Jump to content
  • GUESTS

    If You  want access  to member only forums on FM, You will need to Sign-in or  Sign-Up now .

    This box will disappear once you are signed in as a member.

New Mille Lacs slot


skee0025

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 179
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • walleye18

    16

  • laportian

    10

  • Alagnak

    9

  • John Mickish

    8

We can only speculate but those who know the truth know the reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those rights were written into the Treaties to allow the Native Americans to help sustain themselves.

Yes, that's true. But that no longer applies. Now its done for a different reason.

Are you sure they are not using the results of netting to help sustain themselves?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they took a buy out they could probably eat steak and lobster instead of walleyes. My guess is the ones that do this do it to sustain themselves and I doubt there is a lot of sharing going on like they claim. This isn't the 1800s and none of them are starving because if they were they wouldn't have boats and motorhomes to go netting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can only speculate but those who know the truth know the reason.

I know the truth. I net because I am, I can, it is my heritage, my culture, it was affirmed. I don't roll out onto the lake with anger or spite when I take part of this activity. There is something deeper in me that goes on, a link to my father and grandfather.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they took a buy out they could probably eat steak and lobster instead of walleyes. My guess is the ones that do this do it to sustain themselves and I doubt there is a lot of sharing going on like they claim. This isn't the 1800s and none of them are starving because if they were they wouldn't have boats and motorhomes to go netting.

Close to the same could be said for hook and line fishing. Add up the cost per pound of the boat, gas, gear, hotels etc and the cost per filet is astonishing.

Some of this I am sure points back to old traditions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I know the truth. I net because I am, I can, it is my heritage, my culture, it was affirmed. I don't roll out onto the lake with anger or spite when I take part of this activity. There is something deeper in me that goes on, a link to my father and grandfather."

Huh, weird. That sounds exactly why I fish a lot and guide fishing trips just like my dad did, and his dad after he returned from WWII.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The buyout might work for some of it. Here on Leech they pay us not to take all that we can. We still net all the lakes that we always have( Leech, Cass, Winnie...etc.) but we just don't take a bigger piece of the pie than we realistically need. And by saying they pay us I mean they pay the tribe not me as an individual. That would never happen. A lot of misinformation is spewed in here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys that are talking about the "intent" of the rule, be very careful of what you say. If you are OK with the courts going in and ruling on the intent of the laws written hundreds of years ago, you may be surprised that you will lose some privileges you find traditional as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember the hook and liners pay taxes and pump millions of dollars into the economy just to catch a fish and many of them also practice CPR along the way. They also pay for the DNR and stocking lakes and about the only reason there are still fish left in lakes to catch. On the other hand the natives do what they have always done. Use the resource as long as they can then move on to the next one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not that hard to see that the regulations are in place to keep the lake from going dead. Too many people fishing is too many people.

The seperation of the limit "our share, their share" is how the lake will be managed because of treaty's and newer agreements. It is up to them to take their share however they want and us to take ours however we want.

If 90% of their share is done by netting then so be it. It shouldn't bother us at all because it has no effect on our fishing. We aren't allowed to net because we don't want to be done fishing in two weeks.

They decide how their share will be pulled from the lake and we decide how ours will. What's the problem?

I've only been fishing the lake 10 years and in that time I've seen tough fishing and easy fishing. And While I'm sure we would all like to see it the same as it's been in the past, the reality of it is that we will always need slots to do so. The number of people fishing the lake on any given day would have a huge increase the minute it became a walleye factory.

Let's face it, any lake will be fished out if the number of fish being taken out exceed's the lake's ability to replace them.

The removal of netting will only be a loss of native american rights and in no way a long term solution. The long term solution is regulate it the best we can and fish other lakes as needed.

If money is the issue then maybe an amount could be established between the tribe and people fishing the lake to buy out their rights on a yearly basis. Maybe we could reach a deal without the aid of our state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all the money they make in the casino they could eat steak and lobster every meal. they don't need the fish as a food source at all. I think we should open a few casino's just outside the twin cites and the revenue should go to stocking Mille Lacs. I bet they netting would stop if that was going to happen. I think its all a joke. I am so sick of it all I don't care about Mille Lacs any more and I used to LOVE that lake. there are too many other good lakes to worry about one that is being killed when there is NOTHING we can do about it. All you have to do is look at WI and what it did to the lakes over there and then try and argue whats going on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We throw away those treaties then we might as well throw away the Constitution, after all its older and alot of people don't believe the 1st and 2nd amendment apply anymore, there is a huge group of anti's that will make this argument. The treaties need to be honored, but there also needs to be a give and take on both sides, I said it along time ago, take the "nuts" out of both sides and let the more level headed people rethink things, the Mille Lacs band realizes they need the lake just as much as all the resorts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We throw away those treaties then we might as well throw away the Constitution, after all its older and alot of people don't believe the 1st and 2nd amendment apply anymore, there is a huge group of anti's that will make this argument. The treaties need to be honored, but there also needs to be a give and take on both sides, I said it along time ago, take the "nuts" out of both sides and let the more level headed people rethink things,
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bands are buying up businesses off the reservation and utilizing resources from ON the reservation for profit.

Selling walleyes out of the trunk of a car is peanuts compared to what else is going on. Purchasing large hotels in St Paul, huge catering businesses that provide services at XCel and other places. Guess what's on the menu? WALLEYE.

If people here really believe that the fish netted in Mille Lacs are for subsistence you really need to wake up.

I am all for someone being able to make a buck, but dont make that buck ON MY DIME, when I am paying taxes toward sustaining something and another uses it for monetary gain and doesnt put a dime toward sustaining it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't know that the Mille Lacs Band didn't put a dime into sustaining the lake. I'll have to look into that - that wouldn't make any sense at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most, if not all funding for tribal natural resource work is through federal grant money. Mostly the EPA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, they sure decimated the Bison didn't they? smile

Yeah, the thing abut throwing rocks up in the air, is they can often times come back down and hit you on the head. Seems a little silly to be bringing up track records of resource management with "our" history. Of course the sconnie bands are not doing this for subsistence, its political...possibly just for spite. But If I was one of them reading some of the carp being spewed here, on other sites, and local paper commentaries ......probably would be netting too. Not saying they should get a free pass to do this either......just saying. This is my last post on the issue...... going to hit the rivers/creeks soon....suckers should be running shortly. Cool thing is that my six year old views them as just another fish. No one has told him they are not fun to catch yet, and thankfully he is too young to understand fish politics crazy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm currently reading The Adventures of John Tanner from the early 1800's and regarding resources I see no difference in attitude from the tribes today then there were back then. Harvest the resource dry then move on. Was their MO 200 years ago. Seems to be there MO today.

Witness, WI, Red, Leech, and now ML. How many times does it need to happen?

If you dig deeper you find that the white man was as much if not more to blame than the Native Americans were for each of your witness responses.

Saying that don't need the lake is also wrong for the Native Americans one of the reasons they lived next to a body of water is because it ment life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bands are buying up businesses off the reservation and utilizing resources from ON the reservation for profit.

Selling walleyes out of the trunk of a car is peanuts compared to what else is going on. Purchasing large hotels in St Paul, huge catering businesses that provide services at XCel and other places. Guess what's on the menu? WALLEYE.

If people here really believe that the fish netted in Mille Lacs are for subsistence you really need to wake up.

I am all for someone being able to make a buck, but dont make that buck ON MY DIME, when I am paying taxes toward sustaining something and another uses it for monetary gain and doesnt put a dime toward sustaining it.

They can sell their fish commercially. The Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe can and does have commercial netting for game fish. So if they buy some hotels and provide services for profit and serve walleyes it is within their ability to do so. If they didn't get the fish from their own lake I would assume they would buy them from Red Lake or get them out of Canada. Bottom line is there is a legal market for walleyes and they have a limited ability to cash in on this.

And you are worried about your tax dollars funding this? If one could do the math on a dollar that you were taxed on and trace it down to the micro percentage of a penny that was spent on Mille Lacs then what? C'mon man the ways tax dollars are used up? We likely help pay for $100 rolls of toilet paper too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, they sure decimated the Bison didn't they? smile

I knew that was going to come up.

Hopefully we have learned from that. Wolves? Red Lake? Leech? Moose? Turkey?

Sure, we made mistakes. Probably will make more but we should seek to stop over harvests when we do see them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you dig deeper you find that the white man was as much if not more to blame than the Native Americans were for each of your witness responses.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is unreasonable with today's population densities to believe that anyone, tribe or non-tribe, can continue to harvest game without restrictions. Where to set those restrictions needs to be hashed out.

I am not saying the tribes can't harvest fish but there needs to be some responsibility and accountability. I'm not seeing it from one side of the table.

DING!!!! Well said!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They can sell their fish commercially. The Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe can and does have commercial netting for game fish. So if they buy some hotels and provide services for profit and serve walleyes it is within their ability to do so. If they didn't get the fish from their own lake I would assume they would buy them from Red Lake or get them out of Canada. Bottom line is there is a legal market for walleyes and they have a limited ability to cash in on this.

And you are worried about your tax dollars funding this? If one could do the math on a dollar that you were taxed on and trace it down to the micro percentage of a penny that was spent on Mille Lacs then what? C'mon man the ways tax dollars are used up? We likely help pay for $100 rolls of toilet paper too.

Good point, but I guess many have failed to see where subsistence and commercial licensing meet and how those together or individually were spelled out in the treaty.

We hear all this talk about how those fish are netted for "feeding their families", its obvious that is not remotely true.

Agreed on the $100 rolls of TP.

Is the sale of these "commercial" fish taxed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What was the limit on walleyes in the 1800s and 1900s for hook and line anglers im pretty sure it wasn't two but anglers adapted to changing times like everyone should.isn't my heritage to go catch as many walleyes as I want.also they banned commercial fishing on lotw for a reason but those peopl relied on it for income and survival what is the difference

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will try to address some of the misconceptions about this.

For those who choose not review what our US Federal Government recently ruled as perfectly acceptable and decided in favor of regarding tribal harvest rights in both the 1837 and 1854 treaties here you go:

In 1854, the Chippewa of Lake Superior entered into a treaty with the United States whereby the Chippewa ceded to the United States ownership of their lands in northeastern Minnesota. These lands are the so-called "1854 ceded territory." Article 11 of the 1854 Treaty provides:

"...And such of them as reside in the territory hereby ceded, shall have the right to hunt and fish therein, until otherwise ordered by the President." The Chippewa of Lake Superior who reside in the ceded territory are the Fond du Lac, Grand Portage and Bois Forte Bands.

1985 - The Grand Portage Band sues the State of Minnesota in federal court claiming the 1854 Treaty gives it the right to hunt and fish in the ceded territory free of State regulation. Up until this time, the State had applied its hunting and fishing laws in the ceded territory to Indians and non-Indians alike. The Fond du Lac and Bois Forte Bands subsequently join the lawsuit in order to consider a settlement.

1988 - The State and the three Bands enter into an agreement whereby the State makes an annual payment to the Bands ($1.6 million each to Grand Portage and Bois Forte; $1.85 million to Fond du Lac), and the Bands establish their own regulations that apply to harvest by Band members. The Bands' regulations restrict commercial harvest, big game seasons, spearing, netting and other activities of concern to the State. This agreement, approved by the federal court, does not commit to a legal conclusion as to whether the 1854 Treaty harvest rights remain valid.

1989 - The Fond du Lac Band withdraws from the agreement after one year, but the other two Bands remain in the agreement, which continues successfully to date. Even though no longer in the agreement and no longer receiving an annual payment from the State, the Fond du Lac Band establishes harvest regulations for its own members. The Band and the State consult and cooperate successfully to date.

1990 - The Mille Lacs Band sues the State claiming harvest rights in the 1837 Treaty ceded territory, which lies immediately to the south of the 1854 ceded territory. This case raises legal issues very similar to those in the 1854 Treaty case. The court divides the Mille Lacs case into two phases: Phase I will address whether the 1837 Treaty ceded territory harvest rights are valid; if the answer is yes, Phase II will address the scope of those rights, that is, what the Band may actually allow its members to do.

1992 - The Fond du Lac Band sues the State under both the 1837 Treaty and the 1854 Treaty, both of which it signed. It claims harvest rights in both ceded territories. Like the Mille Lacs case, this one is also divided into Phase I and Phase II.

1994 - After a trial, the federal court rules in Phase I of the Mille Lacs case that the 1837 Treaty ceded territory harvest rights are valid. Phase II of the case begins.

1996 - The court rules in Phase I of the Fond du Lac case that the 1854 Treaty ceded territory harvest rights are valid. The court also rules that the Fond du Lac Band's claims under the 1837 Treaty are valid. (The validity of the 1854 Treaty effectively applies to the Grand Portage and Bois Forte Bands as well, because they also signed the 1854 Treaty.)

1996 - The Fond du Lac Band's 1837 Treaty claim is joined with the Mille Lacs case during Phase II of the Mille Lacs case. This is so that Phase II of the 1837 Treaty claims in both cases can be resolved for both Bands together. Phase II of the Fond du Lac Band's 1854 Treaty claims is put on hold until the Mille Lacs case is completed. Both cases are now assigned to Federal District Court Judge Michael Davis.

1997 - Phase II of the Mille Lacs case is completed. Phase II addresses in detail seasons, bag limits, methods, commercialization and other harvest issues. Most of these issues are resolved by agreement between the Bands and the State; a few of them are resolved by the court. These 1837 Treaty Phase II conclusions apply to all harvest in the 1837 ceded territory by the Mille Lacs Band, the Fond du Lac Band, and several Wisconsin Chippewa Bands that also had signed the 1837 Treaty and had joined the Mille Lacs lawsuit.

1997 - The 8th Circuit federal appeals court affirms the decision of the district court in the Mille Lacs case, finding that the 1837 Treaty ceded territory harvest right is valid.

1999 - The United States Supreme Court affirms the lower court rulings in the Mille Lacs case. This is a final affirmation of the validity of ceded territory harvest rights under the 1837 Treaty.

2000 - Now that the Mille Lacs case is complete, we are moving forward with Phase II of the Fond du Lac case. The purpose of this Phase II is to address the scope of harvest rights in the 1854 Treaty ceded territory. Because of the long history of successful cooperation between the Fond du Lac Band and the State on harvest in the ceded territory, the goal in Phase II is to address only those issues that seem problematic. A process will be established to allow the Band and the State to communicate about natural resource concerns, resolve disputes, and deal with ongoing natural resource management issues.

Natural resource management concerns in the 1854 Treaty ceded territory

The State of Minnesota has shared natural resource harvest in the 1854 Treaty ceded territory with the Grand Portage, Bois Forte and Fond du Lac Bands successfully for over 12 years. Legal disputes over these harvest rights began as early as 1985, but only recently have court decisions made it clear that the Bands' treaty harvest rights are valid. The Department of Natural Resources and the Fond du Lac Band are now beginning to discuss resolution of remaining issues in the case brought by the Fond du Lac Band. The other two Bands may also need to become involved in these discussions because they share the same harvest rights. There are a few concerns that need to be addressed explicitly in the discussions, which are listed below:

Treaty Share Allocation.

The three Bands share treaty harvest rights in the 1854 Treaty ceded territory. These rights entitle the Bands collectively to harvest up to one half of the harvestable surplus of each resource, such as deer, walleyes or grouse. The three Bands may distribute the treaty share among themselves as they see fit, but under no circumstances may the total Band harvest exceed the total treaty share. This is a particularly important issue for high demand species, such as moose and certain furbearers.

Hunting, Fishing and Trapping.

Harvest by management unit (avoid localized depletion and inequitable opportunity).

Moose (limited numbers).

Commercial harvest (notice; monitoring).

Private property (access; applicable law).

Spearing and netting (notice; monitoring).

Deer season frameworks (protect young; protect during yarding).

Disease control (stocking; exotic species).

Special hunts in parks, SNAs and refuges (applicable law).

Road-killed big game (accounting and distribution).

Other Harvest Concerns.

Endangered, threatened and rare species.

Forest products (birch bark and boughs).

Wild rice (seeding).

Exotic species.

Law Enforcement.

Consistency of terms and definitions.

Cross-deputization of Band and State conservation officers.

Process.

Information exchange and regular meetings.

Coordination and sharing of effort (data collection; law enforcement; other).

Mutual notice of new plans and concerns.

Dispute resolution.

Reference from MN DNR: Click Here

Mille Lacs Band depiction of the time line for reference:

Originally Posted By: From the Mille Lacs Band Website
The Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe - like all Indian tribes - is a sovereign Indian nation with its own laws and its own system of government.

A treaty is an agreement between two or more sovereign nations. It is like a contract.

The federal government can make treaties with tribal governments without state approval.

In 1837, even before Minnesota was a state, the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe and several other tribes signed a treaty that ceded - or sold - land to the United States government. The tribes signed the Treaty of 1837 on the condition that they would still have the right to hunt, fish and gather in the ceded territory.

The Treaty of 1837 was not properly upheld. In 1990, the Mille Lacs Band was ready to sue the state of Minnesota because too many Band members were being wrongly arrested for hunting and fishing in the ceded territory. But to avoid unnecessary and unpleasant confrontations, the Band tried to settle the issue out of court.

After a challenging negotiation process, the Band and the Minnesota executive branch of government reached a settlement. That settlement was later voted down by the Minnesota Legislature, which felt that the case should be settled in court.

In June 1994, the case went to court. In the first phase of the two-part trial, a federal judge ruled in favor of the Mille Lacs Band, saying Band members still had the right to hunt, fish and gather on the ceded land. For the second phase, six other tribes that had also signed the treaty joined the Mille Lacs Band in the suit. In August 1997, a three-judge panel from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reaffirmed the 1994 ruling.

On March 24, 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Treaty of 1837, saying that Mille Lacs Band members and members of the other tribes that signed the treaty can hunt, fish and gather on the ceded land under tribal regulations.

Today’s Mille Lacs Band members, like their ancestors, are committed to protecting and preserving natural resources. That is why the Mille Lacs Band worked with the state of Minnesota to develop and implement a conservation code for the 1837 ceded territory.

The conservation code requires Mille Lacs Band members to purchase licenses from the Band’s Department of Natural Resources before they can hunt and fish on public lands in the ceded territory. It also prohibits hunting on private land in the ceded territory unless it is forest crop land. Tribal members must obtain daily permits for all spearing and netting, and these activities are closely monitored by a conservation warden and/or a biologist.

Enforcement of the conservation code is coordinated by tribal officials, the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, and conservation officers from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.

Reference: Click Here

The actual treaty wording which was declared in 1837:

Quote:
Articles of a treaty made and concluded at St. Peters (the confluence of the St. Peters and Mississippi rivers) in the Territory of Wisconsin, between the United States of America, by their commissioner, Henry Dodge, Governor of said Territory, and the Chippewa nation of Indians, by their chiefs and headmen.

ARTICLE 1.

The said Chippewa nation cede to the United States all that tract of country included within the following boundaries:

Beginning at the junction of the Crow Wing and Mississippi rivers, between twenty and thirty miles above where the Mississippi is crossed by the forty-sixth parallel of north latitude, and running thence to the north point of Lake St. Croix, one of the sources of the St. Croix river; thence to and along the dividing ridge between the waters of Lake Superior and those of the Mississippi, to the sources of the Ocha-sua-sepe a tributary of the Chippewa river; thence to a point on the Chippewa river, twenty miles below the outlet of Lake De Flambeau; thence to the junction of the Wisconsin and Pelican rivers; thence on an east course twenty-five miles; thence southerly, on a course parallel with that of the Wisconsin river, to the line dividing the territories of the Chippewas and Menomonies; thence to the Plover Portage; thence along the southern boundary of the Chippewa country, to the commencement of the boundary line dividing it from that of the Sioux, half a days march below the falls on the Chippewa river; thence with said boundary line to the mouth of Wah-tap river, at its junction with the Mississippi; and thence up the Mississippi to the place of beginning.

Page 492

ARTICLE 2.

In consideration of the cession aforesaid, the United States agree to make to the Chippewa nation, annually, for the term of twenty years, from the date of the ratification of this treaty, the following payments.

1. Nine thousand five hundred dollars, to be paid in money.

2. Nineteen thousand dollars, to be delivered in goods.

3. Three thousand dollars for establishing three blacksmiths shops, supporting the blacksmiths, and furnishing them with iron and steel.

4. One thousand dollars for farmers, and for supplying them and the Indians, with implements of labor, with grain or seed; and whatever else may be necessary to enable them to carry on their agricultural pursuits.

5. Two thousand dollars in provisions.

6. Five hundred dollars in tobacco.

The provisions and tobacco to be delivered at the same time with the goods, and the money to be paid; which time or times, as well as the place or places where they are to be delivered, shall be fixed upon under the direction of the President of the United States.

The blacksmiths shops to be placed at such points in the Chippewa country as shall be designated by the Superintendent of Indian Affairs, or under his direction.

If at the expiration of one or more years the Indians should prefer to receive goods, instead of the nine thousand dollars agreed to be paid to them in money, they shall be at liberty to do so. Or, should they conclude to appropriate a portion of that annuity to the establishment and support of a school or schools among them, this shall be granted them.

ARTICLE 3.

The sum of one hundred thousand dollars shall be paid by the United States, to the half-breeds of the Chippewa nation, under the direction of the President. It is the wish of the Indians that their two sub-agents Daniel P. Bushnell, and Miles M. Vineyard, superintend the distribution of this money among their half-breed relations.

ARTICLE 4.

The sum of seventy thousand dollars shall be applied to the payment, by the United States, of certain claims against the Indians; of which amount twenty-eight thousand dollars shall, at their request, be paid to William A. Aitkin, twenty-five thousand to Lyman M. Warren, and the balance applied to the liquidation of other just demands against them—which they acknowledge to be the case with regard to that presented by Hercules L. Dousman, for the sum of five thousand dollars; and they request that it be paid.

ARTICLE 5.

The privilege of hunting, fishing, and gathering the wild rice, upon the lands, the rivers and the lakes included in the territory ceded, is guarantied to the Indians, during the pleasure of the President of the United States.

ARTICLE 6.

This treaty shall be obligatory from and after its ratification by the President and Senate of the United States.

Done at St. Peters in the Territory of Wisconsin the twenty-ninth day of July eighteen hundred and thirty-seven.

Reference: Click Here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also here is some info on the conservation code for the 1837 ceded territory:

Minnesota 1837 Ceded Territory Conservation Code

Department of Natural Resources, Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Click Here

Specifically:

Spearing and Netting Regulations Click Here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It comes down to accountability and responsibility. You can throw the rest in the garbage as far as I'm concerned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



  • Your Responses - Share & Have Fun :)

    • Brianf.
      I'm not there, so I can't tell exactly what's going on but it looks like a large area of open water developed in the last day with all of the heavy snow on the east side of wake em up Narrows. These two photos are from my Ring Camera facing north towards Niles Point.  You can see what happened with all of snow that fell in the last three days, though the open water could have been wind driven. Hard to say. .  
    • SkunkedAgain
      Black Bay had great ice before but a few spots near rockpiles where there were spots of open water. It looks like the weight of the snow has created a little lake in the middle of the bay.  
    • LakeofthewoodsMN
      On the south end...   Thanks to some cold spring weather, ice fishing continues strong for those still ice fishing.  The bite remains very good.  Most resorts have pulled their fish houses off for the year, however, some still have fish houses out and others are allowing ATV and side by sides.  Check social media or call ahead to your favorite resort for specifics. Reports this week for walleyes and saugers remain excellent.   A nice mix of jumbo perch, pike, eelpout, and an occasional crappie, tullibee or sturgeon being reported by anglers. Jigging one line and using a live minnow on the second line is the way to go.  Green, glow red, pink and gold were good colors this week.     Monster pike are on a tear!  Good number of pike, some reaching over 45 inches long, being caught using tip ups with live suckers or dead bait such as smelt and herring in 8 - 14' of water.   As always, work through a resort or outfitter for ice road conditions.  Safety first always. Fish houses are allowed on the ice through March 31st, the walleye / sauger season goes through April 14th and the pike season never ends. On the Rainy River...  The river is opened up along the Nelson Park boat ramp in Birchdale, the Frontier boat ramp and Vidas boat ramp.  This past week, much of the open water skimmed over with the single digit overnight temps.   Areas of the river have popped open again and with temps getting warmer, things are shaping up for the last stretch through the rest of the spring season, which continues through April 14th.   Very good numbers of walleyes are in the river.  Reports this week, even with fewer anglers, have been good.  When temps warm up and the sun shines, things will fire up again.   Jigs with brightly colored plastics or jigs with a frozen emerald shiner have been the desired bait on the river.  Don't overlook slow trolling crankbaits upstream as well.   Good reports of sturgeon being caught on the river as well.  Sturgeon put the feed bag on in the spring.  The bite has been very good.  Most are using a sturgeon rig with a circle hook loaded with crawlers or crawlers / frozen emerald shiners. Up at the NW Angle...  Ice fishing is winding down up at the Angle.  Walleyes, saugers, and a number of various species in the mix again this week.  The bite is still very good with good numbers of fish.  The one two punch of jigging one line and deadsticking the second line is working well.   Check with Angle resorts on transport options from Young's Bay.  Call ahead for ice road guidelines.  
    • CigarGuy
      With the drifting, kind of hard to tell for sure, but I'm guessing about a foot and still lightly snowing. Cook end!
    • PSU
      How much snow did you get on Vermilion? 
    • Mike89
      lake here refroze too...  started opening again yesterday with the wet snow and wind...  very little ice left today...
    • Hookmaster
      A friend who has a cabin between Alex and Fergus said the lake he's on refroze. He texted me a pic from March 12th when it was open and one from 23rd when it wasn't. 🤯
    • SkunkedAgain
      I don't think that there has been any ice melt in the past few weeks on Vermilion. Things looked like a record and then Mother Nature swept in again.   I'll give my revised guess of April 21st
    • leech~~
      As I get older it's really not just about sending bullets down range.  Some of it's just the workmanship of the gun and the wow factor. The other two guns I have really wanted which I'll never have now because of their price, is a 8mm Jap Nambu and 9mm German Luger.   Just thought they always looked cool!  
    • jim curlee
      I had a guy hit me with a lightly used 1969 BAR, he wanted $1650 with an older Leupold scope. More than I think they are worth, I made an offer, he declined end of story.   You know if you look at the old brochures, a grade II BAR sold for $250 in the late 60s, $1650 would be a good return on your investment.    Why would anybody want a 50 year old gun, they are heavy, have wood stocks, and blued metal.  I guess mainly to keep their gun safes glued to the floor. lol   You can probably buy a stainless rifle that you never have to clean, with a synthetic stock you never have to refinish, is as light as a feather, and for half as much money, perfect.   I'm too old for a youth gun, although I've shrunk enough that it would probably fit. lol   No Ruger 10/44s.   Jim      
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.