What is going on with this story?
Federal Agents Raid Ely Bait Shop

Wow, that sucks! I hope he gets his ciscos back.

"The Wilderness Act (of 1964) says that commercial uses in the wilderness are permitted only to enhance recreation," said Gus Smith, Kawishiwi District ranger for the Forest Service at Ely.

The commercial cisco netting does not meet that requirement, he said.


Seems to me that selling ciscoes to enhance recreational fishing would meet the requirement.

Too many laws on the books and the ones enforced make the least sense. my .02

If the ciscoes are deemed legal-- then what happens??

Ouch - hope it turns out okay for the shop/owner.

I've never used anything other than ciscoes for lake trout in the winter. Are smelt just as productive? There goes the confidence portion of fishing this year if I can't get ciscoes.

TGO... hopes it all works out for you.

I'm thinking a good thought for you, TGO.

quote Kobykat: "I've never used anything other than ciscoes for lake trout in the winter. Are smelt just as productive? There goes the confidence portion of fishing this year if I can't get ciscoes."

Smelt work good too but are even harder to get. I hope you get your Cisco back TGO.

quote missmolly: "I'm thinking a good thought for you, TGO. "

Me Too, I hope it all works out favorably for you.

yes, good thoughts your way TGO, hope it all works out....

Wow.
What did they do to Latourells?
Did they go confiscate his nets.?

TGO I wish you the best. It seems to me that if they think the fish were taken in a restricted area they would have confiscated the nets also.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

On the other hand, ya take out 12,000 baitfish out of the foodchain that's gonna leave some hungry malnourished walleye pike and northern.

Don't see why they would have allowed netting of anything in the bwca anyway.

Hope this all pans out for you TGO. There is also an article on the front page of this weeks Outdoor News.

quote walleye_hunter: "Wow, that sucks! I hope he gets his ciscos back. "

Plus 1

TGO, I hope you're not sentenced to fishing for smallmouth with Rapalas.


Too soon?

Haha. This has gotta be a frickin joke....raiding ciscos?! It's bait, not meth.

So the key is to find a lawyer who can define how netting ciscoes 'enhances recreation'. I can think of one way. One can fish with ciscoes. It seems to me the Feds have overstepped their authority, the DNR controls fishing regs in Minnesota.

quote plittle: "Haha. This has gotta be a frickin joke....raiding ciscos?! It's bait, not meth. "

If this was April 1st I'd swear it was? Hope all goes well with TGO, this is just over the top IMHO?

Bleep this...sorry you're having to deal with this Jim!

Bleep this...sorry you're having to deal with this Jim!

quote old_salt: "So the key is to find a lawyer who can define how netting ciscoes 'enhances recreation'. I can think of one way. One can fish with ciscoes. It seems to me the Feds have overstepped their authority, the DNR controls fishing regs in Minnesota."

I hope everything works out the best for TGO, but this seems like a really slippery slope that lovers of the wilderness should not want to see us start down.

If harvesting bait that is used commercially is allowed because it "enhances recreation," it won't be long before people are also trying to say they should be able to harvest wood that can be used for building canoe paddles to sell somewhere, or removing antler sheds that can later be sold for use as a rattle call in deer hunting.

There's got to be a line in the sand on this stuff. I really hope it doesn't result in TGO getting hit with a hard fine or losing his shop, but it seems like playing loose with the rules here is a dangerous game.

You raise a very good point Dele. In this particular situation by all accounts the people that acquired the ciscoes did so legally so the question is should they examine when and where its legal to commercially net these fish. Im always interested in not only what the law is but also the intent of the law.

quote Basspro69: "You raise a very good point Dele. In this particular situation by all accounts the people that acquired the ciscoes did so legally so the question is should they examine when and where its legal to commercially net these fish. Im always interested in not only what the law is but also the intent of the law."

Thanks, and I agree. It seems like in this case there is a lot of ambiguity in the law as written. It certainly seems to me, non-lawyer that I am, that the intent of the law is to prevent the harvest of creatures and resources from the wilderness for commercial use. Why the "enhance recreation" exception was added, and what its scope was meant to be, are questions for people with more knowledge of this than me. However, as a layperson, it seems to me that harvesting large numbers of fish and selling them as bait is a clear violation of the spirit of LNT principles, if not a violation of the letter of the law. I don't blame TGO for it, since the law is admittedly ambiguous.

I hope the outcome of this is a let-off for TGO for this particular matter, with a revision to the law making it clear that no natural resources harvested from the BWCA can be sold commercially.

The article clearly states that the US Forest Service allowed the harvest this fall on Basswood at the behest of US Senator Amy Klobuchar and US Rep Rick Nolan. It looks to me that the USFWS is overstepping their authority and jurisdiction unless the border was crossed.

I'll try to stop in and make a purchase at TGO when I am up in the area....

quote inspector13: "
The article clearly states that the US Forest Service allowed the harvest this fall on Basswood at the behest of US Senator Amy Klobuchar and US Rep Rick Nolan. It looks to me that the USFWS is overstepping their authority and jurisdiction unless the border was crossed.


"

I have zero idea what happen but I see a lot of speculating going on. Like I said I have no idea.

Sounds like another pile of Barney Fife.
Hang in there , TGO. I know you wouldn't do anything that you thought was the wrong thing to do. It is weird to think about the gov't getting involved in ice fishing bait. Right is right.

Thanks for the kind words.
A few clarifications:
1. The Ciscoes are trapped or seined, it is illegal to use a gill net to take bait fish.
2. This Cisco operation has been going on for as long as I've owned the shop which will be 34 years, next summer. We have all licenses and permits needed to do this.
3. They are being harvested under minnow trapping regulations, it is not a commercial fishing operation. How catching Ciscoes to be used for fishing bait is NOT AN ENHANCMENT TO RECREATION and not allowed by the Wilderness Act , is beyond me??
4. Bob LaTourell has been trapping Ciscoes for me the last 17 or 18 years, and his traps are always on the American side of the river at Prairie Portage.
5. Bob and I were the two served with a search warrant on December 1st, the third party was not. They downloaded our hard drives in our computers, took all our banking and tax records for the last four years, for whatever reason.
6. There has been no contact from US Fish and Wildlife for over two weeks, and nothing has been returned to us.
7. There was absolutely no explanation as to the reason for the raid, other than one statement-"These Ciscoes were trapped in Canada," which is total BS.
8. Someone commented that taking 12,000 fish will hurt the food chain, false. Ciscoes spawn in many areas in Basswood, can do so in 90 FOW, on sandy beaches, and any reef they take a liking to.
9. If the USFS hold fast to their interpretation of the no commercial operations law, Mink and Beaver trapping will also have to be banned!!
I'll keep the forum updated, but have asked Representative Nolan's office to call USF&W on Monday to request that all Ciscoes, records, check receipts, and bank records be returned immediately.

quote inspector13: "
The article clearly states that the US Forest Service allowed the harvest this fall on Basswood at the behest of US Senator Amy Klobuchar and US Rep Rick Nolan. It looks to me that the USFWS is overstepping their authority and jurisdiction unless the border was crossed.


"

I get the same idea. Imagine that--- the Gov (unless proved) overstepping. I wanna hear the results of this mess. If the ciscoes are legal-- then what???

TGO your a well respected member and we all have your back, on my personal note = 8 to 10 agents sounds like a shit load of money spent on this. i know its federal but are they trying to make up for many blunders in the past ? and i know going into canadian waters is not allowed but the ciscoes are out of the same body of water so the disease thing doesnt apply. we all love you TGO and hope things swing your way .

May have been 10-12 agents, total??
The first two that came in (one CO, one Agent) dressed normally.
The next group that came in about 20 minutes later, had body armor and pistols.
To be fair, all of them were polite.

Yikes, TGO! Body armor is ridiculous.

I don't think the body armor is ridiculous. If that is part of your uniform that is required to do your job.
I doubt they geared up because they expected a firefight from jim.
So if they down loaded Jim's computer,they're reading our post. So if that's the case I want them to know,
They're breath stinks and they're momma' s a douche bag....??

I'd also like to know how they transported 12,000 live fish.
Who is caring for and feeding them.
Will Jim be reimbursed for lost revenue.
I hope Jim doesn't have to hire a lawyer,that's another blood sucking group one should not have to deal with..

12 men armored up,chests puffed out, elbows pointed out, hands just inches from the pistol grip.... could be the makings of a mystery novella... "Murder of the Ciscoes"..

Jim's bait store is pretty small, can't imagine all these people in there at one time.

quote yogi59weedr: "I'd also like to know how they transported 12,000 live fish.
Who is caring for and feeding them.
Will Jim be reimbursed for lost revenue.
I hope Jim doesn't have to hire a lawyer,that's another blood sucking group one should not have to deal with.."

Ciscoes are frozen, 1 dozen per pack, and were in my freezers when they raided the shop.

quote The Great Outdoors: "

quote yogi59weedr: "I'd also like to know how they transported 12,000 live fish.
Who is caring for and feeding them.
Will Jim be reimbursed for lost revenue.
I hope Jim doesn't have to hire a lawyer,that's another blood sucking group one should not have to deal with.."

Ciscoes are frozen, 1 dozen per pack, and were in my freezers when they raided the shop."

So the ciscoes were murdered and their bodies were stored in the freezer like so many other baitfish before them...what will he do next?

This is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a long time. Cisco's aren't even live bait. Jim works long hours to provide fishermen what they need to enhance their fishing experience. Doesn't sound like there was even a warning. New CO officer? They have to know this practice has been done forever. Good luck TGO... Let us know if we have to bug anyone like Nolan or Amy.

Edit... Sent Nolan a note...

I could be wrong but I don't think there are many law enforcement agencies that call ahead when serving warrents.

Coming from someone who's not well versed on Cisco's, why are they frozen?
Why not use them alive?
Do they die like shinners?
I try to learn something new every day.

So was the raid something like this.

Link

There's an article in the Trib now. They say there was a 4 year surveillance going on. Apparently they claim to have footage and photos of the ciscos being trapped across the border.

Wilderness Act issue is a totally separate debate (albeit one worthy of having).

Feds say fish are from spawning beds on Canada side, so Lacey Act is the accusation. They use that with timber sales, etc. too, feds don't have to prove purchaser knew the true source, only that the source was actually illegal.

Four year surveillance claim, if true, would be damning.

are the ciscoes collected off spawning beds? if so, yes, that's bad. but really? they are supposed to follow the ciscoe around to find out where it originated?

yup, welcome to the soft tyranny which is the ever expanding federal government trying to micro manage every aspect of our lives.

Star Tribune

This whole story sucks. The outfitter in question has been a good steward of the BWCAW, but apparently they have video evidence of bait being harvested from Canada by them.

Great Outdoors I feel for ya, doesn't look good for getting the bait back as Federal cases drag out forever many times. If they consider the Ciscoes evidence probably never see it again. I guess I'd be upset if I knew the Feds were monitoring the trappers and let me buy the bait, then took it all.

Also remember these are only allegations, there is possibly more to the story on either side we don't know. I hope it doesn't turn out as bad as it looks. I really hope there is an honest mistake or Government over reach involved but everything is speculation right now.

T

quote Grouseguy1: "There's an article in the Trib now. They say there was a 4 year surveillance going on. Apparently they claim to have footage and photos of the ciscos being trapped across the border. "

hard to believe. 4 years, why wait so long?

quote Mocha: "are the ciscoes collected off spawning beds? if so, yes, that's bad. but really? they are supposed to follow the ciscoe around to find out where it originated?"

Many baitfish are captured during spawning. It is common practice, I am not aware that it is bad for the baitfish?

To the second part, where the fish originated is immaterial, it only matters if the bait traps were set on the Canadian side or not.

T

I can vouche for the good stewardship of the family involved, having used them for near 25 years. The rules of the BWCA were layed out for me on day one. They are not afraid to give you a gentle scolding if they see or hear of possible violations. They are also some of the first to be notified if anyone is missing or late, because they know every nook, cranny and campsite on Basswood by heart.

I can't imagine anyone else running that truck portage as safely and efficiently as they do, so I hope that whatever comes out of this is only minimally punitive.

I'm sorry this you happened to you TGO and also to the outfitter. I have used those ciscoes bought from you and they work well.

Didn't the outfitter criticize the USFS in the past about the number of motorized permits issued for Moose Lake? Maybe they are retaliating against the outfitter for that or another reason.

I wish you the best and I hope this is cleared up soon.

quote Zulu: "I'm sorry this you happened to you TGO and also to the outfitter. I have used those ciscoes bought from you and they work well.


Didn't the outfitter criticize the USFS in the past about the number of motorized permits issued for Moose Lake? Maybe they are retaliating against the outfitter for that or another reason.


I wish you the best and I hope this is cleared up soon."

How do we know that you're not currently in possession of illegally acquired ciscos?

I've fished that area many times. I drifted just to the left of that little island by not more than 10 yds and have the Canadian guy come out and yell to move back to the"other side of the island". Which I promptly did.
The lady at the truck postage said I was lucky.
They are prickes about that area.

She said they could have fined me for all my minnows leeches and barbed hooks.
Confiscated my boat and hauled my azz out by float plane until I payed the fine.

Damn. 10 yds... I was actually fighting a nice 4lb.smallmouth and lost my bearings for a couple minutes.

I'm ultra careful when I fish there now.



Good luck to ya Jim
Sometimes people get dragged into shit they know nothing about.
And that sucks.

4 years....... REALLY..


Sounds like the Canadians just want rid of the truck portage...

quote yogi59weedr: "I don't think the body armor is ridiculous. If that is part of your uniform that is required to do your job.
I doubt they geared up because they expected a firefight from jim.
So if they down loaded Jim's computer,they're reading our post. So if that's the case I want them to know,
They're breath stinks and they're momma' s a douche bag....??"

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

What a waste of taxpayer resources! FOUR YEARS? Did they think they were investigating a reincarnation of the "French Connection?" I just lost a little more respect of the USFS and Border Patrol if they're the ones responsible for this ridiculous miscarriage of justice.

On the bright side, before they left the Feds purchased a whole bunch of sinkers and slip bobbers from TGO's stock.

All the shit coming in along the Mexican/US border and THIS is what lights a fire under the Feds?!?! Maybe they should take some of that piss and vinegar and go down there and do some real good instead of messing with an innocent man's livelihood. Give me a break..

I read a 3rd party had a large number of ciscoes confiscated too. Any idea how the agents had taken the video?

quote Guest: "I read a 3rd party had a large number of ciscoes confiscated too. Any idea how the agents had taken the video? "

I think the Tribune article above explains some of it.

quote 2old4U: "All the shit coming in along the Mexican/US border and THIS is what lights a fire under the Feds?!?! Maybe they should take some of that piss and vinegar and go down there and do some real good instead of messing with an innocent man's livelihood. Give me a break.. "

EXACTLY!

quote ozarkpaddler: "What a waste of taxpayer resources! FOUR YEARS? Did they think they were investigating a reincarnation of the "French Connection?" I just lost a little more respect of the USFS and Border Patrol if they're the ones responsible for this ridiculous miscarriage of justice."

There are some high ranking folks in the USFS and FWS that have been wanting to stop this for a while. I'm not sure if that's what this is about, but it's an assumption people are making. It might be a safe assumption based on the stupid way this was handled.

In regards to the article in the Star Tribune on December 17th, several items were not correct.
The writer had contacted me last Thursday, and asked a few questions about the search warrant. His information was wrong, so I explained that to him.
Long story short, he ran with the original story and the false statements.
With this said, I must give the same benefit of doubt to the USF&W Agent they interviewed, assuming that his words may have been misunderstood, or changed, when talking to the reporter.
I have a few questions of my own:
1. In 2012 or 2013 (?) when the agent allegedly hid in the Canadian cabin, and observed this heinous crime occurring right in front of his eyes, why didn't he walk to the shore and either tell whoever was there to move over, or arrest them?
2. Why did they raid my shop, and take my Ciscoes that were harvested in 2016 for something they allege happened 3 to 4 years earlier?
As I have stated many times before, the trapper has had his traps on the American side of the river at Prairie Portage as long as he has been up there.
This investigation could have ended four years ago, it kept going for some reason they are not talking about.

quote The Great Outdoors: "In regards to the article in the Star Tribune on December 17th, several items were not correct.
The writer had contacted me last Thursday, and asked a few questions about the search warrant. His information was wrong, so I explained that to him.
Long story short, he ran with the original story and the false statements.
With this said, I must give the same benefit of doubt to the USF&W Agent they interviewed, assuming that his words may have been misunderstood, or changed, when talking to the reporter.
I have a few questions of my own:
1. In 2012 or 2013 (?) when the agent allegedly hid in the Canadian cabin, and observed this heinous crime occurring right in front of his eyes, why didn't he walk to the shore and either tell whoever was there to move over, or arrest them?
2. Why did they raid my shop, and take my Ciscoes that were harvested in 2016 for something they alleged happened 3 to 4 years earlier?
As I have stated many times before, the trapper has had his traps on the American side of the river at Prairie Portage as long as he has been up there.
This investigation could have ended four years ago, it kept going for some reason they are not talking about."

Thoughts and prayers for a quick resolution of this for you. If I see someone making a mistake I'd have stopped it when I saw it FOUR YEARS AGO.

I guess I'm not only fired up about your dilemma, though, but my "Christmas Letter" from the IRS we got Saturday. Now, in between working extra shifts, working Christmas, I have to go to a tax office an hour away tomorrow and straighten THEIR error out! Merry Christmas, huh?

Taxes..... I mean isn't that how they got Capone.

quote yogi59weedr: "Taxes..... I mean isn't that how they got Capone."

I know that's how I divide my time, big time mobster when not busy taking care of sick people for the last 35 years.

Some of the comments here are strangely reminiscent of those made in the past thread regarding the Iowa Boy Scouts who claimed (falsely) to have been held at gunpoint by Customs officers. And some are even being made by the same people. "Doesn't the government have better things to do?", "Waste of taxpayer dollars...", "Government overreach...". Did we not learn anything from that? Given the number of critics back then who initially vilified the gov't, then slunk off into the woodwork when they learned the truth of the incident, I'm guessing we did not.

First, in case anyone has been living under a rock, it's standard policy these days for just about every law enforcement agency on the planet to wear body armor. Not sure how that's something to be criticized.

Why did it take 4 years? Officers can either be thorough on every case which comes their way or they can simply pick and choose, taking only cursory looks at one claim or another, for whatever reason. Personally, I'd prefer that a law enforcement agency use the former method over the latter. And if cisco fishing in the BWCA has truly been going on as long as people in this thread have claimed, I don't think taking 4 years to look at it is too long. Especially when there are probably issues at work that we're unaware of, like logistics, dealing with courts, etc.

"Why don't they spend their time investigating X or Y instead of working on this?" That's a strange claim to make here, given the natural resource-focus of this forum. That said, the agencies involved in this case have this type of issue as part of their mission. It's their job, no one else's, and it's what they're mandated to spend their (relatively-small) budgets on, in the geographic areas in which they're designated to operate.

But anyone who doesn't believe that allegations of wildlife crime should be addressed - at least, not when they may involve places or people we're familiar with - should share that sentiment with their elected representatives: tell them our country doesn't NEED any natural resource law enforcement, or that law enforcement should only look at allegations which affect some person/region/issue that we don't know or aren't already familiar with.

quote Northland: "Some of the comments here are strangely reminiscent of those made in the past thread regarding the Iowa Boy Scouts who claimed (falsely) to have been held at gunpoint by Customs officers. And some are even being made by the same people. "Doesn't the government have better things to do?", "Waste of taxpayer dollars...", "Government overreach...". Did we not learn anything from that? Given the number of critics back then who initially vilified the gov't, then slunk off into the woodwork when they learned the truth of the incident, I'm guessing we did not.


First, in case anyone has been living under a rock, it's standard policy these days for just about every law enforcement agency on the planet to wear body armor. Not sure how that's something to be criticized.

Why did it take 4 years? Officers can either be thorough on every case which comes their way or they can simply pick and choose, taking only cursory looks at one claim or another, for whatever reason. Personally, I'd prefer that a law enforcement agency use the former method over the latter. And if cisco fishing in the BWCA has truly been going on as long as people in this thread have claimed, I don't think taking 4 years to look at it is too long. Especially when there are probably issues at work that we're unaware of, like logistics, dealing with courts, etc.


"Why don't they spend their time investigating X or Y instead of working on this?" That's a strange claim to make here, given the natural resource-focus of this forum. That said, the agencies involved in this case have this type of issue as part of their mission. It's their job, no one else's, and it's what they're mandated to spend their (relatively-small) budgets on, in the geographic areas in which they're designated to operate.

But anyone who doesn't believe that allegations of wildlife crime should be addressed - at least, not when they may involve places or people we're familiar with - should share that sentiment with their elected representatives: tell them our country doesn't NEED any natural resource law enforcement, or that law enforcement should only look at allegations which affect some person/region/issue that we don't know or aren't already familiar with.



"

Well said.

quote Northland: "...And if cisco fishing in the BWCA has truly been going on as long as people in this thread have claimed, I don't think taking 4 years to look at it is too long. "

This is not the issue. You need to re-read and understand the issue before criticizing others for their speculative thinking; because you are doing the same thing.

When I was bird hunting the first week of November I saw some nets set up off the Lake Isabella landing. Does anyone know what type of fish was being netted? It was broad daylight so I assume whatever they were after was legal - within the BWCAW, no less.

quote JackpineJim: "When I was bird hunting the first week of November I saw some nets set up off the Lake Isabella landing. Does anyone know what type of fish was being netted? It was broad daylight so I assume whatever they were after was legal - within the BWCAW, no less."

I believe that was individuals tullibee netting for individual use for in the past that lake is open. The nets have to be set 6 feet or shallower. There is a season and license needed. They are gillnets.

quote Pinetree: "

quote JackpineJim: "When I was bird hunting the first week of November I saw some nets set up off the Lake Isabella landing. Does anyone know what type of fish was being netted? It was broad daylight so I assume whatever they were after was legal - within the BWCAW, no less."

I believe that was individuals tullibee netting for individual use for in the past that lake is open. The nets have to be set 6 feet or shallower. There is a season and license needed. They are gillnets."

Thanks Pinetree. Do they eat them (smoked) or use for bait?

quote JackpineJim: "

quote Pinetree: "

quote JackpineJim: "When I was bird hunting the first week of November I saw some nets set up off the Lake Isabella landing. Does anyone know what type of fish was being netted? It was broad daylight so I assume whatever they were after was legal - within the BWCAW, no less."

I believe that was individuals tullibee netting for individual use for in the past that lake is open. The nets have to be set 6 feet or shallower. There is a season and license needed. They are gillnets."

Thanks Pinetree. Do they eat them (smoked) or use for bait?"

They smoke them mostly.
With the new laws the last few years they are not or suppose to be not used for bait. in fear of spreading certain diseases to other lakes.

Disease spreading is a part of it, but it is illegal to gill net bait fish!!

quote The Great Outdoors: "Disease spreading is a part of it, but it is illegal to gill net bait fish!!"

Thanks.

quote inspector13: "

quote Northland: "...And if cisco fishing in the BWCA has truly been going on as long as people in this thread have claimed, I don't think taking 4 years to look at it is too long. "

This is not the issue. You need to re-read and understand the issue before criticizing others for their speculative thinking; because you are doing the same thing.


"

Please explain how I am "speculating" in regards to what you quoted, by simply providing some reasons why an investigation may take 4 years - ?

Moreover, I'm not doing anything even CLOSE to what I'm criticizing others for - namely, bashing LEOs for doing their jobs by saying they're "overstepping" their authority, because we happen to like the other parties involved more, or simply because we don't like authority, period. This incident is largely an unknown. We have newspaper articles and one side (actually, only half of one side). That may be enough for some people, but not for me - and not for a court of law, either. I have not judged one side or the other as far as the incident in question, as there's more to this than any of us know. There always is.

quote Northland: "

quote inspector13: "

quote Northland: "...And if cisco fishing in the BWCA has truly been going on as long as people in this thread have claimed, I don't think taking 4 years to look at it is too long. "

This is not the issue. You need to re-read and understand the issue before criticizing others for their speculative thinking; because you are doing the same thing.



"

Please explain how I am "speculating" in regards to what you quoted, by simply providing some reasons why an investigation may take 4 years - ?


Moreover, I'm not doing anything even CLOSE to what I'm criticizing others for - namely, bashing LEOs for doing their jobs by saying they're "overstepping" their authority, because we happen to like the other parties involved more, or simply because we don't like authority, period. This incident is largely an unknown. We have newspaper articles and one side (actually, only half of one side). That may be enough for some people, but not for me - and not for a court of law, either. I have not judged one side or the other as far as the incident in question, as there's more to this than any of us know. There always is.



"

I agree with you 100%.

Northland,
I appreciated your information, this is coming from a guy who works with Federal LEO's on a regular basis. Usually fire related issues, Im not a LEO.
I stuck up for cops in the listening point thread regarding this issue.

So much for their right to a speedy trial!
Hard to believe this is still going on.
Copied and pasted from the Echo:

Rep. Stauber re a raid on The Great Outdoors shop in Ely and the confiscation of ciscoes from the proprietor, Jim Maki. The 2016 raid by armed federal agents was part of an investigation into reports that allege that the bait fish were illegally harvested on the Canadian side of a border river by a supplier to The Great Outdoors.
In a prompt reply from Stauber’s office, I learned that the case was charged in September of 2020 and will go to trial in April of this year, 2022.
A couple of questions about the handling of this case so far:
1. Why did it take about four years to bring charges in a case that seemed to the feds to be so exigent that it required a handful of armed agents to raid a small bait shop and seize several thousand dollars worth of the proprietor’s goods?.
2. What evidentiary value is there in packages of frozen ciscoes that have been kept for over five years at taxpayer expense? Does the prosecutor expect to call an ichthyologist to assert unequivocally that these fish were harvested a few feet across a mid-river border in Canada?
Perhaps the feds could apply their zeal and the skills learned in this incident to monitor what was once this country’s southern border.
I respectfully thank Rep. Stauber for his quick reply.

RIP Jim

“Minnowgate”. So four years doing investigations and surveillance, and now 5 years later and still nothing? Our government moves at the speed of snail. I forgot about this so I figured it was settled.

Maiingan: "Copied and pasted from the Echo:
...
"

Simply for the sake of clarity: this text was copied from the Echo's Opinion page? a Letter to the Editor? and, you were the author?

Maiingan,

I believe federal cases have a 97% conviction rate…maybe I am off on the current number but the point is they almost always get a conviction. One of the reasons is being thorough and taking their time. I might be annoyed with this whole process but the odds are not in the defendants case. I personally don’t know the truth, but it appears the evidence is overwhelming.

I’ve seen a lot of support of the defendants but unfortunately that support seems to rest on “what’s the big deal they’ve been doing this for years?” “It’s only a few feet what’s the big deal?” “They should of just told them the first time they saw them breaking the law” “it’s taking too long that’s not fair” etc… I am not a lawyer but none of those arguments seem to be an adequate defense in this case. There is a saying, don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.

If they get off, I’ll congratulate them. They sound like decent people and the whole thing is unfortunate. I don’t wish them ill will at all, but the Ely Echo article you linked to is worthless in this case.

Also Jim Maki was an awesome guy/character…as far as I know he was not charged or accused in this case. He just had the product that was allegedly obtained illegally. Just trying to be clear on that too since you mentioned him in your post it could be misconstrued he was charged.

T

schweady: "

Maiingan: "Copied and pasted from the Echo:
...
"

Simply for the sake of clarity: this text was copied from the Echo's Opinion page? a Letter to the Editor? and, you were the author?
"

No I am not the author. Didn't mean to confuse you.

Timatkn I think your right on a conviction rate in the high 90%. No my friend Jim Maki wasn't charge ... he had died more then a year before anyone was charged.

Anyone know how the fed's decided what border laws to charge or enforce? Or who even does the picking and choosing.

From what I've heard, several issues combined to stretch this out. The first was a health issue of a key member of one of the legal teams.

The second was the normal submittal to the defense of possible plea agreements, which is often done to avoid the time and expense of going to trial, for both sides. Each of those take time, too. Unless, of course, someone actually thinks people charged with crimes should bite the bullet and plead guilty, just to make everything go faster for watchers in the general public ??.

Then, throw in the courts cutting back, then closing completely, and now slowly re-opening (with a backlog) due to Covid. I can't imagine that's helped, either.

But I seriously doubt that anyone - either the prosecution or the defense - sat around and waited for no particular reason.

Also, no one "picks and chooses" which laws to enforce. As a LEO, I can tell you exactly how it goes: a law enforcement agency uncovers information, gets a tip, etc., and if it's a violation of a law they enforce, they investigate. That's all. They might charge the most serious violation and let the smaller ones go, but that's about it.

Given the fact that both the Ely Echo and the Timberjay have been way off the mark on everything about this case from the beginning (easily shown if you read the search warrant affidavits, which are public record), I wouldn't put much stock in anything printed in either paper.

Maiingan: " So much for their right to a speedy trial!
Hard to believe this is still going on.
Copied and pasted from the Echo:


Rep. Stauber re a raid on The Great Outdoors shop in Ely and the confiscation of ciscoes from the proprietor, Jim Maki. The 2016 raid by armed federal agents was part of an investigation into reports that allege that the bait fish were illegally harvested on the Canadian side of a border river by a supplier to The Great Outdoors.
In a prompt reply from Stauber’s office, I learned that the case was charged in September of 2020 and will go to trial in April of this year, 2022.
A couple of questions about the handling of this case so far:
1. Why did it take about four years to bring charges in a case that seemed to the feds to be so exigent that it required a handful of armed agents to raid a small bait shop and seize several thousand dollars worth of the proprietor’s goods?.
2. What evidentiary value is there in packages of frozen ciscoes that have been kept for over five years at taxpayer expense? Does the prosecutor expect to call an ichthyologist to assert unequivocally that these fish were harvested a few feet across a mid-river border in Canada?
Perhaps the feds could apply their zeal and the skills learned in this incident to monitor what was once this country’s southern border.
I respectfully thank Rep. Stauber for his quick reply.


RIP Jim
"

As for why it might haven taken as long as it did, see above.

The "evidentiary value" of evidence is that it's something of value seized pursuant to an investigation. You don't have to prove it's exact origin unless that's an issue of contention, I.e. unless someone is alleging that these fish came from somewhere other than the Prairie Portage. And no one has, to my knowledge.

Also, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense for the hundred or so fish and wildlife officers in this country to go help police the southern border, something they're not trained or equipped for and which is already being handled by 20,000 border patrol agents. There's a reason different law enforcement agencies with different missions have different amounts of proportional funding, and I think the southern border gets more than its share of people and resources thrown at it.

Maiingan: "

schweady: "

Maiingan: "Copied and pasted from the Echo:
...
"

"

.

Anyone know how the fed's decided what border laws to charge or enforce? Or who even does the picking and choosing."

I assume all of them. I am guessing this is a veiled effort to say that since the border in the south isn’t enforced then it’s okay for people in the North to allegedly violate Canadian/US border laws? The world doesn’t work that way.

In 2021 the US broke a record and arrested 1.6 million people for crossing illegally. The US has arrested Mexicans for fishing in US waters. Mexico has arrested US citizens for illeagally fishing in their waters--which is a more apples to apples comparison regarding the type of crime and the enforcement agencies.

I just don’t get this mentality that seems to exist in the US/MN that people can just treat Canada as an extension of the MN/US??? Most of the time there are not consequences but when people get busted don’t whine about it…

T

As an addition to the many comments made on this 6 year old thread, it would appear from CourtListener.com that the case against LaTourell's has been terminated by the US Attorney's office: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18427017/parties/united-states-v-latourell/

I had my attorney buddy review, and he said after spending at least 5 seconds reading, that he thinks my observation is correct (but without a retainer he will not be quoted). If anyone reading is more knowledgeable, I would be very interested in a more accurate and detailed update.

There appears to have been several motions by the defendant attorneys that the exact border at the Prairie Portage falls is not clearly defined (in terms of the islands used to anchor the nets) and therefore no violation occurred. But maybe there is more than appears here. It is rather disturbing to ascertain the US Attorney bought into this case, as a more efficient use of resources would have been a request to reposition the nets, followed by sharing a couple beers and talking over a satisfactory placement. Those comments hinting this was more of an issue to eliminate Prairie Portage and end motor permits on Basswood are probably accurate.

RIP, Jim.

illini79ps: "As an addition to the many comments made on this 6 year old thread, it would appear from CourtListener.com that the case against LaTourell's has been terminated by the US Attorney's office: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18427017/parties/united-states-v-latourell/


I had my attorney buddy review, and he said after spending at least 5 seconds reading, that he thinks my observation is correct (but without a retainer he will not be quoted). If anyone reading is more knowledgeable, I would be very interested in a more accurate and detailed update.


There appears to have been several motions by the defendant attorneys that the exact border at the Prairie Portage falls is not clearly defined (in terms of the islands used to anchor the nets) and therefore no violation occurred. But maybe there is more than appears here. It is rather disturbing to ascertain the US Attorney bought into this case, as a more efficient use of resources would have been a request to reposition the nets, followed by sharing a couple beers and talking over a satisfactory placement. Those comments hinting this was more of an issue to eliminate Prairie Portage and end motor permits on Basswood are probably accurate."

I was told the case was closed when the Latourells pled guilty and paid a fine. There was actually a trial scheduled when this occurred, but I think the defense realized that their argument that it was only a couple of feet into Canada wasn’t going to fly, nor would the argument of not knowing where the border was when you’ve lived and worked next to it and grown up there.

Regarding the argument that this was a waste of resources, I think its worth noting that when a game warden sees some tourist in a fishing boat drifting into Canada accidentally, he can take the educational approach and lecture them about where the border is. But when he receives information that a violation has knowingly been occurring for decades and has been purposely concealed by the violator, I think he’s kinda beyond assuming that it was all just a big misunderstanding, or that having a few beers with the violator (?) would cause a lucrative operation to suddenly stop. I’m sure your attorney friend would have informed you that actively concealing a commercial operation for an extensive period ratchets up the importance of the violation quite a bit.

Also, about the motor permit conspiracy… from what I’ve seen, there was never any mention of the Wilderness Act being charged in this case. That was horrid reporting on the part of some local newspapers and some false rumor-mongering by one of the subjects on social media. There are no felonies that I’m even aware of under that act. They were charged with violations of the Lacey Act - a real wildlife law that people actually go to jail for. I realize this is a BWCAW forum and the Wilderness Act is key here, but I think the whole motor permit conspiracy argument seems to be wishful thinking on the part of people who want to be able to claim they were simply being picked on and not doing anything wrong. Besides, does anyone really think the government would execute search warrants over motor permits? Seriously?

But with that said, if people are so concerned with Wilderness Act violations over other criminal laws, maybe they should ask the Ely Forest Service office why they allowed this illegal activity to occur for so long, or why they allow some outfitters to do business as they see fit, or let them run 35 and 40hp motors hidden underneath 30hp cowlings (per someone who saw it firsthand).

I will also say this much in the defense of those charged in the case; per my source, there were MANY other people who - for years - had knowingly crossed into Canada at that location to harvest fish. But none of them were charged because they seemed to be doing it for personal use and not commercial resale and their operations were not that big or as well- organized. Or maybe - given how federal prosecutions tend to work - the us Attorney’s office was going after the big fish (pun intended). But in any case, it seemed to bear out what a previous poster alluded to: that there seems to be an attitude in MN that became we live next to Canada and because it’s not a militarized/controlled border like the southern one, and maybe also because we have friendly relations with Canada, that we can do whatever we want with regard to crossing back and forth, etc.

Northland, great comments and I was wondering if the case being terminated involved charges dropped or plea deal arranged. Nothing online that I could find other than the case info I referred to.

I don't mean to create any negative response to your excellent essay, but are we now saying that the center island at the base of the Prairie Portage falls is indeed Canadian Territory? Seems like that was part of the arguments posed by the defense attorneys in the 2021 filings.

My curiosity was peaked due to the amount of detail not made public prior to the termination. After the charges were filed in 2020, there was very little detail presented by the numerous media sources who posted the wide ranging news of the charges in September of that year. For example, had they been warned prior to the start of the 2012 investigation to stop anchoring nets in that spot? The way some of the pieces were written they read as if the defendants were taking a boat up to somewhere like North Bay and netting Cisco there. You are most certainly correct that in most cases, an accidental border crossing is treated much differently than ongoing purposeful violations.

illini79ps: "Northland, great comments and I was wondering if the case being terminated involved charges dropped or plea deal arranged. Nothing online that I could find other than the case info I referred to.


I don't mean to create any negative response to your excellent essay, but are we now saying that the center island at the base of the Prairie Portage falls is indeed Canadian Territory? Seems like that was part of the arguments posed by the defense attorneys in the 2021 filings.


My curiosity was peaked due to the amount of detail not made public prior to the termination. After the charges were filed in 2020, there was very little detail presented by the numerous media sources who posted the wide ranging news of the charges in September of that year. For example, had they been warned prior to the start of the 2012 investigation to stop anchoring nets in that spot? The way some of the pieces were written they read as if the defendants were taking a boat up to somewhere like North Bay and netting Cisco there. You are most certainly correct that in most cases, an accidental border crossing is treated much differently than ongoing purposeful violations."

I pulled up a google map of the prairie portage and there’s a clear line representing the us-Canada border bisecting that island. I remember reading something to the effect that the government had a copy of one of the first maps of the portage and they matched what’s available via GPS. Either way, if I lived and did business so close to a foreign country that I could throw rocks into it, I would have familiarized myself with where I could and could not legally go decades ago.

I think that when the charges were filed in 2020, the case was no longer as sensational, especially in northern MN. The first mention of anything in the news regarding commercial Cisco netting was (I think) in 2014. That was when the FS in Duluth got wind of a commercial fish netting operation going on in the BWCAW. Unless permits are issued and monies are paid to the FS for that, we all know it’s a big no-no.

So the FS in Duluth said “no more cisco fishing.” The fishermen protested and politicians came to the aid of “hard working Minnesota men and women” (I’m paraphrasing some of the stuff I remember reading at the time). The FS relented and said “OK - one more season…”. This was with regard to the 2016 season, immediately after which the search warrants were executed. The whole time up until then, newspapers, social media, etc. had been blaming the government for “picking on” folks just trying to make a living and posting a lot of false information in the process. After the search warrant affidavit became public record, politician support seemed to disappear and criticism dropped. Then we jumped into the dark ages of Covid, which brought us to 2020.

People doing something illegal regarding wildlife is pretty common and can occur for many reasons. What bothers me more is the sheer number of people who likely knew this was going on who said nothing.