Michigan Sportsman Forum banner

Some Consent Decree news...

46627 Views 1016 Replies 63 Participants Last post by  ThreeDogsDown
  • Like
Reactions: fisheater
21 - 40 of 75 Posts
What was your opinion after you spent the day talking to multiple tribal members and their opinion of the consent decree?
It's interesting that you should even have to make mention of this to this poster. In another thread luv2hunt suggested I attend a national powwow convention to find the information about the tribes that he was referencing that has given him a new take on the Consent Decree.
It turned out to be a giant waste of money to those who contributed to the special interest group.

Read the treaty along with the court rulings. Recreational fisherman along with the charter boat special interest groups chose not to be at the treaty signing in 1836. That’s the reason they don’t get a seat at the table. The treaty along with all the subsequent court rulings are Federal issues but the State is there for fisheries management. Recreational fisherman can fish the waters outside the treaty area and are free to lobby the DNR on what they feel is appropriate.
That special interest group is recreational fisherman. What is your interest group?
Transponders on all lead core lines, lead sinkers and lead downrigger weights would also be a good idea for any body of water that either feeds or any lake system used for drinking purposes. That won’t happen either but at least there is an advisory for not having too much fish in your diet. That fixed that problem, didn’t it?
Like I said before, transponders insinuate guilt before being found guilty. In the American justice system, isn't a person innocent until found guilty. Maybe we should place a speed monitor in every vehicle and upload all speed limit violations, then the State can send a ticket in the mail.
Sounds like almost everyone in the Native community knows who the violators are, so have the Tribal court cite them for their violations.
  • Like
Reactions: Gordon Casey
Pretty one sided article so you are right the author should be thrown out with the trash.
With a non disclosure agreement how does anyone know what is truly going on in talks? Speculation runs strong.
  • Like
Reactions: Gordon Casey
I agree everybody will not be happy. The State is charged with ensuring treaty rights are maintained for the Federal government. The DNR will come up with a plan to fits within the framework. Maybe it’s time for the charter boat captains to begin negotiation with the Federal government explaining how they somehow lost their rights prior to Michigan’s statehood. With the non disclosure agreement all the teeth gnashing is wasted effort. No worries, the sun will still come up once the decision is announced both sides will lose.
They are just working within the legal, political, special interest, Treaty, Consent, Government and Biological constraints and have to make decisions that make EVERYONE happy. An impossible goal.
  • Like
Reactions: Gordon Casey
The deadline is approaching is the only thing that is truly known.
  • Like
Reactions: Gordon Casey
The State has no say in tribal investigation methods, tribal enforcements or tribal penalties. The tribe has no obligation to even report to the State on any matter since they are a sovereign nation. With that said how does anybody know if actions were or not taken? It’s all up to the tribal system, maybe a scolding is satisfactory, who know? It could be no point no foul, non tribal members do not have a right to know.
  • Like
Reactions: Gordon Casey
The lake has never been settled and the definition of settled has never defined under the inland consent agreement. Neither side wants to take the issue to court for fear of losing.
Anyone on the water has a right to know unattended nets exit.
It's time the Federal government demanded responsibility for nets to not be abandoned long enough for a catch to rot.
And restitution for damage to craft when nets are not properly set and marked. As well as reimbursement to the state and Coast Gurad for expenses incurred due to nets.
If the Federal government can't assign responsibility, why is it involved top heavily in the situation causing a lack of responsibility? Let those tasked with enforcement and having to intervene due to damage regulate.
Fishing is allowed. Unfettered at will is not. Michigan is now settled.

Neglected fishing nets lurking in Lake Michigan create headaches for boaters - mlive.com
  • Like
Reactions: Gordon Casey
No surprise on the deadline passing without an announcement. One side doesn’t need to compromise, there is nothing to gain.
  • Like
Reactions: Gordon Casey
Neither side will be 100% happy. Life changed for the worse years back when nets were relocated from the Grand traverse bay to St Martins bay. Those in GT thought it was great those of us who had our fishing ruined in St Martin bay thought it sucked. We were the losers, move them back for the next 20 years, it’s only fair.
Lets just hope they are close! Don't need to have the courts make the decision and have the Consent process go away. Someone said a 50/50 allocation and non native commercial netting restrictions in the entire Treaty zone. Not good.

That relative of mine that lives in the TC area saw a Tribal fishing tug at the mouth of the Boardman on 10/1, Coincidence?
When one side is negotiating with a perpetual federal treaty in their portfolio and the other side negotiating with nothing more than wishful thinking, which side do you think will come out ahead? Eventually both sides will issue a press release announcing that they received the best deal possible under the circumstances.
How is it that some feel they know the detail of the Consent rewrite? Isn't everything we have been discussing been SPECULATION? Unless you or someone you know is is on the negotiating team or has privy (CMPR) to the results, the conclusions we make are just guesses.
Probably sooner than later the Consent will be made public and then we will all know.
  • Like
Reactions: Gordon Casey
My best guess is that the tribes will not agree amongst themselves delaying any agreement between tribes and the DNR.
  • Like
Reactions: Josh R
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.
16 active gill netters vs 1.083 million fishing licenses sold in the state of Michigan in 2021. 16 v 1 million.

And we still give them everything they want.

Upside down clown world out here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Like
Reactions: Gordon Casey
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.
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.
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.
  • Like
Reactions: Gordon Casey
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.
Because it can be open to the same level of overly broad interpretation that lead to his initial decision.
  • Like
Reactions: Gordon Casey
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
It begs the question.....what does settled mean, what is the legal interpretation?
  • Like
Reactions: TK81
21 - 40 of 75 Posts
Top