “Even if we don’t do it, let’s get things going and in the works so we can. There’s still some reluctance to go this route, but we’ve got a fishery down here that we’ve got to try to supply.”

Post-recovery era

Members of the Red Lake Band haven’t been able to legally net walleyes since 1998, when the tribal council banned commercial fishing. The state halted fishing in Minnesota waters in 1999. That set the stage for a historic recovery agreement between the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the tribe.

As part of that agreement, which included three massive stocking campaigns beginning in 1999, walleye fishing was closed until populations recovered. Each stocking cost about $68,000, with the band funding $40,000 and the Minnesota DNR covering the remaining $28,000.

The turnaround happened faster than managers on both sides of the lake could have imagined, and fishing resumed in 2006.

That first year, band members fished only for subsistence; the commercial fishery reopened in 2007.

Anglers supplying walleyes for the fishery are limited to 75 fish per day and only can turn in fish measuring 13 inches to 20 inches, Brown said. While fishing is hook-and-line only, members can use an unlimited number of lines.

Tribal members fishing for subsistence face a 10-fish limit and must release all walleyes from 20 to 28 inches.

According to Brown, the hook-and-line commercial fishing will continue. But to offset the catch during times of year when fishing is slower, Brown said the fishery will hire two or three netting crews, with two or three employees in each crew, to supplement the catch.

“We want tribal members first and foremost to continue to fish and turn in fish for profit,” Brown said. “If tribal members can get enough fish hook-and-line, and it doesn’t look like we need to do this supplemental fishing, we probably won’t.”

The netting crews will use 3½-inch mesh gill nets designed to target 14- to 18-inch walleyes, Brown said.

Each crew would set eight to 15 nets, Brown said, and wardens, fisheries managers and fish plant officials would know where the nets are located.

That’s a marked change from the old policy, in which any band member older than 18 could register with the fishery to set as many as eight nets.

“The biggest concern is to make sure we keep control of this thing,” Brown said. “Many of the guys on the tribal council were commercial fishermen. They know it got out of control in the past, and we know we can’t let it happen again. That’s why we’re being so cautious.”

Brown said Red Lake’s walleye population is in excellent shape, with six to eight strong year-classes of walleyes, compared with only two year-classes 10 years ago and three or four in the 1980s.

“The future looks great as long as we take care of it,” he said. “When netting occurs, people are going to be watching, so that shouldn’t become a problem. The big thing is, we’re getting a lot of community involvement. This is their resource, and we’re trying to take care of it.”

Outside reaction

News of the tribe’s netting plan has generated numerous reactions on Internet fishing boards, some of them poorly informed, others downright toxic.

Kelly Petrowske, Waskish, Minn., moderates a Red Lake fishing forum on the Internet Web site fishingminnesota.com. A third-generation family member on Upper Red, Petrowske saw firsthand the fallout from the walleye collapse.

But despite some of the posts he’s read online, Petrowske says he’s not concerned about the band’s decision.

The key, he said, is to prevent the bootlegging of black-market walleyes sold outside the fishery’s jurisdiction, which played a significant role in the original demise of Red Lake’s fish population.

“My feeling is, if it’s able to be allowable take, it won’t hurt the lake,” Petrowske, 54, said. “Hopefully, people statewide realize that if somebody’s selling fish (illegally), it’s coming from Upper Red or Lower Red.

“Other than that, they’re trying to make a living, too. It’s their nation, their decision.

“Keep the communication open and I don’t see any problems.”

Nonnative anglers also share a responsibility in managing the lake, Petrowske said. When things got out of control last time around, sport-fish anglers developed the attitude they were going to keep every walleye they caught.

“If the Indians are going to net them anyway, I’m going to take more than my limit” was the mindset, he said. “It was a race to catch the last walleye.”

Working together

Since implementing the recovery agreement in 1999, fisheries managers on both sides of the lake have continued to share information on catch rates and populations. A Red Lake Technical Committee comprised of state, tribal and federal interests meets twice a year.

During the most recent meeting two weeks ago, the tribe shared its strategy for implementing a limited commercial gillnet take.

Al Pemberton, director of the Red Lake DNR and a member of the tribal council, said the band is committed to staying within its annual quota. That’s why the netters will be hired as employees of the fishery.

“We know what the quota is, and that’s what we’ll stay at,” Pemberton said. “Just because they’re going to do a limited amount of (netting), we’re not going to go hog wild and do more than we’re supposed to do. It’s not going to be full-scale, everybody have nets again. We want to make sure we don’t go over those quotas.”

Pemberton says he’s aware that reaction to the plan off the reservation will be mixed.

“There’s always going to be those naysayers out there,” he said. “We know what we’re doing, and we’re not going to let what happened before happen again. We have to employ our people, and this is a way to do it. It’s not like we’re going to go out there and take everything.”

Pemberton said the band also is exploring other options for sustaining the fish plant through slow times, including working with Canadian First Nations tribes to process fish from north of the border.

Officials from the Minnesota DNR, too, say they support what the band is doing and are confident harvest levels will be contained.

“We’re very respectful of the Red Lake people and government,” said Mike Carroll, regional director of the DNR in Bemidji. “They’re sovereign, and we need to be respectful of that.”

In a perfect world, Carroll said the DNR prefers lakes be managed for recreational fishing, but he added the tribe is committed to doing things right, including plans to implement a Turn In Poachers program to curtail black-market fishing.

“The point is, we have had strong cooperation of continuing management and monitoring fish populations in the lake,” Carroll said. “Both sides want to protect the fishery, and we are delighted with the cooperation.”

Red Lake, at 260,000 acres, actually is two basins. All of Lower Red’s 152,000 acres and 60,000 acres of Upper Red lie within the boundaries of the Red Lake Indian Reservation; the state manages 48,000 acres on the east side of Upper Red Lake.

[kelly-p]

And the article concerning our side of the "Line". As we can see the walleye take on our side was way down too.

By: Brad Dokken, Grand Forks Herald

The walleye harvest on Minnesota’s share of Upper Red Lake this winter was low

enough to accommodate higher limits later this spring.

Beginning with the May 9 fishing opener, the Department of Natural Resources

will raise the walleye limit on Upper Red from three fish to four.

And, in mid-June, anglers will have more leeway in the walleyes they keep for

the remainder of the open-water season.

According to Gary Barnard, area fisheries supervisor for the DNR in Bemidji,

anglers beginning June 15 will be able to keep walleyes longer than 17 inches

but less than 20 inches.

Regulations since fishing on Upper Red resumed in May 2006 have included a 17-

to 26-inch protected slot, with one walleye longer than 26 inches allowed in the

limit. This year, from June 15 to Dec. 1, Upper Red will have a 20- to 26-inch

protected slot, instead, with one fish longer than 26 inches still allowed.

The 17- to 26-inch protected slot will go back into effect Dec. 1 to coincide

with the winter fishing season, when most of Upper Red’s harvest occurs.

The DNR manages upper Red with an annual “safe target” of 168,000 pounds.

Because harvest has remained below that level, Barnard said the DNR last year

decided to loosen the bag and slot regulations this summer if the winter walleye

take stayed below 112,000 pounds.

In actuality, anglers on Upper Red kept only about 52,000 pounds of walleyes

this winter, according to DNR creel survey estimates.

Barnard said the DNR had to keep the 17- to 26-inch protected slot in place

through mid-June because that’s when much of the summer’s fishing pressure and

harvest occurs.

“The pressure and catch rates are just too high to go with the other slot during

that period,” he said. “We’d really be stacking up the harvest all in that early

month. But when pressure and catches decline midsummer, it’s easier to go with

that less restrictive slot.”

Surveys in state waters continue to show a healthy walleye population with a

strong biomass of spawning-stock fish, Barnard said.

“That’s the real key to allow the harvest, and we’re in good shape there,” he

said. “We’re still getting consistent natural reproduction, so everything looks

good from that standpoint.”

With good natural reproduction, Barnard says Upper Red is starting to kick out

more small walleyes for anglers to catch. When fishing resumed in 2006, many

anglers complained they couldn’t catch walleyes small enough to keep because of

the protected slot.

“Anglers actually had a lot better harvest ratio in their catch this year,”

Barnard said. “The overall catch was down, but they were able to harvest more of

the fish they caught — walleyes under 17 inches. And that looks good for the

future.”

Grand Forks Herald 375 2nd Ave. N., Grand Forks, North Dakota 58201 | Phone:

(701) 780-1100

© 2009 Forum Communications Co. — All rights reserved

[Eric Wettschreck]

First off- I'm FAR from an expert. I'm going to guess the issue will come up about lower harvest rates. My GUESS, I'm stressing the word guess, is there were fewer anglers on the lake, and not the health of the fish population. This is pure speculation on my part and I have no fact to back this.

I'm saying this as the couple times I was on URL this winter by comparison to the last couple of years is that I saw a LOT less people on the lake. I'm not there 24/7/365 so I can only go by what I've seen in the short stints I've been there. I'm also talking just the past couple of years and not during the "Big Crappie boom" of the 90's.

It would be interesting to hear about the angler numbers over the past few years from a few of the guys that are on the lake all the time.

[groove]

Can anyone explain how they figure the harvest numbers? I know they take creel census at times but wonder how accurate they are.Probably the difference to actuality isn't a big deal.

[riverrat56]

Just a few questions I have from the article(s) that maybe someone can answer?

To what extent do fish (walleyes) move from the reservation side of the lake to the state managed side? For example; If I release a walleye, what chance does it have in a year or two to end up on the opposite side of the lake. (Although, after seeing my ugly mug I'd head as far away as possible)

To go along with that question, does the Red lake tribe sportfish only on Upper Red or do they also fish Lower?

What I'm trying to figure out is even though completly connected, are the two sides fishing for differnt fish in "seperate" systems?

Thanks guys.

[bturck]

Kelly, a quick question. The first paragraph of the GF Herald article states "netting on both Upper and Lower Red". I was under the impression that Upper Red was governed by the State not the Soverign nation. Can you clarify please. Thanks

[bak2MN]

Bill read the last paragraph of the first article it says right there.

[shaky legs2]

I like what I am reading in Dokken's article. The fact that you have former gill netters on the tribal council who are being cautious tells me that they have learned some lessons from the past. We non-natives also need to learn some lessons from the past. The mentality that I am going to take all that I can because commercial fishing is being resumed on Lower Red Lake needs to stop. It is the job of all sportsman (native and non-native) to police our ranks and insure that history does not repeat itself. URL is a walleye lake and can produce as many if not more walleyes per acre than any other of the big lakes (Mille Lacs, Leech, Winnie) if controlled properly. I loved the Crappie Boom but URL does not have the habitat to consistently produce the numbers of crappies that we saw in the past. As other posters have said: Conditions were ideal for the crappies phenomenom that we witnessed from the late 90's to 2006. If we can use some common sense and not be greedy, everyone can make a living off this fantastic fishery.

[Ogema]

To help answer a few questions;

The amount of fishermen on LRL is alot less than what I've seen when I've driven to the east reservation boundry of URL. I also know when I look out on the lake I don't see that many fishers, and I live on the south western bluffs of LRL.

I'm nowhere near being a scientist but I've heard they take measurement of weight of fish turned in at the Fisheries to determine our quota's.

I haven't a clue how to determine where fish swim in this lake, they sem to swim away from my hook most of the time...Maybe the DNR would tag fish with electronic monitoring...? To go along with that, Fishing is done on all waters of the reservation, URL & LRL.

As far as the black market, it can be looked at as a business, if there's no demand, there'd be no supply.

I too, have faith we've learned from our mistake with the lake, and have confidence in our leadership to make the right decisions.

[riverrat56]

Ogema, thanks for the info!

[opsirc]

I too, have faith we've learned from our mistake with the lake, and have confidence in our leadership to make the right decisions.

I hope this turns out too be ture, but as some one else mentioned, history has a habit of repeating itself. If we do not learn from it, we destroy our resources for good.

[GoFish4]

I have spoke to several band members about fishing on Lower Red this winter. With the lower catch rates on the Upper I was curious if they were seeing the same. In fact, they have not had that good of fishing on lower for a year is what I was told. There seamed to be an abundance of whitefish and not much else when they were fishing the "holes" on the lower.

How many guys witnessed groups of 10 come and fish during the Crappie boom? I could see large coolers and buckets leaving the lake. This was when the limit was 15 and guys were making multiple trips. Conservation starts with you and teaching those you fish with. For me that is my kids, band members have much more at stake then recreational fishing. This is one of the sole resources they have to sustain their lively hoods. I think it is a very positive step that there are paper articles about this. Mis-information and hatred will only let history repeat itself. Open comunication and everyone policing the resorce will allow it to sustain a healty fish level.

This topic is like religion and politics, there is no "right" answer, just opinions and this one is mine.

[kelly-p]

My theory is that the fish move around a lot. The eastern end of URL warms up fast in the spring. Shallow and dark bottomed. If I remember right we gain about 6 weeks more growing time over deeper colder lakes. Everything from the planktion to baitfish get moving faster and so do the bigger fish eating them. This is the "nursery" of the lakes. Then as the water warms up more and more deeper areas of the Lakes warm up and the growth cycle starts there also. In a hot summer by July the eastern end or URL is getting too hot for the fish and they move to the deeper cooler areas. I think that the combination of the shallow end that warms up quick and the deeper and cooler waters across the Line are part of the lakes health. Back in my Grandfathers day when the fish could not be found on the eastern end of URL many of them believed that the fish had gone to the "lake under the lake" where it was cooler. Some even believed that part of the lake extended to under the bog where it was cooler.

As far as the slow bite this winter I think it was just too much snow. The good bite that we had going stopped quick right during the 3rd blizzard just like someone had flipped a switch. Also then people couldn't move around very easy so people kept fishing the same areas again and again.

[harvey lee]

I agree that we should honor all of our agreements with the Native Americans.

One question that I have is this

What did we do differnet to this band that so many bands did to each other? If we look back into history, many bands attacked other bands to take their hunting grounds. One group was pushed out to south of the Minnesota River in the 1700s by a differant group. That was ok as no one gave that back. Settlers do the same thing and it is held against them and their descendants forever?

What is the difference between what the settlers did and what those who arrived prior to them did to those who arrived first?

I don't care to get involved in these things but why only descendants of settlers? Should the original group go after another group that pushed them out and on & on?

[bturck]

bak2mn: thanks, I must have been speed reading and missed that last paragraph.

[Mike L]

Good article in the GF Herald this morning.

http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/110543/

[Ogema]

What did we do differnet to this band that so many bands did to each other? If we look back into history, many bands attacked other bands to take their hunting grounds. One group was pushed out to south of the Minnesota River in the 1700s by a differant group. That was ok as no one gave that back. Settlers do the same thing and it is held against them and their descendants forever?

What is the difference between what the settlers did and what those who arrived prior to them did to those who arrived prior first?

I don't care to get involved in these things but why only descendants of settlers? Should the original group go after another group that pushed them out and on & on?

The difference is that noone took our hunting grounds "the lake", but rather due to an erroneous survery, you get to enjoy the upper half of URL.

[Mike L]

LMAO. Sounds like Georgia and Tennessee.

[upnorth]

Quote:

What is the difference between what the settlers did and what those who arrived prior did to those who arrived prior to that?

I don't care to get involved in these things but why only descendants of settlers? Should the original group go after another group that pushed them out and on & on??

From what I have read, the biggest difference between what the later group did to the earlier group and the situation is that an agreement/Treaty/contract wa smade with them to take part of their lands and compensate them for it, the later group just drove the original group West off the land, well that depends on whose version of history you read. I was laid up for about 6 weeks and had a ton of time on my hands so I started reading about the history of Northern MN and part of that history is relationships between the different groups. I find local history like that very interesting.

Those treaties are a contract and are no different than any other contract, just cuz you don't like it now you can't just change it to the terms you want, you honor it til the end.

[Rick]

What did we do differnet to this band that so many bands did to each other? If we look back into history, many bands attacked other bands to take their hunting grounds. One group was pushed out to south of the Minnesota River in the 1700s by a differant group. That was ok as no one gave that back. Settlers do the same thing and it is held against them and their descendants forever?

What is the difference between what the settlers did and what those who arrived prior to them did to those who arrived prior first?

The treaty (which is the US Gov'ts agreement with the current landowners/lakeowners/separate Nation) and it's current interpretation has to be honored based on our laws and is the differance with respect to the land and lake rights.

[JakeJ_Mn]

Although I have never fished on Upper Red, I do believe our tax dollars were misused. I know there was a combined effort to restore this great fishery. I can respect that. BUT, I fail to believe the what happened over a 100 years ago still affects me today. I was born in the USA and am as native as anyone else.

[LABS4ME]

The $70,000 that the State paid towards the re-establishment of this great walleye fishery is equal to the amount they will [PoorWordUsage] away on other B.S. before they ajourn for lunch today! In a 30 billion dollar budget, $70,000 doesn't even show up as fly dung on the radar screen.

Enjoy the lake! It's back! We can't predict what will happen as we go forward a few years from now, any better than we can predict tomorrow.

"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of it's own". Great words to live by....

Good Luck!

Ken