native netting

[alanexpup]

I am just wondering and do not want to start anything. What is the impact of native netting and or commercioal netting of game fish in the LOTW and lac saul area? thanks Any real numbers and just speculation?

[Brian2]

The Ontario Government bought out all (but one?) of the commercial fishing licenses on Lake of the Woods quite some time ago. So there's essentially no commercial fishery on the Ontario side of Lake of the Woods. I believe that there still is a commercial fishery on the US side but I could be wrong.

I'm not aware of a commercial fishery on Lac Seul.

[Jazzy]

There are 5 or 6 First Nation communities that fish LOW. There was a rep from there that stopped around in Morson a couple weeks ago talking about the marking of nets for next year.

You should look into a book by Duane Lund entitled "Lake of the Woods" The Last 50 years and the next." ( or something very close to that.)

It has numbers of the impact of the commercial fishing. I haven't had a chance to go through it thoroughly yet, but a friend of mine read it and mentioned the numbers show relatively no impact.

It should be an interesting read and I plan to read it closely as soon as I get some time.

[stumcfar]

There has not been any commercial fishing on the Minnesota side of LOW for at least 10-15 years.

[kenora]

Everyone is correct.

The Government bought all the commercial permits some years ago.

Natives can put in nets for "personal comsuption" Now what that is is beyond me. Is that 4 fish, or 400, and where do they go anyway. Certainly not personal use. I would almost guarantee it.

As I see it, if Commercial fishing is off, then it is off for Everyone.

If one put the word out in the right circles, I lay odds you could buy some fillets..

[Matches]

It is obviously time in this world that we do not allow grocery stores to sell Walleyes or pan fish. We should not have to work so hard to just maintain the fish resource. They have banned smoking in many public places and restaurants, maybe its time for our communities to step up to the plate and not allow the stores or restaurants to sell these fish. Why not? Maybe I'm just blowing smoke.

[Skylane]

Just flew back from Dryden into International Falls Yesterday (8-11-04) to go through custums. The fixed base operator at the airport had Walleye for sale at $5.50 a pound and they were suppose to have been harvested from the Lake of the Woods (Canada side) by a commercial fisherman?

[Jazzy]

If people stop buying fish in the grocery stores and stop ordering it as a meal in restaurants, these businesses will have no reason to buy the walleyes that are being netted. If the netted walleyes have no market, they won't make money. If they can't make any money, they won't put the effort in to netting.

Just say "NO!" to buying fish and ordering it in restaurants.

[Jazzy]

If people stop buying fish in the grocery stores and stop ordering it as a meal in restaurants, these businesses will have no reason to buy the walleyes that are being netted. If the netted walleyes have no market, they won't make money. If they can't make any money, they won't put the effort in to netting.

Just say "NO!" to buying fish and ordering it in restaurants.

[Joker Jim]

What do the people do that don't fish, but like to eat fish ?

[Joker Jim]

What do the people do that don't fish, but like to eat fish ?

[Fish eaters]

Make sure the place serving or selling the fish buys it from a properly managed operation subject to strict quotas and one following all public health guidelines. Don't buy fish out of the back of a pickup, road stand, inquire where the walleye you are eating at the local resorts fish fry came from, same with stores and restaurants. If people weren't buying this stuff it wouldn't be profitable and it would stop. If you are purchasing or consuming these fish you are part of the problem!

[Fish eaters]

Make sure the place serving or selling the fish buys it from a properly managed operation subject to strict quotas and one following all public health guidelines. Don't buy fish out of the back of a pickup, road stand, inquire where the walleye you are eating at the local resorts fish fry came from, same with stores and restaurants. If people weren't buying this stuff it wouldn't be profitable and it would stop. If you are purchasing or consuming these fish you are part of the problem!

[bellbuoy]

I just returned from LOTW. The bulletin board @ the Anglers' Pro Shop in Nestor Falls had a note with a picture of a First Nation net marker. It asked those who see them to avoid them or they would not mark them next year.

I also was told that someone observed some netting on the north side of Andrew Bay. Apparently the First Nation netters didn't want smallmouth and other species that had been netted other than walleye. So they were throwing those fish out of the back of the boat. I was told the trail of seagulls, pelicans and the like was incredible.

I was also told that the First Nation forgot to take up one of their winter nets. When notified by one of the lodges that this had occurred, the Ministry did nothing.

I'm afraid if something isn't done reagrding this tribal netting, the LOTW fishery will be irreparably harmed.

Bellbuoy

[Wise Guy]

Learn to fish, eat farm fish, or buy saltwater cod, haddock, etc.

[bellbuoy]

I whole-heartedly agree. I posted this also on another forum and someone suggested going to NOTO. Netting will hurt the fishery which in turn will hurt tourism if if continues.

Bellbuoy

[JRB2]

http://www.looneybeaver.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1518

Check out these pictures. Disgusting.

[dave b]

Maybe if the "white man" would stop discriminating against the native peoples we wouldn't have these problems.

You can't just randomly blame the natives for these cases. What prove do you have it was natives? You need good proove and it has to be prooven.

[Proof]

Natives have been seen setting these nets by reputable folks. If you know nothing of the issue keep your mouth shut! Everytime an issue involves someone other than whites cries of racism fly to shut up the concerned.

[lcw]

i'd bet it was the bulgarians.

[MAZ]

It is obvious to many that native netting is a major problem. The other problem is "the white man" political leadership have no guts to correct the problem in the first place without being labelled "racist". Others fear speaking out only to be called racist themselves.

I have no problem with the natives netting on Indian reserve lands, just like hunting moose and deer, just do it on your Reserve lands and no problem from most people.

The problem lies in the fact the native's have netted and hunted on their own lands, killed off most if not all of the deer, moose and fish, now they get away with doing so on non-native lands!

When is this going to stop I ask??? Enough is enough I think.

[NWO Fishing Bum]

I wrote a post about this a week ago, so I pasted it in here again. This issue is important and is constantly questioned and debated. The problem isn't getting poeple to recognize the issue, it is getting past the virtual "stalemate" we have locked ourselves into.


"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???????????????????????"

I'm not going to claim to be an expert in this area, but my education and experiences have taught me this: At that time, the historic treaties were viewed as an agreement between two nations. It was not a "conquering" as some have suggested. Of course, the treaties themselves were printed, but only in English, and thus the Aboriginal Chiefs and elders were told what they supposedly said. Many Aboriginals have maintained they actually agreed to a verbal contract, the details of which have been passed down from generation to generation, much like stories or legends. At that time, the Aboriginals wanted to continue living as they had for many centuries before the Europeans arrived. The Europeans basically wanted to be able to settle and live in relative peace, so they could "spin the wheel of capitalism." In reality, the treaties basically said the Aboriginals give up ALL their rights to governing the land base on which they had lived, but they can still continue their native traditions on set parcels of land, now commonly known as Reserves. Of these traditional ways of life, hunting, fishing and forestry, were the most important and continue to be the most debated. Not long after the signing of the treaties, did their start to be an apparent problem with the nature of the treaties and the understanding of their significance between the two groups. Despite such problems, the new European-Canadian government did little to rectify the situation. Several factors contributed to this lack of progression, not the least of which included a large language barrier and the physical separation of many Aboriginal-Canadians from the growing European populations in Upper and Lower Canada (essentially Southern Ontario and Southern Quebec). While new policy and legislation has been introduced, or existing legislation modified, for many aspects of governance (health care, education, whatever), in order to keep up with the social values of the time, relatively nothing was done with regard to Aboriginal issues. As a result, these discrepancies have continued to grow over several decades. For the most part now, the government is throwing these decisions to the courts, as that is the common way such matters get resolved, but then you run into the situation outlined above.

This is a long post. While I have offered very little in terms of solutions, I hope I have provided some insight into understanding why we find ourselves in this current situation. I'll open the floor for suggestions . . . (real suggestions to a very real problem).

[nativeguy]

All of you white man should just go back to where you came from, and all the americans that come to canada to catch fish because they fished out all of their waters. Anybody can look at the history books and can tell who decimated the fishery (pale faced man).

[White Man]

And where should I go? Back to my mothers womb? I was born here and here to stay, so we should all accept that and live and work together to fix the problems that exist for everyones future.

[FormerLTOWFisherman]

And what do you say to all the natives who guide for those Americans. Those Anericans who provide a living for some of the native peoples of Ontario. What do you say ,when the market for Walleye does not exist anymore in America , when word gets around , and it will. What do you say then. We will be glad to stay home. What do you say then.

[wfbman]

>And what do you say to all the natives who guide for those
>Americans. Those Anericans who provide a living for some of
>the native peoples of Ontario. What do you say ,when the
>market for Walleye does not exist anymore in America , when
>word gets around , and it will. What do you say then. We will
>be glad to stay home. What do you say then.
GPS has taken care of that fish finders and any other electronic gizmo to catch fish what ever happened to good old fashion fishing in canada i can't compete with so many electronics i can no longer make a living guiding. whouldn't that be the same. an electronic gill net.

[MAZ]

Pointing fingers and name calling obviously is not the answer to a very serious issue. It takes leadership and common sense to resolve this problem. Unfortunaltely it appears we have neither.

It appears from my personal point of view, that something has to be done for everyone's benefit. It makes no common sense to me to have slot limits and no limits on netting! It is one sided anarchy. Is that fair? I think not.

[dabluz]

I don't believe in this idea of natives fishing for their own consumption. They make more money than I do and I have to buy my fish or buy a fishing licence and catch the fish using sporting equipment.

I have a nice story for you. I used to deliver imported cheeze to grocery stores in my region of the province of Quebec. I dealt with the manager of the meat departement in each store. In one store, I was offered walleye caught by the natives in their nets. The store belonged to the minister of tourism, hunting and fishing. There was a freezer full of walleye. Probably had landlocked salmon, pike and trout too.

A few years later, I became involved with the Quebec Wildlife Federation (which is part of the Canadian Wildlife Federation). I finally convinced the conservation officers that the sale of trout and walleye was prevalent throughout the region. A large operation was initiated and many stores were caught selling wild fish. Somehow, the minister's store was not on the list. Yet his store is next door to the indian community and about 500 feet from the shore of the lake where native netting is legal.

Now, this minister's son is in politics too.

[alanexpup]

Ya know along roads where road construction is going on they have signs that say speeding in work zones the fines are doubled or tripled it needs to be that way for politicians too that betray the public trust. around here they get to go to the country clubs to serve their time. they are ones that should go to chain gangs. thats a whole other topic though.

[bellbuoy]

Here's an article that appeared in the Kenora Paper:

Angler takes issue with fish waste By Dan Gauthier Miner and News

A number of grisly finds of dead, rotting fish caught in untended gill nets on Lake of the Woods has one summer resident questioning the management and future sustainability of the fishery on the lake. Gord Pusnik, a Winnipeg resident who spends much of his summer fishing on Lake of the Woods from his seasonal trailer lot, said that he is disturbed by the increase of commercial fishing - carried out mainly by First Nations communities on the lake - and the pressure it is putting on the fish stocks. "My main concern is that the Lake of the Woods is not destroyed," said Pusnik Tuesday adding that he one day plans to become a permanent, year-round resident on the lake. Tougher rules needed Pusnik said the Lake of the Woods can sustain "proper and regulated" First Nations commercial fishing, but tougher restrictions and enforcement of commercial fishing are needed to accomplish this feat. "Now I fully realize that the natives have the rights given to them by the Supreme Court to commercially fish, however there are various illegal aspects to this fishing going on," said Pusnik. He said he has received numerous accounts from other sport fisherman on the lake of sport fish like muskellunge, northern pike and bass being caught and killed in the nets, then dumped out in the lake or on shore "for the gulls to feed on." In addition, Pusnik said too many nets are being found untended and floating or washed up on shore on Lake of the Woods including an incident this spring when two different nets were discovered and photographed in the South Bay/Windigo area of the lake. "To see this waste and unrestrained netting beginning again, everyone can see where it is going to go," said Pusnik. "Illegal instances of netting should be investigated and enforced." However, Betty Wires, the Ministry of Natural Resources Lake of the Woods area supervisor, said in this instance the nets were likely blown adrift by a storm which is merely an unfortunate occurrence that is detrimental to both the commercial fisherman who lost the net and the fish killed that are not utilized. "From a First Nations commercial fishing perspective it is in no one's best interest to have a gill net in that situation where they are floating and catching fish (untended)," said Wires. She added that commercial fishing is nothing new on Lake of the Woods and First Nations communities on the lake not only have commercial fishing rights, but also traditional subsistence fishing rights for their own personal, social, or ceremonial use. "I think the Lake of the Woods has been, and will continue to be, a lake that is used for a wide variety of interests," said Wires of the 12 First Nations communities on the Lake of the Woods and their traditional fishing rights on the lake. "It has been a fact of life on Lake of the Woods for a long, long time." Wires said the they received the photos and the complaint of the untended nets on June 8 and MNR officers were immediately dispatched to remove the net from the water. She stressed that the public should advise the MNR immediately if they discover an untended gill net floating in the water so it can be removed. "If they observe a net, let us know immediately rather than wait several weeks later," said Wires of the this latest incident. "We're not able to do very much in terms of the investigation if we get that information too late." Non-commercial catch rare Wires said fishing nets are strategically placed to catch the preferred commercial species like walleye and whitefish, the inadvertent netting of non-commercial fish like muskellunge and bass is rare and usually due to nets being blown adrift. She said when the fishermen do catch non-commercial fish in their nets, they are encouraged to utilize them for their own consumption or subsistence needs. If they can not utilize the fish, Wires said they are directed to dispose of these fish on shore so they can be consumed by seagulls or other scavengers. "If they don't (utilize them), they can not sell them because that would encourage their commercialization and they are not a commercial species," said Wires of the sport fish caught. Wires said the MNR works closely with First Nations communities on Lake of the Woods that do commercial fish to determine the allocated areas where they may fish, and the quotas or limits of fish they may harvest for commercial sale. She said that in addition to abiding by these quotas for commercial fishing, the fishermen must ensure that their nets are also being attended to and checked on a daily basis. "There are poundage quotas set by species, as well as areas where they can fish and where they can't fish," said Wires adding that the quotas vary depending on the area of the lake. "It varies quite considerably from the north end to the south end of Lake of the Woods." Subsistence fishing for each First Nation community is their right, said Wires, and the MNR has no control of where they set their nets for this purpose. "They can do that any time and any place assuming the conservation needs of the resource are met," said Wise. "They certainly have the right to practise their traditional ways as well as feed their families."

[lcw]

looks like it's time for a little 3-7-77

[KSauers]

Does any one still believe the propagonda that indians are consevationists and care more about the enviroment? These pictures should dispell that romantic notion.

[alanexpup]

whats that mean?

[Pj133]

I will go to the Woods as long as the fishing remains good and I get my money's worth for the big bucks we pay to go there. If the fishing starts to decline noticeably, then I am out of there and looking for greener pastures. Why be loyal to what is potentially a dead lake. Hopefully this doesn't happen but with the pecking order as it is and the Indians getting the first crack at everything, how can it not be.

[Keester]

Cheaper just to drive up to the border and buy the fish then it is to go on the trip. And don't have to spend all that time in a boat looking for the little buggers.

[Lumberjack]

a lot of the time(most of the tiem) from what ive heard the "walleye" in restaurants is nto actaul walleye. i forgot what i was told it was but it wasnt the walleye that we all chase around the lake trying to catch.

[Larry O.]

Dave B. do you have proof that it wasnt the natives that did this? i might be wrong, but arent natives the only people allowed to legally place these nets? if it is the "white man" and he is doing it illegally than he should be punished, but dont criticize the "white man" when there hasnt been any proof either way that it was natives or the "white man"

[lcw]

alan, www.google.com

[Larry O.]

i find it kind of funny that nativeguy posts that message and then is nowhere to be found after what he said. sounds like someone who is very uneducated and just wants to flap their mouth off. if he really thinks he has a good point maybe he has the balls to come back on here and post some more. otherwise if he doesnt i think its safe for us to assume that hes afraid and ashamed of what he posted.

[AnotherVersion]

>Wires said the they received the photos and the complaint of the >untended nets on June 8 and MNR officers were immediately >dispatched to remove the net from the water. She stressed that the >public should advise the MNR immediately if they discover an >untended gill net floating in the water so it can be removed. "If >they observe a net, let us know immediately rather than wait >several weeks later," said Wires of the this latest >incident. "We're not able to do very much in terms of the >investigation if we get that information too late."

I find that interesting.

A friend of mine is a guide on LOW. This spring he found an unattended native net. He called the ministry. In fact, he called them two or three times over a period of several weeks. The MNR never came out to check. All they did was make promises about showing up, but they never fulfilled those problems. My buddy would not pull the net for fear of tampering with evidence, fear of commiting an illegal act by removing the net, and fear of reprisal.

The net finally mysteriously got pulled and is up on a high rock bluff on LOW. No, my buddy did not do it. No, I did not do it. But it was still killing fish until the day somebody did do it.

I also find interesting that "walleye" is not a game fish, but muskies and bass are. The only reason I go to LOW is to fish walleyes. Maybe I should start doing carp in the Mississippi slews instead, " 'eh "??

[Yankee]

Hah! He was probably a blue-eyed white guy who likes to "troll".

[alanexpup]

I would think that any nets like that would be required to have a large floating sign or something indicating whose net that is there address phone number and other improtant info like maybe a permit number and date and time and signed when the last check of the net was. This is something the dnr should check on a daily basis and if the net has not been signed off in the last 24 hours its pulled. there has to be a trail of responsibility here along with the privledge of netting an important resource. That or I guess there is lack of resposibility all the way up the government chain.

[dave b]

Larry O,

No I don't have proof either way but neither does anyone else and that is my point. Everyone is so quick to jump on the natives in these situations when have the time it is "white" locals.

[dave b]

It was probably "white men" who did this so get off your high horse and stop blaming the natives for everything.

The lakes were full of fish before the white man and the "Americans" came and raped the fisheries.

[NWO Fishing Bum]

I'm still waiting for suggestions pertaining to my previous posting on this topic. This issue will never be resolved without first overcoming the problem I have outlined . . .

[Historian]

Oh yeah, the Indians really had it good back in those days. No lawyers, no written language, no nets, but plenty of fish to throw rocks at. Yeah, it was wonderful I'm sure.

[Historian]

Times and cultures change. Those peoples who adapt to changing environments survive and prosper. Unchanging civilizations perish unless the current dominant, more advanced culture decides to allow some remnants to remain.
Ugly reality, but reality, nevertheless.
Don't blame the Indians for their plight. Blame the system which has not forced or allowed them to assimilate.

[phishfearme]

NWO bum - first let me say that i enjoyed reading your synopsis of the legal quandry associated with this issue. i think though that this legal problem is a practical manifestation of a much deeper and profound problem; total lack of trust - and can you blame them for not trusting the white man?

you say that "Aboriginals view the historic treaties as an agreement between two governments". well, we may wish it to be that way but i really don't think that's the case at all. i think a more accurate aboriginal view is "after breaking treaty after treaty, your nation is still trying to tell our nation how to handle our affairs". from this point of view, we should no more expect them to follow our legal, economic, social or values systems than we in the US should expect canada to follow ours.

so what to do?? how do you regain lost trust?? it ain't easy - but nations have done it in the past - look at the US and Japan. there's a few things i'm pretty sure won't work though; attitudes like "go back to where you came from", "i'm not sorry", "you're conquered - get on with life", etc. - which seem all too common on this board - will prevent any progress. it seems to me - if both sides wish to make progress (big ifs) - we'll need lots of communication, interaction and UNDERSTANDING! - the current level of isolationism has to be changed.

i've personally had some pretty negative experiences with natives that i've met - the "across the board" misstrust of whites was very evident. i thought i was being friendly, but it didn't work - yet. but i think it's worth trying again. for example, next year we've booked a fishing trip directly with a first nation "entrepreneur" who is opening his lakes. it seems to me that people who conduct fair business together - recognizing and understanding each others needs - is a small step in the right direction. many, many more steps need to be taken though - from both sides.

phish

[Hawker]

Well said "phish"!! Good to see your comments and your take on it!!
Hawker

[lcw]

nonsense.

[Matches]

As phishfearme says, it will take both sides to want to make change to make progress. I personnally do not think that will ever happen. Here is the solution, but not a pretty one. Red Lake in Minnesota is the best example. They netted it until there were no Walleyes left. Then, Minnesota DNR steps and helps out with restocking. What's next, I don't know, but the solution is let them net until the walleyes are gone and need help to restock, and then you have a start.

[bigfish1965]

I have a feeling we painted ourselves into a corner by not honouring old treaties and expecting them to trust us in spite of ourselves.
I believe it will come down to buying out the rights of the natives within specific watersheds. But how would you place a price on it?

[NWO Fishing Bum]

Matches,

That is not an acceptable solution for anything or anyone!

[fishanytime1]

Its been said before but if you really want to get at this issue, economics drive most issues and just refusing to buy walleye fillets (until both sides decide they want to resolve this issue), will have more effect than anything else we can do.

[phishfearme]

bigfish - i have to agree with NWO bum here - buying out just won't work. an example - in a 1980 US supreme court decision, it was found that the black hills of south dakota were indeed taken illegally by the US government without proper compensation. (to quote the case: "a more ripe and rank case of dishonorable dealings will never, in all probability, be found in our history...") to make a very long story short, the court stated that the souix should be compensated the original $17Million offered in 1874 plus interest which comes to something over $100Million. the souix response was to take it and shove it. it's still in litigation to this day. offering the souix money for their sacred land is purly a white man concept - it'll never be acceptable to the indians.

if anyone cares to look at this whole sorted case - including president grants involvement (not top mention some guy named custer)- go to; http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=448&invol=371

phish

[phishfearme]

fishanytime - it's not clear to me at all that economics will drive this issue. again, i think this is a european/white man concept that just doesn't work with the indians both from a historical view and a cultural point of view. i think that a majority of indians would be just as happy if we didn't buy (ie; interfere) anything from them. - phish

[phishfearme]

fishanytime - it's not clear to me at all that economics will drive this issue. again, i think this is a european/white man concept that just doesn't work with the indians both from a historical view and a cultural point of view. i think that a majority of indians would be just as happy if we didn't buy (ie; interfere) anything from them. - phish

[fishanytime1]

I still say you guys make this way too complicated, if nobody buys the fish netting will return to being a local need.

[Lumberjack]

i think you are makign it a little too simple. if all problems of this stature could be resolved by doing one little simple thing than none would exist. and most of the time its not us fisherman who go to a restaurant and buy fish or go to the grocery store. because once youve had fresh walleye nothing tastes the same and its very expensive to buy anywhere like that. just my opinion.

[Matches]

Money Always Wins.

[Lumberjack]

yes youre right. money almost always drives decisions. but in this case its a little more complicated. sure, some of the people might stop buying walleye filets from restaurants, grocery stores, etc. but the people on this list do not make up hardly a fraction of the population of people who eat walleyes. sure we can tell people we know about this story, but i hardly think it will matter to someone who doesnt fish and just wants to eat the fish. they will still order it anyways. so money does win most of the time, but in this case just simply refusing to buy the filets ourselves is not going to solve this problem. there is way too much of a market out there for it for us to just tell people on the list and some people we know to stop buying it. it will work to an extent but will not solve the problem completely.

[LOTW fisherman]

This needs to be back on the front page of this discussion board.

[Gord Pusnik]

We are actively trying to stop this and need everyones help, I encourage you to make your voices heard. In fact here is a story that gives our American friends the perfect opportunity to let this group know that profits will also be down next year and it won't be because of the weather! Money talks!

http://www.kenoradailyminerandnews.com/story.php?id=116348

Sunset Country Travel Association:
http://www.ontariossunsetcountry.ca/contact.cfm

[reelman1]

Are the Suixes going to give any of this money to the indians they took the Black Hills from? There was war and taking of land long before the White Man came to North America. What reperations are the indians giving to the previous indian nations??? NONE!

[phishfearme]

reelman - implicit in your statement is that somebody "owned" this land before the souix "owned" it. the fact is that land ownership is a "whiteman/european concept" totally foreign (literally) to north american indians. the souix never thought they "owned" the land until the whiteman wrote legal arrangements called "treatys" that said they owned it.

even if you make the unfounded, baseless assumption that the souix "stole" the land from somebody else, does that justify us stealing it from them??

phish

[LOTW Fisherman]

I don't care squat about who thinks they "own" what. I want to know
"who" thinks they have the "right" to do this.


http://www.looneybeaver.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1518

[bellbuoy]

Gord,

I've already e-mailed them on 8/18. No response from them at all.
Must not be concerned.

Bellbuoy

[oldsquaw]

bump

[alanexpup]

Well we just got back after spending a week on LOTW at sioux narrows. the fish won this week, the weather was bad most of the week. rain and windy most of the time. We caught enough to eat a couple of days and bring back a couple. I am sure if so many fish were not being netted that our luck would have been better no matter what the conditions were. The facts of what the natives are legally authorized and what they are really getting needs to be made public.

[Trailerguy]

[font color=green size=3][b]Once again the government has conffirmed the peoples rights, and legal means of harvesting fish and game.
http://www.fftimes.com/index.php/1/2004-09-22/18354

[Camel Jock]

Where I lived walleyes filets used to sell for $9.00/pound. Now I see them on sale for $4.75. If supply and demand determine price, there must be a big supply out there. And by the way, Duane Lund is off the charts on the fact that netting has no impact on the fishery. But then if you read his book, you will notice that Duane doesn't know how to fish either.

[alanexpup]

I read the story and it sounds fair an reasonable. I did note that they are allowed to fish in their home waters fishing for their own consumption and not for resale using traditional means of fishing. I DONT THINK THAT INCLUDES NYLON NETS STRETCHED OUT FOR 1000 FEET ! I think that home made nets made from what ever they used back then. It also would not include aluminum boats powered by gasoline engines. If the natives want their rights then they should have to follow the rules. Or is this another case of some people being more equal than others. The last couple of years fishing LOTW was pretty bad. Do they know that along with rights come responsibility. I have seen too many long nylon nets out there that have been abandoned. I WILL cut up every one I find.

[Trailerguy]

[font color=green size=3][b]Alan,
You need to read it again, thier rights to harvest are not bound by "traditional means".
Perhaps you don't understand the difference between a "right" and a "priviledge". When a US citizen presents themself at the border, they have a "right" to enter the USA, that cannot be refused. On the otherhand, entering Canada is a "priviledge" the can be and is refused for a number of reasons. Including people that have felony records, as the numerous OWI threads have pointed out.
Those folks using nets to feed there familys are exercising a "right" given them by the courts. Yes, nets do get lost, and they are nasty. But how many gut hooked fish have been lost, or wounded game lost by "sportsman" that we never see?
Huffing and puffing about their right to use the resource for subsistence, versus our priviledge to visit for recreation can only result in tightening of the sportfishing regulations in order to accomadate their rights. You only have to look at Wisconsin, to see that it has happened there in the past.
Don't be an "UGLY" american who gets caught violating the law, and loses the priviledge of visiting Canada. It reflects badly on the rest of us, if fishing LOTW doesn't suit you,move on.

[fishanytime1]

Just returned from LOW, Sioux Narrows area, saw nets in whitefish bay and long bay. I was told by a reliable source that True World Foods out of Chicago was seen picking up fish fillets in Nestor Falls from the Natives. Maybe a few emails to them would make them aware of your opinions on this issue. http://www.trueworldfoods.com/chicago/

[lotw]

Well done!!! This is the kind of info that can make a difference, take away the market, take away the need to net. Anyone having more info of buyers of NW Ontario walleye (in particular LOTW and Winnipeg River) please forward to esoxhuntr@hotmail.com, we have a few very influential people that can make good use of this kind of knowledge. Thanks!

[Mark R not logged]

Where does Sam's club get their fresh walleye fillets?

[fishanytime1]

Why not ask their produce manager? Make him aware of your concern if they come from True World Foods or anyone else buying native netted fish from LOTW.

[Little Kimmie]

Well guys it's like this. The battle is over. The Indians won and fishing is going down hill in northwestern Ontario cause the Americans won't stop eating the stuff from the grocery store. Does it matter which lake they get them from, netting anything that is as fragile as walleye populations is a downhill slide.