|
|
Posts: 373
Location: Maine Township, MN | Don't shoot the messenger, but if this is true, it makes me sick to my stomach!
http://www.lakestatefishing.com/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_i...
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32890
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | This link goes to a web board where we neither approve of our agree with any content posted. If there is a single racist post, the link will be deleted.
My advice is to get over it, there is no other resolution. We will not discuss Treaty Law again at this point, that was covered in great length on another MN netting thread. |
|
| |
|
| I know there was another one taken a couple of years agos that was caught in the gill nets that would of came close to the state record.They did have it mounted to put on display |
|
| |
|
Posts: 697
Location: Minnetonka | I know of three 56-inchers that have been killed over the last two years, and the story of a 56-incher getting killed in a gill net makes me no more sick than a 56-incher getting killed by an uneducated, over-inflated angler.
Steve, I'm over it. Resolution: Continue to release the 56s and 57s when it's up to us. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20227
Location: oswego, il | This being a pr-spawn fish it probably never swims around at a record weight during the open musky season. Still stinks to see it not swimming. |
|
| |
|
| Has anyone looked into paying these guys off so they don't use their treaty rights? How much would that cost the state? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1360
Location: Lake "y" cause lake"x" got over fished | this makes me a saaaaaaaaaaad panda... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32890
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | MR - 4/5/2012 10:24 AM
Has anyone looked into paying these guys off so they don't use their treaty rights? How much would that cost the state?
Treaty rights are, generally speaking, not for sale. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 256
| sworrall - 4/5/2012 10:56 AM
MR - 4/5/2012 10:24 AM
Has anyone looked into paying these guys off so they don't use their treaty rights? How much would that cost the state?
Treaty rights are, generally speaking, not for sale.
I don't think he was suggesting that the state by the treaty rights, rather I believe he was suggesting what would it cost to have them agree not to exercise their treaty rights. There is a difference. I would suspect if the person was a rational ecomonic actor you would have to pay them at least what the expect to make on the fish before they would agree to stop fishing. Anything less and they would have no economic incentive to stop. If you were wllling to pay more than it wouldn't make sense to do the activety for less.
Doesn't the goverement pay farmers not to farm? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 321
| kustomboy - 4/5/2012 11:30 AM
sworrall - 4/5/2012 10:56 AM
MR - 4/5/2012 10:24 AM
Has anyone looked into paying these guys off so they don't use their treaty rights? How much would that cost the state?
Treaty rights are, generally speaking, not for sale.
I don't think he was suggesting that the state by the treaty rights, rather I believe he was suggesting what would it cost to have them agree not to exercise their treaty rights. There is a difference. I would suspect if the person was a rational ecomonic actor you would have to pay them at least what the expect to make on the fish before they would agree to stop fishing. Anything less and they would have no economic incentive to stop. If you were wllling to pay more than it wouldn't make sense to do the activety for less.
Doesn't the goverement pay farmers not to farm?
How much would it take for you to give up the right to bear arms? H |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32890
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | No, there isn't a difference, it would be selling/selling out IMO.
I don't think any of the tribes would take payment to curtail treaty rights activities. If they would accept payments, they would be SOOOOO high the States couldn't begin to afford them anyway. It isn't what they harvest for many, it's the fact they can. Politically, in today's environment, I don't think it would fly no matter what.
Homer nailed it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8788
| One has to wonder why they exercise them in the first place. Sustinence? Perhaps. Spite? Far more likely. Money? Money is the great motivator after all. While the idea of "buying them out" doesn't seem like a good idea, I would think that selling fish has got to provide limited capital compared to the amount of time and effort involved in netting, harvesting and selling of said fish. I'd be willing to bet that most of the harvest would stop if they had a better way to provide income for themselves. Casinos anyone? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32890
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Why do you hunt and fish?
If the rest of us were allowed to spear and net, there'd be no fish left. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 256
| Homer - 4/5/2012 11:32 AM
How much would it take for you to give up the right to bear arms? H
Wouldn't take much since I don't own a gun or hunt.... now muskie fishing would be another thing.
Again, my example assumed that the person was a rational economic actor with purely economic motives. In theory, a person will not do an activity if they will be compensated in an amount equal to expected gains for not doing the activity. Since I don't view muskie fishing as an economic activity in which I earn money it would be very hard to put a price on making me stop. Assuming I was a guide and economic gain was my sole motive if I made $35,000 a year doing it and I was told that someone would pay me $40,000 a year to not guide if I was rational (and money is my sole motive) I would stop.
I agree that it will never happen here. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1360
Location: Lake "y" cause lake"x" got over fished | sworrall - 4/5/2012 11:45 AM
Why do you hunt and fish?
If the rest of us were allowed to spear and net, there'd be no fish left.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Even if the rest of us were allowed to spear and net.... Do you think that a lot of us would? I'm actually curious to hear your opinion.
I know even if given the option I still wouldn't |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | We do "pay them off" in Wisconsin. Have for years.
In 1997, a compromise between the state and Lac du Flambeau set forth an agreement guaranteeing that the tribe would only harvest enough walleye from each lake so that a three-walleye bag limit could be established for hook-and-line fishermen.
In return the tribe would be recognized as a sovereign nation, allowing the sale of tribal and state fishing licenses within the boundaries of the reservation. Funds generated through the sale of the licenses would be retained by the tribe. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 321
| kustomboy - 4/5/2012 12:28 PM
Homer - 4/5/2012 11:32 AM
How much would it take for you to give up the right to bear arms? H
Wouldn't take much since I don't own a gun or hunt.... now muskie fishing would be another thing.
Again, my example assumed that the person was a rational economic actor with purely economic motives. In theory, a person will not do an activity if they will be compensated in an amount equal to expected gains for not doing the activity. Since I don't view muskie fishing as an economic activity in which I earn money it would be very hard to put a price on making me stop. Assuming I was a guide and economic gain was my sole motive if I made $35,000 a year doing it and I was told that someone would pay me $40,000 a year to not guide if I was rational (and money is my sole motive ) I would stop.
I agree that it will never happen here.
You are comparing recreation to rights, people don't give up rights for money. H |
|
| |
|
Posts: 321
| Flambeauski - 4/5/2012 12:39 PM
We do "pay them off" in Wisconsin. Have for years.
In 1997, a compromise between the state and Lac du Flambeau set forth an agreement guaranteeing that the tribe would only harvest enough walleye from each lake so that a three-walleye bag limit could be established for hook-and-line fishermen.
In return the tribe would be recognized as a sovereign nation, allowing the sale of tribal and state fishing licenses within the boundaries of the reservation. Funds generated through the sale of the licenses would be retained by the tribe.
How does a "compromise" equate to a pay-off? H |
|
| |
|
| Really, Fat-Ski? Have you never driven past a metro lake? Our lakes would be cleaned out in no time. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | How does it not?
All pay offs are compromises. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 238
Location: Rhinelander | sworrall - 4/5/2012 11:33 AM
No, there isn't a difference, it would be selling/selling out IMO.
I don't think any of the tribes would take payment to curtail treaty rights activities. If they would accept payments, they would be SOOOOO high the States couldn't begin to afford them anyway. It isn't what they harvest for many, it's the fact they can. Politically, in today's environment, I don't think it would fly no matter what.
Homer nailed it.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/dnr-lac-du-flambeau-chippewa...
From the pasted article......
"The Lac du Flambeau has had a special agreement with the DNR over the past 15 years: The tribe has agreed not to exceed maximum harvest totals and receives monetary compensation in return."
I have also read reports that in past years the tribe was paid between $7.00 - $14.00 a walleye to reduce harvest numbers. Will search for the link if it is still available.....found it a few years back.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1360
Location: Lake "y" cause lake"x" got over fished | Guest - 4/5/2012 12:47 PM
Really, Fat-Ski? Have you never driven past a metro lake? Our lakes would be cleaned out in no time.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm talking about the avid musky and pike anglers here (on this site) . I am sure that there are people out there that would spear and net, not saying that there wouldn't be more. but what I am asking, is would the avid musky and pike fisherman. start to spear just because they could? As I stated previously... I wouldn't. Would you "guest"? Would any of you start if you could?
I am actually really curious? I would highly doubt that Most of the Avid fisherman would not start. But again I don't know... thats where my curiosity comes in?
Edited by FAT-SKI 4/5/2012 1:01 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | That's considered a compromise, HH. In no way can that be construed as a pay off. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 256
| Homer - 4/5/2012 12:42 PM
You are comparing recreation to rights, people don't give up rights for money. H
I would generally agree with you because the government isn't in the habit of directly compensating people for the express giving up rights. But the government does compensate or tax people to act or not act in certain ways which may result in them refraining from exercising their rights.
I don't believe it is as black and white as you are trying to make it. There is a lot of gray.
Edited by kustomboy 4/5/2012 1:25 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 238
Location: Rhinelander | Flambeauski - 4/5/2012 1:00 PM
That's considered a compromise, HH. In no way can that be construed as a pay off.
I smell what you're stepping in...... 
If my memory is correct Tommy Thompson offered $40-$45 million to just have the LDF tribe cease spearing all togther. This offer was many years ago and shot down by the tribe.......
They didn't accept that payoff. But sure as heck have accepted other forms of payoffs to reduce kill totals.
Edited by Hodag Hunter 4/5/2012 1:31 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32890
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'I don't believe it is as black and white as you are trying to make it. There is a lot of gray'
No there isn't.
'I would generally agree with you because the government isn't in the habit of directly compensating people for the express giving up rights. But the government does compensate or tax people to act or not act in certain ways which may result in them refraining from exercising their rights. '
Not the Tribes. Big difference between the Nations and those of use operating under our government's democratic rule of law. They are best described as 'hybrids' in that regard.
Tribal Sovereignty wasn't part of the nineties agreement. That's federal, and part of the treaties. The State of WI agreed to basically cooperate with the Tribes in that agreement.
Tommy tried, and failed before he walked out of his office. He had another shot and didn't even try. I believe he knew what the rest of us didn't. No shot at all.
They didn't agree to reduce kill totals, they agreed to share the resources they OWN by treaty, co-manage those resources, and work together to maintain a healthy and vibrant fishery. It's working pretty well overall considering.... whether anyone likes it or not. Problems, sure. But this thing will work one hell of allot better working together with GLIFWC and the DNR than having some bone headed politician screw it up by trying to treat these people like idiots with a bead and trinket buy out. And that fish was netted in MN, the HOME of boneheaded politicians bent on running the states fisheries by proxy. Good luck with that.
Sorry, I am a student of history and reality, and do not subscribe to revisionist bullpoo.
And yes, we'd ( the general public) ruin the fisheries if it was up to us.
Wait till you see the boat landing signs for limits on some waters this Spring. There's ups....and downs. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 743
| If the rest of us were allowed to spear and net, there'd be no fish left. You are implying that the indians look out for the resources and if the whiteman was allowed to spear they would comepletely depleted the resource.
That sounds like a racist statement, an anti-white statement, and should be deleted by the moderator. No racist statement of any kind should be allowed on this board.
Edited by KSauers 4/6/2012 6:52 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 321
| KSauers - 4/6/2012 6:47 AM
If the rest of us were allowed to spear and net, there'd be no fish left. You are implying that the indians look out for the resources and if the whiteman was allowed to spear they would comepletely depleted the resource.
That sounds like a racist statement, an anti-white statement, and should be deleted by the moderator. No racist statement of any kind should be allowed on this board.
I think this wins the dumbest post of year so far, it is early yet, but solid attempt. H |
|
| |
|
Posts: 743
| You can take it any way you want, but the sensorship on this board is there for all to see who want to see it.
Point made.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 321
| KSauers - 4/6/2012 7:20 AM
You can take it any way you want, but the sensorship on this board is there for all to see who want to see it.
Point made.
It is a private board, they can do what they like. However, pointing out that there are way more white people than native americans, so the impact would be larger has nothing to do with racism. Censorship really doesn't exist when there is no expectation of rights. H |
|
| |
