Michigan Sportsman Forum banner
1 - 20 of 43 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
41,294 Posts
First off, what does the Washington Treaty of 1836 say about Native Americans fishing? I just read it. It's linked below. The only mention of fishing rights is a reference to The Treaty of St. Mary’s of June 1820. As far as I can tell, it can be implied that what these two documents say is the head of the household can go catch dinner.
I just don't see where fishing rights means you can make an industry out of it.

I'm saying all that to say this. It's nice to go to court and all that. But how about the Court of Public Opinion?
Like maybe setting up shop close to casinos. Dazzle and Baffle the public into thinking that Native American fishing is decimating the fishing for sportsman.
Dazzle and Baffle the public into thinking what the Native Americans are doing is not the intent of the treaties.
Dazzle and Baffle the public into thinking the intent of the treaties was to allow Native Americans to be recreational fisherman, not create an industry that is taking fish from both native and non-native recreational fisherman.

I've linked the two treaties below. Would it be worth the effort to take this fight to the streets? Pass out literature at every fair, festival, in every newspaper, etc, that makes it appear that the Native Americans are taking an unfair advantage of the these two treaties. Now keep in mind what I'm talking about here. You want to perceive the public into thinking the Native Americans are being unethical. It's not about if that's true of not. It's what you want to lead the public into believing.

This is becoming political. Why not pull the same shenanigans that politicians pull? Dazzle, Baffle, mislead, sidestep. You know what I'm talking about.


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.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41,294 Posts
The problem is whats fair now is different than what was fair back in the 1800s. They are free to target sportfish using the same methods we do. Why not just leave it at that.
The treaty then is also the treaty now. Research is easy on that subject.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41,294 Posts
Treaties can be revised and amended
Only when both sides agree. Right now the tribes feel they have rights to all fish in the treaty waters of the Great Lakes. They are sharing that resource so we know which side will have to give up their share to ensure the tribes treaty rights are not infringed. I looked through the treaty along with Federal interpretation of the decent decree, I don’t see where a seat at the negotiating table is available for special interest groups are included. If charter captains and the tourism interests wanted to be included in the treaty they would have been at the table in 1836.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41,294 Posts
Are we enforcing 1836 rules and means or just the rules?
How many Charter Captains and how much tourism was around in 1836?
Obvious those groups were not forward thinkers. In their opinion they have a vested interest but in the big picture they have none since they were not at the table in the beginning.

As for enforcement the DNR is charged with enforcing the sport fishers but are not allowed to enforce anything in regards to the tribal fishermen per the Federal courts. The tribe provides enforcement on tribal regulations, if they choose to not enforce their regulations it’s their choice. Non tribal members do not know if action was taken or not taken.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41,294 Posts
Most the fish from 36 are dead now.
Read the decree along with the Federal court rulings. The treaty states fish swimming in the treaty waters. The treaty waters are mapped out. The DNR has control invasive species, wouldn’t those with roots originating outside the treaty be considered invasive?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41,294 Posts
You didn't answer the second question because you do not want to
A business can't have a seat at the table if the business wasn't around when the table was set.
I would have answered if I knew the correct answer. I wasnt around back then. We’re you?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41,294 Posts
My point was you stating 36's fish were a right. Those fish are gone. Even sturgeon fry from back then have long aged out.

Invasive species? I'm not going to reread the original treaty to see invasive species being managed by the D.N.R. in it.

The most concerning invasive specie at the time wore shirts and dresses. Control was by force. Not by the nonexistent D.N.R..
A treaty offer was a pre forced displacement option. Uprooting being the trend , and the future trend.
If you read the treaty along with the court ruling at least once you would know all fish swimming in the treaty waters are legal fish. The treaty does not have an expiration date. The treaty ensures the tribal members the rights. If for some reason fish numbers get low it’s the DNRs job to ensure tribal members will have fish for their needs if that means a big cut we all know which group that cut will come from. It will come from the only group the DNR has enforcement control over.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41,294 Posts
I have always found it interesting that Article Thirteen of the Treaty of 1836 is always cited as providing guidance for hunting and fishing "rights" being garanteed. Oddly, it also states that these rights remain intact until the land is needed for settlement...a sentence that oddly has disappeared form the original treaty language, which also only mentions hunting, not fishing...

Yes,in this instance, the Ojibwe benefit from a lack of written history and documentation, particularly with regard to their "assimilation" of those indigenous people who actually previously occupied the shoreline of western Lake Huron, northeastern Lake Michigan, and southern Lake Superior prior their displacement as the Annishnabe migrated wesward from the point of origin at the mouth of the St Lawrence River.
As you know the term settled has never been defined. The Federal government and the tribes have never attempted to get the defined in Federal court for fear of loosing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41,294 Posts
Go back a read the treaty, consent agreement along with the court interpretation and all your questions will be answered. You won’t have to make things up to suit your narrative.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Waif

·
Registered
Joined
·
41,294 Posts
There is no reason for CPMR or MUCC to have a seat at the negotiation table. Neither one is signatory to any treaty. If they want to meet with the DNR separately to air their grievances that’s fine. Next thing you know PETA and Sierra Club will want a seat at the table to protect all fish that does not fall under tribal resource management. Let the tribes and the Feds come up with an agreement both can live with and the State can come up with a plan to monitor sport fishermen’s allotment of the resource. Win win for all involved.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41,294 Posts
I really don't know much or care about that CPMR court challenge and what that all entails. I'm thinking it's a last ditch effort for the special interest group to be heard. Hasn't the Fed's given an ultimatum to the Consent negotiators to get this wrapped up. Could be the Consent will be dropped and revert back to Treaty mandates.

I don't think anyone wants that to happen.
I disagree. The tribes would love to go back to unlimited gill netting vs trap netting. Miles of monofilament is cheap. Easier to set and haul in their catch.

The gag order is in place for a reason. Those in the know are not talking. Rumors are abundant but are not based on fact only speculation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41,294 Posts
..and nonexistent enforcement. If you assume the Federal agencys will provide it, let's recall their recent track record in the one year follow-up to the UP North Fish wholesale operation sting by the USFWS' enforcement personnel an additiona 6,430 violations were identified totaling just under 700,000lbs of illegal caught and sold Great Lakes fish. To date three misdemeanor charges have been filed, two against a tribal fisher who operates a retail and wholesale fish sales site outside of Hancock. Three non-tribal fish wholesale operators actually spent time in jail.



...and abaondon when circumstances warrant. Left for the State to remove. We couldn't even get the USCGS to act on two abandoned nets off the Marquette harbors. Their response was that they would remove ANY net to was a hazard to COMMERCIAL navigation, not sport boat operators. Still waiting to read of a 1,000' ore carrier endangered by a gillnet ... One of my fishing partners nearly lost his father-in-law and son when they hung-up on an unmarked net. Oh, it was marked-by a broken crutch with some flagging attached to it, with an ERA laundry detergent bottle duct taped into the opening for floatation.
Can you provide a link to the enforcement rules and penalties by infraction that are part of the consent decree? I’m sure everyone would like to read what was agreed upon.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41,294 Posts
Who is buying these Indian fish?
Pretty well every restaurant at the tip of the mitt serves locally caught whitefish. Big Stone Bay Fisheries along with Manley and Massey Fish markets are always busy. Those are just a few that I can think of. If you time it right you can buy right from the local fisherman when they dock in the Cheboygan River, Nunns Creek or Hammond Bay Harbor. Nothing illegal about buying fresh fish from native fishermen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41,294 Posts
This brings up an interesting point. The Supreme Court ruled that Michigan has the power to enforce its law on its citizens and has the power to stop importing illegal tribal fish to market. In other words, the state can not stop tribal fishermen from selling fish but, it sure can stop non tribal citizens from buying it.
Michigan has 10 million residents and millions more who summer here. That is a lot of fish buying power for those that don’t fish but enjoy eating fish putting sport fisherman far in the minority column. All fishermen have a say just not at the table, the DNR is in charge of ensuring flshable populations for both sport fisherman and the tribe. It can only limit/enforce those under its control which are not the tribes. It all goes back to whom the treaty is between, the Feds and the tribes. The DNR is only the management agent. Would a better option be having the USFWS service do all the management in ceded territories and not providing the DNR with any fishery management monies or say?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41,294 Posts
The scenario you outline cannot occur, The Great Lakes Fishery Commission was established in 1954 via international agreement with Canada. The language of the agreement specifically sets Great Lakes fishery management squarely in the hands of the shorelines states and Canada. State directed management of each Great Lake was further underscored in 1965 when the lake management committees were established, with nor direct Federal or Canadian representation on any of them.

Enlighten us by outlining WHAT management monies the USFWS currently provides to the State of Michigan or any other Great Lakes state for fishery management efforts on an annual basis?

Enforcement of the Consent Decree agreement specifics like gear type that can be deployed, total allowabe catch (TAC) apportionment, fishing seasons, and subsistence fisher oversight falls to tribal enforcement, Sate enforcement personnel, as well as USFWS and US Coast Guard Service personnel via ex-offcio status in the field and on all committees and councils that deal with penalties and enforcement. The dysfunctional arm of enforcement remains the Tribal Court system's failure to act punitively, documented repeatedly since the Fox decision.

Separate but equal as a doctrine in the United States was struck down by the Brown decision in 1954. How is it that a treaty the specifically oulines that game and fish taking rights should continue to be granted, until those lands are needed for settlement, is selectiively interpreted and enforced by the Federal courts? This i particulary aggregious when you factor-in the willingness of our current Supreme Court to overturn what several of those who voted in favor of this action stated publicly and repeatedly that they viewed this as settled law.

The 2020 cesus ondicates that roughly a quarter of the 10 million residents you toss out there are under 21. I strongly doubt this cohert should be included in your enumeration of potential fish purchasers. But, let's go at your argument from a demand consumption perspective.

The State and tribal commercial fishery has an annual revenue value of between 10-12million dollars in Michigan. Sea Grant set the annual revenue of the Michigan based charter fleet at 16 to 18million for Lake Michigan waters, without including revenues generated by Lake Huron charter operators. Over half of charter customers do not fish or do not fish regularly per their data. The Great Lakes Fishery Commission sets the anual value of the Great Lakes fishery at just under 7 billion dollars, so lets just do a back-of-the-envelope apportionment by dividiing that value by five lakes to get a ballpark figure of 1.4 Billion for Lake Michigan's fishery...one reason why some of those non-fishing but fish eating folks you tallied-up reside and recreat here annually. I won't touch on your fuzzy math further where you attempt to infer that your local fishery crowd's fish purchasing carries through statewide or even on a broad local scale either. I will add though, that if you buy whitefish in Marquette, it likely originated from the Thill's fish house, or VanLandschoot's in Munising: both commercial fishers who number among the 13 non-tribal operators. Thill's ships to Escanaba and Iron Mountain restaurants as well.

Unlike you, I can't determine a plausible means of apportioning use and demand that substantially offsets the size and revenue generated by the Great Lakes sport fishery to validate your argument either by looking at Public usage, or the economics of consumption. A pretty sizeable chunk of the sport fishers that I know here in the U.P. are loath to purchase fish, but many of them are Finnish, priding themselves in their self-relience.
I’m still waiting on a response of what tribal laws are on the books regarding fishing and the penalties associated with such infractions. If tribal laws are not broken because they do not exist it means no action will be taken in tribal court. If laws are broken they must be a penalty. Non tribal members may not like it but it’s no different than our legal system. The tribes have their compiled laws just like non tribal members do. It’s up the each party to enforce and penalize offenders as they see fit, outside parties have no say.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41,294 Posts
If this is about the tribes commercial interests, why are lakers being stocked by the millions and whitefish virtually not stocked at all?
The food source for whitefish has been mostly eliminated by invasive species brought into the Great Lakes by non tribal members. Ever heard of zebra and quagga mussels? They filter out the food required for opossum shrimp to thrive. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysida
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41,294 Posts
When I want to find an answer, I do the research myself, why your request to spoon feed yielded no response. The ennforcement and regulations section of the Consent Decree begins on page 101...

I wondered why you were so glib in those comments and question. Tribal regulations and enforcement are a closley guarded secret. Generally, they mimic the State's penalties, particulrly now that several State legislators did such a wonderful job of killing the efforts by Ed Mcbroom's committee to update Michigan's ancient commercial fishing statutes which confer the maximum penalty for catch quota violations at $100 per offense. Tribal courts had opted to match that fine value prior pulling the publication of their actions and decisions.

Both the Soo Band and the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission used to post the court decisions in the monthly tribal newsetters, MUCC used to provide a monthly oversight summary of trapnet and gillnet catch data along with summary listing of tribal court determined penalties and violations...all no longer listed in public access tribal documents.
There in lies the issue. Non tribal members actually do not know what actions were taken if any. It’s a closed nation that has its own laws and punishment system. It may not seem fair to outsiders but that’s the way it is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41,294 Posts
But they use our well fare & free medical system, right? Seems fair! Cool👍 Souvern nation my fanny!!✌
Would it have been better if all the land in the 1836 treaty remained under full tribal control excluding non Native American? If that happened there would be no need for this thread.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41,294 Posts
I disagree, had Michigan's legislators passed an effective commercial fishing statute that would serve as a guidance document, penalties that are not punitive would not exist. Why? Because there exists a mechanism to shame the tribal courts into effective enforcement, but not until the State sets that standard, which the Feds will cajole and coerce them into adopting. And you said you read the Consent Decree...?

There is a resolution mechanism in place.
I’ve also read Judge Fox’s interpretation.
 
1 - 20 of 43 Posts
Top