Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="YATYAS" data-source="post: 90029" data-attributes="member: 1244">Funny you mention 1999.&nbsp; That was actually the 3rd year of netting.&nbsp; But that is a significant date because the tribes actually took less than what they were allocated and the state allocation was exceed by about 90,000 lbs.&nbsp; According to the MN DNR the tribes came in under their quota between 1997 and 2010.&nbsp; State allocations were exceeded in 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2002.&nbsp; Those 4 years exceeded the state's quota by 380,000 lbs.&nbsp; 1998 was exceeded by non-native fisherman by over 150,000 lbs alone (the allocated amount was 220,000lbs) but that probably didn't hurt anything, it was those pesky Natives.&nbsp; Never mind that from when the netting started and your worst year, the tribes only took 230,000 lbs total.&nbsp; Between 1997 and 2010 the tribes took 928,000 lbs total (not exceeding their quota once).&nbsp; Your worst fishing year was 2003.&nbsp; Up to that point the tribes took around 10% of the total fishing quota.&nbsp; Yes, even the wanton waste is calculated into the quota. I think what happened at Red Lake is much different than ML.&nbsp; RL was constant netting pressure.&nbsp; From what I gather ML is netted for a short period with more regulation.&nbsp; But anyway, I don't think it matters when a fish is taken; a female taken in August can't spawn in the spring.&nbsp; This holds more value given the fact that there are safe harvest quotas.&nbsp; Not apples to apples.&nbsp; Your defense is going to be that the DNR is lying but I doubt it.&nbsp; The margin of error for calculating the harvest amounts is probably much larger for the state angler side because the length of time and people fishing is much larger (accounting for 75% of the total harvest).&nbsp; So in reality non native fisherman probably do more damage.&nbsp; I think you are just pissed because you can't have 100%.&nbsp; Lucky for you the tribes started netting and you have a scapegoat.&nbsp; Of course this is assuming that the walleye collapse is caused by over fishing.&nbsp; Which I am sure it is not.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="YATYAS, post: 90029, member: 1244"] Funny you mention 1999. That was actually the 3rd year of netting. But that is a significant date because the tribes actually took less than what they were allocated and the state allocation was exceed by about 90,000 lbs. According to the MN DNR the tribes came in under their quota between 1997 and 2010. State allocations were exceeded in 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2002. Those 4 years exceeded the state's quota by 380,000 lbs. 1998 was exceeded by non-native fisherman by over 150,000 lbs alone (the allocated amount was 220,000lbs) but that probably didn't hurt anything, it was those pesky Natives. Never mind that from when the netting started and your worst year, the tribes only took 230,000 lbs total. Between 1997 and 2010 the tribes took 928,000 lbs total (not exceeding their quota once). Your worst fishing year was 2003. Up to that point the tribes took around 10% of the total fishing quota. Yes, even the wanton waste is calculated into the quota. I think what happened at Red Lake is much different than ML. RL was constant netting pressure. From what I gather ML is netted for a short period with more regulation. But anyway, I don't think it matters when a fish is taken; a female taken in August can't spawn in the spring. This holds more value given the fact that there are safe harvest quotas. Not apples to apples. Your defense is going to be that the DNR is lying but I doubt it. The margin of error for calculating the harvest amounts is probably much larger for the state angler side because the length of time and people fishing is much larger (accounting for 75% of the total harvest). So in reality non native fisherman probably do more damage. I think you are just pissed because you can't have 100%. Lucky for you the tribes started netting and you have a scapegoat. Of course this is assuming that the walleye collapse is caused by over fishing. Which I am sure it is not. [/QUOTE]

Verification

What is the most common fish caught on this site?

Reply to thread

Recent Posts

Friends of NDA