• 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.

  • Join In - We Share Fishing Reports & Outdoor Information Here

     
      You know what we all love...

      The same things you do!!!! Share what you love & enjoy in the outdoors as well as thank those whose posts you 'appreciate.'

      Have Fun!!!

Sign in to follow this  
Ryan_V

New lawsuit

Recommended Posts

Michael L

If the safe allowable harvest wasn't low enough for the lake, they should have let us all know before the lake got into a Stage 4 Emergency on arguably the greatest fishery in Minnesota.

I will concede to that. People, of all walks no matter how much they detest it, need adult supervision. They said 1/2 million pounds is ok to harvest and people took it and would continue till the pot was empty.

They didn't do everything right as they were stuck with appeasing two groups which, -I believe-, was doomed no matter what was done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
walleyeworshiper

Wisconsin on opening day had 173 lakes with 1 fish limits, will we see this in Minnesota. This is in the area with Tribal spring spearing. I don't understand how so many people are willing to accept this as an accepted conservation tool. The US Supreme Court left the hand cuffs off the MN DNR's hands in their ruling regarding Mille Lacs. They have always had the right to go back to court if conservation became an issue. Apparently Mille Lacs is ok. Numbers in pounds of harvested fish can best be described spawning fish vs post spawn fish. Our DNR negosiated the deal that allows gillnets, they weren't court ordered. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Red Lake is brought up as a prime example of big time gillnetting, just a side note on Red Lake. The US Supreme decision Holt of 1946, declared Red Lake, the water, the bed, the shore line is to be used by ALL, when this was brought up to then DNR comish Gene Merrium, he said yes we know, but we prefer to deal with the RL Band as we have for the past 75 yrs. Our DNR more powerful than the Supreme court?

Tell that to people who have had equiptment seized. Our DNR does as it dang well pleases without being held accountable. Maybe this lawsuit will bring transparency to a dept that prefers to meet behind closed doors. The white shirt policy makers need to be held accountable. ML, will it turn into a 1 fish lake, that is accepting something other than professional care. A lot of info can be found at perm.org

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Getanet

Wisconsin on opening day had 173 lakes with 1 fish limits, will we see this in Minnesota.

The only way we are going to see this in MN is if PERM keeps challenging the Bands rights in court. They are slow learners I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Butter111

So we should stand by and let the bands dictate how our DNR and sportsman manage our lakes. Are these lakes not as much of a right to the general public as they are the bands. This whole issue is reverse discrimantion. A small minority is being allowed to dictate how the general public is to use a public resource. This is a issue regarding netting and the spawn. Supporters of the band love to talk about hooking mortality. How about Netting Mortality and Lost Net Mortality. There have been several nets lost this year due to ice shifting and taking them out. I for one applaud PERM for trying to do something. All of the guys that want to stick their head in the sand and hope we dont [PoorWordUsage] off the natives are clueless. We will be wearing the same shoes as our neighbors in Wisconsin with many more lakes under native control if we do not draw a line in the sand. Just keep dropping cash in those casinos and you will see.

PS I am out for the Bass this weekend. They taste great in the this cold water. 9 guys at my cabin 6 bass per day. We will have a plenty good fish fry Saturday night!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Getanet

I for one applaud PERM for trying to do something. All of the guys that want to stick their head in the sand and hope we dont [PoorWordUsage] off the natives are clueless.

The last time PERM tried to "do something" it had the opposite effect of their goal. Are you still going to applaud them if they are successful in getting this back to court, and the end result is you wind up with more restrictions than you have now, and the Bands get to expand their take?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jentz

Looks like the other sites that shut down these kind of posts have sent their prem,savemillelacs pushers here.the posters with a few new posts as new members.I agree if they keep pushing the natives will push back.If they could without bias compromise the problems they say they have may be reduced.But all the badmouthing just wont let that happen some go way overboard!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GravelBar

All we ask is that everybody be treated the same no matter what color you are. In other words we ask the Chippewa to give up their nets. No more 10 walleyes a day with no size restriction. Start paying 7.5% state taxes on the profits from their casino. If they can’t agree to this then give the land and the casino back to the Lakota Sioux. They owned this land prior to the Chippewa taking it away from them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Getanet

That's already been "asked" in court, and the resounding answer is No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GravelBar

You’re telling me the Lakota Sioux have been to court asking for the land back that the Chippewa stole from them? I don’t think so. You’re telling me the state can’t open a state run casino? I don’t think so. I think the Chippewa as a whole need to give some deep thought as to what the state and the courts could do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Getanet

Yeaaahhh, that's what I'm telling you. It's no wonder the lawyers can keep fleecing you guys for money...Guaranteed they are the only ones that are going to get anything positive out of "asking" the tribes to give up their treaty rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GravelBar

Change starts with all of us getting involved. Call 651-201-3400 and tell the governor how you feel. We need to act now before our lakes become as bad as Wisconsin's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fishnpole

The only way we are going to see this in MN is if PERM keeps challenging the Bands rights in court. They are slow learners I guess.

I guess, there, getaclue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
expl

The lawsuit is a pretty moronic idea the sportman and resort owners had.They are essentially suing themselves and every other taxpayer in the state,assuming they even pay their taxes that is.Their cash would have been better spent in ways to help the lake,but hey when your real agenda is the end of netting then why not waste the courts and dnr's time,way to go lawsuit guys...Im sure your the guys who couldnt throw back a keeper walleye from the lake even if your lives depended on it,keep on keeping your limit allways and often lawsuit guys.Maybe file a suit against yourselves for overfishing next season.Heck I will start a fund to sue the guys who have to keep every fish they catch everytime they go fishing.They are the people who hurt the fishing for true sportsman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fishnpole

It was a split decision. The state, it was decided, was to retain soveriegnty:

"t can hardly be supposed that the thought of the Indians was concerned with the necessary exercise of inherent power under modern conditions for the preservation of wild life. But the existence of the sovereignty of the State was well understood, and this conception involved all that was necessarily implied in that sovereignty, whether fully appreciated or not. We do not think that it is a proper construction of the reservation in the conveyance to regard it as an attempt either to 225*225 reserve sovereign prerogative or so to divide the inherent power of preservation as to make its competent exercise impossible. Rather we are of the opinion that the clause is fully satisfied by considering it a reservation of a privilege of fishing and hunting upon the granted lands in common with the grantees, and others to whom the privilege might be extended, but subject nevertheless to that necessary power of appropriate reg- ulation, as to all those privileged, which inhered in the sovereignty of the State over the lands where the privi- lege was exercised. " Id., at 563-564 (emphasis added).

Although the state retained it's soveriegnty, the preservation and conservation of the 1837 treaty land was to be co-managed by the state (DNR) and the bands (GLIFWC).

It all depends on which side you ask if these are "rights" or "priveleges".

The majority, however, overlooks the fact that the scope of a State's regulatory authority depends upon the language of the treaty in question. At a minimum, States may issue and enforce those regulations of Indians' off-reservation usufructuary activities that are necessary in the interest of conservation. Our decisions suggest that state regulatory authority is so limited when, with 223*223 the treaty in question, the Indians reserved a right to fish, hunt, or gather on ceded lands. But it is doubtful that the so-called "conservation necessity" standard applies in cases, such as this one, where Indians reserved no more than a privilege to hunt, fish, and gather.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Red Miller

You guys are funny. Look down on your shoes...you're [PoorWordUsage] into the wind. I will continue to fish and harvest within state law. That's MY right as a US citizen and a lifelong resident of the great state of Minnesota. Stop coddling the netters. Harvest your fish and when there are none left, let the DNR and Feds figure it out. The natives don't care. They just sit back and watch the fun. They are netting the hell out of that lake as we sit here at our computers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fishnpole

The last time PERM tried to "do something" it had the opposite effect of their goal. Are you still going to applaud them if they are successful in getting this back to court, and the end result is you wind up with more restrictions than you have now, and the Bands get to expand their take?

PERM didn't do anything wrong in trying to stop you from doing what you did to this lake. I'll even add MYSELF to that list we got going.

PERM did non-political biological surveys of the lake with a totally biased political football field and predicted to the YEAR when the walleyes would collapse. The lead biologist was Dick Sternberg, who was a former DNR Biologist.

It really will enlighten you to alot of trends in the walleye population of Mille Lacs that the Minnesota DNR along with their co-managers, the GLIFWCs knew about going to happen 15 YEARS AGO!! It'll open your eyes to what is REALLY happening here in 2014, there Pancho.

Listen, nobody thinks any body should get more than anybody else. You're entitled to your fish. We just think that we could all share in the pie. And one of the ways we can sustain this lake and bring it back to what it was (and CAN be again) is to allow these fish to reproduce to their maximum YOY without taking them all out of the lake before they can do it.

Simple.

The DNR knew this TWO YEARS ago. There has been NO changes to their mesh sizes that still target the same fish they are trying to save. And do they think theres no 18-20 MALES, fer crissakes? I'm not even going to get into the slot/mortality farce. Here's what they wrote @ YEARS [email protected]!!

DNR To Bands: Mille Lacs Has Problem

State fisheries managers say that "tribal exploitation rates" of Mille Lacs male walleyes could warrant fish harvest management changes.

Changes -- perhaps big ones -- are coming to the way Mille Lacs walleyes are managed by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC), overseer of the lake for eight Chippewa bands.

In a letter e-mailed Friday to GLIFWC, the DNR said a shortage of male walleyes in Mille Lacs is worrisome, and "continued harvest management under the [current management system] may not be possible."

Sport anglers fishing with hook and line don't appear to be the problem, the DNR said. But "tribal fishery exploitation rates on [male walleyes in age classes 4-6] have increased ...resulting in the overall increase in exploitation rates on males."

Mesh sizes used by Chippewa who net Mille Lacs generally target the lake's smaller, mostly male, walleyes.

The DNR told the bands it had several Mille Lacs fishery concerns, and "that the concerns all center on conservation and affect the management of fish populations in Mille Lacs."

Mention of "conservation" was intentional, because in the court order directing the DNR to manage Mille Lacs with the bands, only certain criteria -- resource conservation being primary -- are cause for one party to seek management changes absent the other.

The bands are expected to respond to the DNR's letter before the two parties meet in July. If the bands disagree with the DNR, the agency likely will seek a mediator to resolve the conflict, as directed in the court order.

Again this summer, Mille Lacs anglers have had difficulty finding walleyes less than 17 inches long -- the size they are allowed to keep, with the exception of one over 28 inches. These smaller fish are mostly males, and the DNR says their absence might pose problems for all Mille Lacs walleyes.

IF THAT AIN'T MISMANAGEMENT, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS.................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Deadwood

I do applaud the effort, but the MN DNR being a State Agency will be deemed "untouchable" by any lawsuit regardless of how many facts are proven towards their negligence. A similar case took place with the deer hunters in the State of Pennsylvania a few years back when the hunters filed a lawsuit against the state/DNR for mismanagement of their deer herd. It was drug out for years in the courts costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. The case inevitably ending up going to the high courts where eventually the "people" lost. The 'State Agency/DNR' will trump everyone and everything as they are the experts and all knowing.

The only winners will be the attorneys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fishnpole

Actually, Deadwood, the MN DNR are all over this lake right now. They're really doing a pretty good job of checking the netting, survey sampling, water sampling, etc. I've never seen them so on top of their jobs in 57 years of fishing this lake. I'm sure alot has to do with being under the microscope, but I'm impressed with what they can do given their correct motivation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
harvey lee

There is no doubt in my mind that the netting will kill these lakes,go to Wisc and check it out.

One is always told how the Native's would never do this as they are concerned with nature, that's a laugher.

This issue will never go away until the SC changes how it acts on this treaty cases.

In the meantime, have fun eating 1 walleye per day, that's if you can find 1 slot fish.

All one has to do is look at the Native's history with netting and then also look at how well those lakes have done. N'uff said.

Many allowed this by going to and supporting these casino's. Stay away and take thier money to fight one away, most issues then solved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  



  • Your Responses - Share & Have Fun :)

    • gimruis
      Its even better for smallmouth bass.  Our rivers are loaded with them and there's very little pressure.
    • Wanderer
      Almost too nice if weather yesterday and today in this area.  If I were out today with the southern winds/gusts to 30, I’d spend most of the day on my feet.  Good day to still hunt.
    • monstermoose78
      I want to hear details 
    • poliwhirl18
      You're quite lucky. 
    • Kettle
      Although I moved away from the area over 10 years ago I can say without reservation that the rum river has fantastic walleye fishing. There's some pigs in there besides numbers. I've also had really good bluegill fishing there too! 
    • Wanderer
      Any news after day one?
    • smurfy
      i was told that the owner of the bait shop in deer river, george passed away earlier this week. story is they figure the  kids will just close the doors. i'll miss the guy. he may have been a bit more expensive, but his extended hours and honor system made it worth the stop there. one just doesnt see that no more. i'd call him if he wasnt going to be there he'd have what i wanted in his outside fridge and off i went.   and he always was willing to talk..........alot!!!!!!!!!!
    • leech~~
      MRGC, Welcome to the forum.    Not to take this off topic but I have been going by your range there on the end of Monti for over 30 years.  I have always wondered how long do you think your going to be able to keep it open so close to the approaching town before they drive you guys out with safety and noise complaints?  It looks like you guys have done a lot of work with the back stop and other improvements.   Thinking long-term have you thought about looking for a piece of land for a new range before the Anti's try and get you out?   Just a question I have thought about all these years.  Good luck, hope you guys hang for another 30!   🙂   
    • ozzie
      Welcome to the area!  Blue Lake and Green Lake are panfish lakes close by with the occasional walleye to be had in either but with more consistently from Green.  Briggs Lake chain is another good option for both crappies and walleyes and with it being part of the river system some size can be had for both.  Go a little south from there and you can hit up the Annandale area lakes which have walleyes and crappies.  Good Luck and let us know how ya do!
    • MRGC
      2019 Fall Rifle Site-in at the Monticello Rod & Gun Club October 19-20, 26-27 November 2-3. 10am to 4pm $10.00 per gun and $5.00 for additional gun per person. Monticello Rod & Gun Club 1821 W. River Street Monticello, MN 55362 If you need help, members will be available.   www.monticellorodandgunclub.org