[Take Five]

I am looking for source saying the consent negotiations are extended . Thanks

 

[tgafish]

I am looking for source saying the consent negotiations are extended . Thanks

I spoke directly to Jim Dexter on Thursday at the NRC meeting

 

[tgafish]

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.

The decree is completely a state issue. What can legislators do? They hold the purse strings to the dnr. Just like Wisconsin legislators did, they can threaten funding if the dnr is not acting for the interests of the citizens.

 

[Gordon Casey]

The decree is completely a state issue. What can legislators do? They hold the purse strings to the dnr. Just like Wisconsin legislators did, they can threaten funding if the dnr is not acting for the interests of the citizens.

What I was trying to say was that the legislators cannot legislate the Consent. Sure they can threaten the negotiators (DNR) if they don't take into consideration the citizens of MI. Don't the negotiators walk a tight rope, they don't control the narrative, they don't want to lose too bad.

 

[Cork Dust]

The decree is completely a state issue. What can legislators do? They hold the purse strings to the dnr. Just like Wisconsin legislators did, they can threaten funding if the dnr is not acting for the interests of the citizens.

I fail to understand your reasoning. The State of Michigan is represented in these negotiations by the folks appointed as participants by the state fish and game management agency. The CORA affiliated tribe have both a stake in the outcome and mqgnified clout in these negotiations since they are supported via the Federal Courts, largely as a conequence of previous decisions that have set in place precedent supporting their base contentions with regard to the interpretation of the Treaty of 1836 resource access and apportionment, though that is not mentioned within the language of the treaty. The Federal government has a dual role, since they are both an overseer party, as well as a de facto agent of the Federal Courts. While you paint a picture implying that the State legislator's have both a role and responsibiliy to act punitively if the State's interests are not fully supported in the final document, the option the other two parties have is to simply stand-pat in their demands array and wait for the Federal Courts to intervene and force a settlement, apportioning the resource among the two user groups. I certainly don't see an effective and potentially facilitative role for intervention(s) via the State of Michigan's elected officials that could possibly result in a beneficial outcome that would be collectively acceptable to them, or the tribes. Per your logic, the State legilsators can penalize the State appointed negotiators and the agency who chose them by penalizing them for being in an untenable position to negotiate an equitable settlement.

The other interesting point, outlined by Gordon Casey in a previous post in this thread. indirectly: BOTH the State sport fishers and the CORA affiliated tribes derive revenues from this fishery, directly, as well as through Dingell-Johnson Revenue distributions. Coastal communities, private vendors, repair and sales facilites for boats and fishing equipment,restaurants, grocery stores, etc. all derive significant seasonal income from the fishery participants, aleit significantly greater on the sport fisher side when compared to the tribal commercial fishery. The Federal Government, via its fish and game management agency, as well as the Federal Courts derive no direct revenue stream from the Great Lakes fishery; an "interesting position" for them to be in when apportioning an equitable distribution of the physical resource of Great Lakes fish, yet they hold a disproportionately large role in directing/forcing the outcome of the Consent Decree negotiations- no direct benefits; no direct penalties....

 

[Gordon Casey]

I fail to understand your reasoning. The State of Michigan is represented in these negotiations by the folks appointed as participants by the state fish and game management agency. The CORA affiliated tribe have both a stake in the outcome and mqgnified clout in these negotiations since they are supported via the Federal Courts, largely as a conequence of previous decisions that have set in place precedent supporting their base contentions with regard to the interpretation of the Treaty of 1836 resource access and apportionment, though that is not mentioned within the language of the treaty. The Federal government has a dual role, since they are both an overseer party, as well as a de facto agent of the Federal Courts. While you paint a picture implying that the State legislator's have both a role and responsibiliy to act punitively if the State's interests are not fully supported in the final document, the option the other two parties have is to simply stand-pat in their demands array and wait for the Federal Courts to intervene and force a settlement, apportioning the resource among the two user groups. I certainly don't see an effective and potentially facilitative role for intervention(s) via the State of Michigan's elected officials that could possibly result in a beneficial outcome that would be collectively acceptable to them, or the tribes. Per your logic, the State legilsators can penalize the State appointed negotiators and the agency who chose them by penalizing them for being in an untenable position to negotiate an equitable settlement.

The other interesting point, outlined by Gordon Casey in a previous post in this thread. indirectly: BOTH the State sport fishers and the CORA affiliated tribes derive revenues from this fishery, directly, as well as through Dingell-Johnson Revenue distributions. Coastal communities, private vendors, repair and sales facilites for boats and fishing equipment,restaurants, grocery stores, etc. all derive significant seasonal income from the fishery participants, aleit significantly greater on the sport fisher side when compared to the tribal commercial fishery. The Federal Government, via its fish and game management agency, as well as the Federal Courts derive no direct revenue stream from the Great Lakes fishery; an "interesting position" for them to be in when apportioning an equitable distribution of the physical resource of Great Lakes fish, yet they hold a disproportionately large role in directing/forcing the outcome of the Consent Decree negotiations- no direct benefits; no direct penalties....

That was the way I thought these negotiations shake out. We, the fishing community, are the puppet and the Tribes hold the strings. I thing tgafish is writing from emotion, wondering if he is a professional meeting goer?

 

[Slimits]

The fact that this is being kept so quiet worries me. I mean they could literally ruin the great lakes in a year or two if this is not done right. And the prob is most of us are out fishing in our free time, we dont have time to go protest somewhere but honestly its prolly what needs to be done to get some attention. Why sportfisherman have zero voice in this fight is a crock.

 

[Gordon Casey]

The fact that this is being kept so quiet worries me. I mean they could literally ruin the great lakes in a year or two if this is not done right. And the prob is most of us are out fishing in our free time, we dont have time to go protest somewhere but honestly its prolly what needs to be done to get some attention. Why sportfisherman have zero voice in this fight is a crock.

Read the epilogue portion of the 1836 Treaty, post #24. What most don't get is that this is not a democratic process in trying to update the Consent. The Treaty allowed unrestricted fishing rights, both subsistence and commercial, for all waters within the Treaty boundaries. The Consent is a more definitive agreement of fishing rights and zones. Protesting, marching, and complaining to your legislator will do absolutely nothing other than maybe aggravating the Tribes. It not right to say we should hope for a fair and equitable solution. Lets just hope there is a plan to sustain the fishery.

 

[Josh R]

Things change over time, rules and laws should be open for adjustments

To just sit back and let one side do whatever they want is not right, people start pushing back when they get backed into a corner or witnessing things getting destroyed. It usually doesn't end well....

 

[Cork Dust]

Read the epilogue portion of the 1836 Treaty, post #24. What most don't get is that this is not a democratic process in trying to update the Consent. The Treaty allowed unrestricted fishing rights, both subsistence and commercial, for all waters within the Treaty boundaries. The Consent is a more definitive agreement of fishing rights and zones. Protesting, marching, and complaining to your legislator will do absolutely nothing other than maybe aggravating the Tribes. It not right to say we should hope for a fair and equitable solution. Lets just hope there is a plan to sustain the fishery.

Unrestricted fishing Rights pertains specifically to the type of gear and location of fishing effort within Treaty of 1836 waters. The Crabb decision for Treaty of 1842 tribal fishing rights had an addendum attached by the Federal Court that requires the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission to have in-place a functional management plan for fish and game populations to garantee they remain self-sustaining through time. The Right to fish is not a license to overfish a fish stock, it is not a Right to fish a stock without regard to harvest levels that endanger self-sustainability through time, particuarly for those species whose annual and seasonal movements take them out of Treaty of 1836 waters for a portion of the fishing season with variation deppendant on the species.

Example: Walleye stocks spawn on reef complexes throughout Green Bay, which includes Little Bay de Noc and Big Bay de Noc segments of the total bay, current tagging data indicate a general southward movement out of Treaty of 1836 waters, as well as dispersal to open waters of Lake Micchigan south of treaty waters as well, yet the tribes feel that they should have not only the legal right to fish this species, but that they should have total control of harvest regulations, with only a portion of the stock alloted to the commercial fishery. Again, why is it that Lake Whitefish stocks in southern Green Bay and the east side of the Door Peninsula continue to hold there own when subjected to both a sport(primarily winter) and commercial fishery, yet lake whitefish in northern Green Bay and northern Lake Michigan continue to post low recruitment values and a truncated age distribtuion in treaty waters sugject to ONLY a commercial fishery? Is it location, or harvest that is driving this trend? IF, it is a bit of both, why has CORA neglected to adjust quotas to test ANY hypothesis as to what is the principal driver of these declines that have been evident for years....?
Management that is functional is a process that entails variable actions through time to sustain a species, not simply reporting these stock declines and asking for a broader "MENU" of commercial target species and expanded catch quotas. One very interesting proposal that GLSI Board has made is that the Feds make the same sustained management effort they have had in-place for decades for Lake Trout, for Lake Whitefish as well since both a KEYSTONE SPECIES per their assessment!

Over the last handful of years I have grown quite jaded by the near-constant chant of Exercise Treaty Rights with zero regard, mention, consideration, of sustainability of the fishery that those rights guarantee access to.

Example: The Soo band subsistence fishers had all their gear impounded by the State post arrest on the Little Bay de Noc illegal netting case. Soo Tribal council members stated they still held valid subsistence licenses, so if they had gear and snowmachines, they could go back to fishing immediately. The non-tribal member sat in jail until the bond hearing. He is the only individual who actually did time in jail in the case.

 

[Slimits]

Read the epilogue portion of the 1836 Treaty, post #24. What most don't get is that this is not a democratic process in trying to update the Consent. The Treaty allowed unrestricted fishing rights, both subsistence and commercial, for all waters within the Treaty boundaries. The Consent is a more definitive agreement of fishing rights and zones. Protesting, marching, and complaining to your legislator will do absolutely nothing other than maybe aggravating the Tribes. It not right to say we should hope for a fair and equitable solution. Lets just hope there is a plan to sustain the fishery.

The problem is whats fair now is different than what was fair back in the 1800s. They are free to target sportfish using the same methods we do. Why not just leave it at that.

 

[Luv2hunteup]

The problem is whats fair now is different than what was fair back in the 1800s. They are free to target sportfish using the same methods we do. Why not just leave it at that.

The treaty then is also the treaty now. Research is easy on that subject.

 

[tgafish]

I fail to understand your reasoning. The State of Michigan is represented in these negotiations by the folks appointed as participants by the state fish and game management agency. The CORA affiliated tribe have both a stake in the outcome and mqgnified clout in these negotiations since they are supported via the Federal Courts, largely as a conequence of previous decisions that have set in place precedent supporting their base contentions with regard to the interpretation of the Treaty of 1836 resource access and apportionment, though that is not mentioned within the language of the treaty. The Federal government has a dual role, since they are both an overseer party, as well as a de facto agent of the Federal Courts. While you paint a picture implying that the State legislator's have both a role and responsibiliy to act punitively if the State's interests are not fully supported in the final document, the option the other two parties have is to simply stand-pat in their demands array and wait for the Federal Courts to intervene and force a settlement, apportioning the resource among the two user groups. I certainly don't see an effective and potentially facilitative role for intervention(s) via the State of Michigan's elected officials that could possibly result in a beneficial outcome that would be collectively acceptable to them, or the tribes. Per your logic, the State legilsators can penalize the State appointed negotiators and the agency who chose them by penalizing them for being in an untenable position to negotiate an equitable settlement.

The other interesting point, outlined by Gordon Casey in a previous post in this thread. indirectly: BOTH the State sport fishers and the CORA affiliated tribes derive revenues from this fishery, directly, as well as through Dingell-Johnson Revenue distributions. Coastal communities, private vendors, repair and sales facilites for boats and fishing equipment,restaurants, grocery stores, etc. all derive significant seasonal income from the fishery participants, aleit significantly greater on the sport fisher side when compared to the tribal commercial fishery. The Federal Government, via its fish and game management agency, as well as the Federal Courts derive no direct revenue stream from the Great Lakes fishery; an "interesting position" for them to be in when apportioning an equitable distribution of the physical resource of Great Lakes fish, yet they hold a disproportionately large role in directing/forcing the outcome of the Consent Decree negotiations- no direct benefits; no direct penalties....

Statement i was responding to was "What can legislators do?" and "It's really not a state issue". I am not advocating for this action. Just saying it is one they could take.

 

[Cork Dust]

Statement i was responding to was "What can legislators do?" and "It's really not a state issue". I am not advocating for this action. Just saying it is one they could take.

The Fox decision supported their right to fish. The Enslen decision set the base framework for both where and how, as well as species array via the Consent Decree of 2000. This should be precedent, factoring heavily into what the base agreement SHOULD be in this current Consent Decree, the third iteration dictated by the Federal Courts.

OUR legislature couldn't even pass an updated commercial fishing regulations bill lto replace the hodge-podge outdated and non-punitive existing statutes that comprise the existing legislation....even though Tribal courts currently "fine" violators to match the maximum penalty that the State can set for commercial fishing violations under the existing framework: $100.00 per violation. One of the most valuable enforcement tools in the package that failed was mandated on-board transponders that would enable the handful of Great Lakes Fishery Enforcement personnel to meet the boats at the dock prior them offloading their catch...one of the first items to be removed by our legislators.

 

[Josh R]

The treaty then is also the treaty now. Research is easy on that subject.

Treaties can be revised and amended

 

[Gordon Casey]

Treaties can be revised and amended

In my mind, highly unlikely. There is a long history of Native Treaty abuses and our new life of political correctness and minority rights would put the chances slim to none. Better chances of Consent revisions that would ease the crash of changes to our angling. They are going to take their fair share of the fish resource but maybe we can supplement the loss with increased fish plantings. Natives, State and Fed's have all kinds of hatcheries available.

 

[John Hine]

We can refuse to enforce the treaty. Let them set whatever laws they want. As Americans were not bound by tribal law. Perfect example; marijuana, legal at the state level, no no on the fed level but they agree not to enforce. Sorry I got sucked into this again🥸

 

[Gordon Casey]

We can refuse to enforce the treaty. Let them set whatever laws they want. As Americans were not bound by tribal law. Perfect example; marijuana, legal at the state level, no no on the fed level but they agree not to enforce. Sorry I got sucked into this again🥸

John
I understand your emotion! Keep in mind the Treaty and Consent are there to somewhat protect us. The Treaty and Consent, un enforced, would allow the Natives to fish and net on every lake and river within the Treaty zone. The Consent restricts them to netting zones.

 

[John Hine]

John
I understand your emotion! Keep in mind the Treaty and Consent are there to somewhat protect us. The Treaty and Consent, un enforced, would allow the Natives to fish and net on every lake and river within the Treaty zone. The Consent restricts them to netting zones.

I’ve been married for 29 years, I’m emotionless.

 

[Gordon Casey]

I’ve been married for 29 years, I’m emotionless.

I've been married for 50 years, my emotion left a long time ago.