TOPIC:

The worms are getting out of the can, although some Southenders may approve...see Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel story:

Commercial fishers to pursue netting of Lake Michigan trout

Check out this story on jsonline.com: on.jsonl.in/2i1bRuX

Interesting..........

Just like snagging hooks, nets don't differentiate between the different species of trout and salmon that they catch and kill. I'm against it.

Gotta agree with triggerfinger there. I've seen enough documentaries on commercial fishing to know it's about the money not the catch. By-catch gets tossed most of the time in the ocean but what about the great Lakes where almost everything but the lake trout is desireable? I would hate to keep paying for a stamp when the money goes toward a commercial fisherman's paycheck. I understand the whole predator/prey balance is out of wack but we need to benefit the people who put those fish in there not the people who make a profit.
But who knows maybe I'm wrong and those commercial Fisherman put a percentage of their profits back Into the hatcheries and not the lobbyist that got them what they wanted........

Lets see what comes from this, it is just Wisconsin water. By the way, there is and has been commercial fishing for a long time up there. When you eat whitefish they may have come from that area. So with the commercial whitefish harvest with nets going on for a very long time I haven't heard of anyone complaining about those nets.

The article didn't say it but I do not believe we are talking about gill netting. Rather pond nets or trap nets. Wisconsin fisheries have always kept the fishermen out front and they know that they want to keep their salmon fisherie on top.
Lets watch and see what takes place before we think the worst.

Many of you might be to young to remember when at one time Indiana had gill net stretched from one side of this state waters, To the opposite end of the state water. Those were gill nets for perch. Nobody wants to see the gill nets coming back. They are only looking for a hit number of 80,000 lake trout, and then its cut off for that season. Natrual reporduction of lake trout means that those 80,000 probably will not be a spit in the bucket. Todays fishermen are taking appro. 30,000 lakers.

What happens on the lake no matter where you are affects everyone on the lake. Do people from michigain look at Indianas' smog and think "glad that's in indiana"? Commercial fishing for whitefish may have been going on for a while else where but I don't have to get a stamp to fish for them anywhere. It's the "put and take" fishery I want to see protected.

I definitely am too young to remember perch netting in Indiana but I still live with the negative effects as a 15 fish limit.

I am curious about what they do with the lake trout anyway? With a consumption advisory on them they can't be selling them as a food source can they?

You can do a few google searches to get more answers to your questions. Tribal Indians have been selling lake trout for along time on the fishery market. I am not sure but believe they have the right to gill net.
As far as the eating advisory- well thats what it is. A advisory for each individual to decide for themselves if they want to eat them or not. Nothing stops the lake trout from being sold to fish markets. The consent decree from 1836 has been visited and adjusted over the years and once again will be looked at in 2020.

The perch limit has been held at 15 for along time. Some will tell you that the biggest reason for holding it at 15 is to stop a rise from commercial fishing them again. The largest amount of perch on the market comes from Canadian waters of lake Erie.

The Tribal Fishery

Bay Mills fishery staff conduct assess-ments in Whitefish Bay, Lake Superior. Bay Mills fishery staff conduct assess-ments in Whitefish Bay, Lake Superior.

Today, commercial and subsistence fishing are as important to tribal members as they ever were. Although gear, vessels and technology have changed, tribal members' desire to maintain their culture while conserving the resource has not.

Before European Settlement
Fishing and the use of gill nets for food and trade was important to the Great Lakes tribes before and after European settlement. Prior to European contact in the 1600s, Great Lakes Indians had developed a life patterned around lakeside fishing villages with small gar- dens of corn, squash and beans, supplementing their fish and vegetables with hunting. Fish was an important primary food source and some used the leftovers for fertilizing crops while whitefish bladders could be used to tan animal hides. The Great Lakes Indians'primary catch was whitefish and lake trout.
According to archeologists,Native Americans have been fishing the Great Lakes for centuries. In the beginning of the Christian Era, cooperating families began gathering in seasonal fishing villages. By the Late Woodland Era, which began around 800 A.D., an adaptation to fishing village life had evolved that archeologists call the "Inland Shores Fishery. "Natives used gill nets to harvest whitefish and lake trout in many of the traditional areas still fished today. Europeans Trade with Great Lakes Indians, Sign Treaty
As Europeans settled, Indians were fishing not only for subsistence (for food) but commercially, selling fish to the Europeans. As more Europeans settled, their need for fish that tribal fishers could provide increased.By the 1830s, Indians were working for American fur companies who developed their own fisheries, using gill nets and other gear. In a push for land and statehood for the Michigan territories, the United States signed a treaty with regional Ottawa and Chippewa Indians in March 1836. The tribes retained the right to fish and hunt in the ceded territory and bordering waters. Michigan gained statehood in 1837.


Great Lakes Fishery Grows, then Declines
The Great Lakes commercial fishery grew dramatically around the turn of the centu- ry. Immigrant fishers using steam powered tugs and net lifters began harvesting millions of fish from the Great Lakes.
The Michigan Supreme Court declared in 1930 that Indians had no special fishing and hunting rights. Many Indian fishers purchased state licenses to continue fishing.
During the 1950s, the sea lamprey entered the Great Lakes from the Atlantic Ocean and contributed to the decline of the Great Lakes Fishery.


The Struggle for Treaty Rights
In the mid-1960s, the State of Michigan began limiting entry into the commercial fishery. Its purpose was to protect a growing recreational fishery Albert "Big Abe" LeBlanc of the Bay Mills Indian Community challenged the state's right to restrict tribal commercial fishing by setting nets in Lake Superior's Whitefish Bay in 1971.
Due to his challenge, in 1976 the Michigan Supreme Court reversed its 1930 ruling. It determined the 1836 and 1855 treaties did retain some Indian fishing rights free from state regulation.
U.S. District Court Judge Noel Fox's 1979 decision concluded that Bay Mills Indian Community and Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians have treaty rights that include the right to fish in 1836 Treaty-ceded territory of Lakes Huron, Michigan and Superior that may not be regulated or restrict- ed by the state. Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians was later included as a party to the Court's decision. In 1981, the U.S.Court of Appeals upheld the Fox Decision and the U.S. Supreme Court denied review.
The Consent Order of 1985

Because of the Fox decision and subsequent court rulings clarifying Indian treaty rights, the tribes established COTFMA to regulate the tribal fishery. In 1998, the COTFMA tribes were joined by the Manistee-based Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, which was federally recognized in 1994.
Although the tribes retained the right to fish in the Great Lakes, conflicts among tribal fishers, state licensed commercial fishers, and sport fishing groups continued. In 1985, the tribes, the state, the U.S. Department of the Interior and various sport fishing organizations entered negotiations. The U.S. District Court ordered a 15-year agreement called the "Consent Order" into effect in 1985.
The Order, which expired in 2000, allocated fishery resources between user groups. Its purpose was to reduce social conflict while conserving and enhancing valuable fish stocks. It also established a mechanism to resolve disputes by the formation of an Executive Council made up of COTFMA member tribes' chairmen and state and federal representatives. When the mechanism failed, the U.S. District Court stepped in to resolve the conflict.

The 2000 Consent Decree
The 1985 Consent Order expired May 2000. After two years of negotiations, the Consent Decree under which 1836 tribes in Michigan regulate their treaty fishery was signed Aug. 8, 2000.
The new agreement is the product of significant changes that occurred over the 15 year duration of the 1985 Consent Order. Two additional tribes, Little Traverse Bay Band and Little River Band, had gained federal recognition. The five tribes had developed an effective tribal system of regulation, conservation and enforcement, becoming involved in every aspect of the fishery. Perhaps most importantly, fish populations had changed and moved over time.
The 2000 Consent Decree establishes an Executive Council with biological and law enforcement standing committees. Comprised of tribal, state and federal biologists, the Technical Fishery Committee (TFC)operates by consensus with more structure and well defined roles than its predecessor, the Technical Fishery Review Committee. The Decree also established a citizen Advisory Group to provide insight and feedback on law enforcement problems, issues, and concerns related to the agreement.
The Decree drops the zonal approach used in the 1985 Consent Order to allocate the resource. Although 1836 waters are still placed on a grid system, the fishery is man- aged by species. The TFC is responsible for gathering data and establishing total harvest limits. Tribal, state and federal biologists will work intensively to help with the implementation of the biologically-driven 2000 Consent Decree.


Lake trout rehabilitation is at the heart of the Decree. Biologists think that by reducing factors affecting mortality - such as fishing and sea lamprey predation - natural reproduction in Lakes Huron and Michigan could be achieved. To that end, the Decree reclassifies deferred areas as primary lake trout rehabilitation zones. To help achieve rehabilitation goals in each management unit, these zones are generally subject to target annual mortality rates and safe harvest levels.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service continues its active role in the 1836 treaty fishery by providing technical assistance to the tribes, helping collect data the tribes need to regulate the fishery, and collaborating on lake trout rehabilitation.

COTFMA becomes CORA
Effective January 2001, the inter-tribal regulatory body Chippewa Ottawa Treaty Fishery Management Authority (COTFMA) officially changed over to the Chippewa Ottawa Resource Authority (CORA), gathering all 1836 treaty fishing tribes under its wing and taking on a larger scope in regulation. CORA member tribes are (in alphabetical order) :
Bay Mills Indian Community, Brimley, Mich.
Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Suttons Bay, Mich.
Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Manistee, Mich.
Little Traverse Bay Band of Odawa Indians, Petoskey, Mich.
Sault Ste.Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Sault Ste. Marie, Mich.
Like COTFMA, the CORA governing body is comprised of the member-tribe chairmen and the natural resource entity chairmen of each tribe.
Under the CORA charter, two new committees were established - the Great Lakes Resource Committee (GLRC) and the Inland Lands and Waters Resources Committee (ILWRC). The GLRC serves as the inter-tribal management body for the treaty fishery in 1836 treaty waters (similar to COTFMA ’s former role), invested with broad powers to carry out its charge, while ILWRC oversees inland resource matters.
The 1836 treaty fishery continues to be one of the most regulated fisheries in the Great Lakes, subject to inter-tribal regulations now under CORA, tribal regulations, Food and Drug Administration HACCP seafood safety regulations, and U.S. Coast Guard maritime safety regulations.

Lake Michigan Trout Not Safe To Eat

Published: 2011-07-27


Lake trout, one of the more popular fish in Lake Michigan, are a potential health risk and should not be eaten, according to a new state advisory.


The advisory this week heightens restrictions on lake trout in the lake and worries charter captains, even though state officials say Great Lakes fish are generally getting healthier.


"You betcha" it would hurt business, said Carol Munoz, who has run the Fishtown Charter Service in Leland with her husband, Jim, for 35 years.


"This morning, I think Jim caught about 12 lake trout," she said. "It would be a serious problem if we had to avoid them."
For 2011-12, the Department of Community Health is recommending lake trout not be eaten once they hit the legal limit for Lake Michigan — 20 inches and larger. Last year, trout 22 inches and larger were considered potentially hazardous.


Advisories are enacted due to potential fish contamination. For trout in Lake Michigan, concerns are about PCBs, Chlordane — a chemical compound in long-banned pesticides — and dioxins. But state officials insist the new advisory is not an indication of a worsening problem.


"We have additional fish testing now that suggests even the shorter trout are problematic with regard to effects from contamination," said Dave Wade, director of the agency's division of environmental health.


Michigan's western shoreline cities are home to many businesses that make their living off the waters.


Charter operator Chad Bard and others know bad word of mouth on the health of Lake Michigan fish can hurt business.
Bard said he considers lake trout a "go-to" fish and always makes sure to have at least one of his 15 fishing rods on his boat rigged for trout.


"They're the ones you can always get," said Bard, captain of IT-IL-DO Charters of Grand Haven. "They're usually hanging around somewhere near the bottom and they're easier to catch."


Officials with Michigan's Department of Natural Resources stressed the advisories are nonbinding and the risks of real harm from occasionally eating lake trout are slim.


"Like many things in life, there may be risks involved. This advisory serves as a guideline, not a mandate," said Jim Dexter, acting chief of the agency's fisheries division.


Larger-scale commercial fishing operations could be hurt as well as businesses that cater to sports fishermen. A 2003 study by the Michigan Sea Grant Extension found 41.63 percent of lake trout from the Great Lakes came from Lake Michigan.


What may trouble some operations is the fact that a 26-inch lake trout caught off the shore of Leland might be considered hazardous to eat, but the same fish caught a few days later in the waters off Wisconsin would be considered problem-free.
While Michigan recommends not eating lake trout if the fish are as small as 20 inches, Wisconsin recommends not eating them only after they reach 29 inches.


It's a discrepancy not lost on health department officials.


"We're beginning to look at revising some of our advisory procedures for the coming years," Wade said. "We're trying, with this revision, to be a little more consistent regionally."


Many of the charter operations contacted Friday by The Detroit News said they were unaware of the advisory changes.
"I heard rumblings, but I didn't think it was actually going to fly," said Don Ward of Ward Brothers' Boats in Charlevoix.


Wade said the department used to do much more in the way of communicating its advisories to the public. A decade ago, the state would annually print 1.6 million brochures to be distributed at fishing stores, health departments and Woman, Infants and Children offices. But funding cuts have made that impossible.



SOURCE: Detroit News, article by Jim Lynch

Ed: I’m glad most of what you posted on this topic was reprinted from other sources. One glaring thing caught my eye in “The Tribal Fishery” essay. The author contended the Indians were using gill nets since 800AD. My thought was, “Made of what?” The Indians didn’t do “cloth.” They ran around in deer skins and used tanned furs for blankets and winter garb. So were their “gill nets” made of rawhide, woven willow branches, grapevines? I don’t know. I do know comporting “stone age” gill nets with modern, nylon gill nets is like saying theirs little difference in an Indian in a birch bark canoe and one in a diesel powered commercial fishing boat.

I don’t doubt Indians along the Great Lakes relied significantly on lake trout for food. But using primitive methods to catch enough to keep the tribe fed (when the lake was chock full of trout) is I no way equivalent to catching enough to feed the masses with modern equipment and a lake not so chock full of fish.

Consider the source of the tribal fishing settlements. All were rulings adjudicated by liberal judges in a liberal state and at a time when Political Correctness when it came to “racial” issues was way on the front burner. The tribal regulatory councils formed are little more than wallpaper so the tribes can say they are keeping on top of things. The native Americans in Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota aren’t running around in breechcloths and moccassins these days. They have been “Americanized” well enough the adage, “follow the money” is as appropriate for the tribal members as it is for the rest of American society. Follow the “tribal” money and it leads straight to the Indian-owned casinos - not to ancestral methods of subsistence living or earning a living.