Michigan Sportsman Forum banner
241 - 260 of 1021 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
24,078 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)
 

· Banned
Joined
·
8,874 Posts
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)
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.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
24,078 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
·
41,829 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.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
24,078 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
 

· Banned
Joined
·
8,874 Posts
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.
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.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
24,078 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
·
41,829 Posts
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
The lake has never been settled and the definition of settled has never defined under the inland consent agreement. Neither side wants to take the issue to court for fear of losing.
 

· Banned
Joined
·
8,874 Posts
Interesting read, first time I read it. I doesn't really say much other than the fact they can hunt and fish on all public land within the Treaty zone. Interestingly the Consent did not really define subsistence fishing and hunting bag limits. I believe Cork reported that the Tribes can take anywhere from 75 to 100 lbs.of fish weekly. I had discussion with Sault native a while back and he said he could take 5 deer. The season was in the fall which is part of their fall harvest tradition.
The Consent did not address;
Allowable species.....I assume everything although there were special provisions for animals and fish.
Allowable season......I assume all year long, appears the Tribes define the seasons.
Bag limits.......Left up to the Tribes to define.
Keep in mind without enforcement, bag limits, seasons, and species are just for reference. Violating individuals will take whatever they want, when they want to.
 

· Banned
Joined
·
8,874 Posts
No surprise on the deadline passing without an announcement. One side doesn’t need to compromise, there is nothing to gain.
Lets just hope they are close! Don't need to have the courts make the decision and have the Consent process go away. Someone said a 50/50 allocation and non native commercial netting restrictions in the entire Treaty zone. Not good.

That relative of mine that lives in the TC area saw a Tribal fishing tug at the mouth of the Boardman on 10/1, Coincidence?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
41,829 Posts
Lets just hope they are close! Don't need to have the courts make the decision and have the Consent process go away. Someone said a 50/50 allocation and non native commercial netting restrictions in the entire Treaty zone. Not good.

That relative of mine that lives in the TC area saw a Tribal fishing tug at the mouth of the Boardman on 10/1, Coincidence?
Neither side will be 100% happy. Life changed for the worse years back when nets were relocated from the Grand traverse bay to St Martins bay. Those in GT thought it was great those of us who had our fishing ruined in St Martin bay thought it sucked. We were the losers, move them back for the next 20 years, it’s only fair.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,059 Posts
^
BULLSHI………..
John, its just the usual blather from a guy who often instructs others to read the Consent Decree, but opts to not engage in the same activity for personal edification. Example: His recent statements about enforcement disputes between the State and tribes. Resolution framework is actually contained in the document,...

Gee, why do I remember something very different occurring in the late 1990s with regard to management of the northern Lake Huron sport fishery?. What I recall is a sport fishermen lead pressure campaign on the MDNR that eventually successfully overroad their plan to reduce chinook stocking when they announced that there was a signdinficant imbalance in the forage and predator base in Lake Huron. Just the usual grab a couple local State pols and some business leaders and pressure the purse strings.... That fishery liv2 deer farm in the UP describes as being stolen from him and his brethren crashed in the interval from 2003-2006 as a result of inaction precipitated by the sport fisherman users.. Tribal fishing had nothing to do with it. Alewife stocks remain in a predator pit, significantly damping any recovery, despite continued emigration through the Straits from Lake Michigan, along with smelt to a lesser extent..

Even if his arguement were based on actual fact, the difference in the size of the user base between the St. Martins Bay and Traverse Bay fisheries would still warrant the decision.

Besides, it gave Greg Wright free housing and a job at Nunn's Creek!
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,059 Posts
Lets just hope they are close! Don't need to have the courts make the decision and have the Consent process go away. Someone said a 50/50 allocation and non native commercial netting restrictions in the entire Treaty zone. Not good.

That relative of mine that lives in the TC area saw a Tribal fishing tug at the mouth of the Boardman on 10/1, Coincidence?
Gordon, a Consent Decree IS a court mandated settlement used to force an agreement when two parties cannot reach an equitable settlement without court intervention.

I saw a tribal gillnet tug right next to our mooring crib while duck hunting. Maybe they decided to take on DU over waterfowl quotas? Conflation, innuendo, inflammation, speculation....do you just rotate among these headers prior responding?
 

· Banned
Joined
·
8,874 Posts
John, its just the usual blather from a guy who often instructs others to read the Consent Decree, but opts to not engage in the same activity for personal edification. Example: His recent statements about enforcement disputes between the State and tribes. Resolution framework is actually contained in the document,...

Gee, why do I remember something very different occurring in the late 1990s with regard to management of the northern Lake Huron sport fishery?. What I recall is a sport fishermen lead pressure campaign on the MDNR that eventually successfully overroad their plan to reduce chinook stocking when they announced that there was a signdinficant imbalance in the forage and predator base in Lake Huron. Just the usual grab a couple local State pols and some business leaders and pressure the purse strings.... That fishery liv2 deer farm in the UP describes as being stolen from him and his brethren crashed in the interval from 2003-2006 as a result of inaction precipitated by the sport fisherman users.. Tribal fishing had nothing to do with it. Alewife stocks remain in a predator pit, significantly damping any recovery, despite continued emigration through the Straits from Lake Michigan, along with smelt to a lesser extent..

Even if his arguement were based on actual fact, the difference in the size of the user base between the St. Martins Bay and Traverse Bay fisheries would still warrant the decision.

Besides, it gave Greg Wright free housing and a job at Nunn's Creek!
Another cork, MO. Blast everyone and every event/decision that does not meet with you're skewed reality. Everyone and every decision not to your liking is dismissed by you as wrong. You need to reflect a little, your reporting the past few years is always about how everyone else does not know what they are doing ....you should have figured that out by now that you are the one that's wrong.
It appears your past superiors have dismissed you as not being a team player and have "put you on the shelf" as far as decision making. Apparently your role with the fisheries organization ended at fish squeezer and net puller.
You held hundred's of jobs, by your own admission. Please tell us your meaningful achievements.............please keep it under 2000 words.
 
241 - 260 of 1021 Posts
Top