October 16, 2016

Commissioner Tom Landwehr, Department of Natural Resources, 500 Lafayette Road,

St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
Dear Commissioner Landwehr:
We, the members of the Mille Lacs Fisheries Advisory Committee (MLFAC) would like
to respond to Mr. Jamie Edwards statements and opinions expressed in his resignation
letter.
MLFAC was formed approximately one year ago and was intended to be a diverse group
of people from many walks of life with a wide range of experiences. You succeeded very
well when you selected members. Out of a total of 17 members, only 6 members are
business owners connected to fishing on Mille Lacs. The other members include a
representative of bass interests in MN, a northern pike/muskies representative, one
fishery biology educator, one Mille Lacs Band representative, another business owner
from the area, two fishing guides who do fish Mille Lacs, but also fish a large number of
other lakes throughout the state, county commissioners from the three counties which
surround Mille Lacs, and two long-term residents who have been close to Mille Lacs for
many years. We do not know how you could have selected a more diverse group of
people.
The members you selected are all intelligent, highly principled people who love Mille
Lacs and only joined this group to try to make the fishery and the lives of the people
around the lake better. They are not sheep-like people who will accept everything they are
told at face value, nor will they rubber stamp every decision the DNR makes. They are
not trained fishery biologists and they know it, but most of the members have been
fishing, living around the lake, and talking to other fishermen on a daily basis for
decades. Their hands-on experience is invaluable. Several of our members fish the lake
on a daily or weekly basis and have done so for years. It is our understanding that you
selected members to receive the benefit of this experience that you do not get elsewhere.
It is a different perspective than the statistics based information the DNR provides.
Our members welcomed Mr. Edwards to the Committee and looked forward to his
participation in group discussions. We were looking forward to getting the Bands'
perspectives and priorities on a variety of subjects. No one failed to respect the sovereign
status of American Indian tribes. We were all aware of the Courts' decisions that the
rights to hunt and fish remain with the Bands. Over several meetings, we were educated
on a variety of topics including the DNR's visions of the status of the fish population, the
impact of the Courts' decisions, treaty fishery management, hooking mortality
calculations, the gathering of creel census data by the DNR, and a variety of other topics.
Members openly questioned the DNR and, at times, challenged their techniques and
conclusions. We did so with passion and conviction, but did not direct hostility towards
the DNR people involved. They were discussions between two groups of people with

different, deeply held convictions, but people on both sides still showed respect and
civility. We would like to believe that, although they may disagree with some of our
conclusions, the DNR people still respect our knowledge and passion about the lake. It
has been stated several times at our meetings, especially when feelings ran hot on both
sides, that everyone at that meeting was there because of a deep love for Mille Lacs and
desire to make it better.
In an effort to gain additional insight into the Bands' history, interests, and priorities, we
requested additional participation from Band members, particularly Band fishery
biologists and other Band DNR members. They chose not to participate, but members of
GLIFWIC did attend two meetings. They gave presentations and answered questions.
They were welcomed by the group and shown a great deal of respect. There was no
hostility shown during either meeting and we would welcome any of the them to future
meetings.
Unfortunately during our first year of existence, Mr. Edwards attended very few
meetings, although he listened to a few more meetings via telephone conferencing. He
participated in few, if any, discussions and never shared any Band perspectives. We
believe that was unfortunate and wasted a valuable opportunity to bring the communities
closer. When we were informed of Mr. Edwards resignation , several members spoke up
about a desire to have Band participation in our Committee and hoped to gain additional
insight into their viewpoints.
Mr. Edwards questioned our interest in the science of managing the fishery and basically
insinuated we should accept the DNR's positions and conclusions at face value and only
concern ourselves with the decisions made after the DNR and GLIFWIC's research and
conclusions were completed. He also said we should have no input into the harvestable
surplus decisions. Aside from the fact that we do not believe our mission was limited in
this way, what does that leave for us to discuss? If we are only to meet after all research is
completed and harvestable surplus decisions are made, are we only there to advise on
harvest regulations? That sounds like the old advisory group which was generally
criticized. We joined this Committee to have input into all aspects of the fishery and we
have taken our responsibilities seriously. We would not have joined a group with that
limited a role or input. Mr. Edwards also states that "science and conservation should be
at the forefront of MLFAC's discussions." We agree and we believe it has been.
In Mr. Edwards letter he refers to the "court mandated protocols" and makes them sound
like they were written on high and sent down on stone tablets. The court approved the
protocols agreed to by the state of Minnesota and the Bands. They had little or nothing to
do with originating those protocols and the protocols have been changed several times by
agreement between the DNR and GLIFWIC. It is not disrespectful or racist for us to ask
questions about the protocols and the DNR's ability or willingness to change them.
On a similar note, Mr. Edwards strenuously objects to the use of "culturally- offensive" to
describe the Bands' netting during the spawn. The term was never used to describe
netting during other parts of the year or spearing by the Bands. The word "culture" is

used to define a group's knowledge, beliefs, and customs. The culture of Minnesota
sportsmen, and in particular, Mille Lacs fishermen, has been to protect game fish during
their spawning activities. This custom has gone on for over 100 years and has been
supported by DNR regulations for decades. It is thought that the fish are more vulnerable
during that time because they are concentrated in certain areas. It is also believed that
disturbing fish at that time limits reproduction and will harm the lake's future. Whether
you agree with those beliefs or not, no one can disagree that they are a part of Minnesota
sportsmen's culture and that many find the Bands' activities during that time offensive.
No member ever questioned the right of the Bands to do it, just the necessity and
desirability of doing it. To deny the existence and validity of the Minnesota sportsmen's
culture is as ridiculous as trying to deny the existence and validity of the Bands' culture.
We would be shocked to hear that anyone thought this was not two cultures meeting with
different beliefs and customs. The important thing in this is to increase awareness and
understanding of each others' cultures, not to retreat and call names and point fingers. We
believe more, not less discussions between the groups is necessary.
Another idea that Mr. Edwards brought up was that "Allowing the MLFAC's hostile and
biased input to usurp the FTC's role in managing Mille Lacs fisheries is irresponsible and
a violation of the principles set forth in the protocols." That is a ridiculous statement. Our
role is to advise the DNR. We have no role in the FTC because GLIFWIC has repeatedly
denied us any role, even as silent observers. We would welcome any role, however
limited, in FTC meetings.
We also disagree with Mr. Edward's statement that "Unless MLFAC is restructured or
reconstituted to include a truly diverse set of perspectives, its role of effectively advising
state officials on the best ways to improve economic conditions around Mille Lacs Lake
for everyone will remain out of reach." We believe we have a healthy and diverse set of
perspectives expressed at each meeting and a central theme of our Committee from its
Inception has been one of considering the socio/economic impact of each DNR decision.
That has been an overriding consideration in all of our discussions. We have stated many
times that a fishery includes more than just the fish. It includes the people who love the
lake, fish it often, and yes, the people around the lake whose livelihood depends on it. We
believe that we have been their most vocal supporters.
In conclusion, we believe our Committee is made up of intelligent, principled, open
minded individuals who bring a truly diverse range of ideas and experiences to the group.
We are reviewing and investigating all issues related to the DNR's role in this fishery and
we are not bashful about expressing our thoughts. It is unfair and wrong to try to label us
as racist, anti-Band, or anti-DNR. We only want the best for the fish and the people who
love this lake. It is unfortunate that Mr. Edwards so misrepresented the groups beliefs,
motives, and efforts. It may be that his lack of participation led him to his beliefs. We
truly regret this misunderstanding and would hope for further, more involved,
participation from the Bands and GLIFWIC.
Sincerely,
Mille Lacs Fisheries Advisory Committee

cc: Governor Dayton

This letter has been supported by 15 of the 16 members of MLFAC. One member chose
to abstain.