If only we had a seat at the table to break this impasse.There is an article in the Leelanau Enterprise newspaper regarding the Consent impasse. Looks like the Sault Tribe is creating all the havoc. It appears the Sault tribe has 41 commercial fishers, Bay Mills have 28, Grand Traverse has 13 and Little River has 8. Looks like there are 69 fishers on Lake Superior and only around 21 fishers on Lake Michigan. There appears to be a disproportionate number when comparing Superior vs Michigan.
The Sault tribe wants to fish all the Treaty waters in Lake Michigan. The Sault tribe harvest (if you can believe it) constitutes 68% of the total harvest. They need more water for the 41 fishers.
Some confusion about deadlines. An area in the article talks about a1 week extension, another talk about indefinite.
I did not read the paper but the detail was told to me. Please correct me if I don't have all the detail explained correctly.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend"Wouldn't help one bit. The Tribes are fighting amongst themselves.
If we want to target the gillnets the move would be to claim that they make the fish suffer, and inflict animal cruelty etc.Maybe a Native American representative would want to explain to us everyday ethical sportsperson why they would want to rape and pillage the Great Lakes with a gillnet?
They want whatever gives them the most money plain and simple its not some native vs non native conspiracy theory.Or maybe they think they can manage the lakes just damn fine compared to MDNR? Half the guys on this site feel the same way. So, why wouldn’t they? They want more natural fisheries like their ancestors; we’d prefer to dabble with non-natives. Maybe they’d like to net the non-natives out of existence and turn it into cat food and fertilizer. So the native
fish can can have the run of the food chain.
Younger ones are most certainly concerned about money and finding better opportunities.Money is not of importance to most Natives. it's all about hunting, fishing, traditions, festivals, subsistence living. They don't care about houses, cars, clothing. Mess with those rights and they have a whole team of lawyers to fight for them.
Its gillnets in a few small areas, it sucks for GTB and the Boardmen but Id rather sacrafice that than the Betsie, Manistee, PM etc. Lots of SJW's and do gooders up there anyways who can deal with it.I say let em have it. We're throwing good money after bad trying to advocate for something that we have zero control over. When they crash the fishery, they can own it. I'd also question the state's decision to stock any fish in the lakes moving forward if gill nets are apart of the final agreement along with the tribes' efforts to increase their allotment. It's currently at 61/39 and they want more. Heck, the MDNR could just make it a free for all. Lol
813, 814, and 815 is where it says gill nets will be allowed those arent by the Betsie or PlatteI’m pretty sure the platte & the betsie are in mm4?
Im assuming theyre releasing/leaking the most controversial issues first.Remember the info that came out is just a small snapshot of a couple issues ruled on by the judge. It in no way covers all the areas that will be open to gill netting if and when this decree is finalized.
I thought this was also in the 2000 decree?Subsistence gill netting is also allowed in all 1836 waters. Max of 100 lbs per day, 300 feet of net and 20 fish per day. Only have to be marked by (2) 1 gallon floats, 100 yards from peir or break wall and 0.3 miles from a stream mouth. No date restrictions either.
This is almost worse than the commercial gill netting.
Have fun in prison, me I'll just take a 3 hour cruise across the pond to Wisconsin.At this point, its up to environmental activists save the fishery, by having a coordinated offense on nets, equipment and facilities, and then defense funds for guys that need legal defense.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Then then MDNR losses out on millions and other states who dont screw sportsman benefit.& wait for someone else to fight this fight? Hmmmm, what if everyone does that?
I think I read the new decree will last 22 years. Thats a long time to expierment with gill nets.BKD took two years
Theres some people very high up in the DNR who have basically stated they want the DNR out of the hatchery and Salmon/trout business, and you want to rely on them to negotiate for you?My personal stance on charter outfits is that a group of recreational fishermen rent a boat, gear and knowledge for a day. These guys (myself included) don't have a boat or all the specialized gear it takes, let alone knowledge to fish the big lakes effectively. But the methods are still hook and line, even though there is money changing hands. Commercial fishing to me is taking mass amounts of fish, whether in nets, or trotlines.
I said this in the whitetail forum, as hunters and anglers we tend to think the dnr is there to represent us. The fact is the dnr, nrc and state biologists are there to represent recreational anglers, commercial fishermen, and even people who don't fish but just like taking pics at the fish ladders as they make their way upstream.
I think the frustrating part is that these negotiations are done in silence. State anglers and commercial fishermen have to depend on someone else to represent then at the table. They're left to pray that they get good representation. I can tell you with 100% certainty it's the same way for tribe members. They're left to hope their Boards and the lawyers thier Board of Directors hire represent them equitably as well. That pain is felt from both sides.
The CPMR or CMPR or whatever they call themselves don't trust their reprentation. They want to speak for themselves. The problem with that is that the State employs countless biologists, and experts in this field to look at this from a practical and scientific perspective. The Tribes employ the same experts. What makes the CMPR experts in marine biology? I know very little about this group but from what I've read on this thread it's comprised of the MUCC and several other charter groups and clubs. What exactly makes them experts in this field? The fact that they've been fishing for decades? So have I, but I'm no fish expert. I'm not a biologist.
The CMPR has their opinions, and they're certainly welcome to them. But the question has to be asked, opinions based on what? Based on facts or emotions? Based on science, or opinions based on other opinions?
They were given a seat today because they're the ones who filed the motion. Will they continue to have a seat, I guess that remains to be seen. The fact is the CPMR and all of the rest of the states anglers have representation already. They just don't like being represented in private. But that exists for both sides, so how is that unfair?
I honestly don't know what the answer is. I totally understand the frustration. But I think it was Socrates (I could be wrong about that) who said When in doubt, go to the men who know. I haven't seen anything to make me believe the CMP- whoever deserve a seat because they truly know.
Seriously, I'm not being sarcastic, but what has the CPMR accomplished thus far to improve our Great Lakes and inland waters? How long has this group been around? Have they been credited for maybe changing the creel limits on a species of fish? Have they been responsible for changing any of the fishing seasons? What have they done?
You apparently know people that had inside information on the Consent negotiations. Was any data compiled by the CPMR used to change anything in the new Consent?
Since the Fed's, State and Tribal biologists work together, I'm guessing there wasn't much new to report to the Consent negotiators.
I suppose youd have to FOIA to find exactly what youre looking forA good summarization of how the CPMR was established and how it grew over time. Looks like a lot of silver fish associations. A good chronology of events, should be required reading for those that are interested in the Tribes and State development of the Consents.
Again, a question I have is what did the CPMR actually due to protect our fishing rights? The CPMR has Amicus Curiae rights which allows them to look, listen and recommend but not being in the decision making process. Since all the negotiations were done in secret we don't really know what happened and what was the impact the CPMR had.
There is a lot of hate going on over our DNR. They did nothing to protect our fishery, they sold the farm to the Tribes, they caved in to the Tribes, because of them our fishery is going to die. Nothing but mis guided emotion from people that admittingly know nothing about the process. Maybe the DNR saved our fishing arse, because it could have been much worse than what it is. It will be interesting to see what happens with the Sault Tribes refusal to accept the tentative 2022 Consent. They want to leave the Consent Decree and be able to control and maintain their fishing rights within their zone on there own. Maybe that is what those 4 remaining Tribes wanted and the negotiation process got them to buy in to the new Consent. We don;t know that for sure because we weren't there.
The DNR has to take all the heat because that is where the buck stops. The CPMR should take the heat as well. They love to say they are part of the process but wash their hands when there are negative results.
Now for the CPMR. They were privy to the negotiations so they apparently could not get their demands to the negotiators. They pat themselves on the back saying their going to protect our resource, but what actually did they do. They have some responsibility to the result, just as the DNR has. I'm sure the CPMR seen the proverbial legal writing on the wall and went into damage control to look good to their members.
I'm commenting on the Consent issues only, I'm sure the CPMR has done a lot to protect our resource, but we are talking Consent issues only.
I think they just redact all the tribes content. But I could be wrong.Actually that would be a damn good idea but I think since the Tribes are a Sovergn Nation, those FOIA requests would be null and void.
Funny, I supported the CPMR for all their efforts in "taking care" of our fishery. I did not praise them for their handling the Consent and their public outbursts blasting the DNR. You seemed to have missed that point!
Maybe I used a little bit of literary freedom in my comments regarding the Carp River incident. You may have said you were treated as the guilty party in that confrontation.