Just reported today by the Lakeland Times:
http://www.lakelandtimes.com/main.as...ArticleID=7553
Printable View
Just reported today by the Lakeland Times:
http://www.lakelandtimes.com/main.as...ArticleID=7553
In the article, Edwards (Tribal council member), complains about being stuck at 10,000 walleye, but the hook-n-line anglers get 2,000,000 walleyes, but the 2 million are spread out over many, many lakes.(the whole state?) Since under a hundred lakes are speared, if they go to 18,000 eyes, the bag limits are decreased quite a bit on those lakes, and unfortunately the TFF is one of those. Also, hope they don't do the "alternate" plan, which means concentrating the harvest on select lakes (they specifically mention the TFF). The article mentions they might amend the agreement, we'll see....
Guys,
When you get a chance, take another look at that Lakeland Times article. Somehow Blue got mixed up and looked at an old article from March of 2008.
As I understand things, the walleye bag limit for 2009 will again be 3 fish on the TFF. See this article from yesterday's Lakeland Times:
http://www.lakelandtimes.com/main.as...ArticleID=9242
Tight Lines,
Tom502
Maybe BR didn't mess up, maybe it was the LakeLand times. It's odd that BR would see this and post this on the same date as the article appeared last year!
After reading the articles it looks like Blue's article was from last year. It refers to the agreement as being 11 years old while the 2009 article references the agreement as being twelve years old. Maybe it's just wishful thinking on my part. As some of you may have figured out, I wouldn't be a fan of increased spearing numbers..
Just checked the Lakeland Times site. The Vote on the reservation was 95 to 92 in favor of keeping the 12 year aggrement with the state. The state will set the limit on the TFF for 09. It will be 3 unless over harvest takes place. The tribe said they could not take the chance on losing money at the casino and lic. sales.
Whew! That was close!
My apologies for the scare. I had read about the 95-92 vote on a tribal message board (www.ldfnews.com) last week, but had been waiting for an official news report. I had been doing a Google news search every day and that article popped up last night for the first time. My mistake for not noticing the year, but it's strange that it didn't show up earlier. Maybe I changed my search terms without realizing it. Some of the comments on the message board suggest the referendum vote took place with only 2 days notice and no publicity except for a posting at the tribal center, and that the wording was deliberately misleading (a "Yes" vote was a vote to stick with the current agreement, not to abandon it). If true, that may have been lucky for us - it was still awfully close.
I see the link I posted yesterday now points to a completely different article than the one I read last night. Maybe the reporter accidentally uploaded an older article from his computer, then caught the mistake and corrected it today.