Mille Lacs is among the best lakes for netting walleye. The lake is in central Minnesota and is shared by three counties. The lake has recently got recognition on the national platform for being a fishing destination with large size and quantity of walleyes. Fishing in the lake is regulated by the DNS (state Department of Natural Resources) (Belden, 2014) . The walleye population in the lake has however gone down despite the conservation activities being carried out. Tribal fishermen are among the notorious fishers in the lake. A treaty signed in 1837 gave them exclusive rights to harvest free of state regulation (Steffes, 2014) .The descendants of the Chippewa bands, a signatory to the treaty, retain the fishing rights of Mille Lacs outside the authority of the state of Minnesota. The federal court upheld these rights. Their controversial practice of netting walleyes during spring, the spawning period, has been blamed for the decline in thepopulation of walleyes. The banning of tribal netting has been proposed as one of the methods to prevent the impending crisis. However, surveys have shown that tribal netting is not the problem with the lake. I have looked into the matter and now believe that tribal netting in the lake should not be banned.
Opposing Views
The low population of walleyes in the lake is an issue of concern that is the main driving force in the proposition to ban tribal netting. Tribal fishermen have proposed that state anglers should not be allowed to keep any walleyes, and they would only be gill netting on MilleLacs for ceremonial purposes. This,theysay,will help in restoring the lake and the walleye population (LaMoore, 2015) .
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The decline in the walleye population has also been attributed to the netting of young walleyes by the tribal communities. Proponents of this view assert that the young fish are the life of the lake without which life in the lake would be non-existent. They stand for the idea that when tribal netting is banned, then there would be amassive reproduction in the lake, and the life would be restored.
Another common claim is that the decline in walleye numbers in the lake, supposedly caused by tribal fishing, is responsible for the recent short fishing sessions and a drop in the number of tourists in Mille Lacs. Unavailability of walleyes, it is claimed, has made anglers stop their fishing expeditions and reduced the number of tourists who visit the regions spa hotels and recreational facilities. This claim has however not been proven (Scheck, 2015) . Avid anglers and business in the area which have a basis in tourism hope that any measures banning or reducing fishing by the tribal communities will start reviving the walleye life in the lake and as such bring tourism and fishing back to life.
Analysis
Imposing more regulations in the netting of fish may improve the numbers of walleyes in the lake if mechanisms are in place to punish errant members of the community. State officials have felt that a limited harvest quantity could be allowed safely. They, however, have overlooked the fact that despite restrictions, anglers still exceed the limit amountas set. The claim that the decline is attributable to netting of small walleyes may be valid if young walleyes in the lake havedecreased in number. This, however, has not been proved. Research has on the contrary shown that young walleyes have always been in abundance in the lake. The nets that are used in fishing are also standardized so that only standard size walleyes are caught. This rules out the possibility of netting young walleyes. The young walleyes, however, though in abundance, are not growing to adulthood. We cannot blame this ontribal netting. DNR suspects a variety of a complex mix-up of issues such as invasion by a predator species and the changing ecosystem of the lake.
It is also worth noting that tribal anglers are not the only ones who harvest from the lake. A majority of fishermen in the lake are stateanglers, and these account for most of the fishing done there (Newhouse, 2000) . This is to say that if the banning of netting is the solution to the issues in the lake environment, then it should be done inclusively, for both natives and state anglers.
The advocates of this ban are set on depriving the Indian native population of their livelihood, a racist pre-occupation. I feel that they want to keep the lake environment free of natives whom they perceive are not good for business. This will only further and worsen the long-standing conflict that has existed since the signing of the treaty.
Conclusion
While it is true that a regulation of netting activities may restore the walleye population, I feel that if done then it should not be biased to the natives alone, but also to the state anglers. The result of such an undertaking is however not a certain measure given that tribal fishing has existed in the lake for ages. Other solutions such as stocking and improving the ecosystem of the lake should be looked into.
References;
Belden, D. (2014, April 24). Minnesota DNR sued over Lake Mille Lacs walleye fishery . Retrieved February 13, 2014, from Twin Cities Pioneer Press: http://www.twincities.com/2014/04/23/minnesota-dnr-sued-over-lake-mille-lacs-walleye-fishery/
LaMoore, V. (2015, May 6). Tribal netting harvests for 2015. Retrieved February 13, 2016, from MilleLacs Messenger: http://www.messagemedia.co/millelacs/outdoors/tribal-netting-harvest-for/article_4f42906a-f33a-11e4-a008-47fda8b7963d.html
Newhouse, M. R. (2000). Recognizing and Preserving Native American Treaty Usufructs in the Supreme Court: The Mille Lacs Case. Public Land and Resources Law Review , 169-200.
Scheck, T. (2015, August 7). Tribal members sought a ban on keeping Mille Lacs walleye . Retrieved February 2, 2016, from MPRNews: http://www.mprnews.org/story/2015/08/07/walleye-mille-lacs-documents
Steffes, M. (2014).Implications for the Mille Lacs Lake Fishery with Continued Enforcement of the 1837 Treaty of St. Peters. Journal of Public Law and Policy , 367-397.
