Michigan Sportsman Forum banner

Some Consent Decree news...

50611 Views 1021 Replies 63 Participants Last post by  ThreeDogsDown
  • Like
Reactions: fisheater
1 - 20 of 1022 Posts

Since this decision came down, I've wondered if it would have any impact here regarding the treaty.

Couple of notable quotes from the article :

"To be clear, the court today holds that Indian country within a state's territory is part of a state, not separate from a state," - Justice Kavanaugh

"under the Constitution and this court's precedents, the default is that states may exercise criminal jurisdiction within their territory." - Justice Kavanagh
Count me as one who believes that the treaty will absolutely not be impacted.
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.
Yes, a true artist. But like a lot of things, the first time feels like you’re special; but the second and third times decidely less so. So much you’ll feel a need to wash your hiney afterwards….
The state planting salmon in tribal waters where the tribes have rights to 100% of the fish. Our opinions really don’t count for anything. It’s the Federal judges opinion that matters.
Fixed that for you….
You are wrong again as usual. It has never been settled by the high Court.
So, you’d like to appeal the federal court decision? What would the basis of the appeal be?
  • Like
Reactions: Gordon Casey
The way it was explained to me is that Michigan never did challenge the liberal interpretation of the treaty in court and instead went with a "shared" agreement approach. They said it would be too risky to take it to court because the Indians may win and the resources could be damaged as a result. Well, now we are seeing that the Indians don't give a rip about the resources and want to saturate the Great Lakes will gill nets. What's next, trawling.... At this point we really have nothing much left to loose by taking the mater to court. There are always reasons to appeal judges rulings since in this case, if it were to go against the state, it would be purely a political decision. This statement in the treaty is pretty clear to me and anybody with a grade school reading ability:

The Indians stipulate for the right of hunting on the lands ceded, with the other usual privileges of occupancy, until the land is required for settlement.

Anybody that sees fishing rights (especially on the Great Lakes) in that statement or thinks that Michigan has not been settled is either an idiot, incompetent, or politically motivated to ignore or intentionally misinterpret that statement. Now more than ever the Supreme Court may be occupied by a majority of justices that may actually just rule on this issue based on the actual letter of law (working of the treaty) and not some political ideology that many judges and justices seem use these days. If our current state government will not take measures to save our valuable natural resources, then they don't give a rip about them either.
Form a basis for an appeal, and use it in a liberal headline. You seem to just like to rant.
I’ll wait.
  • Like
Reactions: Gordon Casey
How about this? “State of Michigan and ‘sportsman’ move to strip native Americans of 200 year old treaty fishing rights.”

Our case is a loser. In Court and in public opinion.
  • Like
Reactions: Gordon Casey
The law is not supposed to be a popularity contest tried in the court of public opinion. The current SCOTUS has not had any problem ruling on cases that pissed off millions of people. I do think it will take the near complete ruination of our sport fisheries and a change in political leadership before any action will ever be taken.
I’m so sorry, I didn’t realize you trying to be funny.
  • Like
Reactions: Gordon Casey
Politics is involved. Like everything else…you crack me up…..
Please explain what GOVERNMENTAL politics could have done to change the outcome? In this case we are dealing with a Treaty and a Sovereign Nation. Was the Legislature directly involved in the negotiations? Sure, the Circuit Court Judges are appointed by the President, but if they are honest, they should be guided by precedent.
It appears the Court sided with the Tribes demand identified in the report in post #419.
Only the decision to fight it or not fight it through the State Government.
  • Like
Reactions: Gordon Casey
Yep. The case is a loser. No State AG would ever want to pick it up. The sportsman do not have funds nor sufficient organization to raise funds to hire competent counsel to file a civil suit to intercede. So we whine on the internet as a next best thing.
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?
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.
They want whatever gives them the most money plain and simple its not some native vs non native conspiracy theory.
Lol, conspiracy, of what? It’s much simpler than that; it is a flat out rejection of the continued partnership model with the MDNR leadership. The best we can hope for is for the natives to at least keep MDNR of informed of their planting actions. That combined with the feds plans will become the basis of the constraints that MDNR will have to work with to form a supplemental planting strategy to appease anglers. Our input, comes way down the list….
  • Like
Reactions: Gordon Casey
I dont think you should be that harsh, but the MDNR and the science community should be better listeners. The text book action may not be the most appropriate action.
Not trying to be harsh, just trying to give a summary. I suppose, if I were a teacher I might say the MDNR partnership model was so successful that the tribes are ready to assume the leadership role…lol
When they crash the fishery, they'll have their hands out...
You make it sound like like the tribes need our money. I suspect that its more likely the tribes might buy some state hatchery locations, and the fisheries chief would be happy to sell.
This from a member here.

Take note those who would like to appeal to the Supreme Court, lol.
Sign all the petitions you want…..
Lol, I think of it more as a prime example of my forefathers writing checks their asses can’t cash…….

where were you guys when I was railing back in ‘78 or so? Lol
  • Like
Reactions: GreasyBassin
It was harder without the internet. Writing letters to editors and government people lacked immediacy……
He’s the head of the Fisheries Division of the MDNR.
Once upon a time there were many many more anglers, and many more fish. Then several horrific things happened in the lakes and the anglers petered out over time. No one cares but the 11 of us on this thread, plus some charters who thought it could be a business too. What’s a charter but a commercial fishery with hook and line?

there’s nobody left to care.
Where did you get the idea anyone can eliminate Zebra, and Quagga Mussels, and other invasive from the Great Lakes? It's never been done to any large degree, anywhere. And the Great Lakes are a very "large degree." I am pretty sure that any species which are introduced to the Great Lakes, and thrives, will take hold, and nobody will be able to remove them later. The lakes are just too large to treat in an effective manner, without significantly harming a lot of native species.
Or as a friend of mine liked to say about many topics; “genie is out of the f’n bottle, it ain’t going back in”.
  • Like
Reactions: Gordon Casey
1 - 20 of 1022 Posts