Michigan Sportsman Forum banner
1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,285 Posts
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?
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,285 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.
We deplete the resource separately or together there is no mention in the 1836 treaty of D.N.R. responsibility for creating a resource to substitute.

The right to fish in 1836 treaty waters mean exclusively?
Does the right to fish in treaty waters as defined by the original treaty make anyone else responsible for if fish exist? As in , the right to fish is not the same as the right to have fish provided for you to catch.

Anything else wrangled out of the original treaty since is not the original treaty.
Who wrangles and the balance of why and when and how is not on me.
I'm of the same mind as the native that stood on the Manistee pier long ago throwing rocks at a native craft pursuing fish.
It's not up to us.
But subject to our like or dislike just as well. As well as throwing rocks.

fish doc1 (glifwc.org)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,285 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.
Drop barriers to define treaty waters to keep fish stocks seperate and leave the natives qualifying under the treaty terms to have at it. IF the treaty specifically perpetuates the right beyond those alive at the time.
Fine by me. And answers conflict over "who's" stock is being harvested where.

Deal is a deal. Here's the limit of your range. And here's the limits of ours until which time use for settlement exists.
My definition of settlement is to settle upon / occupy. And per treaty , "until settlement" was not a reference to natives settling upon. Rather an eventual consumption by others. A deal I'd not have applauded were I a native then.
Looked good on paper though?

Varied definitions of settlement exist.
For one...
[an arrangement whereby property passes to a succession of people as dictated by the settlor ]
Bringing us back to who defines and interprets what the treaty's terms were.
And where legally binding for what defined amount of time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,285 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.
Interpretation.
Now there's an old game!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,285 Posts
Years ago I scanned a large "coffee Table" book that my friend purchased from the Ft. Michililmackinac book store. Published by the Michigan State publishing dept. and provided an in depth review of the fur trade in the area. Explained all the trapping routes (paths) from Minnesota to Ohio to New York and Canada. Very interesting read. A section of the book discussed all the Treaties with the natives. You talk about settlements and that caused me to remember what the settlements were as defined in the Treaties.

Need to remember that the Treaties were written by the white men in Washington using the mentality they had about how things SHOULD be based on their knowledge at the time.
The Natives had no idea what settlements meant. Nobody OWNED the land, it was to be used by everyone. Tribes were somewhat nomadic, they had areas where they foraged, areas where the hunted and fished. They spent the most time wintering where there was water and hunting/fishing available.
Maps of the Treaty areas had land for habitation, sometimes called reservations. The Tribes were illiterate to the white mans thinking and really had no understanding what they signed.
I tell the story about those 2 fishing tugs in the Leland harbor marina. Could be that Leland and the surrounding area was defined as habitation in a Treaty and maybe the Natives owned the town. Needless to say those tugs have been in the harbor since the 2000 Consent.
I read somewhere, in some Federal Court decision regarding the Treaties that the Natives had the "wool pulled over their eyes" , they did not understand and it was the Governments responsibility to properly inform them to where they understood.
Would be delighted to read that book. Another I regret not nabbing had Jesuit accounts of native activities and someways. Gambling even up to thier village being lost. And method of torturing native prisoners. Methods I don't know how they could be topped. Ans prisoners expected to be stoic.
Burials. Bones cleaned and stored till intermittent mass burial. Ect..

Other accounts show groups going from Green Bay to Detroit under pressure from other natives. The Mohawk North. The "Neutrals "wiped out by other tribes over fur trade.
The Straits. Canada. Multiple groups and multiple terms.

And early Euro contact siding with a group to combat the Iroquois resulting in Northern routes being the best way to avoid conflict again. Steering much further traffic North instead Well , sort of. But certainly affecting former trade routes. Like the E-W one below water kinda on a line through Chicago.


1600's forward was an object of study for me a while when reenacting through shoots ect.. Thin gravy those 1600's details today compared to later years.
Which are there. Including the "Indian problem".

Grandfather and Great Grandfather had "stores" in Northern Mi.
I've one picture of Gramps with a pet deer at one.
Great Grandfather had kegs of beads in the top /loft of his store.
Beads were found beyond the store in sand. from?
Natives stopped by at times.
What either party thought of things I've no written account of from family.
Another area a house had natives sleep in the room nearest the entry on thier way through. An informal getting along kind of thing.

Natives gaining anything more than what was being ceded by any treaty would be quite an exception.
As you mention those involved in "agreeing" to terms were not likely aware of every implication.
Accepted as representing all , "All" may not have agreed either. Such are politics.
Feigned good will can be both aggression , and submission. Being being nice while being robbed of a lifeway wasn't working any more.
If marking a paper gets you off my back and not demonstrating my / our demise is suitable to your proven ability's goals , should I sign?

Post civil war near where I'm at "conflict" with natives involved thier hanging out at a spring and grazing horses.
They moved on eventually.
But one doesn't need guess they knew they got the short end of the deal when land was ceded.
I'd probably let my horse poop on your property too if I was them.

Sustenance through taking fish as a native right? Sure.
Selling for money or to nonnatives? I wouldn't offer that as a sustenance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,285 Posts
The federal government controls the waters of Michigan and the great lakes? Then the native does not.
With the 1813 death of Tecumseh , so to the control of Michigan by natives.

Ohio. Southern Indiana. Treaties appeased the natives contesting squatters. So the hotly contested Ft. Wayne treaty followed.

What treaty ended the "scootch over " method of displacement?
Making most treaty moot following capitulation. That being thier intent.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,285 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.
It didn't happen.

"Control" is a challenging definition when ceded land required to allow attempting statehood is being controlled .

Can Native "take" of fisheries be controlled? By whom?
Yes it can.
By multiple parties.
The ways of "control" are the only issue.


Long read. Interesting arguments.
People v. LeBlanc :: 1976 :: Michigan Supreme Court Decisions :: Michigan Case Law :: Michigan Law :: US Law :: Justia
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,285 Posts
I am only representing the other side of ANY story. People like to jump to the "stirring the pot" analogy to defend their side of the story.
I'm guessing you personally have not been involved in collective bargaining, consensus decision making, group decisions where every decision maker has EQUAL input. You would then understand that individuals NEVER get their way and those individuals are the first to bitch that everyone else is F...ed up and they are the only ones that are right.
In the case of this Consent rewrite, everyone at the table does not have equal power. I believe the DNR appoint people that represent the DNR. So when you say the main conservation watchdog group (CPMR) is crying foul, is justified because they have no seat at the table.
I always listen and defend, if I feel it's right, ALL sides of every issue and I also understand that any one position is not correct
So I will say the CPMR is stirring the pot on this Consent issue, they have no business at the table and they are the argumentative ones.
You say the CPMR is right, I say the CPMR is wrong, with legal evidence, and I'm the one blamed as stirring the pot.
CPMR was let in the door in 79. How is it that you claim they suddenly have no business at the table?
I'm not saying they should or shouldn't have been allowed since 79 ,but noting they were allowed a say since. (That means a say is all . Not the ability to change anything legally , but allowed comment. )

Shouting match between DNR director, coalition a tipping point in consent decree negotiations - Michigan United Conservation Clubs (mucc.org)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,285 Posts
The CPMR does NOT have a seat at the table! Amicus curiae loosly means they can be informed of the Consent negotiations and can provide an Amicus brief, in other words provide a letter to define their feelings hoping to influence the negotiators.
They have no decision making capability whatsoever.
I didn't say they had decision making capability. But they have a say.

The right to fish treaty waters does not mean treaty waters are not to be regulated when the resource is mobile and the effects of fishing treaty waters extends beyond them.

Till the Federal government enforces regulations or fences /creates barriers to fish movement across boundry lines , it has no footing regulating treaty waters as if they are sovereign native land.
Native regulations should be enforced by tribes per state and federal guidelines. Are they? Then something is wrong when they are not. Who is liable and who provides oversite? And when they fail oversite , then what?

Three parties are mentioned. Federal , State , and Tribes.
Vested shareholders affected should and do have a say. One way or another. Consider them a silent at the table voice. But they are not silent beyond. Meet your recreational fisher folks. Charter captains and sport shops and restaurants and businesses ect. far beyond the table.

And until the Federal party assumes responsibility for enforcement and demonstrates effectiveness , it's say should be less each term of revisiting treaty rights regarding fishing public waters. Ensure the right to fish exists. As treaty assures. Regulatory enforcement of the methods and quota's has to be prioritized firstly or the rest doesn't matter.
Who's task is that again? And why is there contention regarding enforcement? Either there is a problem or there is not.
Even nets alone are a problem. What has the Federal party done when nets are not marked properly or "lost"? Did it resolve the issues? If not then it created more unenforceable regulations.

Creating problems for the state and it's citizens and for visiting citizens from elsewhere while not enforcing regulations ignores the States position at the table. Which it does have.
When citizens don't believe the State is representing them or the resource effectively they should have a say. And do.

Yes there is much involved. Enough that oversite and perspectives beyond that the Federal government is always in the right should be heard/read.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,285 Posts
The State has no say in tribal investigation methods, tribal enforcements or tribal penalties. The tribe has no obligation to even report to the State on any matter since they are a sovereign nation. With that said how does anybody know if actions were or not taken? It’s all up to the tribal system, maybe a scolding is satisfactory, who know? It could be no point no foul, non tribal members do not have a right to know.
Anyone on the water has a right to know unattended nets exit.
It's time the Federal government demanded responsibility for nets to not be abandoned long enough for a catch to rot.
And restitution for damage to craft when nets are not properly set and marked. As well as reimbursement to the state and Coast Gurad for expenses incurred due to nets.
If the Federal government can't assign responsibility, why is it involved top heavily in the situation causing a lack of responsibility? Let those tasked with enforcement and having to intervene due to damage regulate.
Fishing is allowed. Unfettered at will is not. Michigan is now settled.

Neglected fishing nets lurking in Lake Michigan create headaches for boaters - mlive.com
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,285 Posts
Sorry, the CMPR don't have a say, they can report their feelings and those feelings have no say in the negotiations.
The federal government does not enforce the the regulations, they enforce the Treaty. It's left to the Tribes and monitoring groups to enforce any infractions.
Judge Malony agrees. Or you agree with him. Or both.
With his argument not being the groups(s) sovereignty status , or if any fishing group should be excluded based on being nonnative ; but rather the impending deadline (post prior delay) and the potential effect of further discussions on it. Making the likelihood of overrunning the deadline date too great.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,285 Posts
Not an expert , just informed. Everyone has an opinion, but some opinions are based on facts. Your post 272 talks about hunting rights only. The Treaty is supported by court decisions, article 13, backed by court rulings confirmed fishing rights. I think the courts ruled that 25% Native heritage makes you a "full patch" Native.
Please correct me if I'm wrong. Need to build up your seniority before entering into debates.
The skinny armed N.M.'s guy has been around here quite a while.
Not that seniority matters to debate..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,285 Posts
At least 543 posts worth. He apparently has not followed the hundreds of previous posts on a variety of forums and threads that gives a little background regarding this Consent debate. I'm all for debate, but please bring at least a little bit of knowledge to the party.
I meant quite awhile.
Pre 543.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top