View Full Version : What would happen...
Lwapo
08-12-2008, 02:21 AM
Just curious for some thoughts on the subject.
We hear so much about the unmarked tribal nets in some areas on Lake Michigan.
What would happen (if anything) if an un-marked (not legal) net caused a boat to capsize/etc and a family to drown. For the sake of this senerio, lets say it was mom, dad, and 2 kids. (Lets all pray this never happens. FYI)
Do you think that they would change the laws? Enforce them more? What would the tribal police/council do to the perps?
Just wondering! Keep it as civil as possible!
Fishous
08-12-2008, 06:20 AM
It seems that right after we made mention of this to the State/DNR/Coast Guard things started to get a little better with the enforcement. (Might just be a coincidence of timing)
See, there are higher-ups in the State/DNR/Coast Guard that are/were telling the DNR and Coast Guard to not make any noise with the tribes. Not sure how high up it goes, but the DNR officers were told to not make any noise, and that the order came from way up the chain of command.
We made mention of the fact that if someone get's hurt from the nets, and that there was an 'order' to not enforce laws, that someone in the chain of command would probably go to jail and the State would get their butt sued off. There were just too many officers that were told this to try and cover that up.
That's just about when they started to do a little more with it.
I hooked what I think was a rouge net north of Whitehall on August 1st, luckily I only had one copper line in it. I could see something white and a blue rope about 25 feet down. Then my hook came loose from it. I GPS marked it and let a DNR officer know.
Do you think that they would change the laws?
No, the US or our states government cannot pass laws that affect native American tribes fishing. They are considered a sovereign nation by our government. Their fishing rights are granted by a treaty that has been upheld in our court system. The only way to make change would be to negotiate a revised agreement. That would be very difficult.
Fishous
08-12-2008, 08:46 AM
No, the US or our states government cannot pass laws that affect native American tribes fishing. They are considered a sovereign nation by our government. Their fishing rights are granted by a treaty that has been upheld in our court system. The only way to make change would be to negotiate a revised agreement. That would be very difficult.
The whole point is that they are NOT complying with the consent decree of 2000.
All of the nets I've seen off of Whitehall (last year) have not been legally marked. The flags were not 12x12 inches, they did not have the license number on them, bouy's were not red or orange.
Section VI.C.3.c. "All trap nets must be marked with a staff buoy on the pot with at least four (4) feet exposed above the surface of the water with a red or orange flag no less than twelve (12) inches by twelve (12) inches bearing the license number of the fisher and affixed to the top of the staff. In addition, the king anchor and inside end of the lead shall be marked with a red or orange float not less than one (1) gallon in size."
Also, in section XVII. JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT.
"f. Law Enforcement Committee Duties.
...
(2) Annual work plans shall be created. Annual objectives in such
plans shall address at minimum the following:
(a) Public safety issues;
..."
fishlkmich
08-12-2008, 01:03 PM
No, the US or our states government cannot pass laws that affect native American tribes fishing. They are considered a sovereign nation by our government. Their fishing rights are granted by a treaty that has been upheld in our court system. The only way to make change would be to negotiate a revised agreement. That would be very difficult.
Absolutely false.
The 2000 Consent Decree was just that, a "Consent Decree". It is NOT a treaty. The State of Michigan, along with several interest groups, "consented" in federal court to and agreement, or "decree". They did so in order to prevent a federal judge from making decisions on what Great Lakes fishing rights Michigan tribes had according to the 1836 treaty. The Consent Decree is active until 2020.
Our state government can go to federal court to address treaty issues. A federal judge interprets what the intent of the treaty in question means. So, while a federal judge, or Congress, for that matter, cannot "pass laws" that oppose the language in a treaty, the language in a treaty can be interpreted by a federal judge and enforced under his or her decision.
The negotiation process would not be difficult. It is outlined in the Consent Decree. It is to be informal, unless informal negotiation fails. If negotiation fails, mediation is the next step. If mediation fails, judicial relief is the next avenue of action.
Although the tribes are considered sovereign nations, tribe members have dual citizenship. They are Native Americans. The sovereign nation bit comes up whenever they don't like our rules.:gaga:
It is not false. You are missing my key point which is "The only way to make change would be to negotiate a revised agreement." The agreement is based on the treaty. You are wrong saying it would be easy to re-negotiate the consent agreement. It will not be easy to negotiate a change in the agreement because the tribes have no incentive to make any further concessions. We cannot pass laws to change this.
Also, don't interpret my response as in favor of netting.
Our state government can go to federal court to address treaty issues. A federal judge interprets what the intent of the treaty in question means. So, while a federal judge, or Congress, for that matter, cannot "pass laws" that oppose the language in a treaty, the language in a treaty can be interpreted by a federal judge and enforced under his or her decision.
Yes, our government can go to court but they cannot pass a law to change the treaty or the consent agreement. It would have to be negotiated or fought in court. You are right that our courts have to interpret old treaties to determine the tribe’s current rights to fish. But the court systems have many precedents and rulings that don't favor sport anglers. It is very clear that if this was left solely to the courts, sport anglers would get the short end of the deal. That doesn't make it right but our courts have ruled consistently in favor of Native American issues almost every time they come up. The courts have interpreted treaties very liberally to the benefit of the tribes. That is why we have a "consent agreement." Our state and many angler groups who were at the negotiating table felt we would get a better deal through a negotiated agreement than one decreed from our court system.
As far an enforcing the consent agreement, the tribal authorities are the only ones doing that and they don't seem to be doing a very good job, i.e.: net marking. Our DNR is not pressing enforcement of the consent agreement. I feel they can and should but they are not.
fishlkmich
08-12-2008, 04:55 PM
It is not false. You are missing my key point which is "The only way to make change would be to negotiate a revised agreement." The agreement is based on the treaty. You are wrong saying it would be easy to re-negotiate the consent agreement. It will not be easy to negotiate a change in the agreement because the tribes have no incentive to make any further concessions. We cannot pass laws to change this.
What if I proved to you that it has already been renegotiated, Ed? Would you agree with me then?
Tunedown
08-12-2008, 05:25 PM
I think Ed was saying it is difficult to re-negotiate , not that is hasn't been done???? :confused:
Oldgrandman
08-12-2008, 06:15 PM
Just curious for some thoughts on the subject.
We hear so much about the unmarked tribal nets in some areas on Lake Michigan.
What would happen (if anything) if an un-marked (not legal) net caused a boat to capsize/etc and a family to drown. For the sake of this senerio, lets say it was mom, dad, and 2 kids. (Lets all pray this never happens. FYI)
Just wondering! Keep it as civil as possible!
I believe up near the Straights of Mackinac within the last 10-15 years a boat did sink and people died from nets, but not sure if they were marked or unmarked. Unfortunately I can provide no link.
I certainly do not mind being corrected if wrong about this. Delete the post if I am for that fact.
I'm not saying it can't be re-negotiated. I'm saying that our state or federal government cannot pass laws to change the consent agreement or the treaty of 1836. Any changes to them would have to be negotiated with the tribes under the supervision of our Federal Courts which consistantly side with Native American positions.
It will not be easy to renegotiate significant changes to the consent agreement like removing nets or reducing their numbers. Simple changes like improved markings probably could get done through negotiations. It would be in the tribes best overall interest to improve net markings and improve communications about net locations. Negotiated agreements mean nothing if they are not enforced. Enforcement of the current agreements and netting standards for marking is very poor. If enforcement and communications were improved, there would be less conflict on this issue.
Tom 26133
08-12-2008, 08:35 PM
my dad was out fishing off ludington the other day when all of a sudden his motor quit. he couldn,t figure out why because the motor would run in nuetral but not in drive in the first minute as the waves pushed him foward. about 30 seconds later the first wave came over the back of his twenty foot boat ten seconds later the second one came in the boat. about ten seconds later he jump[ed over board with a large fillet knife to cut a large yellow nylon rope that tangled in his prop and was pulling his boat under. with in two minutes from the time the motor quit and the rope was cut the water was over the floor of the boat. if it wasn't for quick thinking of my dad the sinario might have happened. the closest marked net was over 3 miles away. The rope matched the rope you see in the vidio on youtube that the little river band of neglegent litterers has posted. if something bad would have happened their sovern nation wouldn't be able to protect them from a country boy. and the other question how many of them would be held responsible for negligent homicide being the insident happened on us waters.
fishlkmich
08-12-2008, 10:05 PM
The only way to make change would be to negotiate a revised agreement. That would be very difficult.
You are wrong saying it would be easy to re-negotiate the consent agreement. It will not be easy to negotiate a change in the agreement because the tribes have no incentive to make any further concessions.
Simple changes like improved markings probably could get done through negotiations.
Are you running for office, Ed? How do you feel about coastal drilling?
funlund
08-12-2008, 11:40 PM
just cut them like i do!!!!!.
Are you running for office, Ed?
No.
Do you think that they would change the laws?
I was just answering this question from the original post on this thread. I would love to see the consent agreement re-negotiated but it's my opinion that is it unlikely we can re-negotiate significant consessions from the tribes on nets. I hope I'm wrong but I'd bet I'm right.
Lets be careful on this thread before its gets out of hand.
Having said that, I will say this, re-negotiation is very difficult, if not nearly impossible. In order to re-negotiate, you have to have both sides trying to work on an issue that is important to both sides, and at this point it may be best to leave it as is.
The best thing to do, if you should find a net that is unmarked is to contact the Coast Guard on your radio, and then later contact the tribal police. By contacting the tribal police, it may not get the complete results you want, but they will make sure the nets get marked, its in their best interests too, these people aren't stupid.
We cannot change the original treaty, and thats a given. The realization of renegotiating is out of the question as well. You have to understand that through the years, the tribes have more and more educated people within their ranks, and some have become attorneys. I know at least one attorney for the tribe in TC that is very up to speed on the issues, and thats what we deal with today. We have to take and make the best of this situation, good or bad as you see it, but it is what it is, lets just be thankful that the tribes are at least willing to work with us to some degree. If you really think about it, with judges of this land, it has been determined that they really don't have to necessarily.
I could go on about my beliefs on this in its entirety, but theres no need for that, just make the best of it, and watch for the nets as best you can. What I really don't want to see is for the original question to be answered in courts, in other words, I would prefer that something like never happens.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.