Meryl Larson
Report on April 30, 2008
Discussion
Starting at the third question, it was discussed that the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) had concerns about the efficiency of spear fishing. It is possible to catch large quantities of fish and as such, there were worries about subsequent exploitation of the resource. These concerns are really unfounded when the relative proportion of the fishery that goes to tribal versus recreational groups are compared.
There are always other interests at play in any government run agency and the politics of the situation prompted the WDNR to enforce strict regulations on the treaty fishery in order to be seen as a “champion” for preservation of the resource. This surplus of regulations for the treaty fishery include specification of which lakes fishers plan to use, identification of how the fish were taken, and a consequent examination of their catch. These regulations are not applied to the recreational fishery. Those that are fishing for recreational purposes may purchase a license wherever they please, fish on any lake that they choose without prior consent, and are only subject rare inspections by conservation officers. By enforcing strict regulations on the treaty fishery, it is perceived that the DNR has more power which in turn may lead society to believe that the DNR is effective in its conservation mission.
The discussion over the next question started in the direction of a perpetual argument over semantics. That it would be possible for per capita fishery allocations to continuously change over the years. The discussion changed direction however when it was brought up that the tribal allocation will most likely never go up so there will not be any realistic change in the future. It was therefore determined that there will not likely be any change in fishery allocations in the future.
The next question started out by discussing how the number of fish harvested would depend on the size of the lake and it was suggested that smaller lakes could be impacted more because of their smaller and more sensitive populations. It was then determined that it would not matter because fish that were not harvested would theoretically be there for the next year. Some of these fish would invariably die of natural causes and some members of the public would view this as “wasteage”. It was then put forward that it really shouldn’t be considered “wasteage” to let an organism live out its natural life cycle.
Discussions then drifted to whether or not it would be feasible for tribes to declare that they would harvest 100% of the fishery and not harvest that many fish just to snub recreational fishers. However, just because the bag limit for a particular lake would be pushed to zero, does not mean that recreational fishers cannot still fish the lake. It would still be possible to catch and release which can have detrimental effects on the fish which may lead to eventual death. The stresses that are incurred on the fish during catch and release were discussed in great detail. When a lake is designated as a zero bag limit, the deaths that are associated with catch and release methods are usually accounted for by the DNR.
The last question regarding whether or not it is fair for tribal members to get an economic benefit from the fishery received many introspective comments. Overall the class seemed to agree that tribal members should be able to receive economic benefit. It could still be viewed as a subsistence factor because the money could potentially be spent on food and shelter. Other opinions followed more along the lines of tribal members have the freedom to do whatever they want with their resource allocation. It was even suggested that it be possible for them to sell licenses to spearfish because there are probably many recreational fishers that were opposed to spear fishing solely because they were not permitted to participate.
It was finally discussed that the whole idea of “unfairness” surrounding the treaty fishery issue comes from the fact that such a small portion of the population is entitled to a substantial portion of the resource that “everyone” owns.
The views and opinions expressed in this page are
strictly those of the page author.
The contents of this page have not
been reviewed
or approved by the
University
of Minnesota
Date created: January 10, 2000
Last modified:
May, 2008
Copyright © 2008, George
R. Spangler