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....
www.mlive.com
