Michigan Sportsman Forum banner
1 - 20 of 27 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,588 Posts
Where the f are the Lake Trout stocks under “duress”?????
In all the statistical districts in northern Lake Michigan where the Consent Decree of 2020 allows CORA affiliated tribal commercial fisheries...seriously, the USFWS keep track of the percentage of wild origin lake trout by "chopping" Lake Michigan into three tiers for monitoring. The northern tier has posted percentages in the low teens for multiple years, while southern and mid-tier percentages have been in the low 40s to low 30s for the same interval for these two lake sections, respectively.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,588 Posts
The only ones who will benefit from the proposed suit will be the law firms involved. I don’t believe there will be another seat at the table added.
IF you have followed the string of Consent Decree negotiations throgh time, you would note that an amicus curiae brief filed by a trio of lawyers from Escanaba that outlined the extensive movements of walleye stocks within Green Bay and northwestern Lake Michigan, entering and leaving Treaty of 1836 ceded waters moved the Federal court to exclude them from the list of target species the Tribes had submitted. Currently, there is a three year effort that just now employs static located recording locations, set in a grid pattern that cover all of Geen Bay waters to monitor the temporal location, as well as map seasonal movement patterns of both lake whitefish and walleye stocks.

I found it quite interesting to read that CORA biologists have previoudly concluded that lake whitefish stocks in northern Lake Michigan are theorectically capable of maintaining self-sustaining populations at annual exploittion levels of up to 60%, yet they are displaying markedly lower annual recruitment values when compared to southern Green Bay and eastern Door Peninsula commercially and sport exploited stocks of lake whitefish. These fish are heavily exploited via a winter sport fishery, unlike those stocks in Michigan waters which see only tribal commercial fishery pressure.

CORA staff biologists state these stocks of lake trout and lake whitefish are not being overfished, per catch numbers reported by the fishers they oversee, yet broader assessments by Federal biologists indicate another trend... The USFWS used to attempt to mitigate tribal overfishing by attaching a tag-on statement on the impacts of sea lamprey induced mortality from fish emmanating primarily from the Manistique River watershed, but that has been long-ago negated by a nearly decade long accelerated TFM treatment of this watershed on an every-other-year basis to the tune of over 7 million dollars and counting. Did I mention that Michigan offered to pay for the upkeep of the projected to be completed dam and sea lamprey barrier just north of Manistique, projected for completion in 2015, that as yet, remains to be built because the USACE and the Michigan DEQ cannot reach an agreement on permit requirements? Originally, when Gov. Snyder cut the ribbon to signal the State's committment to support this project in 2014/15, the cost of the dam and lamprey barrier were pegged at just under $4million, half of what the USFWS has currently expended to hold lamprey production low within this watershed. I always appreciate witnessing effective governance in action...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,588 Posts
It was interesting to watch Dan Eichenger, Jim Dexter, and Amy Trotter all in the same room yesterday at the NRC meeting:cool:
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.

The CPMR is a collection of local conservation, hunting and fishing clubs trying to stop the expansion of nets. If you are a fisherman, you should be worried.

The DNR, and the USFWS are teamed up with the tribes to put nets at every tributary in indian waters and not enforce net placement anywhere else.

The “Motion to Intervene” is a last ditch attempt to say “hey, what about the 1 million fishermen in Michigan? Don’t we get a say?”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I am a fisherman, and I am worried, but my concern centers around the disinformation statements being made and disseminated by individuals like you, done in an effort to foment distrust and finger-pointing. I willingly admit I don't hold the MDNR is high regard overall as a resource management agency, but is no information that indicates that they are not operating at the beck-and-call of the CORA affiliated tribes in these negotiations, particularly with regard to net placement and netting zone expansion. What I would very much like to see is the Federal courts weighting their judgement support based on the extent and duration of prior Consent Decree violation volumes by the parties, as well as policing, including punitive enforcement efforts. I guess I am one of those weird individuals who holds that frequency of disregard for compliance with a binding document's legal requirements and framework is a very accurate indicator of future behavior...

The State's perspective is to seek a negotiated settlement in the current iteration of the Consent Decree, versus one that is Federal courts mandated, since that outcome would more likely apportion the fishing resource 50:50 within Treaty of 1836 waters between the two user groups, since, in this instance past performance is a very accurate indicator of future behavior when you tally-up the proportion of violations by users within each set of fishers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,588 Posts
The decree is completely a state issue. What can legislators do? They hold the purse strings to the dnr. Just like Wisconsin legislators did, they can threaten funding if the dnr is not acting for the interests of the citizens.
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....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,588 Posts
Read the epilogue portion of the 1836 Treaty, post #24. What most don't get is that this is not a democratic process in trying to update the Consent. The Treaty allowed unrestricted fishing rights, both subsistence and commercial, for all waters within the Treaty boundaries. The Consent is a more definitive agreement of fishing rights and zones. Protesting, marching, and complaining to your legislator will do absolutely nothing other than maybe aggravating the Tribes. It not right to say we should hope for a fair and equitable solution. Lets just hope there is a plan to sustain the fishery.
Unrestricted fishing Rights pertains specifically to the type of gear and location of fishing effort within Treaty of 1836 waters. The Crabb decision for Treaty of 1842 tribal fishing rights had an addendum attached by the Federal Court that requires the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission to have in-place a functional management plan for fish and game populations to garantee they remain self-sustaining through time. The Right to fish is not a license to overfish a fish stock, it is not a Right to fish a stock without regard to harvest levels that endanger self-sustainability through time, particuarly for those species whose annual and seasonal movements take them out of Treaty of 1836 waters for a portion of the fishing season with variation deppendant on the species.

Example: Walleye stocks spawn on reef complexes throughout Green Bay, which includes Little Bay de Noc and Big Bay de Noc segments of the total bay, current tagging data indicate a general southward movement out of Treaty of 1836 waters, as well as dispersal to open waters of Lake Micchigan south of treaty waters as well, yet the tribes feel that they should have not only the legal right to fish this species, but that they should have total control of harvest regulations, with only a portion of the stock alloted to the commercial fishery. Again, why is it that Lake Whitefish stocks in southern Green Bay and the east side of the Door Peninsula continue to hold there own when subjected to both a sport(primarily winter) and commercial fishery, yet lake whitefish in northern Green Bay and northern Lake Michigan continue to post low recruitment values and a truncated age distribtuion in treaty waters sugject to ONLY a commercial fishery? Is it location, or harvest that is driving this trend? IF, it is a bit of both, why has CORA neglected to adjust quotas to test ANY hypothesis as to what is the principal driver of these declines that have been evident for years....?
Management that is functional is a process that entails variable actions through time to sustain a species, not simply reporting these stock declines and asking for a broader "MENU" of commercial target species and expanded catch quotas. One very interesting proposal that GLSI Board has made is that the Feds make the same sustained management effort they have had in-place for decades for Lake Trout, for Lake Whitefish as well since both a KEYSTONE SPECIES per their assessment!

Over the last handful of years I have grown quite jaded by the near-constant chant of Exercise Treaty Rights with zero regard, mention, consideration, of sustainability of the fishery that those rights guarantee access to.

Example: The Soo band subsistence fishers had all their gear impounded by the State post arrest on the Little Bay de Noc illegal netting case. Soo Tribal council members stated they still held valid subsistence licenses, so if they had gear and snowmachines, they could go back to fishing immediately. The non-tribal member sat in jail until the bond hearing. He is the only individual who actually did time in jail in the case.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,588 Posts
Statement i was responding to was "What can legislators do?" and "It's really not a state issue". I am not advocating for this action. Just saying it is one they could take.
The Fox decision supported their right to fish. The Enslen decision set the base framework for both where and how, as well as species array via the Consent Decree of 2000. This should be precedent, factoring heavily into what the base agreement SHOULD be in this current Consent Decree, the third iteration dictated by the Federal Courts.

OUR legislature couldn't even pass an updated commercial fishing regulations bill lto replace the hodge-podge outdated and non-punitive existing statutes that comprise the existing legislation....even though Tribal courts currently "fine" violators to match the maximum penalty that the State can set for commercial fishing violations under the existing framework: $100.00 per violation. One of the most valuable enforcement tools in the package that failed was mandated on-board transponders that would enable the handful of Great Lakes Fishery Enforcement personnel to meet the boats at the dock prior them offloading their catch...one of the first items to be removed by our legislators.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,588 Posts
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.
The Treaty of 1836 was signed by the United States, via the representative, with tribal "chiefs". Nowhere, is the State of Michigan mentioned as a signatory, largely because Michigan did not achieve statehood until January 26th, 1837.

The Great Lakes fishery is managed under the International Joint Commission (IJC) umbrella via the Great Lakes Fishery Commission which is a joint tribal, State, Provincial aggregate whose guiding principles are summarized here:
Four important principles guide this cooperative fishery management process: consensus, accountability, information sharing; and ecosystem-based management. Fishery management happens for each lake through "lake committees" comprised of state, provincial, and U.S. tribal agencies with primary management jurisdiction on each lake, supported by federal agencies. Lake committees develop strategic fishery management goals for each lake, called Fish Community Objectives (FCOs) and set agreed-upon harvest levels for key fish species of common interest. More detailed management guidance is provided through rehabilitation plans and management plans for each lake. Lake committees also provide a "state-of-the-lake" report every five years to summarize recent trends in fish populations and progress toward FCOs. Mutually agreed-upon management actions are implemented by individual agencies.


Source Great Lakes Fishery Commission Treaty of 1836 summary agreements pdf

Although the tribes retained the right to fish in the Great Lakes, conflicts among tribal fishers, state licensed commercial fishers, and sport fishing groups continued. In 1985, the tribes, the state, the U.S. Department of the Interior and various sport fishing organizations entered negotiations. The U.S. District Court ordered a 15-year agreement called the “Consent Order” into effect in 1985. The Order, which expires in 2000, allocates fishery resources between user groups. Its purpose is to reduce social conflict while conserving and enhancing valuable fish stocks. It also established a mechanism to resolve disputes by the formation of an Executive Council. COTFMA-member tribes’ chairmen and a state and federal representative sit on the council. When the mechanism fails, the U.S. District Court steps in to resolve the conflict. A court-appointed Special Master may serve as arbitrator.

COTFMA member tribes jointly manage their fishery resources via the Chippewa, Odawa, Resource Authority (CORA)

Overall, this information seems to be at-odds with your interpretation and contentions...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,588 Posts
Remember, it was their land not ours! We took it away from them but gave them perpetual use of the land in the 1836 Treaty zone. The Treaty allows hunting and fishing rights on all public and PRIVATE land. Netting Houghton, Higgins, Torch lakes would be allowed.
The Consent better defined fishing zones, quota's and obligations by the Fed's, State to maintain an adequate supply of catchable fish.
You stated we don't have a chance to keep our rights. You got that backwards, it's their rights not ours.
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,588 Posts
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.

Wait a minute...did you not state in your earlier post that all anyone need do is take one reading of the Treaty of 1836 document as well as the Federal Court decision which would provide a clear understanding that the tribal government signatories both have the right to fish the Great Lakes for ALL species of fish and the State of Michigan is fully obligated to " backfill" species to garantee them a catch? How is it that your previous statement implied what is not stated clearly nor implied within the document's actual language?

I learned something quite new from your posts, hunting is a synonym of fishing, not bad for a tribe that built freighter canoes, fIshed the St. Marys Rapids, as well as for other riverine stocks, yet did not posess the means, skill, and wherewithall to actually fish the Great Lakes waters you state they have full control over now as well as a right to exploit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,588 Posts
So, we now know the CPMR has been involved in negotiations via amicus curie status granted in 1985 and again in 2000. The tribes are advancing the argument it is too late to allow their intervention directly in negotiation. CPMR agues that they now have determined that theii interests are not being effectively advanced by the State. Interesting the the Soo and Odaw Bands found it necessary for them to file their own individual rebuttals... One of them previously requested that fishing access quotas provided in the previous consent decree be struck down, allowing tribal fishers to fish anywhere within Treaty of 1836 waters reducing costs and travel time. I always found it interesting that Odawa fishers had a yellow perch zone provided off Big Summer Island. Do they fish there? Yes, but I never see any perch in their catch, just whitefish and lake trout. I asked one of the Peterson brothers last fall about this. He just smiled and made no response... fall yellow perch are huge fillets, since they are not spawning or just spawned.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,588 Posts
I got an idea! Since all the negativism about the State, Feds, DNR decision making, you know they can NEVER do the right thing, so lets have the Federal Courts make the decision for us. They have in the past and can do it again. Would all the negative people, there are many on here, be satisfied?
The Crabb decision determined tribal fishing rights in Treaty of 1842 coverage geography; the Fox decision determined tribal fishing rights in Treaty of 1836 language; the decision by Judge Richard Enslen in 1985 established a Consent Decree as the means of apportioning sport fishing rights and quotas between the State of Michigan and what is now CORA affiliated tribes- CORA was established in 2000 as a joint management entity.

The Federal courts are ;both overseeing and actively directing the negotiations, Gordon, why we are where we are. Why do you think that the tribes are requesting as their treaty rights are reasonable, given that the weight of the Federal courts has repeatedly broadened their access to the fishery, while also failing to provide adequate oversight on enforcement and enactment of punitive actions with "teeth".for serial offenders.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,588 Posts
Oh geez, why not!

in 1836 we also had rights to freely fish wherever we wanted in the lakes. (We being non tribal members). The treaty does not exclude us from fishing those waters it just gave permission to the tribes to fish the way they wanted to fish in those specific areas. In 1836 the feds also had balls enough to enforce this without worrying about recourse or retaliation through discrimination. Let’s just give the feds back their balls and let the tribes do whatever they want. Let try hem net what they plant, who cares. If their take out is equal to what they put in I’m good with it.

The issue is not about fishing, John, it's about who gets to catch what, species, where they can fish, and how much they can keep for each commercial gear type employed.. Enforcement is the second issue. I would welcome a peak fine of 100 dollars for violation on a catch that nets me a figure in the thousands of dollar range.

If I were a CORA tribal biologist, I would scoop up your put-and-take proposal in a heartbeats, since my "costs'' of production would be artificially low. Why? Your math is way off. You seem to forget that less than ten percent of the fish "made" survive to legal size, even less for planted species, more like 6%. Now, outside of a token efforts by the Soo band to raise walleye and the Odawa cisco rearing facility, the planted fish are produced via Fedeeral dollars, either directly in their hatcheries or reared by the State with subsidies from the Feds.. Plus, I pretty sure I could make the argument that the Odawa cisco rearing effort essentially contributes to genetic drift in the population, since wild fish are an amalgam of several morphotypes and sub-populations that exhibit a distinct behavioral characteristic: piscivory on round gobies. The shoal spawning stocks the Feds are using to plant outer Saginaw Bay waters are planktivores and macro-invertebrates eaters.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,588 Posts
All good points here. I think the bottom line is, rules mean nothing without enforcement, & the way things are now, we have no legs to stand on. Outlaw commercial fishing in the Great Lakes ,across the board ,on a federal level & let the tribes & commercial guys come at us. Think outside the box, what we’re doing isn’t working so why keep doing it? Seems like all the money were donating would be better spent buying our own politician! They’re cheaper than they used to be!!
Whiskey is for drinkin', Water is for fightin' over! - Mark Twain

Michigan was well on its way to eliminating the commercial fishery on the Great Lakes when the Leblanc brothers opted to challenge the State by setting gillnets in Brimley Bay. Had the State ignored then MUCC director and grand potentate, tom washington and abrogated the treaty rights via a one time payment what you propose would be doable.

Remember, the Feds make no direct revenue from the Great Lakes Sport Fishery...none. While all the states are heavily dependent on the revenue streams both for their coastal economies as well as Fish and Game Management agency operating monies.

When Howard Tanner and Wayne Tody sent the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Federal agency in charge of management and oversight of commercial fisheries, both coastal marine and int he Great Lakes, they did not ask permission to plant coho. The notification was a proof of concept transmission only stating that it was the State of Michigan's intent to convert the largely useless alewife biomass that dominated the Great Lakes fish stocks into a viable SPORT fishery product. They recieved no official response, which I would take as an abrogation of oversight rights and responsibility by the NMS and Federal government. When that effort succeeded, the Feds were left scrambling to gain some level of oversight and control of the Great Lakes since it represents 22% of all fresh surface water on the planet. Two initiatives were "hatched" and slowly expanded: the Sea Lamprey Control Program and the International Joint Commission agreement that lead to the formation of Great Lakes Fishery Commission a joint International, and Federal/State agency that oversees Great Lakes management. The GLFC established lake specific management committees that were populated by State-level biologists to provide annual oversight and management concensus decisions with NO Federal representation or oversight. Well, that WAS until the Federal Courts actions that interpreted the Treaty of LaPointe (Treaty of 1842) granting commercial fishing rights to tribal signatories via the Crabb decision and the Fox decision interpreting the wording of the Treaty of 1836 to grant hunting AND fishing rights on Great Lakes waters.

From the initial Consent Decree in 1985 and forward a tribal representativis assigned to all lake management committees for Lakes Huron, Superior, and Michigan, essentially serving as serving as Federal proxies...

One thing I really found both irritating and VERY unprofessional was the near across the board attitude that Michigan had erred. I still get the Stinky Salmon comment from USFWS and USGS biologists. IF lake trout should remain as the keystone predator supported by nearly sixty years of Federal Dollars

In the seventies and eighties, if you were sitting in a Great Lakes management meeting with members of the USFWS, sometime, somewhere, somehow the "Sea Lamprey Card" would be played...just to remind everyone in the room the Federal resources were supporting sea lamprey control and thus propping-up the fishery. Over the last decade Federal managers would always point-out that it was a duel effect phenomenon that was impairing lake trout percent wild origin fish proportion in the the five statisctical grid districts that encompass the northern Lake Michigan segment- Sea Lamprey wounding mortality AND tribal commercial fishery exploitation. Every other year TFM treatments of the Manistique watershed over this interval has removed the sea lamprey wounding impacts, yet the lake trout wild origin trend remains nominal. How odd. That is why I had to chuckle when the Odawa tribal biologist whined about all the lake trout in tribal nets damaging their fisher's profitability since whitefish were their target species and higher profit catch item. "Guys are just leaving the fishery because they can't catch enough whitefish to make it worthwhile."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,588 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.
..and nonexistent enforcement. If you assume the Federal agencies 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.

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.
...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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,588 Posts
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?
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,588 Posts
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.
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,588 Posts
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
The non-tribal members you infer as source(s) of dreissenid mussel invasives were enabled by several FEDERAL agencies who side-stepped and/or ignored bilge water dumping and treatment requirements that existed. Among them the US Coast Guard Service and USACE. Freighters entering the St. Lawrence seaway were required to exchange bilge water while still in a marine system prior entry into the waterway. The USCGS failed to do their job of enforcing existing laws. Add-in that Federal legislators actually made sure that Great Lakes states with bilge water exchange laws more stringent than the Fed's were over-ruled.

This, too, is neither an accurate statement; not even partially true. Dipoeria affinis amphipods were the principle food item of lake whitefish stocks that were displaced by dreisennid mussel invasion and proliferation. Opposum shrimp played a secondary role as a food item, as well as providing a biologic pathway from demersal environments back into fish populations that were concentrated in surface or near-surface waters. Lake Whitefish recruitment has significantly declined in the northern waters of Lakes Michigan and Huron fished by tribal entities, yet while lower, it has not exhibited as marked a decline in Bays de Noc populations, exposed both to a intense winter sport fishery and a commercial fishery by non-tribal fishers.who primarily fish trapnets and some pond nets, with very limited gillnet usage. You can make a pretty good indirect argument that gear usage (gillnets) has a marked impact via induced mortality on undersize and underaged whitefish, yet CORA biologists opt not to see it. The Soo band is attempting to initiate planting of Lake Whitefish, coupled with a Federal program that is attempppting to indentfy key spawning reefs for round goby eradication
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,588 Posts
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.
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,588 Posts
But they use our well fare & free medical system, right? Seems fair! Cool👍 Souvern nation my fanny!!✌
As I said, seperate but equal was supposedly struck down in 1954.

Actually, they have access to Federal Supply Schedule pricing for all medications the Federal Government purchases from the pharma. industry. The Feds get a discount garanteed to be X percent below the best commercial price. Example: The Soo Band had garanteed their elder population free medications for life, which along with the off-book corporation that partnered with the Greek consortium on the Detroit casino venture that is now defunct was driving them bankrupt via their drug purchase expenditures prior Merck working to enact this purchase pathway via a VA hospital in Oklahoma.''

I had all the tribal health care accounts for Michigan and Wisconsin
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,588 Posts
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.
[QUOTE}

Your statement has zero liklihood of becoming actuality, less so had the tribes attempted to move on it earlier in time when Statehood was granted and expansionism were the national focus.

Had Judge Fox actually opted to include the actual treaty language that negatets the Federal obligations set forth when 'the land is needed for settlement' in his ruling, that would also make this discussion moot. Both are hypotheticals, unfortunately.

Now, let's get back to that fishery management money the Feds provide the Great Lakes states....please edify us all on what funds this entails. They "rent" hatchery space for lake trout rearing in Michigan, essentiallly subsidizing plants in CD jurisdiction waters. Sea Lamprey control expenditures are mandated via the IJC agreement and directed by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission.
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Top