Advertisement

Tribal Walleye Spearing

seeth07

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 14, 2016
Messages
5,425
Location
Markesan, WI
I'm not sure if this is the case in other states but in WI the Chippewa tribe has the right to Spear in the territory that they ceded to the US way back in 1837.

The activity does not use traditional methods and it would be pretty equivalent to a traditional longbow archer compared to someone using a crossbow. As a result, the amount of take each year just keeps going up and for everyone else, the regulations keep getting more and more restrictive due to lowering walleye numbers. I fear that if this keeps trending this way, there will be opportunity to keep walleyes soon. This year the regulation is 3 walleyes between 13 and 16 inches with one fish allowed over 24. It was 3 walleyes between 15 and 20 with one over 24. The reason for no 20 to 24 is because that is the length where a lot get speared.


This site from the WDNR has a lot of good information on this topic.

 
Learned something new today. I've seen something similar in SD, but it's for tribal lands sold. Even when the lands are sold outside the tribe, they retain hunting and fishing rights to the land in perpetuity. You have them as well as the land owner, but you can't stop the tribe from walking into your land to hunt.


I found this part the most interesting in the Wisconsin website :
Since 1985, 271 of 903 walleye lakes in the Ceded Territory have experienced tribal harvest. The number of lakes with tribal harvest in a given year has been between 144 and 171 every year since 1991. Total yearly tribal harvest has ranged from 18,500 to 30,558 fish for the past 13 years. Males comprise approximately 76% of all walleye speared each year. This is consistent with the relative numbers of males and females that make up spawning walleye populations in Wisconsin. The average length of walleyes speared is 15.5", and spear fishermen are restricted to a maximum of two fish longer than 20" for each permit issued.


To me it doesn't seem much of an issue. They spread out the lakes, they don't hit all the lakes, and for whatever reason they statistically focus on male fish. Seems like they work with Wisconsin on how to meet their treaty requirements.

Imo, if the fish population is declining as you suggest, treaty rights are before state rights, as such you can request the treaty let a lake rest this season, but ultimately if the treaty wishes to fish the lake, Wisconsin will have to reduce their take to maintain treaty rights. I view it like water rights in this regard.
 
Can someone explain how.... The federal government didnt regulate hunting/fishing when these were signed (maybe im ignorant here?), yet it could grant exclusive rights to it?
 
I was invited to partake in spearing with a family member that was going with a tribal member. It was eye opening to me how easy it was to Spear them. We went on a May night well after the spawn. My family and I use the spot lights while he used his Spear in 6 to 8 fow over weed beds just coming up. It was super easy to spot them and he had his two walleyes in about 30 minutes. Both were in that 20 to 24 slot range because they are allowed one in that slot and one of any size. He passed up dozens smaller than 20.
 
I was invited to partake in spearing

I never got to experience walleye spearing, but I did run into two dudes musky spearing through the ice years back. They were good guys and we shot the breeze for an hour or two, which was long enough for them to whack two of them. Funniest part was when a muskrat came up through the hole, that was a real Benny Hill moment!

I’m not going to lie, it was a blast just watching and I’d do it too (for northern) if I was allowed to. They forgot their homemade decoy when they left and I still have it- I like to think it was passed down for generations from their tribal elders and has some mystical lucky powers, but they probably just cut it out of a 2x4 and rattle canned it. It’s still lucky either way.🙂
 
What % of over harvesting occurs?
From my understanding of the few lakes I know about, the limit set by the tribe typically never gets met. There are two reasons - one being that the limit is extremely high and being that there isn't enough people of tribal decent participating. It is often the same group of people going to the lake system each night to get their two fish. Like the guy I was able to tag along with, he had gone almost every night since ice out. They don't have a possession limit like the typical residents so his freezer was stacked with 100's of filets of walleyes. He actually gave most of them to family and friends.
 
That is exactly the point. We have small walleyes and limited ability to harvest them as a result of this. The spearing takes the 20 to 24 inchers
Not clear if the band harvest has much to do with that though.

On our more popular band lakes--and wallye is king here-- non-native harvest is much higher than band harvest. And many other issues--from invasive species to warming waters to pollution--is affecting them. Similar issues on lakes outside the treaty territory.

High tech allows people to target bigger fish these days and we have a lot of fishing pressure, more and more folks are retiriing and fishing more, moved to the lake cabin where they can work from home and thus fish a lot more, and pressure is up in general.

Keep in mind slots and limits can be as much of a strategy to push for some older fish as any indication of population declines. People aren't fishing blind anymore--the ability to target larger fish is real.
 
Last edited:
Can someone explain how.... The federal government didnt regulate hunting/fishing when these were signed (maybe im ignorant here?), yet it could grant exclusive rights to it?
Federal government does not have authority to regulate hunting/fishing in the states due to the 10th Amendment and Martin v. Waddell, 41 US 367 (1842). However, Wisconsin was a Federal territory in 1837– it did not attain statehood until 1848. Further, Art. 1, Sec. 10 of the Constitution puts treaties under the sole purview of the Federal government. As Federal law, treaty obligations trump otherwise applicable state law.
 
Federal government does not have authority to regulate hunting/fishing in the states due to the 10th Amendment and Martin v. Waddell, 41 US 367 (1842). However, Wisconsin was a Federal territory in 1837– it did not attain statehood until 1848. Further, Art. 1, Sec. 10 of the Constitution puts treaties under the sole purview of the Federal government. As Federal law, treaty obligations trump otherwise applicable state law.
Federal government still didnt have the obligation to regulate hunting/fishing rights - see the 10th amendment.

Another note - what is the "grant" or value of these "huntintg" rights if there is no limit to anyone elses take?
 
Not clear if the band harvest has much to do with that though.

On our more popular band lakes--and wallye is king here-- non-native harvest is much higher than band harvest. And many other issues--from invasive species to warming waters to pollution--is affecting them. Similar issues on lakes outside the treaty territory.

High tech allows people to target bigger fish these days and we have a lot of fishing pressure, more and more folks are retiriing and fishing more, moved to the lake cabin where they can work from home and thus fish a lot more, and pressure is up in general.

Keep in mind slots and limits can be as much of a strategy to push for some older fish as any indication of population declines. People aren't fishing blind anymore--the ability to target larger fish is real.
Yes, the slots are good. Just wish the tribe had to follow them too.
 
I feel like I have to bring up the fact that not everyone follows the laws. My short time in Wisconsin was rather eye-opening, where I saw multiple boat ramps with dozens of gigged pike dumped right next to it- practice for the walleye spearing discarded after the target species was acquired. In 2016, it did not appear that there was anything resembling a 3 fish limit, nor a size limit.

I know this is a very small experience, but it rubbed me the wrong way. Same way giggers in the Ozarks go over limit or take illegal species.

I believe in the right to traditional subsistence methods, especially treaty rights, but it must be done with respect for the resource. Sounds like some rules are in place to ensure that, but my experience was that enforcement was lacking.
 
We used to night gig in another state and it's super effective, especially in colder water and when the fish migrate into shallow water or spring fed creeks.
I had a neighbor about 10 years ago that was a tribal member of the Blackfoot Res. and they still gig trout there.
 
Federal government still didnt have the obligation to regulate hunting/fishing rights - see the 10th amendment

Well, Congress had/has authority to regulate the Federal territories under Art. 4, Sec. 3. The courts have held Congress “has full legislative power over all subjects upon which the legislature of a State might legislate within the State.” Simms v. Simms, 175 US 162, 168 (1899). Essentially, Congress enjoys state-like legislative authority in the Federal territories, of which Wisconsin was one in 1837.

There are no Tenth Amendment implications because (1) power to govern the territories is expressly reserved to the Federal government under a preceding clause and (2) the Tenth Amendment applies only to division of rights between the Federal government and the states, and there was no state with authority over Wisconsin Territory at the time of the treaty.
 
Last edited:

Forum statistics

Threads
113,654
Messages
2,028,595
Members
36,272
Latest member
ashleyhunts15
Back
Top