Michigan Sportsman Forum banner

Some Consent Decree news...

46609 Views 1016 Replies 63 Participants Last post by  ThreeDogsDown
  • Like
Reactions: fisheater
21 - 40 of 261 Posts
I think you are agreeing with me, I think?
Keep the federal courts out of it.....we will lose.
Make ENFORCEMENT the number #1 priority.
The Crabb decision determined tribal fishing rights in Treaty of 1842 coverage geography; the Fox decision determined tribal fishing rights in Treaty of 1836 language; the decision by Judge Richard Enslen in 1985 established a Consent Decree as the means of apportioning sport fishing rights and quotas between the State of Michigan and what is now CORA affiliated tribes- CORA was established in 2000 as a joint management entity.

The Federal courts are ;both overseeing and actively directing the negotiations, Gordon, why we are where we are. Why do you think that the tribes are requesting as their treaty rights are reasonable, given that the weight of the Federal courts has repeatedly broadened their access to the fishery, while also failing to provide adequate oversight on enforcement and enactment of punitive actions with "teeth".for serial offenders.
I think the 2000 Consent banned non Native commercial netters from fishing some exclusive Native waters. Recreational anglers can fish anywhere in the Consent zone but have to follow white man reg's.
Oh geez, why not!

in 1836 we also had rights to freely fish wherever we wanted in the lakes. (We being non tribal members). The treaty does not exclude us from fishing those waters it just gave permission to the tribes to fish the way they wanted to fish in those specific areas. In 1836 the feds also had balls enough to enforce this without worrying about recourse or retaliation through discrimination. Let’s just give the feds back their balls and let the tribes do whatever they want. Let try hem net what they plant, who cares. If their take out is equal to what they put in I’m good with it.
I can see the outlawing the non native commercial fishery, that can be done by the States. Outlawing Tribal netting is a whole different story, Federal Treaties and settled law dictate what happens. In the woke world we live in today, that will never happen. I don't think corrupt politicians can even help us.
All good points here. I think the bottom line is, rules mean nothing without enforcement, & the way things are now, we have no legs to stand on. Outlaw commercial fishing in the Great Lakes ,across the board ,on a federal level & let the tribes & commercial guys come at us. Think outside the box, what we’re doing isn’t working so why keep doing it? Seems like all the money were donating would be better spent buying our own politician! They’re cheaper than they used to be!!
I agree. This whole topic is way above sport fishing. It’s about money and power over the Great Lakes and its resources. Just imagine what would happen if oil was discovered in Lake Superior?
I agree. This whole topic is way above sport fishing. It’s about money and power over the Great Lakes and its resources. Just imagine what would happen if oil was discovered in Lake Superior?
Now we can add the conspiracy theory! You are right, there is history of government intervention relating to Treaties. Remember that Treaty out west where the government reneged when gold was found in the Black Hills. I think Gen. Custer was involved. This Consent is about hunting and fishing rights.
I really don't know much or care about that CPMR court challenge and what that all entails. I'm thinking it's a last ditch effort for the special interest group to be heard. Hasn't the Fed's given an ultimatum to the Consent negotiators to get this wrapped up. Could be the Consent will be dropped and revert back to Treaty mandates.

I don't think anyone wants that to happen.
So, the CPMR request was submitted. The State, the Feds & the 5 bands have responded. The CPMR has responded to their responses. Now the Judge has to rule on it I would guess.

Then, another 90 (?) day round of negotiations can start up again? OR, are those on-going right now anyway?
I agree, the Tribes would love to go back to the Treaty rather than live to the Consent. The pressure is on the State and Fed's to get it done. If the courts put pressure on the negotiations, it won't look good for the non natives. That is why it's important to get it done without intrusion.
I disagree. The tribes would love to go back to unlimited gill netting vs trap netting. Miles of monofilament is cheap. Easier to set and haul in their catch.

The gag order is in place for a reason. Those in the know are not talking. Rumors are abundant but are not based on fact only speculation.
Cork, I appreciate your concern as I have the same concerns. You sound like a broken record as I have and others have read these same issues multiple times. I get frustrated when I read about people worrying about what strain of Lakers they are planting, the lake will never recover, the statistical modeling of the lakes biomass is not correct.
All this is fine and dandy for academia to discuss and spend forever attempting to come up with a plan of action. All this biological BS in not the single most important issue in the Consent rewrite.
The most important issue is strengthening the enforcement of the Consent.
You report that sentiment almost everytime you make a comment. That has been my battle cry forever. Many other reporters on this thread echo those thoughts.
So when I hear that the CPMR is going to file a law suite crying that those poor boys have not been heard about the steelhead, whitefish and laker abuses I get irritated because they miss the most important condition......lack of enforcement.
The Biologists can cry all they want about what to plant where to plant and how to manage the lakes and disregard the most important issue.
Do you really think those criminal netters are going to change their practices? Do you really think those criminal netters are going to abide by the new Consent? Why should they change if nothing is being done to put teeth into enforcement.
You know I find myself crying like you about all the criminal activity going on and my frustration that nothing is really being done to remedy the problem, especially by the Tribal courts.
..and nonexistent enforcement. If you assume the Federal agencys will provide it, let's recall their recent track record in the one year follow-up to the UP North Fish wholesale operation sting by the USFWS' enforcement personnel an additiona 6,430 violations were identified totaling just under 700,000lbs of illegal caught and sold Great Lakes fish. To date three misdemeanor charges have been filed, two against a tribal fisher who operates a retail and wholesale fish sales site outside of Hancock. Three non-tribal fish wholesale operators actually spent time in jail.



...and abaondon when circumstances warrant. Left for the State to remove. We couldn't even get the USCGS to act on two abandoned nets off the Marquette harbors. Their response was that they would remove ANY net to was a hazard to COMMERCIAL navigation, not sport boat operators. Still waiting to read of a 1,000' ore carrier endangered by a gillnet ... One of my fishing partners nearly lost his father-in-law and son when they hung-up on an unmarked net. Oh, it was marked-by a broken crutch with some flagging attached to it, with an ERA laundry detergent bottle duct taped into the opening for floatation.
That is the reality! The Tribes have the legal right, defined by law, to commercial fish and sell what they catch. I believe the Consent defines quotas but as was said many times, enforcement is required for them to live within the quotas.
I mentioned a few years back my conversation with the Grandson of LeBlanc, the guy that got this ball rolling. He was pissed and felt that they got screwed with fishing zones and quota's defined in the Consent. He felt the DNR and Fed's did not do their job supplementing fish as per the Consent. He said they keep whatever is in the nets, I seen bluegill, lakers, whitefish, perch and a sturgeon in the display case. Tribal courts symphatize with them.
The Consent rumor mill talks about no defined exclusive zones for the Tribes and a more favorable ratio of fish they can keep.
Michigan has 10 million residents and millions more who summer here. That is a lot of fish buying power for those that don’t fish but enjoy eating fish putting sport fisherman far in the minority column. All fishermen have a say just not at the table, the DNR is in charge of ensuring flshable populations for both sport fisherman and the tribe. It can only limit/enforce those under its control which are not the tribes. It all goes back to whom the treaty is between, the Feds and the tribes. The DNR is only the management agent. Would a better option be having the USFWS service do all the management in ceded territories and not providing the DNR with any fishery management monies or say?
Cork
Please, don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to start a conflict, I'm making this comment as a question because I don't have the answer in my mind.
Let me make a MACRO,MACRO overview of this Consent .
Isn't there an organization that does a statistical calculation of the quantity of fish by species and make a determination of how many fish by species there are ? Doesn't the Consent Decree allocate by ratio how many fish can be harvested by the Native netters?
So my question is; what does the Great Lakes sport fishers/recreational anglers have to do with the Consent rewrite.
The scenario you outline cannot occur, The Great Lakes Fishery Commission was established in 1954 via international agreement with Canada. The language of the agreement specifically sets Great Lakes fishery management squarely in the hands of the shorelines states and Canada. State directed management of each Great Lake was further underscored in 1965 when the lake management committees were established, with nor direct Federal or Canadian representation on any of them.

Enlighten us by outlining WHAT management monies the USFWS currently provides to the State of Michigan or any other Great Lakes state for fishery management efforts on an annual basis?

Enforcement of the Consent Decree agreement specifics like gear type that can be deployed, total allowabe catch (TAC) apportionment, fishing seasons, and subsistence fisher oversight falls to tribal enforcement, Sate enforcement personnel, as well as USFWS and US Coast Guard Service personnel via ex-offcio status in the field and on all committees and councils that deal with penalties and enforcement. The dysfunctional arm of enforcement remains the Tribal Court system's failure to act punitively, documented repeatedly since the Fox decision.

Separate but equal as a doctrine in the United States was struck down by the Brown decision in 1954. How is it that a treaty the specifically oulines that game and fish taking rights should continue to be granted, until those lands are needed for settlement, is selectiively interpreted and enforced by the Federal courts? This i particulary aggregious when you factor-in the willingness of our current Supreme Court to overturn what several of those who voted in favor of this action stated publicly and repeatedly that they viewed this as settled law.

The 2020 cesus ondicates that roughly a quarter of the 10 million residents you toss out there are under 21. I strongly doubt this cohert should be included in your enumeration of potential fish purchasers. But, let's go at your argument from a demand consumption perspective.

The State and tribal commercial fishery has an annual revenue value of between 10-12million dollars in Michigan. Sea Grant set the annual revenue of the Michigan based charter fleet at 16 to 18million for Lake Michigan waters, without including revenues generated by Lake Huron charter operators. Over half of charter customers do not fish or do not fish regularly per their data. The Great Lakes Fishery Commission sets the anual value of the Great Lakes fishery at just under 7 billion dollars, so lets just do a back-of-the-envelope apportionment by dividiing that value by five lakes to get a ballpark figure of 1.4 Billion for Lake Michigan's fishery...one reason why some of those non-fishing but fish eating folks you tallied-up reside and recreat here annually. I won't touch on your fuzzy math further where you attempt to infer that your local fishery crowd's fish purchasing carries through statewide or even on a broad local scale either. I will add though, that if you buy whitefish in Marquette, it likely originated from the Thill's fish house, or VanLandschoot's in Munising: both commercial fishers who number among the 13 non-tribal operators. Thill's ships to Escanaba and Iron Mountain restaurants as well.

Unlike you, I can't determine a plausible means of apportioning use and demand that substantially offsets the size and revenue generated by the Great Lakes sport fishery to validate your argument either by looking at Public usage, or the economics of consumption. A pretty sizeable chunk of the sport fishers that I know here in the U.P. are loath to purchase fish, but many of them are Finnish, priding themselves in their self-relience.
Don't forget free college education.
But they use our well fare & free medical system, right? Seems fair! Cool👍 Souvern nation my fanny!!✌
Gear restrictions, seasons, creel limits are a stretch. Consent deals with subsistence fishing and commercial netting. I don't think creel limits for the non native is the same as the natives, seasons as well.I know natives hunt deer in the fall as part as their traditions, I think each can shoot 5 deer.
Didn't the Consent define the quota's based on research. Didn't the recreational anglers get a cut in Laker creel limits and the quota's remained unchanged for the Tribes. Maybe I'm wrong....help me understand.
Gear restrictions agreements, species fished, fishig seasons, and creel limits/quotas are all areas of overlap.

Contained within the Consent Decree is a clause that states that the species quotas will be set via use of a Sustainable Fishery Model that is a part of the document. There is a means of challenging the quotas. An example of ammended quotas was the mandated creel limite chage for lake trout kept by sport fishers on Grand Traverse Bay.
The Federal court ruled! CPMR arguments are utterly unfounded and unsubstantiated. Sovereign's only allowed to be part of the negotiations. Just a feudal attempt on their part. A new Consent is expected by the Sept. 30 deadline.
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.
Come on jatc! It's another one of those pseudo public input sessions that are used to blow steam off of those that oppose the decision. Give them time to vent and allow them to say good bye. It's a done deal at that point.
Us recreational anglers can only hope for the best.
Not unexpected. The big news that came out of the ruling is that outside groups can contest the decree once released though. That is an entirely new twist!
.......they should have bought lures.
It turned out to be a giant waste of money to those who contributed to the special interest group.

When white folk mess with the tribes they usually end up in trouble under the white folk laws. I remember that Cork, in a long past post, reported a conflict with the tribes illegally setting nets near the Carp River. DNR or someone else was called and when it was settled, Cork was the one almost being arrested. Maybe Cork can provide more detail?
Remember, those nets are in THEIR exclusive zones, we are allowed, as anglers, to fish in their zones.
Just as in any illegal activity, mess with the nets, get caught and you are in State and Federal trouble.
I heard they put trail cams on all their nets, jk.
This really doesn’t say anything! It’s status quo for how it’s always been. Nothing different. Recreational anglers will not suffer one bit, it’s the commercial and the charter fishermen that are going to suffer. The impact on recreational fisherman will be next to nil, Other than having to weave around a few nets, or possibly just move them like we always have in the past! The other side of this law is these white folk don’t answer to the tribal laws.
That special interest group is recreational fisherman. What is your interest group?
That special interest group is recreational fisherman. What is your interest group?
Recreational fishers have no seat at the table. CPMR have an advisory position to the State, Fed, negotiators. But I think, in reality, the CPMR align themselves with special interest fishing groups and charter groups. "Joe angler" maybe not so much.
  • Like
Reactions: Luv2hunteup
So you have to be a member of some club to be part of the negotiating team. What percent of Joe angler is part of a club


Sent from my SM-A515U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app
Wrong. Small fishing clubs are “B share members” in the CPMR.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The DNR must represent Joe angler





Sent from my SM-A515U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app
So you have to be a member of some club to be part of the negotiating team. What percent of Joe angler is part of a club


Sent from my SM-A515U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app
How many Joe Angler's have JOINED fishing clubs and are active members? Sure, some give money to fishing associations but are non participants. A very, very few take part in meetings. Again, the DNR and MUCC is their voice but they can't hear what Joe Angler says.
100% of the clubs members other than the MCBA are "Joe angler". Any one is free to join and have their voice heard.
  • Like
Reactions: ThreeDogsDown
But they do have the same rights as we do in the area's outside of the Consent zone. The Consent zone belongs to them and we, the recreational angler's, are allowed to use the resource as long as we abide by our rules and regulations.
Again. What is your special interest group? Mine is recreational fisherman. What is yours? My interest is to have the tribes have the same rights to the resource as any other person in this region. No more, No less. And I will continue to fight for this belief until the day I die. Will I win? Maybe not. But I also won't sit on my hands and accept it because someone didn't sit at a table 186 years ago.
21 - 40 of 261 Posts
Top