Memorandum Of Understanding

[leech~~ 1,070]

1 hour ago, Wanderer said:

Fact checker says OK.   You may or may not believe this but I was partially poking the bear too. 

 

Cheaper per pound than going up to fish and limits every time.

 

Did you see that you can buy cheeks too. That's way cheaper then most street corners in Mpls!

Walleye Cheeks 3lb – Fresh Frozen

$56.85

[tfin 24]

Leech,

 

"In 1989, the tribe's commercial netters
 registered a record 948,000 pounds of walleye."

 

And this years quota was just about back to that of 820,000.  So did they learn anything?

 

You posted this as if it makes a point but it has no bearing what so ever.  It seams that you're the one that can't seem to learn anything.  Stop using non related information to try to prove a point.  In 1989 the total lbs of fish in the lake may have been 1/100 of what it I this year.  So what if the Indians use it as a commercial fishery.  We took the whole country from the and use it for commercial everything all in the name of greed!  Realize that giving them a piece of water and letting them do with it what they want is a good thing and they are working with us to make it a well sustained fishery  But in order to do that you would have to be selfless for a second.  

 

[bowhuntingboy1 46]

On 12/7/2019 at 8:11 AM, tfin said:

Leech,

 

"In 1989, the tribe's commercial netters
 registered a record 948,000 pounds of walleye."

 

And this years quota was just about back to that of 820,000.  So did they learn anything?

 

You posted this as if it makes a point but it has no bearing what so ever.  It seams that you're the one that can't seem to learn anything.  Stop using non related information to try to prove a point.  In 1989 the total lbs of fish in the lake may have been 1/100 of what it I this year.  So what if the Indians use it as a commercial fishery.  We took the whole country from the and use it for commercial everything all in the name of greed!  Realize that giving them a piece of water and letting them do with it what they want is a good thing and they are working with us to make it a well sustained fishery  But in order to do that you would have to be selfless for a second.

 

So to right a wrong that occured over 200 years ago, we just let them destroy a lake? Because if they take out fish at the rate they did in the early 90s, which as leech pointed out, it is getting close, the lake will get to the point it was at in the late 90s. Like people have said, there was blame to go around, but at the end of the day, in my eyes, having two sets of rules for two sets of people is just counterproductive.

[kelly-p 452]

4 hours ago, bowhuntingboy1 said:

we just let them destroy a lake? Because if they take out fish at the rate they did in the early 90s, which as leech pointed out, it is getting close, the lake will get to the point it was at in the late 90s.

In the 1970's the Red Lakes went into a 4 year "boom/bust" cycle. Only 1 good year class at a time. That year class would get big enough to spawn then be caught out of the lake. The fry from that year class would be the only strong year class in the lake so they would grow rapidly then spawn and be caught out repeating the cycle. By the late 70's it was well known that there was a very good chance that the Red Lakes walleyes would collapse.  Then in the early 90's that year class was caught out before it spawned. The rest is history. Right now there are multiple year class's in the Red Lakes.

18% of the Red Lakes are State waters. For the 2019 harvest season 160,830 pounds of walleyes were harvested from those State waters. for the entire 2019 harvest years 299,377 pounds of walleyes were harvested from the State waters. We, anglers in the State waters are harvesting more then twice as many pounds of walleyes as we did in the 90's. 82% percent of the Red Lakes are Band waters. For the 2019 harvest season the Band harvested 443,148 pounds of walleyes. Less then 1/4 of what they were harvesting in the 90's. Yet you are pointing fingers at the Band?  Show us something then that is more then bar talk and rumors.

[bowhuntingboy1 46]

7 hours ago, kelly-p said:

In the 1970's the Red Lakes went into a 4 year "boom/bust" cycle. Only 1 good year class at a time. That year class would get big enough to spawn then be caught out of the lake. The fry from that year class would be the only strong year class in the lake so they would grow rapidly then spawn and be caught out repeating the cycle. By the late 70's it was well known that there was a very good chance that the Red Lakes walleyes would collapse.  Then in the early 90's that year class was caught out before it spawned. The rest is history. Right now there are multiple year class's in the Red Lakes.

18% of the Red Lakes are State waters. For the 2019 harvest season 160,830 pounds of walleyes were harvested from those State waters. for the entire 2019 harvest years 299,377 pounds of walleyes were harvested from the State waters. We, anglers in the State waters are harvesting more then twice as many pounds of walleyes as we did in the 90's. 82% percent of the Red Lakes are Band waters. For the 2019 harvest season the Band harvested 443,148 pounds of walleyes. Less then 1/4 of what they were harvesting in the 90's. Yet you are pointing fingers at the Band?  Show us something then that is more then bar talk and rumors.

If the quota in the 90s was only 100kish more than it is now, that's a problem as it signifies they could potentially reach very near that quota. There is several year classes because 10s of thousands of dollars were dumped into stocking the lake, with the band funding about 2/3, which we should be grateful for. Still cost the state 28k and that is not a situation you want to have to keep a lake running. If we dont either have more huge, expensive stockings or stop tribal netting, red lake will again one day struggle. 

[kelly-p 452]

32 minutes ago, bowhuntingboy1 said:

If the quota in the 90s was only 100kish more than it is now,

Are you forgetting about the estimated 1,500,000 pounds of walleyes a year bootlegged  in the 90's?

 

20 minutes ago, leech~~ said:

There is several year classes because 10s of thousands of dollars were dumped into stocking the lake

The last of the stocked fish died off 7 or 8 years ago. This is all natural spawn now.

[bowhuntingboy1 46]

10 hours ago, kelly-p said:

Are you forgetting about the estimated 1,500,000 pounds of walleyes a year bootlegged  in the 90's?

 

The last of the stocked fish died off 7 or 8 years ago. This is all natural spawn 

Natural spawn from the several year classes stocked into the lake. When you give millions of walleyes 7 years of no fishing and free reign with very few species of natural predators compared to most lakes and regulate the lake thereafter, of course there is going to be some good spawning classes. There would be minimal classes right now if not for the stocking. And as for the estimate, I would be aware of estimates of the black market, doesn't seem like the easiest thing to estimate. On that note, there is most likely still black market walleye sales going on, although they may not be as large, this coupled with the potential for the band to take nearly as many legal fish as they did in the 90s could very likely cause the lake to one day again struggle. Maybe not as bad as it was in the late 90s, but we shouldn't use rock bottom as the baseline for struggling. And as for any drama going on, totally unnecessary and I dont want any part of it. We dont need to bring any emotion into discussions

Edited December 8, 2019 by bowhuntingboy1

[bowhuntingboy1 46]

Another thing, why should I feel guilty about whatever happend 200+ years ago? I dont know about you, but 200 years ago, my family was in Germany. If I'm expected to feel guilty because people that happend to have the same race as me stole land 200 years ago, then I dont know what is wrong with our country. 

[walros 10]

I think most of the problem here is that no one trusts each other to have their best interests in this matter. I think the lake was abused, both sides realize what a great fishery it was and are trying to make it back into what it was. Personally I think they have done that and deserve credit for doing so. Is everyone going to be happy, seriously doubt that is gonna happen but it is a great fishery that should be around for many years. For that we should be grateful that both sides have compromised their positions for the greater good of this lake. Rant over !

 

[Rick 873]

If you have personal issues please report the post. If your post goes off topic in an area that can be reported or messaged to me privately it has been and will be removed for the sake of keeping the peace here. Good points made from every angle, let's keep it that way. No personal attacks. If you want to address me personally about an action I may have taken, please private message.

[leech~~ 1,070]

On 12/7/2019 at 8:11 AM, tfin said:

Leech,

 

"In 1989, the tribe's commercial netters
 registered a record 948,000 pounds of walleye."

 

And this years quota was just about back to that of 820,000.  So did they learn anything?

 

You posted this as if it makes a point but it has no bearing what so ever.  It seams that you're the one that can't seem to learn anything.  Stop using non related information to try to prove a point.  In 1989 the total lbs of fish in the lake may have been 1/100 of what it I this year.  So what if the Indians use it as a commercial fishery.  We took the whole country from the and use it for commercial everything all in the name of greed!  Realize that giving them a piece of water and letting them do with it what they want is a good thing and they are working with us to make it a well sustained fishery  But in order to do that you would have to be selfless for a second.  

 

 

Can you please show me any of the data I used was wrong. I'm sure the MN DNR, Red Lake Band and Kelly would love to see that because all the data numbers I used came from those sources. 

As as far as making a point, do you have one to add on this subject?  You added no information or new facts what so ever, other then your feelings and an old history lesson that we have all heard a 1000 times.  The fact is, the Red Lake Band is in charge and manages the majority of the largest fresh water lake in the state of Minnesota.  For the sake of all mankind we hope they get it right this-time!   

[kelly-p 452]

11 hours ago, bowhuntingboy1 said:

this coupled with the potential for the band to take nearly as many legal fish as they did in the 90s could very likely cause the lake to one day again struggle.

So what do you feel should be the cap for the number of pounds of walleyes the Band can harvest from the Red Lakes?

[leech~~ 1,070]

53 minutes ago, kelly-p said:

So what do you feel should be the cap for the number of pounds of walleyes the Band can harvest from the Red Lakes?

 

Shouldn't there be some kind of tribal need number? After all, isn't this Hunting, fishing-gathering thing really all about subsistence living?  

[bowhuntingboy1 46]

54 minutes ago, kelly-p said:

So what do you feel should be the cap for the number of pounds of walleyes the Band can harvest from the Red Lakes?

I feel it would be best to shut down commercial fishing from red lake and simply have the natives follow the same regs as everyone else. You could say this is unrealistic, but you asked for what I think and this is my opinion. Another alternative I see is let the natives have lrl to do whatever they want with and compromise so everyone else gets access to the entirety of url with the same regs for everyone and a closing to commercial fishing. Then we see 20 years down the road how each lake is doing. This is obviously also very unrealistic, but I'd love to see it happend. 

[leech~~ 1,070]

Well this is 5 years old but does talk about the long term history of the problem, not just Red Lake.

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjyntGNzafmAhVsp1kKHXHkC44QFjADegQIBRAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.startribune.com%2Fmay-3-2013-fishy-trade-in-walleyes-persists-up-north%2F205903751%2F&usg=AOvVaw3ZqjwEw_5vfkNmB2fCEjN4

 

 

[kelly-p 452]

14 minutes ago, bowhuntingboy1 said:

I feel it would be best to shut down commercial fishing from red lake and simply have the natives follow the same regs as everyone else. You could say this is unrealistic, but you asked for what I think and this is my opinion. Another alternative I see is let the natives have lrl to do whatever they want with and compromise so everyone else gets access to the entirety of url with the same regs for everyone and a closing to commercial fishing. Then we see 20 years down the road how each lake is doing. This is obviously also very unrealistic, but I'd love to see it happend. 

If that was tried I would guess that the Band would be in court very fast to get the boundary dispute settled. Then all of URL could be Bands waters. If you're going to poke a sleeping bear better be prepared for him to wake up.

[bowhuntingboy1 46]

29 minutes ago, kelly-p said:

If that was tried I would guess that the Band would be in court very fast to get the boundary dispute settled. Then all of URL could be Bands waters. If you're going to poke a sleeping bear better be prepared for him to wake up.

That's why I said it's very unrealistic. 

[[email protected] 2]

Did you NOT read the part of the story where the tribal fisheries was created by the BIA (whites)? Other bands in N MN also had fisheries created but did not stick with it as Red Lake did.

 

What I don't understand is the misinformation spread and how we always are jealous when someone (the band) has something we don't?

 

To me, if you want netting banned then you should be prepared to give up your electronics trolling motors and just row on lakes where you want to fish.

 

We're in this together. Its working.

 

[ozzie 229]

Just remember when you point fingers there are at least 3 pointing back at you!!!  This is never an easy subject to debate because of the emotions that are involved.  Every time someone blames the RLB for commercial fishing or netting, I get why they are opposed to it, but at the same time I just laugh a little.  Yes commercial netting can be a bad thing, but if it is regulated closely and they are on top of things, why do we care how they get their allocated pounds of fish?  I can promise you that what ever poundage is reportedly taken out of the state controlled waters is higher due to thieves that can't fish by the rules.  I don't agree with certain pollical issues that play into the area up there, but that debate is way beyond my education level!!  I do know that we sure do complain a lot about the RLB, and how they get their walleye poundage, on a huge lake that we can't even enter!!  I think the RLB has a good handle on what is happening on their portion of the lake, and if there is any illegal activity going on their side, they will handle it accordingly.  I don't believe they are looking the other way towards illegal netting the way it may have been in the past.  What I do know of Red Lake is that it is a beautiful lake that is certainly abused on the state controlled portion with illegal harvesting and horrible actions regarding disposing of garbage in the winter.  If we could clean up our act, and were perfect, then I think we could look at other and try to figure out what is going wrong, but first we need to correct our issues!!  Good Luck

[Random dude 1]

Best to listen to Kelly on this one.   He has been around long enough to see the booms and busts and attended all the meetings on the rebuilding after the crash.   The way I look at it, look at the hordes of fishermen on the small non-tribal portion.   Now imagine spreading that kind of pressure on the entire upper and lower lake, it would crash in a matter of a few years.   I honestly think we owe a debt of gratitude for the low lbs/acre harvest on the vast tribal waters.   If they harvested as much per acre as we did, crash time.   The non-tribal waters are the factory that keeps healthy population going that we're seeing now.  It must be working, results speak for themselves.

[Random dude 1]

I meant to say the tribal waters are the factory that keeps the popluation going,  we would fish out every lake we have control of if they let us.  Thank the Band and DNR for setting up a safe harvest limit and rules for everyone to follow that is building this great fishery back

[Sculpin 204]

Could be worse guys, way worse.  You could have a deeper fishery, and have to account for "hooking mortality"  Such as it is at Mille Lacs.  I think everyone needs to understand that the old days are gone, and liberal limits, as we all once knew them, are rapidly becoming obsolete. LOTWS just went from 8 to 6 fish, and I would not be at all surprised to see it go to 5, or less, its just a matter of time. Everyone chatters about catch and release fishing, and the DNR would tell you that the majority of surveyed anglers, particularly at Mille Lacs are good with the concept. I don't necessarily agree with their methodology, but it is what it is.  Drive less, stop at Mille Lacs, and get your one fish, (maybe). It'll never be more than a two fish lake again, because the Bands will never, ever, compromise on their end of the harvest, nor on the co-management of the lake,  at the end of the day, they have no reason to. Red lake is the same. I think they may finally have it right, impact of zebra mussels notwithstanding. Time will tell. Get used to it, if you live long enough, like Kelly, you'll see worse. 

[bowhuntingboy1 46]

I can see all arguments and their points. I just logically think that everyone in america should have to follow the same laws regardless of race or culture or history 200 years ago. Maybe statistically this may be wrong somehow, but oh well, you're all entitled your opinion. 

[bowhuntingboy1 46]

Also, on the topic of zebra muscles, scientifically it may show how they are terrible for a lakes ecosystem and whatnot, but you look at mille lacs for example, which is about infested as it gets with zebra muscles, yet it's currently a world class walleye, muskie, and smallmouth fishery. Now obviously you dont want to spread zebra muscles, they are invasive and its heavily illegal,  it just seems that their impact is overstated.

[kelly-p 452]

6 hours ago, Sculpin said:

if you live long enough, like Kelly, you'll see worse. 

I used to laugh at old people, wonder how many are laughing at me now.

[Sculpin 204]

On ‎12‎/‎9‎/‎2019 at 3:40 PM, bowhuntingboy1 said:

currently a world class walleye, muskie, and smallmouth fishery. Now obviously you dont want to spread zebra muscles, they are invasive and its heavily illegal,  it just seems that their impact is overstated.

 I'm not so sure I would characterize Mille Lacs as anything approaching "world class" any longer. In addition, the explosion of smallmouth bass, has not done a thing for the status of the walleye fishery, 15 years ago, a smallmouth was a rare fish in Mille Lacs.  Walleye fry, and young of the year walleye fingerling retention there has not been good for years.  The last "great" year class was 2013.  Typical of their inability to figure things out, the DNR is attributing it to a multitude of issues, not the least of which is cannibalization of small fish by too many big fish, and the lack of zooplankton which is a very necessary fry forage component. In addition the DNR has acknowledged that far too many fish were harvested 6/8 years ago that were all the same size, primarily by gill nets, and too liberal slots. The resultant fishery has become one with lots of big fish, but very few broad year classes coming up. They've been scratching their heads for 20 years now.

Trust me, no good will come from a zebra mussel infestation,  none. 

[bowhuntingboy1 46]

26 minutes ago, Sculpin said:

 I'm not so sure I would characterize Mille Lacs as anything approaching "world class" any longer. In addition, the explosion of smallmouth bass, has not done a thing for the status of the walleye fishery, 15 years ago, a smallmouth was a rare fish in Mille Lacs.  Walleye fry, and young of the year walleye fingerling retention there has not been good for years.  The last "great" year class was 2013.  Typical of their inability to figure things out, the DNR is attributing it to a multitude of issues, not the least of which is cannibalization of small fish by too many big fish, and the lack of zooplankton which is a very necessary fry forage component. In addition the DNR has acknowledged that far too many fish were harvested 6/8 years ago that were all the same size, primarily by gill nets, and too liberal slots. The resultant fishery has become one with lots of big fish, but very few broad year classes coming up. They've been scratching their heads for 20 years now.

Trust me, no good will come from a zebra mussel infestation,  none. 

I'm not gonna disagree because you probably know more than I do. I've just heard from multiple sources that mille lacs has rebounded crazily and has been an amazing fishery these past few years. And any walleye population problems that have occurred there, I wouldn't attribute to zebra mussels or anything you've listed, but I'm not gonna get into that again

Edited December 11, 2019 by bowhuntingboy1

[Sculpin 204]

Well, bowhuntingboy1, I guess my only response would be to ask you what in your view constitutes a world class fishery ?  And what defines "rebounded crazily"   If a world class fishery is defined by tons of smallmouth bass, no decent year over year classes of walleyes, and a lake bottom consisting of 675 zebra mussels per square foot, (down from 1269 in 2012), then I guess it's world class.  I think to a large degree, the overall general population has no idea what's going on at Mille Lacs, and the DNR has not done a good job of putting important information forward for the general public to understand. 

Too much barstool biology, and "multiple sources".

[bowhuntingboy1 46]

1 hour ago, Sculpin said:

Well, bowhuntingboy1, I guess my only response would be to ask you what in your view constitutes a world class fishery ?  And what defines "rebounded crazily"   If a world class fishery is defined by tons of smallmouth bass, no decent year over year classes of walleyes, and a lake bottom consisting of 675 zebra mussels per square foot, (down from 1269 in 2012), then I guess it's world class.  I think to a large degree, the overall general population has no idea what's going on at Mille Lacs, and the DNR has not done a good job of putting important information forward for the general public to understand. 

Too much barstool biology, and "multiple sources".

Like I said, I'm not gonna disagree with you. I just said what I've heard.

[leech~~ 1,070]

1 hour ago, Sculpin said:

Well, bowhuntingboy1, I guess my only response would be to ask you what in your view constitutes a world class fishery ?  And what defines "rebounded crazily"   If a world class fishery is defined by tons of smallmouth bass, no decent year over year classes of walleyes, and a lake bottom consisting of 675 zebra mussels per square foot, (down from 1269 in 2012), then I guess it's world class.  I think to a large degree, the overall general population has no idea what's going on at Mille Lacs, and the DNR has not done a good job of putting important information forward for the general public to understand. 

Too much barstool biology, and "multiple sources".

 

I would really like to know what their scientific estimates formula is and how they came to it on released fish, instead of the SWAG they keep throwing out. 

 

"Under the catch-and-release only regulation last year, walleye angler kill totaled just over 47,000 pounds, based on scientific estimates of hooking mortality — the amount of fish that die after they are caught and released."