Douglas Meyenburg, Sr. 1922 - 2012
Douglas Meyenburg, Sr. was a life-long member of PERM. He was involved in everything, from legislative hearings, boat parades at the Capitol, and fundraising events. Douglas was involved in the movement even before PERM was incorporated. Please remember his family in your prayers.
Douglas Meyenburg, Sr.
'He was one of the earliest members and supporters of PERM'
Our deepest sympathies go out to you, your spouses, brothers, sisters and your Dad’s extended family and grandchildren. We will all miss your dad’s presence at PERM functions. He was one of the earliest members and supporters of PERM and its “Save Minnesota” campaign. He joins several other departed heroes’ who we must all remember to keep in our prayers. Read more
Check out PERM's booth at
Masters on Mille Lacs Ice Fishing Derby
February 4, 2012
Dickie's Liberty Beach Resort
5454 Waterway Road, Isle
320-245-2701
Organized by Simply Outdoor Experiences
Sponsorships and proceeds to benefit Disabled Vets, Hope for Kids, and Starkey Hearing Foundation
Next PERM Board Meeting February 13
The regularly scheduled monthly (second Monday) PERM meeting will be held on Monday, February 13 at 7:30 pm in the Boardroom at the Cinema Professional Building 657 Main Street in Elk River.
Leonard Schafer 1932 - 2012
Leonard Schafer passed away on Tuesday, January 17, 2012 at his home in Finlayson at the age of 79 years. Leonard, a long time active member of PERM, was a valiant fighter for equal rights for all Minnesotans. Leonard was a dedicated volunteer, always helping out and sometimes even coordinating PERM events and fundraisers. Keep Leonard and his family in your prayers.
A memorial service will be held at 10 am on Thursday, January 26 at Friendship Church (17741 Fairlawn Ave) in Prior Lake. A Memorial Mass will also be held Saturday February 11 at St. Mary's Church (8118 Lake St) in Willow River at a time to be determined. Contact church for the specific time 218-372-3284.
Send Flowers | Send Sympathy Card
Sign Guest Book | Send Private Condolences
DNR dodges Mille Lacs gillnet, quota issues
Policy of official indifference prevails
Just took another look at two recent articles in Outdoor News by Rob Drieslein and Joe Fellegy. They shine a light on the annual behind-the-scenes negotiations between the DNR and Chippewa tribes over their Mille Lacs treaty harvest quotas.
Both articles do a good job of explaining the Mille Lacs treaty fishery management quagmire in plain English. They’re well worth a read.
According to DNR comments made to Outdoor News editor Drieslein, the DNR "cannot object to methods the bands use to kill walleyes" and, gillnets "are not a conservation issue." Gillnets are not a conservation issue? The tribes could use dynamite along with their miles of monofilament gillnets and the DNR could do nothing?
As far as the DNR was concerned, it’s only a question of “whether the bands stay within their quota."
Where did those “quotas” come from? They came from a negotiating process required by the Supreme Court in lieu of a specifically-defined Phase II allocation. Negotiating quotas—and representing all Minnesotans—is the DNR’s job. Drieslein has more to say here.
Joe Fellegy calls it like it is. “Nobody can deny that the miles of tribal ‘subsistence’ gill nets on Mille Lacs spawning reefs and shoals each spring, plus the related ‘treaty fisheries management,’ could win awards for the most bizarre, most culturally offensive, most costly, and most-challenging-for-managers fishing monstrosity on the face of Minnesota. Yet, amazingly, official indifference to legitimate citizen concern, anger, and frustration continues. (Where are the journalists and conservation activists, Fellegy wonders.)
Fellegy did some digging and makes some interesting walleye-net-survey-result comparisons. He shows how the DNR has painted itself into a corner with its treaty management efforts to date. Big picture: “there’s been no leadership, no outreach, no discernible politicking, or work to advance state and citizen interests.” That’s on top a continuing loss of accountability to all citizens of Minnesota. More on Fellegy's DNR top brass appear uncaring in face of Mille Lacs madness
Now might be a good time to contact the DNR—651-259-5022 or email Tom Landwehr—and point out how the Mille Lacs Fishery Input Group's resolution is simply about the DNR doing its job, and being responsible for representing the interests of all Minnesotans.
Doug
(Douglas J. Meyenburg, President)
Congratulations! Winners of PERM’s Legal Fund raffle
#1 Browning A-Bolt II 270 WSM…………………………………Ben A………………Buffalo
#2 Savage 114 American Classic 30-06…………………… Darrell W…………Albert Lea
#3 Remington 870 Express 12-gauge…………………………Angie M……………Blaine
#4 Mossberg 500 Camo 12-gauge………………………………Jerome H…………Maple Grove
#5 Marlin 60 22-caliber………………………………………………Eric W………………Monticello
#6 Traditions Pursuit XLT Muzzleloader 50-caliber……Don S……………… Hackensack
#7 Henry H001 22-caliber………………………………………… Jerry W…………… Coon Rapids
#8 Moultrie M80 Camera……………………………………………Gary E……………… Osakis
#9 Garmin eTrex Venture GPS………………………………… Kevin M…………… Isle
#10 Set of PERM Prints………………………………………………Lynn S………………Big Lake
Winners are listed by first name and hometown only. The PERM Board made this decision after a discussion on respecting privacy, Internet posting without having permission, and ownership of firearms.
THANK YOU! for your support Response to the raffle was great! Your support goes a long way to ensure equal protection of the law and sustainable access to Minnesota’s natural resources for all citizens.
Large Fish Kill Discovered Near Leech Lake
Hundreds of dead Northerns and Walleyes were found in a rotting pile of fish, about 10 miles east of Leech Lake. A December 2 CBS/WCCO report noted that Tullibees, Muskies, five-pound Northerns, and thirty-inch Walleyes were seen in the pile. Perpetrators cleaned the Walleyes, and left the rest of the fish to rot.
It’s the kind of collection that can only come from gillnetting. It was described as “wanton waste.” In this case, that’s malicious, defiant and without justification whatsoever.
PERM December 2011 Member Update Newsletter Download pdf
Read Doug Meyenburg' s 'From the Chairman's Deerstand' here
When it comes to 'treaty rights,' who will defend state interests?
Joe Fellegy raises key question ...
"Given state government's weak record on tribal-related affairs--an official reluctance to defend state and citizen interests--it’s probably naive to trust the offices of Attorney General, DNR Commissioner, and others, to move beyond complacency, silence, and apparent satisfaction with the status-quo (including the perennial Mille Lacs meat-grinder.)"
‘Treaty rights’ issues: will state officials defend state interests?
(Joe Fellegy, Outdoor News, June 10, 2011)
PERM agrees that the state laws that have been broken by various tribes should be prosecuted by the State DNR, and the Attorney General's office to the fullest extent of the law. Our DNR and AG's office know that these are state game laws that were broken.
During the 1837 Treaty lawsuit PERM paid to have alot of research done. This information was made available to our State agencies, but they turned it down. PERM hasn't lost this information and we will again offer our assistance to the state.
PERM is a voice for the average citizen and believes strongly that it is the tribal governments that need to be upholding the language of the treaties.
I encourage you to read Joe Fellegy's article, then forward this email and ask your friends in the sporting community who believe in equal hunting and fishing rights to support PERM anyway they can.
Thank you for your assistance. Doug Meyenburg, PERM Chairman
Douglas J. Meyenburg, President
Treaty rights claims proliferating
State facing high stakes legal quagmire
Dennis Anderson (Star Tribune sports writer) is on top of the issues in giving a heads up today (Treaties stir up the peace) on the latest treaty rights claims. He does not see tribal-state negotiations over these claims coming before being heard in a federal court. This, especially after the “convoluted ‘co-management’ ” and the “ever-increasing walleye quota” from the Mille Lacs fishery coming out of the last major treaty rights case in 1999.
PERM, and others who have extensively researched treaty rights, also believe that state and local governments should take this situation seriously. Doing so would help quash the growth of entitlements manufactured under the guise of treaty rights, ”tribal sovereignty,” reparations, political correctness, or kowtowing to well-funded special interest groups.
As Anderson notes, the state currently “lacks the corps of Indian treaty experts it employed a decade or more ago, a position of weakness—with the stakes so high—it can ill afford.”
PERM believes state and local governments should use all the expertise at their disposal. Specifically, the state and local governments should actively pursue application of the Indian Claims Commission Act (ICCA). This Act of Congress was carried out to settle every claim, legal and moral, by tribe or Indian, once and for all. All settlement was accomplished between 1948 and its completion in 1972.
That achievement may explain why tribal claims are now being directed at state and local governments, which may not be aware of their recourse to the ICCA.
Unfortunately, the state of Minnesota never used the ICCA when it was fighting the 1837 treaty harvest rights case in 1999. PERM’s representation of landowners in the case was effectively stymied by the state’s failure to apply the ICCA argument.
We hope that mistake is not made again. We hope the ICCA can be used as it was intended.
A little prevention by highlighting the ICCA now would go a long way to head off expensive lawsuits, maintain positive relationships with our friends and neighbors—and ensure equal protection of the law for all citizens sustainable access to Minnesota's natural resources.
Douglas J. Meyenburg, President
Cedar Lake Fish-In -- NO Citations
Friday, May 13 - The tribal "fish-in" involved about 15-20 Dakota Indians who apparently set nets in the middle of the night. They then pulled them out this morning for the benefit of DNR Officers watching from the opposite shore. DNR officers confiscated about two dozen fish and escorted tribal netters to their cars, but didn’t issue citations.
Information about the netters that was gathered in the largely peaceful process will be forwarded to the Hennepin County attorney's office for consideration of charges. Organizers believe they have a right to net fish under an 1805 treaty and hope to be charged so they can bring a case to court.
PERM believes this is a game violation against the state and that the state should ticket and prosecute them as they would any other game violation.
Illegal 'fish-ins' to promote expanded 'treaty harvest rights' --FRIDAY MAY 13
Red Lake, Cedar Lake targeted
It was reported to us that Minnesota Chippewa will be illegally harvesting fish tomorrow in the state portion of Upper Red Lake listed as the Waskish area.
Dakota Sioux activists also plan to gillnet the same day in Cedar Lake, next to downtown Minneapolis.
Please stay away from these areas. If you must observe, observe only. It you take pictures, consider sending them to savemn@perm.org.
Since this is an illegal activity, ask your DNR officials to write tickets and confiscate boats, rods, nets, and anything else used in these illegal activities.
Steve Fellegy Launches Website
C.A.S.S.T (Citizens Against Selective Sovereignty Today)
On May 13th, 2010, Steve Fellegy purposely made a “cast” into the Lake Mille Lacs waters, to ultimately, harvest a walleye during the traditionally closed fishing season for ALL citizens, but exclusively open to Native Americans at the same time, to expose unequal rights being sanctioned by the U.S. and Minnesota state governments.
"Our fight is NOT with American Indians. It is with the U.S. Government." Short term focus is on exclusive rights. Long term focus is on modern day solutions to Native American issues and to create better lives for Native Americans.
Mille Lacs Angler Challenges Tribal Netting
‘Cobell’ $3.4 Billion Mismanagement Payout
WHO is responsible?
Doug Meyenburg—citizen—recently wrote Minnesota’s Congressional delegation about the $3.4 billion Cobell settlement. He wrote to ask, among other questions, how a program got to be so mismanaged as to cost taxpayers $3.4 billion!
What is the “Cobell Settlement”?
Cobell v. Salazar is a class action lawsuit brought by Native American representatives against the United States government. Plaintiffs claim that the U.S. government incorrectly accounted for Indian trust assets, (land which came out of the Dawes Act.) These lands were assigned to individual Native Americans, but managed by the Department of the Interior on their behalf.
You can ask for answers too! —Call, write, or email
(Then click "Home" above left to return to this page)
Joe Fellegy's Kudos to editor, and priciest walleyes!
Rights affirmed, but 'grow like topsy'
I caught last Sunday night’s Outdoor Talk on KTLK, 100.3 FM, and heard a lively discussion about 2011 Mille Lacs fish allocations under “treaty fisheries management.” Rob Drieslein, Outdoor News editor and the show’s co-host, offered his take on what certainly is the most grotesque, costly, and high-impact legal-political-social fiasco on Minnesota's fisheries scene.
“I want to be clear,” Rob said. “This tribal netting is completely ridiculous ... I think it’s an abomination.” He was referring to tribal resource managers targeting spawning walleyes with a massive gill-net fishery.
(From Joe Fellegy March 11 story in Outdoor News)
Read more ...
Bands' walleye harvest continues to rise
Harvest levels on Lake Mille Lacs stir debate
The Chippewa bands netting Mille Lacs walleyes this spring will be shooting for a record 142,500-pound harvest, 10,000 more than last year. Non-band anglers take has been reduced by 14,000 pounds. (From Doug Smith March 3 story in Star Tribune)
Read more ...
Bands' walleye harvest continues to rise
Harvest levels on Lake Mille Lacs stir debate
The Chippewa bands netting Mille Lacs walleyes this spring will be shooting for a record 142,500-pound harvest, 10,000 more than last year. Non-band anglers take has been reduced by 14,000 pounds.
That’s 71 tons of fish, 42 percent more than the allocation four years ago. It shows a rising harvest by Chippewa netters since 1997, when courts affirmed off-reservation fishing rights.
The bands’ 26 percent of the “safe harvest level” is a 26-74 percent split. But actual harvests the past three years have averaged 42 percent of the total. Twice in the past eight years, the bands' actual harvest exceeded 50 percent of the total walleye take due to low overall harvest.
How high will the bands' harvest go in the future? Will fishing regulations for non-band anglers need to be tightened to prevent over-harvest? At what point might band allocations be challenged?
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Chippewa's favor in 1999, but the court never said how the walleye resource should be divided between the bands and non-bands.
There is growing interest in netting fish among band members according to Brad Kalk, from the Mille Lacs band natural resources department. "Over the past decade, the number of band members who net on Mille Lacs has steadily increased," he said.
But the bands' next five-year plan is a big unknown according to the DNR.
Mille Lacs fishing guide Steve Fellegy violated fishing laws to raise a court challenge to what he says are unequal hunting and fishing rights. He says when the bands first filed their initial lawsuits in the 1990s, they asked for relatively few fish a year. "Here we are at 65 tons in spring 2010," he said. "I have grave concerns about what the future brings, based on the past."
From story at Star Tribune
Quotes in the news
Is Mille Lacs-style ‘co-management’ planned for northern 2/3 of MN?
The plan is outlined in attorney Peter Erlinder’s “Anishinabe Nation’s ‘Right to a Modest Living’ From the Exercise of Off-Reservation Usufructuary Treaty Rights ... in ALL of Northern Minnesota.”
This is the legal argument that could also make taxpayers liable for up to $420 million in back payments for not having Mille Lacs-style ‘co-management’ in northern 2/3rds of Minnesota.
Courts have affirmed treaty rights, but how they are exercised is negotiated. Expanded exercise of rights would be negotiated under threat of a $420 million lawsuit.
For example, did the US Supreme Court’s Mille Lacs decision approve gill nets during walleye spawning season? No, the DNR approved a tribal conservation code that included gillnets and shining deer over bait—among other practices outside of state law.
Who negotiates for Minnesotans? How many more lakes will end up with gillnets? Will we know anything before it’s a ‘done deal’?
From a PERM Ad in Outdoor News, August, 2010
Peter Erlinger: Ojibwe treaty rights in Minnesota
Professor Peter Erlinder from the William Mitchell College of Law in St. Paul, Minnesota says the Minnesota v. Mille Lacs (1999) US Supreme Court case and other Ojibwe legal victories have paved the way for White Earth and Leech Lake bands to hunt, fish, and gather off their reservations in the ceded territory.
The law school professor thinks it may be more cost effective for the state to negotiate with the bands and establish co-management of resources in the territory, like Wisconsin, rather than fight the tribes in court.
Erlinder thinks the Anishinaabe are in a position to help save the land from mining, logging, and over development. “Ojibwe treaty rights are a device to help keep the land healthy.”
From a video produced by Nick Vander Puy | www.IndianCountryTV.com
Future of Tribal Sovereignty
Ken Davis, chairman of Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa said the right to self-governance lies directly with land, and that to expand sovereignty, the land base has to be expanded.
“To purchase land only from tribal members doesn't expand sovereignty."
Davis recommended buying as much land as possible whether out of or within the reservation's boundaries.
From Indian Country Today (Oneida, NY) | September 10, 2008 | By David Melmer
Tracking the Land: Ojibwe Land Tenure and Acquisition at Grand Portage and Leech Lake
“The federal trust responsibility must be revitalized in order to become an effective method for tribal land acquisition. The Indian land tenure reality … has prompted many to prioritize land acquisition.”
From a 2008 Dissertation by Leah Carpenter for the University of Arizona
Leech Lake-White Earth Fishing Protest
Key 1855 Treaty fact dodged
By Joe Fellegy (From Outdoor News, May 21, 2010)
The illegal "treaty rights" fishing on Lake Bemidji on May 14, was related to the new quest for White Earth and Leech Lake Chippewa off-reservation harvesting rights across millions of acres and multiple counties in the 1855 Treaty ceded territory. Tribal co-management authority is also being sought.
Read more ...
Treaty with the Chippewa, 1855 - Full Text
Going backward
'Son of Mille Lacs' lawsuit pending?
The recent Leech Lake White Earth protest to assert “hunting and fishing rights” started out with illegal fishing, as well as use of illegal gillnets.
Were gillnets in these protests used to establish gillnetting as part of treaty-based harvest rights in upcoming negotiations or lawsuits?
Use of gillnets would fit under claimed treaty rights. Dale Green, with the Leech Lake Band’s legal department, was quoted on MN Public Radio saying the 1855 Treaty included the right to “hunt, fish and gather using modern means.” Did "modern" in 1855 include 4 by 100 foot monofilament gillnets?
Is spearing also planned for in the exercise of claimed treaty rights? Muskie guru Pete Maina compared the violent incidents when the Ojibwe asserted their right to spear walleye in northern Wisconsin, with Green’s comments about peaceful demonstrations and negotiations. |
 |
An earlier demand for recognition of harvest rights in Minnesota did lead to gillnetting—during walleye spawning season no less—in Mille Lacs. Gillnetting and quotas turned up, even though court affirmation of harvest rights never covered what exercise of those rights included.
That was negotiated behind the scenes instead and presented to the court for approval. Ongoing tweaks were allowed, again, to be carried out almost entirely behind the scenes. On top of this, a huge, unwieldy, and expensive “co-management” bureaucracy was created.
“Modern methods” and massive co-management could be coming to vast stretches of northern Minnesota.
Still, it is well established that Minnesota citizens, and likely the majority of rank and file tribal members, have a strong sense of stewardship when it comes to Minnesota’s natural resource heritage. They are not going to buy the exploitation of hunting and fishing rights under the window dressing of claimed “treaty rights."
Peter Erlinder 'Treaty Rights paper
Is this what 'usufructuary' looks like?
'Treaty fishing rights' exploited
Fish gut piles are boorish and irritating, but certainly not reflective of the attitude of most tribal members (we will argue.)
The bigger issue is the extent to which recognized—Supreme Court affirmed—harvest privileges are being exploited. That is, exercised far beyond the original intent of either parties to the 1837 Treaty.
 |
 |
| Mille Lacs gut piles show destructive capacity of gill netting | Some fish are discarded whole |
The 1999 Supreme Court ruling, Chippewa v. Minnesota, referred to usufructuary rights.
What is a usufructuary right? It is a right that allows the use of property that belongs to another. Usufruct is the right of temporary possession and enjoyment of something that belongs to somebody else, so far as that can be done without causing damage or changing its substance.
Usufructuary rights are assigned, can be rescinded, and confer a responsibility to preserve the asset. In the case of assets that are consumed, preservation confers a responsibility for sustainable consumption. |
 |
 |
Lost Gillnet's payload |
Wasted fish |
Is gillnetting covered as a usufructuary right?
Gillnetting walleye during spawning does not preserve renewable natural resources! And, as both the gut piles abandoned on private property, and the recovered fish-laden “ghost” (lost) gill nets show, the destructive power of gillnetting totally contradicts the meaning of usufructuary rights and sustainable consumption.
Get the gillnets out of Mille Lacs!
See also...
Mille Lacs gill-netting: biggest scam on state’s outdoor scene
Gillnetted-fish gut piles draw attention to bigger issues
Stop the commercial gillnetting
Get the gillnets out of Mille Lacs!
Red Lake Ownership
Red Lake Ownership established by Supreme Court Ruling
U.S. vs. Holt State Bank Supreme Court ruling in 1926 concludes with the following statements:
“… the lake, and therefore the lands under it, was within the limits of the Red Lake Reservation when the State was admitted. The existence of the reservation is conceded, but that it operated as a disposal of lands underlying navigable waters within its limits is disputed. We are of opinion that the reservation was not intended to effect such a disposal and that there was none.”
“… There was no formal setting apart of what was not ceded, nor any affirmative declaration of the rights of the Indians therein, nor any attempted exclusion of others from the use of navigable waters. The effect of what was done was to reserve in a general way for the continued occupation of the Indians what remained of their aboriginal territory; and thus it came to be known and recognized as a reservation. There was nothing in this which even approaches a grant of rights in lands underlying navigable waters; nor anything evincing a purpose to depart from the established policy, before stated, of treating such lands as held for the benefit of the future State.”
"… Without doubt the Indians were to have access to the navigable waters and to be entitled to use them in accustomed ways; but these were common rights vouchsafed to all, whether white or Indian, by the early legislation reviewed in Railroad Company v. Schurmeir, 7 Wall. 272, 287-289, and Economy Light & Power Co. v. United States, supra, pp. 118-120, and emphasized in the Enabling Act under which Minnesota was admitted as a State, c. 60, 11 Stat. 166, which declared that the rivers and waters bounding the State "and the navigable waters leading into the same shall be common highways, and forever free, as well to the inhabitants of said State as to all other citizens of the United States."
"We conclude that the State on its admission into the Union became the owner of the bed of the lake. It is conceded that, if the bed thus passed to the State, the defendants have succeeded to the State's right therein; and the decisions and statutes of the State brought to our attention show that the concession is rightly made."
Click here, US v Holt State Bank, to read the actual ruling. (Right click, select "Open Link in New Window" for full page view.)
