New Walleye limits for Ontario for 2005?

[Reels]

Someone told me today that the limit changes from 4 walleye to two for Non-Resident's in Ontario next year.

Can anyone confirm?




<{{}}><

[Tommy_Niagara]

Any particular area you are thinking about?

It used to be 6 per day, now if there isn't slot limits imposed, it would be 4 as a norm.

Some areas of the province definately need this help.

[Reels]

This person just returned from Minaki.


<{{}}><

[Reels]

This person just returned from Minaki.


<{{}}><

[rtmg1]

thats what I have also heard. Except that it's a limit of 2, res or non-res.

[MikeinMo]

I hear that starting in 2005 you had to bring your own walleye to canada

[Zim1]

MikeinMo,

Will there be a slot limit for those we are bringing in?

[Bor]

I'm Ok with a lower limit if they legalize drinking beer in a boat!

[Aaron-IN]

Reels.....I heard the same thing from a Kenora resident that works at one of the Marinas up there. I'm all for it. Now if they could just get the camp owners to practice C&R.

[MikeinMo]

The new slot limit for 2005 is anything between 3 and 29 inches...Thats what I heard. Oh and they were doing away with the limit on Greying on lac seul.

[Wooglin]

If there is a smaller limit, and no slot, I am going to cull the big ones, just for fun.

Anyway, beer in the boat - I just realized its not a good idea. My friends dad was found after 4 days searching, after someone spotted his boat doing circles on a lake in Central WI. He drown - my guess is he was drinking, no life jacket. Autopsy is to be done yet...sad day.

[Buzzman]

We were in Minaki in early June and the resort owner showed us a proposed change in possesion limits of 2 walleye's(regardless of Nationality). This change was to affect only the Winnepeg River system from Lake of the Woods to the Manitoba border. Our group of 10 left our deposit on file, but told her we wouldn't be back if this change went into effect. She said the provincial DNR was to make up their minds by Aug or Sept. Sounds like the same type of reasoning they applied for the spring bear hunting issue.

[Big Eye Gye]

If the new possesion limit goes in it wont bother our group. Two fish per day is plenty for us to eat and we dont need to bring any fish home. The thrill of Canada is simply being there and enjoying its fishing bounty and fishing with friends. I personally believe that if this new possesion limit will protect the longevity of the Walleye it is in our best interest. I hope what ever is decided is in the best interest of the fisherman and the fish.

[smartfeller]

Why should anyone be uptight about a new possession limit? It's still enough walleye to have a shore lunch or late night fish fry. I don't know about you, but the reason I go fishing is to get away from cell phones, computers, traffic, etc. If I catch a few that's great, but it's not the be all, end all. For me fishing is the pursuit of happiness & relaxation. This idea that everyone needs to pose for stringer shots and, a cooler full of fillets to take home, is outdated. It seems like only a few years ago, that the Ontario government was blasted for implementing stricter controls on the harvest of walleye on LOW. At that time the Minnesota DNR said that there was lots of walleye to be harvested, and that Ontario had under calculated the number of walleye that could be harvested. Now, I believe there's a recent report that the US side of Lake of the Woods exceeded its sustainable harvest of walleyes last year. So who is actually putting the interest of the fishery first, and not yielding to pressure from lodge owners & tourists?

[Minaki Area]

The limits are going to be for the Winnipeg River System.
2 Fish between 14"-18" or 1 over 28.5"

[Reels]

I wonder if it has to do with the severe drop off in the walleye fishing in this area over the last 4-5 years.

Aron has mentioned seeing nets in front of his place, along with a few bad spawns, I guess something has to be done to save the fishery.


<{{}}><

PS- I am ok with the new limts too, I buy a conservation liscence, so it wont effect me personally. Just wondering the reasoning behind the change.

[MikeinMo]

On LOTW how can you tell if your harvesting an Ontario or a US Walleye. I guess I don't know where the tag is.

[Lonnie]

This won't stop us from going to Canada fishing. We go to experience the wilderness and the fun of actually catching fish. We eat a few while there, bring back a couple to eat at home, but primarily it is catch and release up there anyway.
Would we want Canada's lakes to end up like alot of ours here in the states, overfished, and overcrowded? With the increasing population in the states and a decline in fishing here in the states there is more and will be a lot more pressure on the lakes in Canada. They need to act now before the damage is done beyond repair and it is too late. I have more and more guys here in my home area in Minnesota asking about fishing in Canada. Alot of them have never been there, but are now beginning to go there, looking for decent walleye fishing.
Also some of the lakes here are so crowded at times with recreational boat traffic that it feels like on a metro freeway at times.
I seriously think eventually Canada could go as far as catch and release for non-residents. Maybe not, but it would not surprise me at all to see this in the future.


Lonnie

[Minaki Area]

Two words why they are changing it- Paradise Cove.
Have you fished the Winnipeg lately around Minaki, piles of people fishing there and destroying the fishery.
Paradise cove tries to pack as many people in as possible for next to nothing, and just built a bunch of new cabins. Some people are just out to make a quick buck and don't care what happens to the resource.

[Mike Kansas]

I would like to see the two Walleye limit. Its enough to eat every day and if you want some to take home stop at the border and buy some. They only cost $10 a pound at the border and we all know that what we catch and bring home is probably closer to $300 a pound.

CATCH AND RELEASE

[Dumber Than A Rock]

I think that a two fish deal would be terrible. I can remember when me and my Brothers use to fish our favorite lake in Minnesota and sometimes we would clean 200 Walleye a day. I tell you man you should see the pictures, Walleyes all over the place. Those were the good old days.

Now I have to go to Canada cause we just aint got no fish in our old Minnesota lake. I guess it has silted in or something like that.

[Lonnie]

Maybe a bit of your humor is needed in a not so funny topic. Yup, that is exactely why we don't have the "good old days" anymore.

Ignorance, meat hogs, mismanagement, greed, and self centeredness destroyed the fishery resource in many places. Yes,I am old enough to remember some of those days, watching wheel barrows full of fish going to the cleaning houses. People were ignorant to some degree and some really did believe lakes could produce like that forever, I actually heard people say lakes were "unlimited".

I for one have called the DNR here in Minnesota when I saw people takeing over their limit. Sometimes DNR checked, other times we never saw a response. The way people (those taking to many fish) reacted when they found out someone called the DNR you would think the person who called the DNR was the criminal for calling the DNR. It was like they thought it their right to take all they wanted. My brother in law and I witnessed some people cleaning way to many big walleye, obviously over the slot, up at a resort on Lac Seul last year. Talked with them a bit in the cleaning house and for a party of 4 guys, they had way way too many big walleye. You bet we turned them in. Told the resort owner who called MNR. We were leaving early the next morning so I don't know details of what happened, if they were fined, etc. He did say that when it happened before, the MNR came in and searched everyone in the whole camp very carefully for illegal fish and over limits.

Is fishing absolutely destroyed in Minnesota or Wisconsin, no, but can it compare favorably to what it was 30, 40, or 50 years ago? If anyone tells you that it does, I will suspect they are smokeing something a little stronger than tabacco in their pipe. In all honesty how does the fishery in Minnesota and Wisconsin compare to Canada?

Is Canada's fishery an "unlimited" resource? Absolutely not, all resources are limited. We live on a finite planet with only so much of any one resource to go around to so many people. True fish are a renewable resource, but not "unlimited". Even renewable resources have limits. Hopefully Canada will be proactive and not reactive after the damage is done and takes decades to undo, if it can be undone. Remember what happened to the buffalo, and passanger pigions?

I think in the next few years this will become a major issue for Canada and us non residents who go to Canada to fish.

Thanks, Lonnie

[JamesPWTPRO]

Well if any other people on the lake kept and cleaned 200 walleye a day, you wouldn't have to look too far.
Catch and Release

[Mark R not logged]

$10/# at the border wonder which gill nets those come out of, from which lake? legal or ilegal gill nets? see plenty on LOTW

[MikeinMo]

Lowering the limit is fine if indeed it needs to be. So often it is done for political beliefs and not for conservations needs. I live on the Mississippi flyway. We lowered the limit for many years on ducks and geese. Suddenly there was overpopulation and more birds were dying of from desease then hunting. Now there are the highest limits since regulations were put into effect and extra weeks were added to the hunting season to harvest more birds. The same is true of harvesting bass in our state. When it comes to conservation we bounce from one wall to the other. Lets hope that the Canadian politicians are better then the ones in the US, but I seriously doubt it. The idea is good but the reasoning is faulty.

[bander6]

The times our group is allowed into Canada we practice conservation limits of 2 walleyes per guy per day anyway (mainly because we are camping on Crown land and that's the law). It's usually more than enough to eat, we're always abiding by the law, and we each get a couple to bring home to the family so they can enjoy a "shore lunch" too. I don't see what anybody needs with 6 fish per guy per day, much less 200!!

[Hawg Hawler]

Seems to be a lot of doubt as to if lowering the limit will really help the fishing. This is kind of like the decisions each of us make every day, they dont make everbody happy and some people just think change is bad. I personally dont go to Canada to bring home fish for a fish fry. Canada is one of the gems that we can go to that provides the opportunity to relax with friends and enjoy Mother Nature at her best. If eating fish at home is that important to some of us more power to them . But there are also those of us who just want to implement catch and release and eat a few fish over a shore lunch.

Nobody is right and nobody is wrong....lets just hope that the law makers have done their homework and the fishery is improved.

[JamesPWTPRO]

Once we've depleted to populations up north, than where are we going to go to keep more fish than we need to. Fishing isn't about what you can show when you get back to the dock, its about the preperation, and fight. Take a picture and keep a couple to eat, theres no need to ruin populations over wanting more walleye to eat.

[Reels]

I think a lot of people have missed my intention about the reason of the question.

My first thought was 'Are the fisheries up north in trouble?'

I never intended to start a debate of keeping fish.
<{{}}><

[CanAm28]

Frankly, I don't care if they do lower the limits to two walleyes/person. I catch and release hundreds of fish each season. I know many of you do as well. But I have also witnessed many angelers doing the same, but doing it improperly. I generally do not use a net to land my fish, as the can be harmful to the protective slim covering the fish. Yes, rubber nets are better if you must net your catch. Secondly, you just played that walleye out of 17'and he's had a heck of a battle. Now for the phot op that seems to last ten minutes. I'd like to take that angeler and have him run a mile, then have him hold his breath while it takes me several minutes to take his picture. And poorly supporting the fish, or even worse dropping him in the bottom of the boat takes the cake. Without water to support it's skeletal structure it would be like me kicking you off from a two story building. While caught and released fish might swim away, it doesn't mean that they live. Catching and releasing is great as long as you do it properly. Stress that in your boat on your next outing.

[jerry bark]

I'll try to answer your question:

are the fisheries up north in trouble?

YES. simple as that no-one can deny it.

as long as our populations (canada and the US) keep growing the demand(both recreational and commercial)on those fisheries will keep increasing. any fishery with a growing demand and no regualatory change is in trouble, the trouble may be years away or weeks away but given the numbers of WC posts that include a statement to the effect "...been going there for year..." YOU SHOULD ALL BE CONCERNED about every one of those lakes!

If a lake has more than very limited access i think its in trouble. This is admittedly a long-term view of things; heck if you go by the number of walley i caught on windermere lake in june than you'd say "nothing to worry about here" but over time pressure on that lake will increase and the population will be affected sooner or later. so i believe that the change to a 4-fish slot two years ago was a good move for the long haul. I know several groups in the camp two years ago said "we won't be back because we can only take home 4 fish now" but, whti the slot maybe i'll be posting one day saying "i've been going there for years and always catch a lot of nice 'eyes"



A recent issue of TROUT, a magazine published by Trout Unlimited, cantained an excellent article on this subject. I'll do my best to relay what i believe to be the relevent details.

1. every body of water has a limited ability to hold fish
2. every body of water has a certain reproductive capacity
3. if harvests exceed reproductive capacity the population will decline.
4. if harvests are below the reproductive capacity populations will remain stable at the levels the body of water can support(see #1)

the article offered these conclusions:

1. lowering limits, placing slots or enacting C&R will not result in more fish if the harvest level is currently below the reproductive capacity of the body of water.

2. If a body of water is being harvested at a level beyond its reproductive capacity then a change in regulation or a move to C&R will increase the population until the body's holding limit is reached.

Now i want to add some of my own observations on the issue:

I believe there is another danger in this situation and that is: when you harvest mature fish you reduce the reproductive capacity at the same time.

since walleye grow relatively slowly in the north and take quite a few years to reach reproductive maturutiy it is dangerous no harvest close to the reproductive capacity, even though you do not exceed it. the reason is that sooner or later you will have removed too many of the most effective breeders and your reproductive capacity will be reduced; if you continue the harvest your population will crash. This is the reason for the slots on many good walleye lakes. the slot limit allows us to harvest more fish with the least possible effect on the reproductive capacity of the body of water.

I would hope that these are the kinds of considerations being used in making a regulatory decision about a body of water. when you consider the number of people who fish some of these popular systems it seems to me that it is quite possible to get out of "balance" in just a couple of years.

I feel that its better for the long term quality of fishing to bring these regulations on at the first signs of possible trouble, perhaps even before. If you are angry about the reduced limits then i say to you: stay home, so that i can go north and catch two 14"ers for dinner, and i'll buy my gas, bait and beer in Canada if you don't mind!

[jerry bark]

good point, i am sure that i can become more fish friendly when handling a fish to be released.

thanks
jerry

[fourize]

The 2 fish limit sure wouldn't make any differance to my Dad and I. We travel 1,500 miles round trip and never bring any fish home with us. Just lotsa pictures of 'em. We buy a conservation license and are happy with just keeping a couple of fish for our dinner while we are there. I'm all for it...for the entire province.

[jeeps]

We have been going to the Minaki area for ten years or more and the fishing has been great. This year, however, was not so good. I don't know if it was just the year or the conditions. I've been hearing a lot about netting on the river; could that be the cause? I don't mind the two fish limit. But I don't want the netters to have free run of taking tons of walleye out which we all know they do. So we, the fishermen, will lose again. Big business and bigger money always wins.

[Skylane]

I agree. Would like to see a slot limit in every lake, 2 fish limit and would not bother me if you were not allowed to take any home. We used to fish MN when I was growing up and like many others have said, look what shape it is in now. With the fishing pressure Ontario gets, and the length of time it takes a Walleye to reach size, it is probably time to turn things around.

[Mike Kansas2]

Jeep, Good point. There are many ways that the fish population can be damaged and all aspects should be looked at. One way that has always concerned me is how people handle fish that are going to be released. I believe the less you touch the fish the better off he will be.

What about barbless hooks....would like to hear WC opinions on if barbless saves fish. I have fished barbless for years and I dont believe I have lost or quick released any fish that diminished the quality of my trip.

[bigfish1965]

IF the only reason you come to Canada is for fillets then you are fairly bad at math. Walleye fillets run about $10/pound. A limit of six fish would bring you about 12 pounds. Cost $120.00
Cost of an average trip for one week...(I may be wrong since I tend to travel cheap :) )$1,200. Cost...$100 per pound.

[J]

Guys

I am an Ontario Resident with my ear to the ground, and have heard of no changes. But maybe there should be.

Whether you know it or not, there are TONS of our American friends out on the lakes. Heck, I'm out-numbered every time I go for an outing. That may be part of why any new reg changes are going to be made. Not just because you are non-res....but because there are so many of you out there. The baby-boomers all are at the retirement age, have a lot of disposible income, and yes, some travel to Ontario to fish.

IMHO, I think the regs should be reduced to 2 for non-res. Either that, or disallow any transport of fish back across the boarder. This is a public perception thing....politics, man. Keeping your 4-fish limit would be easier to swallow for a lot of folks if they knew their precious resourse wasn't being exported by the cooler full to parts unknown. Like I said, perceptions.

Something to think about!

[iamwalleye1]

I know since 1988 I have seen the fishing go up and down. It sure seems the walleyes have stayed down for a while.
The northerns went through it a couple years ago also.
This will be my first year not making a visit to Minaki :(

[jp]

Simple solution don't sell non-resident license.

[billb]

WHAT MAKES YOU GUYS THINK ITS JUST THE NON-RESIDENT ANGLERS? WITH THE MINAKI AREA IN PARTICULAR, THERE ARE PLENTY OF COOLERS FULL GOING TO WINNIPEG. ESSPECIALLY WITH NO BORDER TO CROSS.

[Mike Kansas2]

Bigfish1965, Where are you catching 17" Walleye that you get two pounds of fillets off of? My reference is to Lac Seul and we only keep Walleye between 16 and 17".

[bigfish1965]

So then the math would be even worse.... half the weight equals twice the cost...
We use 17 inch bait in these parts anyway.. :P

[Mike Kansas2]

Maybe you misunderstood me Bigfish1965......We measure our fish between the eyes.

[smartfeller]

Bill B....you are right. It's not just American anglers that are responsible. I'm from Winnipeg and know a lot of people who own cottages in the area. We are all a part of the problem and we can all help to fix the problem. However, I do believe that there are more American anglers fishing in this area just due to the fact that there are more of you. Fishermen are fishermen wherever they come from. If a lower limit will help, I say, "go for it!"

[bigfish1965]

>Maybe you misunderstood me Bigfish1965......We measure our
>fish between the eyes.

Excellent..very funny!!
I have to remember that one.

[EYEMASTER]

I have talked to the owner of the lodge I have been going to for the last 25 years. He has heard nothing about changes in walleye limits for 2005 in the Sioux Lookout area. Further more,I can speak from experience as I have been going to the lodge for such a long time. I have watched the decline and outstanding come back, if not improvement in the quality of the walleye population. The absolut result of limit changes (slot limit and 6 fish to 4 fish). Although I would no like a change from 4 to 2 lets not jump to conclusions.

[Stay Home]

When will people learn if you dont go they will dummy up on the regs, if not screw them. This 2 fish is enough, we dont want to take none home, the scenery is sooo pretty... Please.... drive off into the country and catch carp and look at the scenery. What a joke Catch and eat everything what you dont eat give to the natives to eat and take home as much as you would like or stay home

[Dumber Than A Rock]

I just heard that the limit is not only going to be two Walleye but they also wont let you start fishing until noon and you have to be off the Lake by 3:00PM. Guess we will just have to drink more beer and play more Texas Hold Em.

[bubbalou]

I think we are all overlooking a very crucial point and that is the netting that is taking place. I talked to a guy last week that has found two nets on Whitefish Bay and the natives were staying close by to make sure no one messed with them. They weren't marked in any way. He reported it to the MNR and they told him it wouldn't do any good to write a citation, the courts would just throw it out!!!! Now you want to worry about the two fish I brought home, maybe you ought to worry about all the dead ones in those gill nets that they sort through, keep the ones the want, most likely sell them, and return the dead ones to the water for turtle food. Yep changing the limits is really going to help the fishery when the natives have free run regardless of the law. Makes sense to me!!!!

[Trailerguy]

[font color=green size=3][b]This whole thread should be tittled "THE SKY IS FALLING!" The MNR does creel sampling throughout NWO, they were on Wabaskang as an example just last year. While it takes them a while to process the imformation, they then make recomendations for changes in seasons/limits ect. A few natives trying to make a living is already figured into the big picture. That is why when you look at the regulations, you need to look at the particular lake you will be fishing. There are pages of exeptions to the general regulations in each Division. The MNR is well aware of the impact regulations have on the tourist industry and ultimatly their own budget.

[Carrie]

The point about netting is a good one. Once the word gets around that netting is effecting the fishing on the Woods, then business that caters to fisherman will feel the effects. To bad, not their fault. As businesses, such as big lodges start to go belly up, then the banks in these regions will feel the effects. Property values on the Woods will also start to drop as the lake becomes less desirable.
It's a sad story on a great lake who has already began the decline when the started again.

[Kenora]

I am not sure if I would go as far a saying it was one lodge or another that is the cause of this.

If you have looked at the area in and around the reservations during spawning season, you will find more than one net going in and out.

I know for a fact, that fish is available in kenora during the winter sale. ####, I have seen it myself.

Any resort that does not go catch and release I would not even bother going to. Any resort that goes out of their way, to let their guests take everything home, needs their nead read, as they are only putting themselves out of business sometime down the road.

You say Paradise Cove.
I say the natives and their fishing nets.
Ask the MNR..There are a good number of nets in the River..Believe it....

[kenora]

To begin with. I see no real reason to even take fish back home.
If you have a fish dinner for each day you are here, that is a good number of fish right their.

Count things up. I did this once for LOTW.

number of people in your group.
How many you eat per day.

Then IF you take fish home, you can rest assured, you are over limit. in a way. You ate them here.

Plus ya know, if people would only learn to clean northern pike properly, and stop being so lazy on this one, get the Y bones out, and believe me, you have a excellent fish to eat.

Sure, they are slimmy, stinky, but hey, I will take a pike over a walleye for dinner any day of the week, but what would I know. I only guided for 25 years. No lake is emmune to over fishing. ####, look at what the world did the the Grand Banks? If we could fish the cod out of that, then cleaning out any lake or river in the country is a simple matter.

As I said in a post before. Any lodge/resort, that does not practice catch and release I would not book a reservation at period. Any lodge/resort that lets their guests keep everything under the sun is an idiot anyway. IF their guests get too many fines for illegal fishing, then the operators permit should be pulled. It is a resort owners responsiblity as I see it (not law) to make sure his guests do not take too many fish home, over-sized fish, etc..and please do not tell me (the resorts) they do NOT have the time. That is a crock of sh--

Make it. by protecting your waters, you also protect you business.

[NWO Fishing Bum]

Is aboriginal netting counter-productive to sustaining an ideal, ecologically-balanced fishery? Probably yes! Could policy and supporting regulations be devised to allow all stakeholders a share of the benefits resulting from proper management of the resource? Probably yes! Do most of these stakeholders recognize the current problem, and are they willing to put forth the effort to make such changes? Undoubtedly yes! Will any such changes be forthcoming in the near future? Almost certainly no!

Several good points have been expressed on this issue. First of all, the MNR is well aware of the magnitude of aboriginal netting on most bodies of water, and does include such information when reviewing/modifying regulations. Second, the courts do not want to take on these issues. Perhaps the most important point is WHY do the courts not wish to tackle these issues (as in any issue dealing with an aboriginal consuming/exploiting a resource). At the heart of the problem is a mixing of jurisdictions. Fisheries, and all natural resources, are the responsibility of the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), which is provincial jurisdiction. Aboriginal issues and treaty rights is governed by the Department of Indian and Northern Development (DIAND), which is federal jurisdiction. Aboriginals view the historic treaties as an agreement between two governments, the Canadian Federal government and the aboriginal government. Consequently, the aboriginal elders want nothing to do with the Provincial government, and feel the Provincial government should have no say in discussions between their nation and the federal government. When an issue like this arises, Joe Fisherman screams to the MNR and the aboriginals run to DIAND. The MNR, being provincial, must file action in a Provincial court or Provincial Supreme court, yet because the issue questions Aboriginal treaty rights, which has no precedence in such courts, the case is thrown out. SO, WHAT DO YOU DO???????????????????????

[bigfish1965]

Buy out the treaty rights....care to put a dollar figure on that???

[phishfearme]

limiterr - thanks, finally, for someone speaking up in support of the natives. like all groups, there's a few bad apples and their wrong doings tend to be considered typical. after decades of breaking treaties, stealing their land and considering them less than human (in all of north america) how can we blame them for distrusting and ignoring "white man's" government and maybe even doing things to spite us. their culture had - and still has - a much more respectful attitude toward wildlife than europeans ever did or will (we make laws to protect ourselves from ourselves) and isolated events don't define a people. - phish

[How long]

Most of Europe used to be part of the Roman Empire. Napoleon conquered most of Europe. The list is endless. Wars were fought, countries conquered and assimilated. Borders were drawn. Wars were fought again. Etc.

I'm just curious never having travelled to Europe, but do they sit around and whine and gnash their teeth about the unjust actions of their ancestors and how unfair it is that their traditions from 600 years ago are no longer respected?

Europeans CONQUERED North America hundreds of years ago. They then split it into what we know today. Thats the way the world worked back then. I didn't do it. Neither did my parents or grandparents. I refuse to feel guilty about something that occured in the 15th -19th Century.

How long are we going to have to hear about the unjust deeds of the evil White Man?

Indians, Natives, Blacks, Whites, whatever. They deserve equal rights. Not special privledges. How long will we be forced to pay reparations. Another 2-300 years? How long are some people going to keep saying "I'm sorry".

Whether its 2 or 4 fish a day for the sport fishermen doesn't matter as long as there is massive netting taking place.

[Im not sorry]

Couldn't have said it better myself!

[phishfearme]

conquered people don't forget - no matter how much the conquerer wishes that they would. it's wishful thinking on the part of the conquerers to think that this issue will go away any time soon. europe/asia provide the longest term examples - some issues (like the middle east) have been going on for 2000 years.

[phishfearme]

conquered people don't forget - no matter how much the conquerer wishes that they would. it's wishful thinking on the part of the conquerers to think that this issue will go away any time soon. europe/asia provide the longest term examples - some issues (like the middle east) have been going on for 2000 years.