Michigan Sportsman Forum banner
1 - 20 of 75 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
1,163 Posts
Today on Mike Avery show he had a charter captain who happened to be the president of the charter boat captain association. Spent a considerable amount of time discussing the Consent Agreement.
He was bound by non disclosure and confidentially agreements but echoed the fact that this new agreement will be a significant departure from the existing agreement and will have a significant effect on ALL anglers and commercial netters. He did not have anything good to say only a heavy dose of doom and gloom. 6 months ago there was a fallout between the CPMR and the DNR and since then they have not received any official feedback from them regarding the negotiations but got info from some of the negotiators.
There should be a decision very soon regarding an agreement and as soon as that happens the CPMR will receive the detail information.
Expect spin from the CPMR
Expect spin from the DNR
Expect spin from the MUCC
Expect nothing from the Tribes
Damn, It does not look good for us. I am hoping there will be no restricted areas for us recreational anglers. No allowable netting for walleye in Northern Huron and Lake MI. No netting in inland lakes.
I think we will soon know!
They are already netting walleye in northern Huron and are also netting in inland lakes now too.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,163 Posts
The netters currently are subsistence fishers-75lbs round weight per week for Soo Band fishers, more for LTBB members, to feed a family of twent-seven or so;no selling, barter, trade, or quid pro quo with their catch. MUCC used to list subsistance fisher violation numbers in the monthly CD updates. LTBB and Odawa Band really "beat the drum" via the newsletters, encouraging tribal members to start fishing as a means of exercising their treaty rights.

Per this article, you can determine how deeply ingrained this "tradition" is within the current tribal culture:


When I first read this article I wondered to myself whether ttribal enforcement oversight was as zealously pursued as the efforts to get members out fishing...
They sell their catch regularly, and a lot of it goes to local, non-tribal people. Saw it with my own eyes many times. The DNR and tribal law enforcement look the other way.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,163 Posts
The netters currently are subsistence fishers-75lbs round weight per week for Soo Band fishers, more for LTBB members, to feed a family of twent-seven or so;no selling, barter, trade, or quid pro quo with their catch. MUCC used to list subsistance fisher violation numbers in the monthly CD updates. LTBB and Odawa Band really "beat the drum" via the newsletters, encouraging tribal members to start fishing as a means of exercising their treaty rights.

Per this article, you can determine how deeply ingrained this "tradition" is within the current tribal culture:


When I first read this article I wondered to myself whether ttribal enforcement oversight was as zealously pursued as the efforts to get members out fishing...
That article is very inaccurate. I bet the author never bothered to read the Treaty of 1836 of which he cites. That treaty stipulates nothing of the sort as as claimed. Just because and liberal judge decreed something, does not make it right. Perhaps some day the supreme court will look at this issue and decide it solely based on the language of the treaty and not emotions. Not likely though.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,163 Posts
I'm beginning to think the head of the DNR is Native :hide:
The head of the DNR is hired by the governor and typically does what the governor wants. The current DNR director is no exception. You can expect Dan Eichinger to mirror Whitmer's sentiments on these issues. She is a liberal and will want to at least appear to side with the Indians on these treaty issues so she can maintain her liberal street cred nationally. This is why sporting groups are so concerned that the DNR is not representing their interests. I expect fully that we will get screwed on this agreement and its why when I moved to northern Michigan, that I chose an area not in the ceded territory. At least the DNR has been on the side of sport fishermen on the state licensed commercial fishing issues so far.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,163 Posts
I am conflicted as to what the Governor and DNR can DIRECTLY do to force the Consent issue? Sure, State representatives sit at the table and do the bargaining but they bargain from a position of weakness.
I'm sure the State, (DNR) have been fighting tooth and nail but the Tribes are stonewalling until they get what they are satisfied with. That's why there has been a damn near 2 year delay in a new Consent.
If there is a stalemate, the Fed's will dictate the new direction and I don't think we want to go in that direction.
The state will likely give the Indians everything they want while trying to prevent a collapse of the fisheries, which would not be good politically for the governor. I'm sure the Indians are making all sorts of outrageous commercial fishing demands that could be detrimental to the fisheries.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,163 Posts
I have questions. Hopefully we can have a sane conversation.
Lets say the Consent negotiators come to an impasse, they are deadlocked, no agreement whatsoever. What happens next?
Do the courts say the existing Consent is null and void and everything reverts back to the Treaty of 1836?
Do the Native have unfettered hunting and fishing rights in all of the Treaty zone?
Now we come to the political "hot potato", the definition of "settled land".
Does settled land mean all private land or does settled mean only habitable land?
Lets say a land owner has 180 acres and the house is situated on 1 acre. Does settled mean only that 1 acre which means the Natives can hunt and fish on the other 179 acres?
Eliminating the Consent will mean the exclusive netting zones will be eliminated therefore causing a wild west mentality between the recreational anglers, non native netters and the Natives. I see gill nets in front of every river mouth.
The treaty of 1836 stipulates only hunting rights. Fishing is not mentioned. It also only applies to full indians. You really should read it. It should be required reading before posting on threads like this.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,163 Posts
Night stalker.
Based on your suggestion, being a novice regarding all the happenings relating to the Treaty and Consent, I scanned that 1836 Treaty. So Night, I refer you to Article 13, there you will find words and in the case of legal words they mean something. Those words say "other usual privileges of occupancy". Courts have ruled those mean hunting, fishing and gathering. The Consent Decree was added in 2000 to better define fishing rights.
That would be a super liberal extrapolation of that language that I doubt would hold up in high courts.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,163 Posts
From what I understand about this is it’s the 2000 consent decree that is being negotiated. It has a 20 year term. And it’s only for the Great Lakes and connecting waters of the treaty area. There’s a 2004?or 2008? Not quite sure of the year it was imposed. Consent decree with the state of Michigan only. This decree deals specifically inland and deals with both hunting and fishing rights. There are 2 separate decrees each one governing different areas. Some one can chime in on this if I’m wrong.
I'm sure Gordon will think you are wrong. The rest of us will disagree.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,163 Posts
I think you are right, but I don't know for sure. We need to ask Night Moves cuz he studied the Treaty and Consent completely. Our hundreds of conversations we had in the past 2+years don't mean much.
At least you finally scanned over the Treaty. You come on here acting like an expert being critical of posters but up until now you relied on hearsay for your vast knowledge. You never fail to under impress.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,163 Posts
I see the RC Anderson on a regular basis in front of my house either setting, pulling or heading to Hammond Bay harbor. Netting is a way of life for some. I’ve found it’s much cheaper to buy fish than put fuel in my boat to catch fish. I sold it prior to the bait fish crash. Big Stone Bay market seems to be open most days when I go by. For what ever reason smoked chubs are hard to come by. Bloody Mary’s are not the same without them at deer camp.
It's certainly a lot cheaper for you to buy meat rather than hunting for it, yet you still hunt? Odd logic.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,163 Posts
The Treaty stipulates that only full indians have a right to hunt and says nothing about fishing or gathering. That right to hunt expired when Michigan was settled. The Treaty does mot state that those rights can't be regulated by the state either. Any other interpretation of that Treaty is exceptionally liberal reading thi gs into it that are not there. I doubt that the current Supreme Court would agree with liberal interpretations so perhaps now is the time to settle this issue for good.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,163 Posts
It does not stipulates fishing or gathering. I'm not sure why you keep posting that. Show me where the 1836 Treaty supports your notions. The Supreme Court has never ruled on that. The current Supreme Court could certainly set things straight. They have shown to have no problem reversing liberal decisions much bigger than this illegal stuff.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,163 Posts
Refer to post #319
That is not what I asked but rather just the DNR'S opinion. The Supreme Court has never ruled on the Treaty of 1836. Maybe they have on other treaties, but not that one. One biased judge's ruling is not the law of the land. Past liberal courts do not seem to have much weight with the current court. The DNR under the current liberal governer is not likely to push it though.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,163 Posts
I think you just don't get it! The DNR and the State can do nothing to change settled law determined by the Federal Courts. Have a good evening.
You seem to be so negative in shutting down any doubt about the certainty of the situation to the point that your motives are highly suspicious. You argue on every thread on comercial fishing issues siding with the netttrrs every time. Do you even fish the great lakes? What's your motivation to be so pro commercial fishing? I wonder? Still waiting for proof that the Supreme Court has ruled on this issue on the 1836 Treaty as you claim.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,163 Posts
We are a country governed by laws. The Native Americans have Treaties that protect their rights and I'm all for their rights. If you REALLY read my posts I probably talk more about enforcing the violations of the Treaties and hopefully the new Consent will address the issue.

The non native commercial netters are governed by laws as well. I'm all for rewriting those old, outdated laws and approve new ones that are appropriate for the times. The netters unlike the Natives have their laws bargained by our State politicians and not the Fed's. Just as in collective bargaining, compromise solutions are the norm. If you take something away from the netters they should get something in return. It's the American way. If you really read my reporting you will find I have a balanced approach to most issues, but many feel I'm too one sided because most on here are all in on their stance and screw the other opinion.
Still no answer and more smoke and mirrors. What I expected. If you do t fish the great lakes, then why the obsesive interest in netting issues?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,163 Posts
Who is going to take it to the Supreme Court? Both sides do not want to take a chance and lose the opinion. Treaty waters are just that, if you don’t like sharing with those who have treaty rights there is plenty of water out there where you don’t have to share.
If the state can't get an agreement that protects the fisheries resources, then the state should not accept it. The current governer will never pursue it in court though. We'll see what the future holds.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,163 Posts
What happened in the Legislature had absolutely nothing to do with Consent negotiations. The Natives had all the bargaining power they needed regardless what happened to the commercial netting laws. If the house would have sent a balanced bill to the Senate there would have been new commercial netting laws. You can thank the DNR and MUCC for killing the bills. Balanced can also mean collective bargained where both sides win or at least have consensus.
Responses like this are why many on here believe you work for commercial fishing interests. This is a sport fishing and sport hunting forum. Nobody else on here want to see an expansion of commercial fishing except you here.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,163 Posts
Now that it's looking like the Indians will be raping the lakes clean with gill nets, it's less likely that state licensed netters will be expanding any time soon. Mcbroom and his pro netting cohorts have also been neutered out of power for the foreseeable future. To bad Gordon, your compodras are in trouble.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,163 Posts
Josh
If you are talking about the failure of the non Tribal commercial netting law updates, I think the process won. One side would not budge 1 inch, the other side had the power to kill the bill. Now that the political power shifted in the Legislature, compromise solutions will get a Bill passed. Back room deals with linkages to other non related Bills will get horse traded to get multiple Bills passed.
So you think there will be compromise in a state run completely by one party? LOL
 
1 - 20 of 75 Posts
Top