Michigan Sportsman Forum banner
21 - 40 of 250 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,345 Posts
I understand why Non-Disclosure Agreements are part of the ongoing negotiations. Makes sense.

But I think the public could at least be allowed to know when negotiators are actually negotiating, when the next round starts, has the Judge set another new deadline, etc., etc. Instead all we get to hear is “during this recent round of negotiations” - there were some negotiations. That’s it. Same news for - 3? - years running now. Next?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,022 Posts
I understand why Non-Disclosure Agreements are part of the ongoing negotiations. Makes sense.

But I think the public could at least be allowed to know when negotiators are actually negotiating, when the next round starts, has the Judge set another new deadline, etc., etc. Instead all we get to hear is “during this recent round of negotiations” - there were some negotiations. That’s it. Same news for - 3? - years running now. Next?
On June 30th it was extended 90 days
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40,747 Posts
First off, what does the Washington Treaty of 1836 say about Native Americans fishing? I just read it. It's linked below. The only mention of fishing rights is a reference to The Treaty of St. Mary’s of June 1820. As far as I can tell, it can be implied that what these two documents say is the head of the household can go catch dinner.
I just don't see where fishing rights means you can make an industry out of it.

I'm saying all that to say this. It's nice to go to court and all that. But how about the Court of Public Opinion?
Like maybe setting up shop close to casinos. Dazzle and Baffle the public into thinking that Native American fishing is decimating the fishing for sportsman.
Dazzle and Baffle the public into thinking what the Native Americans are doing is not the intent of the treaties.
Dazzle and Baffle the public into thinking the intent of the treaties was to allow Native Americans to be recreational fisherman, not create an industry that is taking fish from both native and non-native recreational fisherman.

I've linked the two treaties below. Would it be worth the effort to take this fight to the streets? Pass out literature at every fair, festival, in every newspaper, etc, that makes it appear that the Native Americans are taking an unfair advantage of the these two treaties. Now keep in mind what I'm talking about here. You want to perceive the public into thinking the Native Americans are being unethical. It's not about if that's true of not. It's what you want to lead the public into believing.

This is becoming political. Why not pull the same shenanigans that politicians pull? Dazzle, Baffle, mislead, sidestep. You know what I'm talking about.


Did you read the Federal court ruling? This may help clear things up on interpretation. If you don’t feel like reading it all read from the epilogue on.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,229 Posts
Did you read the Federal court ruling? This may help clear things up on interpretation. If you don’t feel like reading it all read from the epilogue on.

The epilogue tells the entire story. Such things as the natives and their ancestors have legal rights. Hunting/fishing subsistence rights allowed for personal and commercial living. ALL lands within the treaty can be used for subsistence living.
Interesting reading for those that have followed this issue of Treaty and Consent but have not fully understood the power of the Treaty.
In today's life of political correctness and minority rights, we can only hope, we the angler, don't get hurt too much. In realty, I personally have not been affected with the Consent, I fish wherever I want without violating anything.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,588 Posts
Where the f are the Lake Trout stocks under “duress”?????
In all the statistical districts in northern Lake Michigan where the Consent Decree of 2020 allows CORA affiliated tribal commercial fisheries...seriously, the USFWS keep track of the percentage of wild origin lake trout by "chopping" Lake Michigan into three tiers for monitoring. The northern tier has posted percentages in the low teens for multiple years, while southern and mid-tier percentages have been in the low 40s to low 30s for the same interval for these two lake sections, respectively.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,588 Posts
The only ones who will benefit from the proposed suit will be the law firms involved. I don’t believe there will be another seat at the table added.
IF you have followed the string of Consent Decree negotiations throgh time, you would note that an amicus curiae brief filed by a trio of lawyers from Escanaba that outlined the extensive movements of walleye stocks within Green Bay and northwestern Lake Michigan, entering and leaving Treaty of 1836 ceded waters moved the Federal court to exclude them from the list of target species the Tribes had submitted. Currently, there is a three year effort that just now employs static located recording locations, set in a grid pattern that cover all of Geen Bay waters to monitor the temporal location, as well as map seasonal movement patterns of both lake whitefish and walleye stocks.

I found it quite interesting to read that CORA biologists have previoudly concluded that lake whitefish stocks in northern Lake Michigan are theorectically capable of maintaining self-sustaining populations at annual exploittion levels of up to 60%, yet they are displaying markedly lower annual recruitment values when compared to southern Green Bay and eastern Door Peninsula commercially and sport exploited stocks of lake whitefish. These fish are heavily exploited via a winter sport fishery, unlike those stocks in Michigan waters which see only tribal commercial fishery pressure.

CORA staff biologists state these stocks of lake trout and lake whitefish are not being overfished, per catch numbers reported by the fishers they oversee, yet broader assessments by Federal biologists indicate another trend... The USFWS used to attempt to mitigate tribal overfishing by attaching a tag-on statement on the impacts of sea lamprey induced mortality from fish emmanating primarily from the Manistique River watershed, but that has been long-ago negated by a nearly decade long accelerated TFM treatment of this watershed on an every-other-year basis to the tune of over 7 million dollars and counting. Did I mention that Michigan offered to pay for the upkeep of the projected to be completed dam and sea lamprey barrier just north of Manistique, projected for completion in 2015, that as yet, remains to be built because the USACE and the Michigan DEQ cannot reach an agreement on permit requirements? Originally, when Gov. Snyder cut the ribbon to signal the State's committment to support this project in 2014/15, the cost of the dam and lamprey barrier were pegged at just under $4million, half of what the USFWS has currently expended to hold lamprey production low within this watershed. I always appreciate witnessing effective governance in action...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,229 Posts
The only ones who will benefit from the proposed suit will be the law firms involved. I don’t believe there will be another seat at the table added.
My understanding is that the Fed's, State and Natives are the only stake holders in this Consent Decree re write. Don't know much about the CPMR group, I'm thinking they are a watch dog group for the MI anglers. They are probably used for reference information regarding angler interest.
This lawsuit from CPMR is just a feudal attempt to publicaly make known what they are proposing and are frustrated that they are getting nowhere. They were probably told by the bargainers to just go away.
You are (your) right, Luv2 the lawyers are going to make the bucks and the CPMR will get public lip service in letting the MI anglers know what they proposed and was disregarded.
Some people sent money to help the cause.....should have spent the money on lures.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,022 Posts
My understanding is that the Fed's, State and Natives are the only stake holders in this Consent Decree re write. Don't know much about the CPMR group, I'm thinking they are a watch dog group for the MI anglers. They are probably used for reference information regarding angler interest.
This lawsuit from CPMR is just a feudal attempt to publicaly make known what they are proposing and are frustrated that they are getting nowhere. They were probably told by the bargainers to just go away.
You are (your) right, Luv2 the lawyers are going to make the bucks and the CPMR will get public lip service in letting the MI anglers know what they proposed and was disregarded.
Some people sent money to help the cause.....should have spent the money on lures.
Brief History – Coalition to Protect MI Resources
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,229 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,492 Posts
The CPMR is a collection of local conservation, hunting and fishing clubs trying to stop the expansion of nets. If you are a fisherman, you should be worried.

The DNR, and the USFWS are teamed up with the tribes to put nets at every tributary in indian waters and not enforce net placement anywhere else.

The “Motion to Intervene” is a last ditch attempt to say “hey, what about the 1 million fishermen in Michigan? Don’t we get a say?”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,229 Posts
The CPMR is a collection of local conservation, hunting and fishing clubs trying to stop the expansion of nets. If you are a fisherman, you should be worried.

The DNR, and the USFWS are teamed up with the tribes to put nets at every tributary in indian waters and not enforce net placement anywhere else.

The “Motion to Intervene” is a last ditch attempt to say “hey, what about the 1 million fishermen in Michigan? Don’t we get a say?”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Is that "inside information"??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,588 Posts
It was interesting to watch Dan Eichenger, Jim Dexter, and Amy Trotter all in the same room yesterday at the NRC meeting:cool:
Betcha there was near constant licking of collective index fingers to "test the political wind direction" prior any public comments made by them individually! I always held that Jim was one of the best C+ fishery biologists that MSU ever turned-out, but he did excel at hiney smooching, turning it into a high art.

The CPMR is a collection of local conservation, hunting and fishing clubs trying to stop the expansion of nets. If you are a fisherman, you should be worried.

The DNR, and the USFWS are teamed up with the tribes to put nets at every tributary in indian waters and not enforce net placement anywhere else.

The “Motion to Intervene” is a last ditch attempt to say “hey, what about the 1 million fishermen in Michigan? Don’t we get a say?”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I am a fisherman, and I am worried, but my concern centers around the disinformation statements being made and disseminated by individuals like you, done in an effort to foment distrust and finger-pointing. I willingly admit I don't hold the MDNR is high regard overall as a resource management agency, but is no information that indicates that they are not operating at the beck-and-call of the CORA affiliated tribes in these negotiations, particularly with regard to net placement and netting zone expansion. What I would very much like to see is the Federal courts weighting their judgement support based on the extent and duration of prior Consent Decree violation volumes by the parties, as well as policing, including punitive enforcement efforts. I guess I am one of those weird individuals who holds that frequency of disregard for compliance with a binding document's legal requirements and framework is a very accurate indicator of future behavior...

The State's perspective is to seek a negotiated settlement in the current iteration of the Consent Decree, versus one that is Federal courts mandated, since that outcome would more likely apportion the fishing resource 50:50 within Treaty of 1836 waters between the two user groups, since, in this instance past performance is a very accurate indicator of future behavior when you tally-up the proportion of violations by users within each set of fishers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,229 Posts
Betcha there was near constant licking of collective index fingers to "test the political wind direction" prior any public comments made by them individually! I always held that Jim was one of the best C+ fishery biologists that MSU ever turned-out, but he did excel at hiney smooching, turning it into a high art.



I am a fisherman, and I am worried, but my concern centers around the disinformation statements being made and disseminated by individuals like you, done in an effort to foment distrust and finger-pointing. I willingly admit I don't hold the MDNR is high regard overall as a resource management agency, but is no information that indicates that they are not operating at the beck-and-call of the CORA affiliated tribes in these negotiations, particularly with regard to net placement and netting zone expansion. What I would very much like to see is the Federal courts weighting their judgement support based on the extent and duration of prior Consent Decree violation volumes by the parties, as well as policing, including punitive enforcement efforts. I guess I am one of those weird individuals who holds that frequency of disregard for compliance with a binding documents legal requirements and framework is a very accurate indicator of future behavior...

The State's perspective is to seek a negotiated settlement in the current iteration of the Consent Decree, versus one that is Federal courts mandated, since that outcome would more likely apportion the fishing resource 50:50 within Treaty of 1836 waters between the two user groups, since, in this instance past performance is a very accurate indicator of future behavior when you tally-up the proportion of violations by users within each set of fishers.
As you know Cork, I'm totally with you regarding the enforcement of any violations of the Consent Decree. People are getting excited about too many nets here or there, increased apportions possibly being included in the new decree. Without a solid enforcement mandate of any violation the fight to reduce the fish take means nothing. Those Natives that violate now will continue to violate in the future. Quota's, net restrictions, species and fishing zones mean nothing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,958 Posts
Betcha there was near constant licking of collective index fingers to "test the political wind direction" prior any public comments made by them individually! I always held that Jim was one of the best C+ fishery biologists that MSU ever turned-out, but he did excel at hiney smooching, turning it into a high art.
Yes, a true artist. But like a lot of things, the first time feels like you’re special; but the second and third times decidely less so. So much you’ll feel a need to wash your hiney afterwards….
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
73 Posts
Some people sit around and complain that there is nothing that can done. Some people decide to act. I'm glad there are still a few action people left to protect the resources for the complainers.
Donate – Coalition to Protect MI Resources
The complainers are great at complaining but do they ever sit down and write an email to their legislators to convey their issues/concerns'. Nope!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,229 Posts
The complainers are great at complaining but do they ever sit down and write an email to their legislators to convey their issues/concerns'. Nope!
Regarding this Consent Decree issue, What can our legislators do.......absolutely nothing. It is really not a State issue, it's the Natives and the Fed's. The Consent comes into play to better define the Treaty of 1836.
 
21 - 40 of 250 Posts
Top