Some Consent Decree news...
Log into Facebook
Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.
www.facebook.com
301 - 320 of 1017 Posts
We are allowing them what was granted in the treaty, no more no less. If sport fisherman and charter boat captains lobbied the Federal government ahead of statehood there would be no issue at this point in time. Obviously our ancestors were not the forward thinkers that we thought they were. Rights were granted and the courts agree. Would it be better that we un cede the territory and give it back? I don’t think so.
Not really a question of them getting everthing the want, just what the Federal courts dictate to be their rights... Wouldn't it be interesting to see a sportsman group consortium sue the Federal government for failure to enact timely measures to protect the Great Lakes waters from the 184 or so invasives that have vastly altered the food web and ecoysystem's function and productivity. Hell, simply sueing over dreissenid mussel control measure failures by USCG, USFWS, USACE would be an interesting approach, since it is their impacts that have put the whitefish stocks on a course direction toward collapse.
Actually, these are either gillnet or trapnet licenses, or both for some fishers. Doesn't speak to number of nets within each license either. The area we fish salmon in is a trap net specific zone, with the exception of a Odawa license for gillnetting perch off Big Summer Island, which I have only seen them set in a handful of times over the last decade...three I think. East side of Pte. Detour (Garden Peninsula) is a gillnet zone, currently fished by Jensens and some TC chippewa guys who have two tugs that I have not seen go out this year. We stopped and took a look inside one of them via the open aft section to see that it was completely gutted back to the hull stringers for repairs.
Actually, these are either gillnet or trapnet licenses, or both for some fishers. Doesn't speak to number of nets within each license either. The area we fish salmon in is a trap net specific zone, with the exception of a Odawa license for gillnetting perch off Big Summer Island, which I have only seen them set in a handful of times over the last decade...three I think. East side of Pte. Detour (Garden Peninsula) is a gillnet zone, currently fished by Jensens and some TC chippewa guys who have two tugs that I have not seen go out this year. We stopped and took a look inside one of them via the open aft section to see that it was completely gutted back to the hull stringers for repairs.
I see the RC Anderson on a regular basis in front of my house either setting, pulling or heading to Hammond Bay harbor. Netting is a way of life for some. I’ve found it’s much cheaper to buy fish than put fuel in my boat to catch fish. I sold it prior to the bait fish crash. Big Stone Bay market seems to be open most days when I go by. For what ever reason smoked chubs are hard to come by. Bloody Mary’s are not the same without them at deer camp.
It's certainly a lot cheaper for you to buy meat rather than hunting for it, yet you still hunt? Odd logic.
The land/water within the Treaty zone is theirs for exclusive, perpetual use for hunting/fishing/gathering. Us recreational anglers are allowed to use it, commercial netters...not so much. The Tribes do plant fish to supplement their harvest. The Fed's also plant fish, per Consent agreement, to also supplement their harvest.
The past few years or so we have all been speculating as to what the results of the negotiations will be . I speculated that the Tribes want to fish within ALL Treaty waters and they also want to expand the species of harvest. If that becomes true, I wasn't that far off. Just wondering what those additional species will be? Salmon? Walleye? Perch?
Species take is not relevant. Gill nets are kill nets. Everything from perch to salmon are free game.
When you use the term “negotiation” you imply an active discussion, with give and take compromises. No one was negotiating for the 1 million anglers of the state. It was the DNR and the USFWS just wanting to get it done and get out of court.
All waters in the great lakes are free game. There is no oversight, reporting or enforcement.
Who are you going to call to report or stop a gill net operation? See my post above.
The original treaty was OK. The federal judgements allowing further encroachments since 1836 are the real problems.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
When you use the term “negotiation” you imply an active discussion, with give and take compromises. No one was negotiating for the 1 million anglers of the state. It was the DNR and the USFWS just wanting to get it done and get out of court.
All waters in the great lakes are free game. There is no oversight, reporting or enforcement.
Who are you going to call to report or stop a gill net operation? See my post above.
The original treaty was OK. The federal judgements allowing further encroachments since 1836 are the real problems.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The Treaty stipulates that only full indians have a right to hunt and says nothing about fishing or gathering. That right to hunt expired when Michigan was settled. The Treaty does mot state that those rights can't be regulated by the state either. Any other interpretation of that Treaty is exceptionally liberal reading thi gs into it that are not there. I doubt that the current Supreme Court would agree with liberal interpretations so perhaps now is the time to settle this issue for good.
I have found out from a few reporters on this thread that almost all Natives can trace their lineage back to the signers of the original Treaty. I'm sure you know ALL documented Natives can use gill nets to harvest for subsistence living. Don't worry about the commercial Natives, worry about all the subsistence harvest. Interested in seeing if any new wording applies to subsistence harvest.
You keep getting hung up on the negotiators on this Consent. The negotiators are the State (DNR) Fed's and the Tribes and that's probably it. The 1 million anglers are represented by the DNR. The CMPR also has Amicus Curiae privileges which can suggest angler concerns.
The waters included in the Treaty of 1836 are the area's the Tribes can hunt, fish and gather.
As far as I know the Tribal Police and authorities have the only enforcement authority. That's why I stress enforcement. There will be no control, just as in the past, if the enforcement provisions are not strengthened.
How do you know the Treaty area has been enlarged?
You keep getting hung up on the negotiators on this Consent. The negotiators are the State (DNR) Fed's and the Tribes and that's probably it. The 1 million anglers are represented by the DNR. The CMPR also has Amicus Curiae privileges which can suggest angler concerns.
The waters included in the Treaty of 1836 are the area's the Tribes can hunt, fish and gather.
As far as I know the Tribal Police and authorities have the only enforcement authority. That's why I stress enforcement. There will be no control, just as in the past, if the enforcement provisions are not strengthened.
How do you know the Treaty area has been enlarged?
You apparently have not read all the Court decisions.
Actually, you've opted to read right past the treaty clause that was ignored in the original Federal court decision by Fox, which negated thier rights to the resource should the land be needed for settlement...
Sport fisherman as a group plying the Great Lakes, as well as charter captains and their "industry" did not exist in any numbers in 1836.
Sport fisherman as a group plying the Great Lakes, as well as charter captains and their "industry" did not exist in any numbers in 1836.
Actually I have read the inland agreement along with what Fox had to say. If you’ve actually read it yourself you would already know that neither side wants to have the court define what settlement means. Neither side wants to lose that decision.
We rent a cabin from a joint soo tribal commercial fisherman to hunt ducks from as a base camp for a week to hunt divers, mainly redheads on the Lake Michigan side of the peninsula . He usually drops by for some grilled duck or goose and some appetizers. This year he dropped-off some smoked whitefish for us when we arrived to give us a heads-up on some maintenance he just did prior our arrival.. Three I kept whole and the fourth I made into a dip. Pretty sad to see their size, a little over half the size of the fish we used to buy from him in 2007. When your target species is in decline, both numerically and on a density basis, what options do you have to continue to earn a living... I hold that the Feds and State will eventually launch a whitefish recovery program similar to the decades old initiative for lake trout, since coregonids are central to a functioning Lake Michigan ecosystem.
We can all count on you to be self-congratuulatory. Your suppositions and speculations on this subject have been all over the map, supporting or arguing against any and all possible outcomes, combinations and permutations, Gordon. . As the saying goes even a blind pig finds a truffle occasionally. I seem to recall your last pronouncement was that the CPMR would divulge the results of the Consent Decree prematurely....still waiting on that prognositcation to prove true. Puxatawney, Pa. could use your exuberance and enthusiasm as a 'Phil interpreter"! It is a role you are born for.
We can all count on you to be self-congratuulatory. Your suppositions and speculations on this subject have been all over the map, supporting or arguing against any and all possible outcomes, combinations and permutations, Gordon. . As the saying goes even a blind pig finds a truffle occasionally. I seem to recall your last pronouncement was that the CPMR would divulge the results of the Consent Decree prematurely....still waiting on that prognositcation to prove true. Puxatawney, Pa. could use your exuberance and enthusiasm as a 'Phil interpreter"! It is a role you are born for.
Because it can be open to the same level of overly broad interpretation that lead to his initial decision.
That’s why you will not see a decision on the definition. The risk is too high to take it to court. Can you imagine if the court sides with tribe and all ceded land in the territory becomes huntable and fish able for tribal members? It will not be contested.
It begs the question.....what does settled mean, what is the legal interpretation?
Bet the CPMR does not have the rewrite yet. Maybe they are being blackballed for being bad to the DNR.
Isn't broad interpretation called settled law? Just wondering.
These two screen shots on the subject published by the DNR may help clear things up. They are from the FAQ on the subject.
![Font Terrestrial plant Document Number Screenshot]()
![Font Number Document Screenshot Rectangle]()
Should be required reading, especially for night moves. The example of mineral rights is interesting. You own the mineral rights even if the land is sold to others. How about the Natives have perpetual rights for hunting, fishing and gathering within the Treaty area, non natives may own the land but the Natives still have the right of subsistence living.
301 - 320 of 1017 Posts
