Michigan Sportsman Forum banner
1 - 20 of 94 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,439 Posts
Did you read the Federal court ruling? This may help clear things up on interpretation. If you don’t feel like reading it all read from the epilogue on.

The epilogue tells the entire story. Such things as the natives and their ancestors have legal rights. Hunting/fishing subsistence rights allowed for personal and commercial living. ALL lands within the treaty can be used for subsistence living.
Interesting reading for those that have followed this issue of Treaty and Consent but have not fully understood the power of the Treaty.
In today's life of political correctness and minority rights, we can only hope, we the angler, don't get hurt too much. In realty, I personally have not been affected with the Consent, I fish wherever I want without violating anything.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,439 Posts
The only ones who will benefit from the proposed suit will be the law firms involved. I don’t believe there will be another seat at the table added.
My understanding is that the Fed's, State and Natives are the only stake holders in this Consent Decree re write. Don't know much about the CPMR group, I'm thinking they are a watch dog group for the MI anglers. They are probably used for reference information regarding angler interest.
This lawsuit from CPMR is just a feudal attempt to publicaly make known what they are proposing and are frustrated that they are getting nowhere. They were probably told by the bargainers to just go away.
You are (your) right, Luv2 the lawyers are going to make the bucks and the CPMR will get public lip service in letting the MI anglers know what they proposed and was disregarded.
Some people sent money to help the cause.....should have spent the money on lures.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,439 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,439 Posts
The CPMR is a collection of local conservation, hunting and fishing clubs trying to stop the expansion of nets. If you are a fisherman, you should be worried.

The DNR, and the USFWS are teamed up with the tribes to put nets at every tributary in indian waters and not enforce net placement anywhere else.

The “Motion to Intervene” is a last ditch attempt to say “hey, what about the 1 million fishermen in Michigan? Don’t we get a say?”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Is that "inside information"??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,439 Posts
Betcha there was near constant licking of collective index fingers to "test the political wind direction" prior any public comments made by them individually! I always held that Jim was one of the best C+ fishery biologists that MSU ever turned-out, but he did excel at hiney smooching, turning it into a high art.



I am a fisherman, and I am worried, but my concern centers around the disinformation statements being made and disseminated by individuals like you, done in an effort to foment distrust and finger-pointing. I willingly admit I don't hold the MDNR is high regard overall as a resource management agency, but is no information that indicates that they are not operating at the beck-and-call of the CORA affiliated tribes in these negotiations, particularly with regard to net placement and netting zone expansion. What I would very much like to see is the Federal courts weighting their judgement support based on the extent and duration of prior Consent Decree violation volumes by the parties, as well as policing, including punitive enforcement efforts. I guess I am one of those weird individuals who holds that frequency of disregard for compliance with a binding documents legal requirements and framework is a very accurate indicator of future behavior...

The State's perspective is to seek a negotiated settlement in the current iteration of the Consent Decree, versus one that is Federal courts mandated, since that outcome would more likely apportion the fishing resource 50:50 within Treaty of 1836 waters between the two user groups, since, in this instance past performance is a very accurate indicator of future behavior when you tally-up the proportion of violations by users within each set of fishers.
As you know Cork, I'm totally with you regarding the enforcement of any violations of the Consent Decree. People are getting excited about too many nets here or there, increased apportions possibly being included in the new decree. Without a solid enforcement mandate of any violation the fight to reduce the fish take means nothing. Those Natives that violate now will continue to violate in the future. Quota's, net restrictions, species and fishing zones mean nothing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,439 Posts
The complainers are great at complaining but do they ever sit down and write an email to their legislators to convey their issues/concerns'. Nope!
Regarding this Consent Decree issue, What can our legislators do.......absolutely nothing. It is really not a State issue, it's the Natives and the Fed's. The Consent comes into play to better define the Treaty of 1836.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,439 Posts
The decree is completely a state issue. What can legislators do? They hold the purse strings to the dnr. Just like Wisconsin legislators did, they can threaten funding if the dnr is not acting for the interests of the citizens.
What I was trying to say was that the legislators cannot legislate the Consent. Sure they can threaten the negotiators (DNR) if they don't take into consideration the citizens of MI. Don't the negotiators walk a tight rope, they don't control the narrative, they don't want to lose too bad.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,439 Posts
I fail to understand your reasoning. The State of Michigan is represented in these negotiations by the folks appointed as participants by the state fish and game management agency. The CORA affiliated tribe have both a stake in the outcome and mqgnified clout in these negotiations since they are supported via the Federal Courts, largely as a conequence of previous decisions that have set in place precedent supporting their base contentions with regard to the interpretation of the Treaty of 1836 resource access and apportionment, though that is not mentioned within the language of the treaty. The Federal government has a dual role, since they are both an overseer party, as well as a de facto agent of the Federal Courts. While you paint a picture implying that the State legislator's have both a role and responsibiliy to act punitively if the State's interests are not fully supported in the final document, the option the other two parties have is to simply stand-pat in their demands array and wait for the Federal Courts to intervene and force a settlement, apportioning the resource among the two user groups. I certainly don't see an effective and potentially facilitative role for intervention(s) via the State of Michigan's elected officials that could possibly result in a beneficial outcome that would be collectively acceptable to them, or the tribes. Per your logic, the State legilsators can penalize the State appointed negotiators and the agency who chose them by penalizing them for being in an untenable position to negotiate an equitable settlement.

The other interesting point, outlined by Gordon Casey in a previous post in this thread. indirectly: BOTH the State sport fishers and the CORA affiliated tribes derive revenues from this fishery, directly, as well as through Dingell-Johnson Revenue distributions. Coastal communities, private vendors, repair and sales facilites for boats and fishing equipment,restaurants, grocery stores, etc. all derive significant seasonal income from the fishery participants, aleit significantly greater on the sport fisher side when compared to the tribal commercial fishery. The Federal Government, via its fish and game management agency, as well as the Federal Courts derive no direct revenue stream from the Great Lakes fishery; an "interesting position" for them to be in when apportioning an equitable distribution of the physical resource of Great Lakes fish, yet they hold a disproportionately large role in directing/forcing the outcome of the Consent Decree negotiations- no direct benefits; no direct penalties....
That was the way I thought these negotiations shake out. We, the fishing community, are the puppet and the Tribes hold the strings. I thing tgafish is writing from emotion, wondering if he is a professional meeting goer?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,439 Posts
The fact that this is being kept so quiet worries me. I mean they could literally ruin the great lakes in a year or two if this is not done right. And the prob is most of us are out fishing in our free time, we dont have time to go protest somewhere but honestly its prolly what needs to be done to get some attention. Why sportfisherman have zero voice in this fight is a crock.
Read the epilogue portion of the 1836 Treaty, post #24. What most don't get is that this is not a democratic process in trying to update the Consent. The Treaty allowed unrestricted fishing rights, both subsistence and commercial, for all waters within the Treaty boundaries. The Consent is a more definitive agreement of fishing rights and zones. Protesting, marching, and complaining to your legislator will do absolutely nothing other than maybe aggravating the Tribes. It not right to say we should hope for a fair and equitable solution. Lets just hope there is a plan to sustain the fishery.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,439 Posts
Treaties can be revised and amended
In my mind, highly unlikely. There is a long history of Native Treaty abuses and our new life of political correctness and minority rights would put the chances slim to none. Better chances of Consent revisions that would ease the crash of changes to our angling. They are going to take their fair share of the fish resource but maybe we can supplement the loss with increased fish plantings. Natives, State and Fed's have all kinds of hatcheries available.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,439 Posts
We can refuse to enforce the treaty. Let them set whatever laws they want. As Americans were not bound by tribal law. Perfect example; marijuana, legal at the state level, no no on the fed level but they agree not to enforce. Sorry I got sucked into this again🥸
John
I understand your emotion! Keep in mind the Treaty and Consent are there to somewhat protect us. The Treaty and Consent, un enforced, would allow the Natives to fish and net on every lake and river within the Treaty zone. The Consent restricts them to netting zones.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,439 Posts
Its 2022 josh. We are just supposed to accept that any minority group will have the upper hand over all of us. Its like they feel the need to compensate for something and go overboard. And with our current administration i dont see how we even have a chance here to keep our rights.
Remember, it was their land not ours! We took it away from them but gave them perpetual use of the land in the 1836 Treaty zone. The Treaty allows hunting and fishing rights on all public and PRIVATE land. Netting Houghton, Higgins, Torch lakes would be allowed.
The Consent better defined fishing zones, quota's and obligations by the Fed's, State to maintain an adequate supply of catchable fish.
You stated we don't have a chance to keep our rights. You got that backwards, it's their rights not ours.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,439 Posts
Drop barriers to define treaty waters to keep fish stocks seperate and leave the natives qualifying under the treaty terms to have at it. IF the treaty specifically perpetuates the right beyond those alive at the time.
Fine by me. And answers conflict over "who's" stock is being harvested where.

Deal is a deal. Here's the limit of your range. And here's the limits of ours until which time use for settlement exists.
My definition of settlement is to settle upon / occupy. And per treaty , "until settlement" was not a reference to natives settling upon. Rather an eventual consumption by others. A deal I'd not have applauded were I a native then.
Looked good on paper though?

Varied definitions of settlement exist.
For one...
[an arrangement whereby property passes to a succession of people as dictated by the settlor ]
Bringing us back to who defines and interprets what the treaty's terms were.
And where legally binding for what defined amount of time.
Years ago I scanned a large "coffee Table" book that my friend purchased from the Ft. Michililmackinac book store. Published by the Michigan State publishing dept. and provided an in depth review of the fur trade in the area. Explained all the trapping routes (paths) from Minnesota to Ohio to New York and Canada. Very interesting read. A section of the book discussed all the Treaties with the natives. You talk about settlements and that caused me to remember what the settlements were as defined in the Treaties.

Need to remember that the Treaties were written by the white men in Washington using the mentality they had about how things SHOULD be based on their knowledge at the time.
The Natives had no idea what settlements meant. Nobody OWNED the land, it was to be used by everyone. Tribes were somewhat nomadic, they had areas where they foraged, areas where the hunted and fished. They spent the most time wintering where there was water and hunting/fishing available.
Maps of the Treaty areas had land for habitation, sometimes called reservations. The Tribes were illiterate to the white mans thinking and really had no understanding what they signed.
I tell the story about those 2 fishing tugs in the Leland harbor marina. Could be that Leland and the surrounding area was defined as habitation in a Treaty and maybe the Natives owned the town. Needless to say those tugs have been in the harbor since the 2000 Consent.
I read somewhere, in some Federal Court decision regarding the Treaties that the Natives had the "wool pulled over their eyes" , they did not understand and it was the Governments responsibility to properly inform them to where they understood.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,439 Posts
Would be delighted to read that book. Another I regret not nabbing had Jesuit accounts of native activities and someways. Gambling even up to thier village being lost. And method of torturing native prisoners. Methods I don't know how they could be topped. Ans prisoners expected to be stoic.
Burials. Bones cleaned and stored till intermittent mass burial. Ect..

Other accounts show groups going from Green Bay to Detroit under pressure from other natives. The Mohawk North. The "Neutrals "wiped out by other tribes over fur trade.
The Straits. Canada. Multiple groups and multiple terms.

And early Euro contact siding with a group to combat the Iroquois resulting in Northern routes being the best way to avoid conflict again. Steering much further traffic North instead Well , sort of. But certainly affecting former trade routes. Like the E-W one below water kinda on a line through Chicago.


1600's forward was an object of study for me a while when reenacting through shoots ect.. Thin gravy those 1600's details today compared to later years.
Which are there. Including the "Indian problem".

Grandfather and Great Grandfather had "stores" in Northern Mi.
I've one picture of Gramps with a pet deer at one.
Great Grandfather had kegs of beads in the top /loft of his store.
Beads were found beyond the store in sand. from?
Natives stopped by at times.
What either party thought of things I've no written account of from family.
Another area a house had natives sleep in the room nearest the entry on thier way through. An informal getting along kind of thing.

Natives gaining anything more than what was being ceded by any treaty would be quite an exception.
As you mention those involved in "agreeing" to terms were not likely aware of every implication.
Accepted as representing all , "All" may not have agreed either. Such are politics.
Feigned good will can be both aggression , and submission. Being being nice while being robbed of a lifeway wasn't working any more.
If marking a paper gets you off my back and not demonstrating my / our demise is suitable to your proven ability's goals , should I sign?

Post civil war near where I'm at "conflict" with natives involved thier hanging out at a spring and grazing horses.
They moved on eventually.
But one doesn't need guess they knew they got the short end of the deal when land was ceded.
I'd probably let my horse poop on your property too if I was them.

Sustenance through taking fish as a native right? Sure.
Selling for money or to nonnatives? I wouldn't offer that as a sustenance.
I bet if you called the Ft. Michilimacknac gift shop and asked them the name of a large rectangular book about the fur trade and native life they would give it to you. I copied the name and borrowed a copy from our local Public Library.
Most people don't realize how big the fur industry was in the entire mid west and Canada. Beaver pelts were the only real source of income for a huge geographic area. Mackinac Island and the surrounding area was the hub for all trade activity. Fish became the industry when the fur business petered out.
You can find a lot of books related to the fur, fish era in the Mackinac Island book store.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,439 Posts
This thread is too long and complicated for me to take the time for it all. Having said that, just this last weekend I found out an interesting tidbit of info.

We had a family gathering whereby one of my brothers oldest friends came up in conversation. My father had seen him this summer and my brother keeps in constant contact. This friend has focused on tribal issues since he got his license to practice law, so I guess it's around 30+ years now. I always assumed he's a do-gooder living in a desert just outside of tribal lands, barely making a living. Turns out it's the opposite.

He's now a partner in the firm which has locations around the country. They are making money hand-over-fist representing tribes. The way he described it is that this is all settled law. The Feds don't really screw around anymore, it's rare to deal with them. What happens is a state or local municipality doesn't believe it's all settled law and does something breaking the treaties. The tribe calls this firm and they sue...and win every time. They use casino money to pay for the lawsuits and the firm wins big because, well, they're damn lawyers!! I asked 'is it like shooting fish in the proverbial barrel?' and the answer was yes. Apparently these are slam-dunk lawsuits.

What I'm getting at is the folks in this thread thinking otherwise are apparently just being emotional or may not understand the history. You can think it's unfair, illegal or whatever. MI tribes are apparently playing nice by negotiating at all. Sure, it's not in their best interests to kill the fish/game populations. You would hope that additionally they would understand, as their ancestors likely did, that there is a proper way to manage wildlife. But at the end of the day, according to the family friend, they can tell us to pound sand. It'll just cost money to find that out legally.
Well said! The tribes usually retain the best lawyers they can find for whatever situation they are in. An old Native, I met over 20 years ago at the Sault, told me the Natives only care about traditions, festivals, hunting and fishing rites and free expression with nature. This guy was old school, maybe todays generation think differently. Since having money in their lifestyle is no big deal, they spend whatever it takes to resolve any legal issues.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,439 Posts
Yeah, casinos are definitely part of their tradition!
Yup, people are jealous and mad only because they cannot build them. Those profits allow them to receive all kinds of health and infrastructure benefits. This makes it possible for them to do more subsistence hunting and fishing.
A little sarcasm to counter punch yours.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,439 Posts
Wow, I just read both of the treaties. It seemed like the 1820 listing was abbreviated. It did include fishing rights in perpetuity to the Falls of the St Mary’s. However the Treaty of 1836 was quite explicit. No fishing rights of any kind were mentioned, and it was quite explicit in stating the tribes were to move to a permanent reservation in Missouri. I wonder if there were subsequent agreements later. The other possibility is Judge Fox (?), considered the treaty a “living document”, which allowed him to interpret the treaty in any manner he felt justified.
Rush Limbaugh was correct when he deemed a certain train of thought a “mental disorder”.
Funny. I spent a lot of time the last 24 years in the Sault area fishing the upper and lower river. I have never seen any type of commercial fishing activity in the rapids......never. Sure, the Treaty was written before the locks and power plant were built so the area looked a little different back then. Don't know if people know that there was a lock on the St. Marys all the way back to the 18th century. The remnant of one is still on display at the old paper mill office building.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,439 Posts
I took the separate filings by the tribes as a thwarting of a possible argument if the no good State of Michigan, in their own filing, had in fact sided with CPMR. The old two sides to one game plan. If the tribes and feds had ganged up as one entity and then the no good State of Michigan sided with the sportsman then a real honest discussion would have ensued. But no, the loathing State of Michigan would have nothing to do with you and I, or any group looking out for our interests. Disgusting and extremely weak actions by our overpaid and terribly underperforming leaders. If we can call them leaders. I prefer to call them sheep and they are for sure leading us to slaughter.

Kisutch

God Bless Dr Howard Tanner

Former Lake Michigan Stakeholder

Lake Michigan Lake Trout Gillnetters Association "We pledge to kill them all"

Alewife what?
I got an idea! Since all the negativism about the State, Feds, DNR decision making, you know they can NEVER do the right thing, so lets have the Federal Courts make the decision for us. They have in the past and can do it again. Would all the negative people, and there are many on here, be satisfied?
I have no idea what is happening in the negotiations and everyone else outside of the bargaining table only provides rumors. All I am saying is that there are sensitive issues and we are bargaining from weakness.

Do you really think all the court actions by the CPMR will have any effect on the Consent?
I'm as concerned as anyone as to the outcome of the re write, but I'm a realist. I said MANY times before, hope for the best regarding the fishery but spent all the time in bargaining discussing enforcement. Past history has shown illegal netting practices is rampant by some criminal netters. Tribal courts almost always side with violators but when found guilty they impose a 100 dollar fine just like the commercial netting fine.
Granted, I painted these complex issues with a 4 foot wide brush but the gist of the explanation is on target. I can throw around rumors just like everyone else.
 
1 - 20 of 94 Posts
Top