Michigan Sportsman Forum banner
41 - 60 of 261 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
8,867 Posts
I agree! The DNR does not listen to “Joe Angler”. That is why the CPMR filed a motion to intervene…because the DNR does exactly opposite of what “Joe Angler” wants.

The MUCC has been fantastic representing “Joe
angler”. They accept all proposals for legislative changed and vet them very carefully and vote on them through committees and finally to the General Membership within the MUCC…then they take it to the legislature. Pike reg changed in the UP, for example, came from Joe Angler.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Today on Mike Avery show he had a charter captain who happened to be the president of the charter boat captain association. Spent a considerable amount of time discussing the Consent Agreement.
He was bound by non disclosure and confidentially agreements but echoed the fact that this new agreement will be a significant departure from the existing agreement and will have a significant effect on ALL anglers and commercial netters. He did not have anything good to say only a heavy dose of doom and gloom. 6 months ago there was a fallout between the CPMR and the DNR and since then they have not received any official feedback from them regarding the negotiations but got info from some of the negotiators.
There should be a decision very soon regarding an agreement and as soon as that happens the CPMR will receive the detail information.
Expect spin from the CPMR
Expect spin from the DNR
Expect spin from the MUCC
Expect nothing from the Tribes
Damn, It does not look good for us. I am hoping there will be no restricted areas for us recreational anglers. No allowable netting for walleye in Northern Huron and Lake MI. No netting in inland lakes.
I think we will soon know!
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,867 Posts
The netters currently are subsistence fishers-75lbs round weight per week for Soo Band fishers, more for LTBB members, to feed a family of twent-seven or so;no selling, barter, trade, or quid pro quo with their catch. MUCC used to list subsistance fisher violation numbers in the monthly CD updates. LTBB and Odawa Band really "beat the drum" via the newsletters, encouraging tribal members to start fishing as a means of exercising their treaty rights.

Per this article, you can determine how deeply ingrained this "tradition" is within the current tribal culture:


When I first read this article I wondered to myself whether ttribal enforcement oversight was as zealously pursued as the efforts to get members out fishing...
Interesting article! Gives some insight into the history of the Treaty, Consent and Native traditions. Looks like the State was jacking with the Tribes prior to the LeBlanc Federal court ruling.
Naw, the Fed's and State's never renege on their Treaties.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,867 Posts
The netters currently are subsistence fishers-75lbs round weight per week for Soo Band fishers, more for LTBB members, to feed a family of twent-seven or so;no selling, barter, trade, or quid pro quo with their catch. MUCC used to list subsistance fisher violation numbers in the monthly CD updates. LTBB and Odawa Band really "beat the drum" via the newsletters, encouraging tribal members to start fishing as a means of exercising their treaty rights.

Per this article, you can determine how deeply ingrained this "tradition" is within the current tribal culture:


When I first read this article I wondered to myself whether ttribal enforcement oversight was as zealously pursued as the efforts to get members out fishing...
The key word you wrote was "subsistence". With the Consent rewrite hopefully the word "commercial" will not be used.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,867 Posts
They sell their catch regularly, and a lot of it goes to local, non-tribal people. Saw it with my own eyes many times. The DNR and tribal law enforcement look the other way.
The netters currently are subsistence fishers-75lbs round weight per week for Soo Band fishers, more for LTBB members, to feed a family of twent-seven or so;no selling, barter, trade, or quid pro quo with their catch. MUCC used to list subsistance fisher violation numbers in the monthly CD updates. LTBB and Odawa Band really "beat the drum" via the newsletters, encouraging tribal members to start fishing as a means of exercising their treaty rights.

Per this article, you can determine how deeply ingrained this "tradition" is within the current tribal culture:


When I first read this article I wondered to myself whether ttribal enforcement oversight was as zealously pursued as the efforts to get members out fishing...
Cork, I get the vibe that your word "tradition" is a tongue in cheek comment indicating that the "new" Tribal members (young) really have no tradition. Maybe you are correct.
Remember prior to 1985, the subsistence tradition was stifled by the State and the young were not able to practice their traditions.
A few years back I had conversation with a Native, harvesting wild rice on Tawas Lake. He had his kids and their friends out in the lake in canoes pounding the grain into the canoe. He was traching them them the tradition of harvesting rice using Native tools. He was a super interesting guy, the tallest Native I have ever seen, about 6'4" with black pig tails. Very eloquent, PhD from Michigan, worked for the State and subsequently the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Was the Tribal representative investigating the environmental effects of that oil spill on the K'zoo river.
Also, had conversation with some tough arse Natives at the Sault, they were dealers at the casino. They were talking about their Native dress and what traditional dance they were going to perform at a Pow-Wow.
Yes, the natives make a big deal about their traditions.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,867 Posts
One hudred pounds round weight per day for LTBB fishers, Gordon. From my perspective semantics blurr at a catch value somewhere in the rearview mirror.

My conversations with Odawa and LTBB netters fishing in the UP repeatedly centered around diversifying their commercial take and species array as whitefish stocks decline in Lakes Huron and Michigan. From their broad perspective, lake trout don't offer a very high rate of return...partially because their take is limited. Their particular focus was to gain access to species that would bring a high rate of return, independent of the correlation between the declines in abudance and recruitment of their current target species within Treaty of 1836 waters open to commercial "exploitation". It was alway interesting to listent Chuck Mandenjian outline lake trout recovery in Lake Michigan waters "while treading very lightly" on the substantially reduced proportion of wild origin fish in northern Lake Michigan waters at the annual Great Lakes Fishery Commission's annual lake committees meeting.
So the LTBB fishers like to eat fish. You know damn well they are selling their catch. Maybe that was a loop hole in the agreement and Tribal enforcement is non existent.
That's just another reason why strict enforcement rules are necessary.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,867 Posts
Why I would prefer 10 commercial operations rather than 80 subsistance fishers operating one net out of the back of a vehicled when it comes to policing and enforcement. That transponder located on each boat doesn't seem like overreach anymore, does 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.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,867 Posts
I think those Federal subsidies can be considered as reparation for past deeds. Your example of law enforcement for speeding was not as I explained. Yes, some Cities have radar guns on light posts and nab you as you speed by. My analogy was that you have a transponder, in that case, you are being monitored wherever you travel.
I get all that Native history, but didn't the Treaty, or a Judges opinion, decree that subsistence living evolves with time? Therefore, the Consent should evolve as well.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,867 Posts
The head of the DNR is hired by the governor and typically does what the governor wants. The current DNR director is no exception. You can expect Dan Eichinger to mirror Whitmer's sentiments on these issues. She is a liberal and will want to at least appear to side with the Indians on these treaty issues so she can maintain her liberal street cred nationally. This is why sporting groups are so concerned that the DNR is not representing their interests. I expect fully that we will get screwed on this agreement and its why when I moved to northern Michigan, that I chose an area not in the ceded territory. At least the DNR has been on the side of sport fishermen on the state licensed commercial fishing issues so far.
I am conflicted as to what the Governor and DNR can DIRECTLY do to force the Consent issue? Sure, State representatives sit at the table and do the bargaining but they bargain from a position of weakness.
I'm sure the State, (DNR) have been fighting tooth and nail but the Tribes are stonewalling until they get what they are satisfied with. That's why there has been a damn near 2 year delay in a new Consent.
If there is a stalemate, the Fed's will dictate the new direction and I don't think we want to go in that direction.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,867 Posts
The head of the DNR is hired by the governor and typically does what the governor wants. The current DNR director is no exception. You can expect Dan Eichinger to mirror Whitmer's sentiments on these issues. She is a liberal and will want to at least appear to side with the Indians on these treaty issues so she can maintain her liberal street cred nationally. This is why sporting groups are so concerned that the DNR is not representing their interests. I expect fully that we will get screwed on this agreement and its why when I moved to northern Michigan, that I chose an area not in the ceded territory. At least the DNR has been on the side of sport fishermen on the state licensed commercial fishing issues so far.
Night Moves
I don't think the recreational fishers are restricted in any way to fish in ceded territory.
The DNR is and should be the representative of the recreational angler's. But I have found the Government (Govenor), Courts and Senate have, in many cases, been a thorn in the side of the DNR. The DNR modified the depth of nets the commercial netter could fish. That lasted about 2 days when the Courts over ruled. McBroom killed those 3 commercial netting law revisions.
A surprise, at least to me, McBroom sponsered SB-251 which is essence, took the commercial netting regulation modifications away from the DNR and made it a legislative issue since they are controlled by laws rather than regulations. Bill 251 snuck through the legislative process and was signed by the Govenor before any one knew what happened.
In today's world, politics has become black and white, one faction can be all in on an issue they desire and the other side is, all out. The days of compromise solutions are all but gone. When was the last time most of all were SATISFIED with the decision.
We need to work together rather than being at each others throats, Maybe some of the highly charged issues can be resolved with most being satisfied.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,867 Posts
They build Casinos so your Wife has something to do while you go fishing, if that counts. Which I think could be a bit of an invisible Ace card for recreational anglers. Tribal fishing revenue is likely miniscule in comparison to gaming revenue. I think when this thing finally gets over the goal line (next year? 24? - better just start the next round of negotiations the next day after the signing), there could be plenty of fish for everyone. Maybe the most disappointed party will be the 19th Century Ecologists, though they are just as silent as the other parties here. But then climate change is going to crush those folks regardless.
B.J.
I think your going to see a new Consent Decree within 2-3 weeks. The deadline is Sept. 30. It's been delayed long enough, at least that is what the Fed's said.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,867 Posts
Right. We do not know what is happening with the talks. We do know that the DNR is not looking after it's (our) interests.
You are right, we do not know what is happening!

You are wrong, we do not know if the DNR is helping or hurting us. We do not know the constraints the DNR is working through. Remember, the DNR is bargaining from the position of legal weakness.
We may not like the changes in the new Consent, but maybe, the DNR, on our behalf, bargained to make it not as bad as it could have been.
The DNR is/has been doing a good job working through all the hoops they have to jump through.
It's the human nature to insert negativity into everything. At times, I'm just as guilty as everyone else. Some people are of the opinion that the DNR are out to screw them, they think DNR just loves to take all the heat from those that don't get exactly what they want.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,867 Posts
It seems that the upper reaches in management of our fish & game has been taken over by activist and dysfunctional social justice warriors.
Maybe I'm wrong. At any rate, it's not a good look.
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.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,867 Posts
I'm so glad you chimed in to play devil's advocate. When the main conservation watchdog group in the state is crying fowl on the DNR after working with them so closely, some have said too closely, I'd say say there's something to it. Sometimes I think you only join these conversations to be argumentive and stir the pot.
I am only representing the other side of ANY story. People like to jump to the "stirring the pot" analogy to defend their side of the story.
I'm guessing you personally have not been involved in collective bargaining, consensus decision making, group decisions where every decision maker has EQUAL input. You would then understand that individuals NEVER get their way and those individuals are the first to bitch that everyone else is F...ed up and they are the only ones that are right.
In the case of this Consent rewrite, everyone at the table does not have equal power. I believe the DNR appoint people that represent the DNR. So when you say the main conservation watchdog group (CPMR) is crying foul, is justified because they have no seat at the table.
I always listen and defend, if I feel it's right, ALL sides of every issue and I also understand that any one position is not correct
So I will say the CPMR is stirring the pot on this Consent issue, they have no business at the table and they are the argumentative ones.
You say the CPMR is right, I say the CPMR is wrong, with legal evidence, and I'm the one blamed as stirring the pot.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,867 Posts
CPMR was let in the door in 79. How is it that you claim they suddenly have no business at the table?
I'm not saying they should or shouldn't have been allowed since 79 ,but noting they were allowed a say since. (That means a say is all . Not the ability to change anything legally , but allowed comment. )

Shouting match between DNR director, coalition a tipping point in consent decree negotiations - Michigan United Conservation Clubs (mucc.org)
The CPMR does NOT have a seat at the table! Amicus curiae loosly means they can be informed of the Consent negotiations and can provide an Amicus brief, in other words provide a letter to define their feelings hoping to influence the negotiators.
They have no decision making capability whatsoever.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,867 Posts
I didn't say they had decision making capability. But they have a say.

The right to fish treaty waters does not mean treaty waters are not to be regulated when the resource is mobile and the effects of fishing treaty waters extends beyond them.

Till the Federal government enforces regulations or fences /creates barriers to fish movement across boundry lines , it has no footing regulating treaty waters as if they are sovereign native land.
Native regulations should be enforced by tribes per state and federal guidelines. Are they? Then something is wrong when they are not. Who is liable and who provides oversite? And when they fail oversite , then what?

Three parties are mentioned. Federal , State , and Tribes.
Vested shareholders affected should and do have a say. One way or another. Consider them a silent at the table voice. But they are not silent beyond. Meet your recreational fisher folks. Charter captains and sport shops and restaurants and businesses ect. far beyond the table.

And until the Federal party assumes responsibility for enforcement and demonstrates effectiveness , it's say should be less each term of revisiting treaty rights regarding fishing public waters. Ensure the right to fish exists. As treaty assures. Regulatory enforcement of the methods and quota's has to be prioritized firstly or the rest doesn't matter.
Who's task is that again? And why is there contention regarding enforcement? Either there is a problem or there is not.
Even nets alone are a problem. What has the Federal party done when nets are not marked properly or "lost"? Did it resolve the issues? If not then it created more unenforceable regulations.

Creating problems for the state and it's citizens and for visiting citizens from elsewhere while not enforcing regulations ignores the States position at the table. Which it does have.
When citizens don't believe the State is representing them or the resource effectively they should have a say. And do.

Yes there is much involved. Enough that oversite and perspectives beyond that the Federal government is always in the right should be heard/read.
Sorry, the CMPR don't have a say, they can report their feelings and those feelings have no say in the negotiations.
The federal government does not enforce the the regulations, they enforce the Treaty. It's left to the Tribes and monitoring groups to enforce any infractions.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,867 Posts
Interesting read, first time I read it. I doesn't really say much other than the fact they can hunt and fish on all public land within the Treaty zone. Interestingly the Consent did not really define subsistence fishing and hunting bag limits. I believe Cork reported that the Tribes can take anywhere from 75 to 100 lbs.of fish weekly. I had discussion with Sault native a while back and he said he could take 5 deer. The season was in the fall which is part of their fall harvest tradition.
The Consent did not address;
Allowable species.....I assume everything although there were special provisions for animals and fish.
Allowable season......I assume all year long, appears the Tribes define the seasons.
Bag limits.......Left up to the Tribes to define.
Keep in mind without enforcement, bag limits, seasons, and species are just for reference. Violating individuals will take whatever they want, when they want to.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,867 Posts
No surprise on the deadline passing without an announcement. One side doesn’t need to compromise, there is nothing to gain.
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?
 
41 - 60 of 261 Posts
Top