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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
I'm guessing there will be plenty. Messing with the nets will just cause bigger safety issues. Net boats however may have unexpected issues.
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.
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.
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.
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.
