An Agreement has been reached

[Guest]

http://www.startribune.com/stories/767/3473262.html

------------------
Paul
[email protected]

[Guest]

Some Agreement

[bigeyes]

Well it is not great, but I am ok with it. Guess things will really depend on how the bite is next year. Another year like this one could mean really tight restrictions or no fishing on the back end of this 5 year deal. I wonder if the tribe is banking on that?

[Beckman]

This works for me. I just wonder if this really will be a 5 year plan. Remember the last agreement was supposed to be long term and it barely lasted a year.

[I Like Worms]

I don't really see a change. How is this a good deal? So the min. size increased from 16" to 17" with no bottom, but really, who is going to keep a eye less then 14 inches? Still can't keep anything between 17-28. I just don't see how this is such a better deal. someone please explain if I am totally wrong here.

[tjhunter]

I caught a lot of walleyes that were just under the 14" mark last year. Not that I wanted to get a limit every time out, but it got a little frustrating throwing back a fish that was just a 16th of an inch short. Not too mention that as long as the public sees this as a positive move, it'll bring more people up there and help out the local economy.

tjhunter

[Beckman]

This same slot has been in place on Rainy, Winne, and various Canadian lakes for a while now. It has proven results for these waters, granted not all lakes are the same, but it seems like the right kind of plan to me.

[ds]

All I know is that next spring when they survey me at the landing, I didn't catch a **** thing out of the slot. That 10% mortality they hit you with is a bunch of BS

[kwkfsh]

There has been alot of talk here that the tribe has been trying set quotas in order to hurt the resorts so they can buy them out. I do not know whether or not this is true and not trying to pass judgement. What everyone needs to remember is that they are now a business and a big one at that. If you want to get their attention it will have to be done with dollars, either putting into the till or taking out. Well taking out is alot cheaper than putting in! I have an idea that may or may not work but is sure worth a try. The casinos at millelacs and hinckley are always having concerts, these are not put on out of the goodness of their heart. They are done to generate revenue as in cold hard cash. The casinos know that each person who attends will spend a certain amount of money and they have this figured out to the penney. My guess is that they generate in the $200 per seat range. (Tickets, meals, drinks, and gambling) Now it would be very tough to keep 500 or 1000 people away from a concert. But if all the members of this site were to send a E-mail to a performer saying if they play that venue they and all of the friends and family would stop paying to see or hear them perform. That performer would back out of that concert date faster than you would beleive. If this could be done just a couple of times I believe that you would have the tribes full and undivided attention. Also word would get around entertainment industry real fast that a booking at a Millelacs band casino generates thousands of peices of ex-fan mail. And no entertainer would want to deal with that. As everyone knows a lack of money can have a powerful effect on ones state of mind!!! Believe me if one concert were to be canceled and hundreds of tickets refunded it would get their attention fast, just think of the pain in the *** it would be to do all those refunds and field all the calls from angry customers. Gives me a warm fuzzy just thinking about it.

[Guest]

I agree in principle kwkfsh! I don't mind the regs and think the DNR is doing an acceptable job managing the lake given the situation. I do not think the band should be able to harvest ANYTHING unless they use birch-barks to do it or they can follow the same regs we all follow. Hey Mille Lacs Band the time IS coming when you won't be able to have your cake and eat it too!!! The time is long overdue for us to write government offices and DEMAND a change! If the tribe wants walleye then they can afford to buy them with the casino revenue.

Man, I feel better now with that off my chest!

[This message has been edited by chiro (edited 12-04-2002).]

[Guest]

Good idea KWFKSH. I'm sure your idea would work! You're a clown!

[Guest]

Sorry, I meant KWKFSH!

[kwkfsh]

But you did mean clown? Hey I resemble that remark!!!

[bigeyes]

ds, if the article is correct it lists 260,000 pounds attributed to mortality, and list 4,000,000 pounds caught, that means mortality rates were about 6.5% and that sir I belive to be pretty accurate. I think most people would agree that this is reasonable. I do not like the fact that we only got to keep 86.6% of our harvest was wasted though.

[avrg.joe]

ds, I'm with you. The DNR asks me what I have caught, I'm telling them "just whats in the boat, thats it".

GOOD LUCK!

[ds]

maybe the mortality rates are close, but I think the DNR way underestimatest the population of the walleyes. Just remember this phrase (Honestly everything I caught is in the boat.)

[Guest]

I like kwkfsh's idea!
It would work and also put the band way back in the profit category! I LOVE IT!

------------------
FISHSTUNNER

[Guest]

I've been a life long fisherman on Mille Lacs and have seen it go through the cycles over the years, the only real difference in the fishing is the pressure and arming bad fisherman with good equipment that's why the catch rates have gone up! Now onto the indian issue, I have no problem that they want treaty rights as long as they want to abide by the entire treaty which I'm sure many of you have read. It defines what is considered legal and illegal (aka what is considered illegal for the natives, gas motors ect,) but they seem to forget about this part of the treaty. Now we sportsmen in Minnesota can talk until we are Blue in the face about how pissed we are the the Native's up there. The best way to get back at them is to NOT go to that **** casino no matter how bad you like to gamble like me. I haven't been into see the Devil since they got their initial treaty rights back. That means BOYCOTT Grand Casino Mille Lacs and Hinkley and any other business they own or have an interest in. Some of you like to talk smart in the local pubs, but then when you drive by the parking lot there's Your Truck in the Devils Pen. If you have to gamble either get a game going in your shack or head up to your favorite watering hole and do a little chartible gambling for a local youths sports team.
Hopeful the only prefishing post, hoping for drivable ice by the 20th.
keep it real
Da biggest shooter

[huskminn]

I really don't see the sense in this new agreement, unless the DNR is expecting the fishing (catching) to seriously decline over the next 5 years. If fishing remains as good as it has been for the last 3-5 years, this plan gets us no where.

Does everyone remember how many 16 1/4" fish you caught last open water season? And how hard was it to catch a slot fish? Once the 16"-17" fish are harvested, there will be few left in the 14"-17" range because they were cleaned out this last summer.

The DNR must have a lot of faith in the big perch hatch....they are banking on the fact that the walleyes will have so much to eat that fishing will be poor. If fishing is poor, then those 16"-17" fish will carry sport anglers for a year.

Long term, I think this agreement does little for sport anglers, little for the local economy and perhaps little for the walleyes. As all of these larger fish begin to die off, what will replace them?

There is continued evidence that the DNR is unwilling to promote the radical changes necessary to allow the lake to be managed biologically, not politically.

[Guest]

All the talk about fish mortality reminds me of my trip to mille lacs this summer. My group of 3 and another small group went out of a resort I will keep nameless. When fish in the 18-21 inch range were hooked deep and it was obvious they were going to die, the guide insisted on keeping them for that reason. I personally didn't think the risk was worth it so the other group kept the non-legal fish but I think the guide had a point. If there was only some way where fisherman could keep fish that were going to die anyway...but that would be way too subjective

[I Like Worms]

I couldn't find it, but I know somewhere on this forum someone posted an idea of a total length limit. I really think its a good idea. Say the limit is 50", if I got 2 24 inchers, I was basically done. Or a couple 14's and a 20. Bottem line is, if you get that one 18-20 that is hooked to deep, you would beable to keep it.
critics would say you'd get guys that would catch 3 fish, go back put them in their car and go out for more. Well the same guy that would do that will do it anyway.
Wouldn't, couldn't something like a total length limit work?

[Beckman]

To all those who insist that the slot fish had been 'cleaned out' last summer. Talk to some people who were out there this fall, alot more of those slot fish were showing up, despite a pretty tough bite. So they haven't all been caught. Remember many of the 18-25" fish were slot fish once as well and enough of those seemed to make it. I don't understand, before people were complaining about having a harvest slot over a protected slot, now we will have a protected slot and many people are still not happy. The fish are not starving anymore and people are still claiming the lake will crash. I'm convinced that no matter what is done, there always will be a very large group of Mille Lacs anglers who will be complaining about one thing or another. Like I said it seems to work for Rainy, Winnie, Lac Suel etc... why not use this slot on Mille Lacs? It's time for me to shut up and fish now.

[Guest]

Southwest F Man
Ponder this.
I grew up in (and learned to fish in) a state where it was ILLEGAL to "release" a fish that was "mortally hooked". If the fish would obviously not survive, that one had to be kept and counted against your daily limit. Amazing at least one DNR in this nation had some COMMON SENSE eh?

[huskminn]

Beckman,

I was one of those people who claimed the lake was going to crash due to an over-representation of large fish in the walleye population. The massive perch hatch seems to have replenished the prey fish numbers and the walleyes will eat well for a while now. Was I proven wrong? So far, it seems that I was. That's the first mistake I've made this year! We'll see how many of those new perch reach keepable size.

I have only been seriously fishing Mille Lacs for 4-5 years. Over that time, it seems that the DNR's main management concern was picking a harvest slot drawn from the year classes that have the smallest representation in the overall population. In other words, to keep harvest down, they let us keep fish from year classes that are already relatively low in population.

I see the "new" management plan as an attempt to achieve the same results as previous plans. Kind of a "We'll let them fish, but they ain't keeping much" approach. Within the constraints of the current system, that's fine. That's all they can do.

My point is that for the long-term future of the fishery and, accordingly, the Mille Lacs economy, the DNR needs to aggressively try to remove the Band from the management equation. They have not done so and are afraid to try.

Although other large walleye fisheries have a similar protected slot plan, none of them get the pressure that Mille Lacs does. None of them have another management team indiscriminately harvesting 50,000 lbs. of fish. None of them have the same level of economy relying on the fishery.

You're right.....someone will always complain. I'm not complaining that I can only keep fish under 17".....I am complaining that the DNR has once again struck another "deal" that is nothing more than a continuation of the policy that has been in effect since the court ruling.

According to the DNR, that policy gave us 260,000 lbs of crayfish food last summer. Is that acceptable?

[Guest]

From what I understand and have read, The DNR's goal in setting the slot is to have the fish that consume the majority of small baitfish removed from the lake. The smaller walleyes are the ones that eat the majority of small baitfish. Notice how the perch numbers are almost completely shot? Those big walleyes gobbled the perch up and now the goal is to bring back the baitfish by harvesting the small walleyes that consume them. This is not factual, just what i read. It makes sense though right?

[Guest]

Ok first of all the band has certain rights that weren't given to them by the u.s. gov't but were the rights that weren't taken away.I understand how frustrating It can be to sportsmen, but this is the way it's going to be.As for making them use Birch Bark for this that is just silly to say. What if we had to use rafts and cane poles or, we had no mono, or electronics, we probably wouldn't catch very much. We probably wouldn't even go. We must be carefull because They (the band) has a lot of power when it comes to this issue. As for kwkfish's idea It won't work even if you had the nerve to try it. There are plenty of people that will go to these concerts that aren't worred about a bunch of mercury infested walleyes.

[huskminn]

Bigguns!,

I have heard the same thing...but I also don't know if that is factual info.

If the DNR indeed wants small fish harvested because they eat the majority of bait fish, then I'd like to pose the following question.

According to the DNR, 4 million pounds were caught and 113,000# were kept and killed, 260,000# died from hooking mortality. If every 14"-16" walleye that was caught was kept, that means that we kept 2.8% of all the fish caught.

Anyone who claims that the DNR regs targets small walleyes to help the perch recover needs to provide some proof to me. If 2.8% of the walleye population is responsible for the "majority" of the perch being eaten, then things are very, very wacky.

I contend that the DNR regs target small fish because they weigh less and are less abundant.....which means it is harder to reach their agreed-upon harvest totals.

[Guest]

anglerific,

I respect your opinion BUT, they are using NETS, one more time NETS. So to compare them using birchbark(the traditional method) to us having to use cane poles is apples and oranges. They have started letting annual whale harvests to certain tribes in the Pacific NW and they sure as hell don't let 'em use stinger missiles, they have to do it traditionally with hand made harpoons and wooden boats that are powered by humans...I have absolutely NO problem with that! Now send them out there in a modern Japanese whaling ship...that's where the problem begins!!!
As the tribe ALWAYS does they want to pick the part of the treaty that suits them and the heck with the rest. The reason they still have the power that they do is because not enough of us (me included) have gotten off of our lazy butts to start a campaign to end this nonsense!

[kwkfsh]

Anglerific, are absolutly right about not being able to stop the people from going. You could however stop the artists from performing, and if they don't show then no one can go and it will cost the tribe lots of money!!!!!!!

[beeflover]

did you see that stat?

of 370,000 lbs caught 2/3 of this total was attributed to fish kill after release.

this means we wasted twice as much walleye as we kept.

I don't believe I killed many fish out of the couple hundred I caught last year. in fact a couple times I kept fish that were bleadin. if it's bleadin it's crazy to toss it back

who came up with this killed after release figure? this number does not pass the smell test

I like the move to 17 inches, the 14 inch fish last year were smaller than I would usually keep because all the fish were so thin

I got three limits last year, that's enough for me, if the perch'd come back a little that would be good