Michigan Sportsman Forum banner
321 - 340 of 1017 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
1,163 Posts
It does not stipulates fishing or gathering. I'm not sure why you keep posting that. Show me where the 1836 Treaty supports your notions. The Supreme Court has never ruled on that. The current Supreme Court could certainly set things straight. They have shown to have no problem reversing liberal decisions much bigger than this illegal stuff.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,865 Posts
It does not stipulates fishing or gathering. I'm not sure why you keep posting that. Show me where the 1836 Treaty supports your notions. The Supreme Court has never ruled on that. The current Supreme Court could certainly set things straight. They have shown to have no problem reversing liberal decisions much bigger than this illegal stuff.
Refer to post #319
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,163 Posts
Refer to post #319
That is not what I asked but rather just the DNR'S opinion. The Supreme Court has never ruled on the Treaty of 1836. Maybe they have on other treaties, but not that one. One biased judge's ruling is not the law of the land. Past liberal courts do not seem to have much weight with the current court. The DNR under the current liberal governer is not likely to push it though.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,865 Posts
That is not what I asked but rather just the DNR'S opinion. The Supreme Court has never ruled on the Treaty of 1836. Maybe they have on other treaties, but not that one. One biased judge's ruling is not the law of the land. Past liberal courts do not seem to have much weight with the current court. The DNR under the current liberal governer is not likely to push it though.
I think you just don't get it! The DNR and the State can do nothing to change settled law determined by the Federal Courts. Have a good evening.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,865 Posts
Imma continue to just do whatever the F—k I want! Seems to be workin so far!😂! Tell me about line limits!🤣, size limits🤣, oh ya, possession limits!!rotfl. As I fish up against a a gillnet!
I'm with you! Everyone appears to be up in arms regarding this new Consent and as I said before, recreational anglers are not affected what so ever. Still can fish wherever we want and can take what the DNR regulations allow. Maybe the State and fed's will plant more fish for us to catch.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,163 Posts
I think you just don't get it! The DNR and the State can do nothing to change settled law determined by the Federal Courts. Have a good evening.
You seem to be so negative in shutting down any doubt about the certainty of the situation to the point that your motives are highly suspicious. You argue on every thread on comercial fishing issues siding with the netttrrs every time. Do you even fish the great lakes? What's your motivation to be so pro commercial fishing? I wonder? Still waiting for proof that the Supreme Court has ruled on this issue on the 1836 Treaty as you claim.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,865 Posts
You seem to be so negative in shutting down any doubt about the certainty of the situation to the point that your motives are highly suspicious. You argue on every thread on comercial fishing issues siding with the netttrrs every time. Do you even fish the great lakes? What's your motivation to be so pro commercial fishing? I wonder? Still waiting for proof that the Supreme Court has ruled on this issue on the 1836 Treaty as you claim.
We are a country governed by laws. The Native Americans have Treaties that protect their rights and I'm all for their rights. If you REALLY read my posts I probably talk more about enforcing the violations of the Treaties and hopefully the new Consent will address the issue.

The non native commercial netters are governed by laws as well. I'm all for rewriting those old, outdated laws and approve new ones that are appropriate for the times. The netters unlike the Natives have their laws bargained by our State politicians and not the Fed's. Just as in collective bargaining, compromise solutions are the norm. If you take something away from the netters they should get something in return. It's the American way. If you really read my reporting you will find I have a balanced approach to most issues, but many feel I'm too one sided because most on here are all in on their stance and screw the other opinion.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,163 Posts
We are a country governed by laws. The Native Americans have Treaties that protect their rights and I'm all for their rights. If you REALLY read my posts I probably talk more about enforcing the violations of the Treaties and hopefully the new Consent will address the issue.

The non native commercial netters are governed by laws as well. I'm all for rewriting those old, outdated laws and approve new ones that are appropriate for the times. The netters unlike the Natives have their laws bargained by our State politicians and not the Fed's. Just as in collective bargaining, compromise solutions are the norm. If you take something away from the netters they should get something in return. It's the American way. If you really read my reporting you will find I have a balanced approach to most issues, but many feel I'm too one sided because most on here are all in on their stance and screw the other opinion.
Still no answer and more smoke and mirrors. What I expected. If you do t fish the great lakes, then why the obsesive interest in netting issues?
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
4,083 Posts
The question now is; will there be enough “non tribal” folks with balls enough to do what was done mid 80’s? To bend a rule or 2, to badger the local LEO’s into making it a safety issue? Like life & limb safety? My old man is gone now & so is his 40’ tug boat. Someone else will have to relocate them! Lol
I'm guessing there will be plenty. Messing with the nets will just cause bigger safety issues. Net boats however may have unexpected issues.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
41,829 Posts
You seem to be so negative in shutting down any doubt about the certainty of the situation to the point that your motives are highly suspicious. You argue on every thread on comercial fishing issues siding with the netttrrs every time. Do you even fish the great lakes? What's your motivation to be so pro commercial fishing? I wonder? Still waiting for proof that the Supreme Court has ruled on this issue on the 1836 Treaty as you claim.
Who is going to take it to the Supreme Court? Both sides do not want to take a chance and lose the opinion. Treaty waters are just that, if you don’t like sharing with those who have treaty rights there is plenty of water out there where you don’t have to share.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,163 Posts
Who is going to take it to the Supreme Court? Both sides do not want to take a chance and lose the opinion. Treaty waters are just that, if you don’t like sharing with those who have treaty rights there is plenty of water out there where you don’t have to share.
If the state can't get an agreement that protects the fisheries resources, then the state should not accept it. The current governer will never pursue it in court though. We'll see what the future holds.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
41,829 Posts
If the state can't get an agreement that protects the fisheries resources, then the state should not accept it. The current governer will never pursue it in court though. We'll see what the future holds.
We will see this drag out longer since some of the tribes will seek separate arbitration. Until then the tribes will follow the direction their elders send them in. After all they claim rights to all fish in the ceded waters. You should be happy they share.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,865 Posts
Make no mistake, recreational anglers will notice the difference! We all will!
Please explain! Lower creel limit on Lakers? Too many Lakers and not enough steelhead? Looks like more whitefish if cork is correct. Forget about Kings and Coho, it's the DNR's plan of attack for the Great Lakes fishery. I'm all for planting more salmon but the need to plant more Lakers (Consent) outweigh the planting of more salmon. The DNR will plant just enough salmon to keep us from rebellion.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,660 Posts
Update: According to the most current extension, the latest consent decree is set to expire on November 14, 2022. However, there is now no indication that a new Consent Decree agreement will be ready on November 14, 2022.

At this time, there is also no indication that Judge Maloney and the seven parties to the agreement have made any progress.

More will be known more come late November 14th or early November 15th.

The CPMR has filed to intervene in this court case. Judge Maloney has denied that request to intervene.

So, the CPMR legal team has filed an appeal with the 6th Circuit Court of U.S in Cincinnati.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,865 Posts
Update: According to the most current extension, the latest consent decree is set to expire on November 14, 2022. However, there is now no indication that a new Consent Decree agreement will be ready on November 14, 2022.

At this time, there is also no indication that Judge Maloney and the seven parties to the agreement have made any progress.

More will be known more come late November 14th or early November 15th.

The CPMR has filed to intervene in this court case. Judge Maloney has denied that request to intervene.

So, the CPMR legal team has filed an appeal with the 6th Circuit Court of U.S in Cincinnati.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Do you really think we are going to see something official from the parties involved? Nobody is probably proud of the outcome. The court will publish the Consent Decree without much fanfare and we will have to disseminate it.
 
321 - 340 of 1017 Posts
Top