Opinions are like (noses), everybody’s got one.
“The foolish and the dead alone never change their opinions.” - James Russell Lowell
The story of the lost tribal gill nets on Mille Lacs Lake has generated a lot of talk. Much of the discussion has quieted down.
A lot of people have posted comments and questions on the Messenger web page and on blogs. Some of the questions have been thoughtful while others have been redundant. The questions that have warranted answers have been answered, or so it seems.
Except for a couple. One in particular asked of me by “John.” He wanted to know if I had changed my position regarding gill nets.
While I don’t believe I ever spelled out my position, or opinion, about gill netting in particular (show me word for word if I did), I have given John's question a lot of thought.
As a writer, I am first an observer. I like to interview people in person, or be on the scene of whatever it is I am covering so I can see first hand what it is all about and feel some of the emotions. I listen to people. I watch people. I watch the whole situation as best as I can. Get the big picture. I sometimes get lost in the listening and the watching. But I feel I have to, to be able to tell the story. And then as a writer I tell you what I have found.
As a writer, what I think and feel, or my position on a subject, doesn’t really matter. As the writer, I should be out in the margins, not even a sidebar to the story. Because that is where writers belong. If I become a part of the story, then I am not an observer. If I am not being an observer, then I cannot be a storyteller.
There are exceptions, of course, to every rule. An op/ed piece is completely different than a hard news story and/or a feature story. However, some feature stories can be written in first person, and then of course, that puts me in the story. Opinions and editorials are of course, what they are.
But news is news.
I watched the entire story play out before my eyes. I was actually in a boat, on the water, in Garrison Bay and St. Alban’s Bay the night the ice floe moved in covering a story on electro fishing. I am not an expert, but there was barely a wind. The water was calm and it was a beautiful sunset. I gave no thought to the floe lingering just out of my view. And I watched as Band members set their nets for the evening.
I finished gathering electro fishing information and went home. It was well after 10 p.m. when I left the bay. I remember it being quiet. Peaceful. Not much wind to speak of. Only a gentle lapping of the waves on the rocks at the landing. Apparently, a few short hours later, something changed.
The following morning, I stopped by Garrison Bay again. I had no idea there were nets trapped below the surface when I first pulled into the parking lot. One look at the bay, and knowing there were 100’s of nets set the night before, and watching Band members struggle to maneuver their boats through the ice, I knew.
So I watched.
I listened.
I watched some more.
And the rest of the story has been written.
This is what I do.
I stand behind the facts as I have presented them to you — as they have been presented to me. The only factual information I have is from biologists and law enforcement from the Minnesota DNR and GLIFWC. Anything else is heresy and cannot be construed as fact without means to back it up.
What I have watched playout before my eyes since then has done nothing to increase my view of mankind.
Peace.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
As this appears to be a shot at me similiar to what Leland is doing, simply because I'm questioning you, the GLIFWC & the MNDNR. While my questions remain redundant, I still have FEW answers. The GLIFWC won't commnet, my federal representatives claim this is a state issue and Ron Payer says this is federal issue. Governor Pawlenty won't respond at all. So, yes, my questions are redundant!! You claim the messenger has answered them all in some fashion, yet I can't find the archived articles that answer all my questions. I just want the "facts" you claim to have discovered. Hey, I might just change my opinion, no matter what your opening quote says.
You claim to have only reported the facts. One fact that is blatantly questionable, "the lost nets sink to the bottom." Well, I think that was proven untrue, no matter whose net was found at big point floating in 20 feet of water or the net snagged in the motor at MyrMar. Have you went back to the GLIFWC, MNDNR or any of these "biologist" to find out how the nets could still be floating after several weeks?? That to me would gain tons of credibility to your fact finding vs. believing everything you are told. It's OK to question someone when the info sounds fishy.
Dear John,
If it sounds like the blog was directed at you, that is because you asked the question. I answered. It was not intended to be a chot at you.
It is good to ask questions. Especially when things smell fishy. I do it all the time. Keep asking. And keep looking.
There are exceptions to every rule. The nets that were found allegedly floating -- one by Myr Mar and one by Big Point could be explained.
The net by Big Point has been determined to be not one of the missing Garrison nets. It had appeared to have been down for some time. Questions were raised as to whether or not it was an old DNR or a tulibee net. It was determined it was unlikely that it was a tribal net. But nobody can tell whose it is or exactly how long it had been there.
A few short days after the Quast net was recovered another net was found in the same general area. That net was sunk to the bottom. In fact, a diver in scuba gear took several hours to free the net.
In theory, do you believe that if the lead weights from the bottom of a net were removed, or missing, the nets could float and drift? I believe that could happen. When you look at the ratio of "drifting" to sunk nets found so far, it is about 1:11 if I did that right. 12 nets found, 1 was floating. (Big Point net does not count. IF it did it would make the numbers 2:12.) All that proves is that the majority of unattended nets with the floats missing and the weights intact will sink. A few may not. Is that fair enough? One floating net does not disprove a theory.
I don't really care where the net came from on Big Point. I don't feel any reprocussions will happen whether native or dnr. The fact to me, of the 3 missing nets in Garrison, 1 was found floating. A second net was found floating at big point, apparently had been for a while. All I'm getting at is, the GLIFWC doesn't necessarily know exactly what happens to these lost nets. So to state they are no longer a harm to the environment, is well, just down right untrue. Which further fuels the fire of do they really care or are they just trying to sweep the netting issue under the rug again until next spring???
I want to know if one floating net was the exception to the rule, why did the Fellegy's and Mr. Carlson find 9 floating nets. They do have photographic proof of this so it can not be discounted. I am just curious if you are really listening to both sides.
Mark,
I try to listen to both sides. At the time Fellegey allegedly found nine floating nets, that was only a few days after they went missing. To the best of my knowledge, the alleged photographic has not been seen. Nobody from this office has seen photos to prove nine nets were floating. Were the buoys still attached to the nets? If that is the case then of course they would be floating. That is how they are designed. If the buoys were attached and they were floating, then they could easily have been seen. That is also how they are designed. If the buoys were not attached, there are lead weights attached to the bottom of the nets. Logic dictates that something attached to lead weights and no way to allow it to float would then sink. Think about the logic. I am more than willing to examine the alleged photos. I am more than listening to both sides.
Good explanation...as usual. Keep up the good work.
Post a Comment