Michigan Sportsman Forum banner
261 - 278 of 278 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,596 Posts
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.
Thanks, Gordon, for posting a few hundred words without ever touching on the reality that a Consent Decree IS a court mandated settlement.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,252 Posts
It is expected on the 14th of November.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I have questions. Hopefully we can have a sane conversation.
Lets say the Consent negotiators come to an impasse, they are deadlocked, no agreement whatsoever. What happens next?
Do the courts say the existing Consent is null and void and everything reverts back to the Treaty of 1836?
Do the Native have unfettered hunting and fishing rights in all of the Treaty zone?
Now we come to the political "hot potato", the definition of "settled land".
Does settled land mean all private land or does settled mean only habitable land?
Lets say a land owner has 180 acres and the house is situated on 1 acre. Does settled mean only that 1 acre which means the Natives can hunt and fish on the other 179 acres?
Eliminating the Consent will mean the exclusive netting zones will be eliminated therefore causing a wild west mentality between the recreational anglers, non native netters and the Natives. I see gill nets in front of every river mouth.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,252 Posts
Thanks, Gordon, for posting a few hundred words without ever touching on the reality that a Consent Decree IS a court mandated settlement.
You are right! If the negotiators of the Consent cannot come to a resolution, the courts will make the decision for them. We will still have some form of Consent but it may include wording not to the liking of the negotiators, probably heavily favoring the Tribes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,596 Posts
You are right! If the negotiators of the Consent cannot come to a resolution, the courts will make the decision for them. We will still have some form of Consent but it may include wording not to the liking of the negotiators, probably heavily favoring the Tribes.
Just more speculation on your part, as well as running counter to the actual HISTORY of the negotiations process for the last two years since expiry of the 2020 CD.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,495 Posts
I have questions. Hopefully we can have a sane conversation.
Lets say the Consent negotiators come to an impasse, they are deadlocked, no agreement whatsoever. What happens next?
Do the courts say the existing Consent is null and void and everything reverts back to the Treaty of 1836?
Do the Native have unfettered hunting and fishing rights in all of the Treaty zone?
Now we come to the political "hot potato", the definition of "settled land".
Does settled land mean all private land or does settled mean only habitable land?
Lets say a land owner has 180 acres and the house is situated on 1 acre. Does settled mean only that 1 acre which means the Natives can hunt and fish on the other 179 acres?
Eliminating the Consent will mean the exclusive netting zones will be eliminated therefore causing a wild west mentality between the recreational anglers, non native netters and the Natives. I see gill nets in front of every river mouth.
I can only speculate, based off of publicly released information on the CPMR website, the Facebook pages, the forums, and the news articles…but will answer your questions. On the 14th of November you can compare my speculation to reality.

1). The negotiations have completed. The draft decree is written. There was no impasse with negotiators. The tribes fought amongst themselves of how to split up their new territories and their new allowed methods of netting and their new populations of all fish to sell. The DNR, USFWS, and tribes all got what they wanted which was to get the decree done and Great Lakes Fishermen and Conservationists had no say at all.

2). The 2000 decree is null and void as of 14 November and the new rules will be in place.

3). I can’t speak to hunting rights. But Yes, the tribes now have unfettered netting in all 1836 water. There is no quota. There is a Total Allowable Catch limit, but without supervision or enforcement, the tribes TAC limit will never be reached.

4). Can’t speak to settled land for hunting, but yes, all 1836 waters are available for gill nets. And without any supervision and enforcement, all waters are available for gill netting.

Who you going to call? The sheriff? The DNR? The USFWS in Lansing? The tribes? Ha! They will point to another organization and keep you leaving voicemails everywhere and they will be relieved when they direct you to someone else.

5). We finally agree on your last statement. Welcome back to 1980. Gill nets will be in front of the every tributary from the Grand River to Saginaw and beyond. The wild west is here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,252 Posts
I can only speculate, based off of publicly released information on the CPMR website, the Facebook pages, the forums, and the news articles…but will answer your questions. On the 14th of November you can compare my speculation to reality.

1). The negotiations have completed. The draft decree is written. There was no impasse with negotiators. The tribes fought amongst themselves of how to split up their new territories and their new allowed methods of netting and their new populations of all fish to sell. The DNR, USFWS, and tribes all got what they wanted which was to get the decree done and Great Lakes Fishermen and Conservationists had no say at all.

2). The 2000 decree is null and void as of 14 November and the new rules will be in place.

3). I can’t speak to hunting rights. But Yes, the tribes now have unfettered netting in all 1836 water. There is no quota. There is a Total Allowable Catch limit, but without supervision or enforcement, the tribes TAC limit will never be reached.

4). Can’t speak to settled land for hunting, but yes, all 1836 waters are available for gill nets. And without any supervision and enforcement, all waters are available for gill netting.

Who you going to call? The sheriff? The DNR? The USFWS in Lansing? The tribes? Ha! They will point to another organization and keep you leaving voicemails everywhere and they will be relieved when they direct you to someone else.

5). We finally agree on your last statement. Welcome back to 1980. Gill nets will be in front of the every tributary from the Grand River to Saginaw and beyond. The wild west is here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I can believe everything you reported. Now all we need to see is the fine print, cuz that's where reality is.
You already know my mantra........enforcement! Without it there is no TAC.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,252 Posts
There is no way for the tribes to know when the TAC is reached. No reporting, no collection database, no enforcement…nothing. Its every man for himself out there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Just watch, the CPMR will be leaking the information as soon as they see the tentative agreement. They are still butt hurt about that judge that told them to take a hike. Apparently the judge gave them the right to see it and comment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
537 Posts
I have questions. Hopefully we can have a sane conversation.
Lets say the Consent negotiators come to an impasse, they are deadlocked, no agreement whatsoever. What happens next?
Do the courts say the existing Consent is null and void and everything reverts back to the Treaty of 1836?
Do the Native have unfettered hunting and fishing rights in all of the Treaty zone?
Now we come to the political "hot potato", the definition of "settled land".
Does settled land mean all private land or does settled mean only habitable land?
Lets say a land owner has 180 acres and the house is situated on 1 acre. Does settled mean only that 1 acre which means the Natives can hunt and fish on the other 179 acres?
Eliminating the Consent will mean the exclusive netting zones will be eliminated therefore causing a wild west mentality between the recreational anglers, non native netters and the Natives. I see gill nets in front of every river mouth.
The treaty of 1836 stipulates only hunting rights. Fishing is not mentioned. It also only applies to full indians. You really should read it. It should be required reading before posting on threads like this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,252 Posts
The treaty of 1836 stipulates only hunting rights. Fishing is not mentioned. It also only applies to full indians. You really should read it. It should be required reading before posting on threads like this.
Night stalker.
Based on your suggestion, being a novice regarding all the happenings relating to the Treaty and Consent, I scanned that 1836 Treaty. So Night, I refer you to Article 13, there you will find words and in the case of legal words they mean something. Those words say "other usual privileges of occupancy". Courts have ruled those mean hunting, fishing and gathering. The Consent Decree was added in 2000 to better define fishing rights.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
537 Posts
Night stalker.
Based on your suggestion, being a novice regarding all the happenings relating to the Treaty and Consent, I scanned that 1836 Treaty. So Night, I refer you to Article 13, there you will find words and in the case of legal words they mean something. Those words say "other usual privileges of occupancy". Courts have ruled those mean hunting, fishing and gathering. The Consent Decree was added in 2000 to better define fishing rights.
That would be a super liberal extrapolation of that language that I doubt would hold up in high courts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,252 Posts
That would be a super liberal extrapolation of that language that I doubt would hold up in high courts.
I'm not going to do anymore work for you but you need to look up court decisions relating to the Treaty. Most all of the interpretations are settled law. One more question! Why was the Consent originated at all? Maybe it was written to better define fishing rites within the Treaty. Don't know haven't studied this much.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
936 Posts
From what I understand about this is it’s the 2000 consent decree that is being negotiated. It has a 20 year term. And it’s only for the Great Lakes and connecting waters of the treaty area. There’s a 2004?or 2008? Not quite sure of the year it was imposed. Consent decree with the state of Michigan only. This decree deals specifically inland and deals with both hunting and fishing rights. There are 2 separate decrees each one governing different areas. Some one can chime in on this if I’m wrong.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
537 Posts
From what I understand about this is it’s the 2000 consent decree that is being negotiated. It has a 20 year term. And it’s only for the Great Lakes and connecting waters of the treaty area. There’s a 2004?or 2008? Not quite sure of the year it was imposed. Consent decree with the state of Michigan only. This decree deals specifically inland and deals with both hunting and fishing rights. There are 2 separate decrees each one governing different areas. Some one can chime in on this if I’m wrong.
I'm sure Gordon will think you are wrong. The rest of us will disagree.
 
261 - 278 of 278 Posts
Top