Some Consent Decree news...
Log into Facebook
Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.
www.facebook.com
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 turned out to be a giant waste of money to those who contributed to the special interest group.
www.mlive.com
Fishing groups denied ‘intervenor’ seat at tribal treaty rights negotiation table
Federal judge said fishing advocacy groups must wait to object to a pending tribal treaty fishing rights agreement with Michigan until it is finalized and made public.
www.mlive.com
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.
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?
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.
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.
The deadline is approaching is the only thing that is truly known.
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.
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.
Inland Consent decree FAQ link for those who do not know it’s different than for the Great Lakes.
No surprise on the deadline passing without an announcement. One side doesn’t need to compromise, there is nothing to gain.
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.
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.
My best guess is that the tribes will not agree amongst themselves delaying any agreement between tribes and the DNR.
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.
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.
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.
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]()
21 - 40 of 75 Posts
