Re: Lake of the Woods Draft…

Re: Lake of the Woods Draft Recreational Walleye Plan

Background: The comments below are representative of the Territorial Planning Unit (TPU) of Grand Council Treaty #3. Grand Council Treaty #3 is the Traditional Government of the Anishinaabe Nation of Treaty #3. Grand Council Treaty #3 represents 28 First Nations across the Territory. Grand Council's mandate is to protect the future of the Anishinaabe people by ensuring the protection, preservation, and enhancement of inherent and treaty rights. The TPU is a department within the Grand Council that works with the Treaty #3 Leadership to protect the lands, water, and resources within the 55,000 square miles of Treaty #3 Territory. The TPU is guided by Anishinaabe Inakonigaawin - Manito Aki Inakonigaawin (Great Earth Law) and Treaty #3 Nibi (water) Declaration.

Governance: Treaty #3 territory is governed by Anishinaabe law, called Manito Aki Inakonigaawin (Great Earth Law), and the Nibi declaration. Manito Aki Inakonigaawin represents respect, reciprocity, and responsibilities with all relations in regards to Mother Earth. The law signifies the duty to respect and protect lands affected by over-usage, degradation, and unethical processes. The law is unique to Treaty #3 territory and passed on through our elders and knowledge keepers.

The Nibi Declaration represents respect, love, and the sacred relationship with nibi (water) and the life that it brings. It is based on teachings about water, lands, other elements like air and wind, and creation. The declaration is meant to preserve and share knowledge with youth and future generations. The declaration guides us in our relationship with nibi so we can take action individually, in our communities, and as a nation to help ensure healthy, living nibi for all creation.

Preliminary Comments & Questions:
The TPU has reviewed the Draft Recreational Walleye Plan released on November 10th, 2022. Upon review the TPU has summarized its comments and questions below for your review.

- MNRF’s draft Walleye plan is informed through western science methods but has no mention of working with Treaty #3 First Nations for information and input into it to inform the draft plan through Traditional Knowledge. Did MNRF work with Treaty #3 First Nations to include Traditional Knowledge in decision making for the draft plan? If so, how? If not, Grand Council recommends working with Treaty #3 communities further for this prior to accepting the current draft plan as the final plan.

- Who did the Advisory Council consist of? Was there equal representation between First Nations, Government, tourism operators, and other?

- The draft plan makes mention of the amount of money that recreational Walleye fishing brings in. It does not seem that the amount of engagement held for this was adequate. Three public engagement sessions were held for a total attendance of 83 attendees. In Appendix A it is estimated that there were 62,413 active anglers in 2015. Based on this MNRF was able to engage with about 0.1% of anglers that frequent lake of the woods for Walleye fishing and the number would be less if you include non-anglers affected as well. Grand Council highly recommends increasing effort to engage with the public on this.

- The draft plan states 14 First Nation communities were contacted for engagement on the draft plan. How many of these communities were actually engaged with by MNRF beyond initial contact efforts? What did engagement look like with communities who continued along with the MNRF engagement? What were participation numbers from First Nation engagement, was it higher or lower than the 83 from public engagement?

- The Terms of Reference acknowledge that First Nation participation in the Advisory Council does not satisfy the Crown’s duty to consult. Does MNRF believe they have adequately met the Crown’s duty to consult through their engagement process? Based on information provided in the draft plan, Grand Council believes that more effort could have been put into engaging with the Treaty #3 First Nations for their input into the draft plan.

- There is a disproportionate emphasis put on the importance of Walleye for economics and regional tourism compared to the cultural importance of Walleye for Treaty #3 First Nations. More emphasis should be brought to the importance of Walleye for Treaty #3 food sovereignty.

- More emphasis needs to be put on how much greater recreational fishing impacts Walleye populations than Indigenous commercial fishing. This information is buried in the appendix section which very few people will read. This draft plan has already begun to put more unneeded scrutiny to First Nations commercial fishing.

- Under Objective 2022-4 for socio-economic objectives it states “Where the evaluation of two regulatory proposals indicate that both would address the ecological objectives equally, the option that best allows the tourism industry to market Lake of the Woods as a desirable destination should be considered preferable.” This objective outright ignores the cultural importance of Walleye to Treaty #3 First Nations in favor of economic importance. Is MNRF’s intention of the draft plan to cater directly to the Walleye tourism industry and disregard all other importance such as food sovereignty for Treaty #3? As PSF Objective 2.2 outlines – “Allocate fish resources considering the needs and interests of all users,” and PSF Objective 2.3 outlines “Increase the economic, social, and cultural benefits derived from fish resources,” the proposed draft plan ignores considering the needs and interests of all users and ignores the social and cultural benefits in favor of economic benefits.

- Under Objective 2022-5 for socio-economic objectives it states, “provide additional angling opportunities for other species, consistent with the goals of the provincial fishing strategy.” This is a good idea and opportunity provided that MNRF properly engages with Treaty #3. First Nations both in number of participants and communities reached but also working with them for Traditional Knowledge to better inform which species to target and harvesting regulations. Many fish species in Treaty #3 have cultural importance for Treaty #3 communities. As PSF Objective 2.2 outlines – “Allocate fish resources considering the needs and interests of all users”, and PSF Objective 2.3 outlines “Increase the economic, social, and cultural benefits derived from fish resources” – to meet these PSF objectives for draft plan Objective 2022-5 MNRF will need to properly engage and consult with Treaty #3 First Nations.

- In Appendix D question 5 shows that 41% of attendees have never been contacted by an enforcement officer. The new fisheries management regulations will not have an effect if a large portion of anglers are never subject to compliance.

- The draft plan states that a summary of feedback will be included in the final amendment document. For transparency will the raw feedback be made publicly available?

- 3.2.7 “One Over” Modifier (allowing one very large fish greater than 70cm (27.5”), for holders of a Sport License) – This proposed change is not supported as it is only to be in effect until the review is completed of section 12 of OFR. It takes time, effort, and money to enforce compliance with the new rule. It would be much better to place this compliance effort on the new regulations based on the review.

- How often is the closed season for walleye re-evaluated?

- 2.1 LOTW Fisheries Management Goals (page 22): “PFS includes three further goal statements which address how MNRF develops and uses legislation, policy and science, and how the Ministry interacts with stakeholders, Indigenous communities and the general public. While these goals are important to the way MNRF conducts its business, they do not relate directly to the establishment of the fisheries management objectives for Lake of the Woods.” The draft plan did not include three goal statements as they were deemed not directly related to the fisheries management, but rather how they conduct their business. Why does legislation, policy, and science not directly affect fisheries management? How does interacting with Indigenous Communities not effect fisheries management (this land and water is Anishinaabe territory)?

- The draft plan states that equal regulations for all anglers will have better success than stricter restrictions on non-residents compared to residents. However, the introduction provides evidence that the majority of recreational anglers are non-residents.

- Both the “Preferred Option” as well as the “Alternate Option” do not provide stringent enough regulation changes needed to increase the Walleye population on Lake of the Woods to sustainable levels. A better option would be “two Walleye in the slot limit, two possession limit, and no Walleye over.”

- Part 2: Ministry Questions for Participants (page 53)
4. What factors other than sport/recreational overharvesting do you feel might be contributing to the decline in the Walleye population? (Participants were able to vote for any number of the five options listed below. Percentages indicate the proportion of participants who voted for that option).
a) Commercial fish harvesting: 75%
b) Water quality: 36%
c) Invasive species: 34%
d) Cormorants and pelicans: 20%
e) Water levels: 20%
Why did the Ministry add “commercial fish harvesting” to the list of options for participants to vote for? Why wouldn’t the Ministry leave the question open-ended so that participants could provide their actual opinions on what they thought the factors of overharvesting could be? This question is biased as it promotes only the five options given as well as no option for “other.” This question is also contradictory to a statement on Page 55 of the Draft Plan under “1. Indigenous commercial fishing.” MNRF staff stated that, “The Lake of the Woods Indigenous commercial fishery is small-scale and localized… we estimate that recreational angling accounts for more than twice the amount of Walleye harvested by commercial fishing.” Was this information given to participants before they voted on Question 4? If the MNRF don’t see commercial fishing as having a significant impact on the Lake of the Woods Walleye fishery, then why would they put it as an option for Question 4?

- It has been brought to our attention that an “Aboriginal Advisory Council” was initially formed during the initials stages of the Recreational Walleye Plan Draft for Consultation. Is this true, and if so, why is the council no longer operational?

- Minnesota Walleye regulations do not align with the proposed new Ontario Walleye regulations (options 1 & 2).
a. Minnesota Regulations - Season: May 14, 2022 to April 14, 2023 - Walleye and sauger: all Walleye from 19.5” (49.53 cm) - 28” (71.12 cm) must be immediately released. Possession limit 6 in combination, not more than four can be Walleye, only one Walleye over 28”.
b. Ontario Preferred Option: Sport 2; must be less than 43 cm (16.9”)
c. Ontario Alternate Option: Sport 4; must between 35 cm and 43 cm (13.8” and 16.9”)
No matter what new option is chosen, American anglers will still be allowed to keep 4 Walleye over 16.9” but under 19.5” where Ontario resident anglers cannot. This does not align with the Ontario Walleye Management Objectives.

- There seems to be a lot of “misinformation” and/or “lack of information” when it comes to Indigenous commercial fishing and subsistence harvesting of Walleye. There could be a potential for increased racism among non-indigenous members of the public towards indigenous people as they may be under the impression that Indigenous commercial fishing and subsistence harvesting is the main cause of low Walleye population on Lake of the Woods. The same rationale can be used to point the blame on the Indigenous people with respect to the proposed changes to the Walleye regulations. That being said, the following statement needs be implemented within the Draft Walleye Management Plan – “There are four guiding teachings within Manito Aki Inakonigaawin (MAI) – Respect, Rights, Reciprocity and Responsibility. Within Respect, it states that Anishinaabe only take what is needed from Ginkeminaan (Mother Earth). Within Responsibility, it states that Anishinaabe have a responsibility not to harm the land.” It is vitally important that the Ontario public are aware of these Traditional Laws and their importance.

Key Recommendations:

- The draft plan must include consultation with communities to include Traditional Knowledge and community input into the proposed plan.

- More transparency must be given to the data that went into making the proposed regulation updates.

- More effort needs to be put into engaging with Treaty #3 First Nations communities and organizations for input on the proposed plan to properly meet the duty to consult.

- More emphasis should be put on the cultural importance of Walleye to Treaty #3 communities rather than solely focus on the economic importance to the tourism industry.

- Grand Council Treaty #3 must be engaged with in this matter. Meaningful engagement as laid out in Manito Aki Inakonigaawin processes must occur and GCT#3 does not accept that the duty to consult has been fulfilled.

These comments are prepared by the Territorial Planning Unit of Grand Council Treaty #3.