Fishing Treaty negotiations

[Steve]

Has anybody heard anything about what's going on with this. I read a blurb in the MUCC mag that said negotiations were going "good" whatever that means.

[DAVER]

Steve, Haven't heard alot about it lately, however this is a real good subject to debate. These are my own personal views and are not intended to offend anyone, in any way.
I have not read all of the documentation concerning this issue however, this is the way I see it. More than likely, the Indians have a legitimate complaint concerning treaty violations. IF & WHEN, it is decided by the powers that be, AND IF they are allowed to increase the area's open to fishing by tribal boats then all NEW fishing waters that have been opened up should have the requirement that the tribes use ONLY, those methods, that were available to them at the time the treaty was signed to harvest fish!!
No motorized boats, no gill nets ETC...
They want the goverment to honor these treaty's then they should also be required to harvest fish, by the means available to them at the time the treaty was signed. Just my thoughts.

------------------
Stay on top. DAVE

[mchuber]

Issue 1837 Indian fishing treaty update

Negotiating parties in Michigan reported that enough progress has been made to warrant
a joint request by all parties to postpone a trial date regarding Native American treaty
fishing rights until Aug. 7, 2000. The parties also agreed to maintain the status quo for fishing year 2000. The Grand Traverse Band, however, reserved the right to submit to arbitration its right to expand its fishing in one outer grid in Grand Traverse Bay if a settlement is not reached by mid-April, 2000.

Both sides asked the judge to order a three-part stipulation: (1. The parties agreed to
continue mediation with an update before the judge again on Jan. 28, 2000. (2. The date of the beginning of the trial, if no agreement is reached, would be postponed until Aug. 7, 2000. (3. The current agreement is extended through the year 2000 fishing season.

Lawyers indicated there is progress toward a new settlement. However, concerns have been expressed the trial date has been extended because the parties are still far apart from reaching an agreement. Others say many issues have been agreed upon, but the parties need more time to negotiate remaining issues.

Reprinted with permission from the Great Lakes basin Report.