Michigan Sportsman Forum banner
61 - 80 of 1017 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
41,829 Posts
Treaties can be revised and amended
Only when both sides agree. Right now the tribes feel they have rights to all fish in the treaty waters of the Great Lakes. They are sharing that resource so we know which side will have to give up their share to ensure the tribes treaty rights are not infringed. I looked through the treaty along with Federal interpretation of the decent decree, I don’t see where a seat at the negotiating table is available for special interest groups are included. If charter captains and the tourism interests wanted to be included in the treaty they would have been at the table in 1836.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
41,829 Posts
Are we enforcing 1836 rules and means or just the rules?
How many Charter Captains and how much tourism was around in 1836?
Obvious those groups were not forward thinkers. In their opinion they have a vested interest but in the big picture they have none since they were not at the table in the beginning.

As for enforcement the DNR is charged with enforcing the sport fishers but are not allowed to enforce anything in regards to the tribal fishermen per the Federal courts. The tribe provides enforcement on tribal regulations, if they choose to not enforce their regulations it’s their choice. Non tribal members do not know if action was taken or not taken.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
758 Posts
Maybe someone could explain why these talks are kept so quiet? I mean people who are involved are required to sign non-disclosure agreements, and you really can't find, anything about what is discussed in their meetings.
Maybe I'm reaching but I always worry when meetings like this, which uses public funds, keeps everything so secret, when it virtually effects every citizen living in the treaty area.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
41,829 Posts
Most the fish from 36 are dead now.
Read the decree along with the Federal court rulings. The treaty states fish swimming in the treaty waters. The treaty waters are mapped out. The DNR has control invasive species, wouldn’t those with roots originating outside the treaty be considered invasive?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
23,965 Posts
Read the decree along with the Federal court rulings. The treaty states fish swimming in the treaty waters. The treaty waters are mapped out. The DNR has control invasive species, wouldn’t those with roots originating outside the treaty be considered invasive?
My point was you stating 36's fish were a right. Those fish are gone. Even sturgeon fry from back then have long aged out.

Invasive species? I'm not going to reread the original treaty to see invasive species being managed by the D.N.R. in it.

The most concerning invasive specie at the time wore shirts and dresses. Control was by force. Not by the nonexistent D.N.R..
A treaty offer was a pre forced displacement option. Uprooting being the trend , and the future trend.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
7,436 Posts
Obvious those groups were not forward thinkers. In their opinion they have a vested interest but in the big picture they have none since they were not at the table in the beginning.

As for enforcement the DNR is charged with enforcing the sport fishers but are not allowed to enforce anything in regards to the tribal fishermen per the Federal courts. The tribe provides enforcement on tribal regulations, if they choose to not enforce their regulations it’s their choice. Non tribal members do not know if action was taken or not taken.
You didn't answer the second question because you do not want to
A business can't have a seat at the table if the business wasn't around when the table was set.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
41,829 Posts
You didn't answer the second question because you do not want to
A business can't have a seat at the table if the business wasn't around when the table was set.
I would have answered if I knew the correct answer. I wasnt around back then. We’re you?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,726 Posts
Its 2022 josh. We are just supposed to accept that any minority group will have the upper hand over all of us. Its like they feel the need to compensate for something and go overboard. And with our current administration i dont see how we even have a chance here to keep our rights.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
41,829 Posts
My point was you stating 36's fish were a right. Those fish are gone. Even sturgeon fry from back then have long aged out.

Invasive species? I'm not going to reread the original treaty to see invasive species being managed by the D.N.R. in it.

The most concerning invasive specie at the time wore shirts and dresses. Control was by force. Not by the nonexistent D.N.R..
A treaty offer was a pre forced displacement option. Uprooting being the trend , and the future trend.
If you read the treaty along with the court ruling at least once you would know all fish swimming in the treaty waters are legal fish. The treaty does not have an expiration date. The treaty ensures the tribal members the rights. If for some reason fish numbers get low it’s the DNRs job to ensure tribal members will have fish for their needs if that means a big cut we all know which group that cut will come from. It will come from the only group the DNR has enforcement control over.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,867 Posts
Its 2022 josh. We are just supposed to accept that any minority group will have the upper hand over all of us. Its like they feel the need to compensate for something and go overboard. And with our current administration i dont see how we even have a chance here to keep our rights.
Remember, it was their land not ours! We took it away from them but gave them perpetual use of the land in the 1836 Treaty zone. The Treaty allows hunting and fishing rights on all public and PRIVATE land. Netting Houghton, Higgins, Torch lakes would be allowed.
The Consent better defined fishing zones, quota's and obligations by the Fed's, State to maintain an adequate supply of catchable fish.
You stated we don't have a chance to keep our rights. You got that backwards, it's their rights not ours.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,542 Posts
Discussion Starter · #74 ·
Remember, it was their land not ours! We took it away from them but gave them perpetual use of the land in the 1836 Treaty zone. The Treaty allows hunting and fishing rights on all public and PRIVATE land. Netting Houghton, Higgins, Torch lakes would be allowed.
The Consent better defined fishing zones, quota's and obligations by the Fed's, State to maintain an adequate supply of catchable fish.
You stated we don't have a chance to keep our rights. You got that backwards, it's their rights not ours.
Yeah! They stole it first! Or, maybe second, who knows?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,050 Posts
If you read the treaty along with the court ruling at least once you would know all fish swimming in the treaty waters are legal fish. The treaty does not have an expiration date. The treaty ensures the tribal members the rights. If for some reason fish numbers get low it’s the DNRs job to ensure tribal members will have fish for their needs if that means a big cut we all know which group that cut will come from. It will come from the only group the DNR has enforcement control over.
The Treaty of 1836 was signed by the United States, via the representative, with tribal "chiefs". Nowhere, is the State of Michigan mentioned as a signatory, largely because Michigan did not achieve statehood until January 26th, 1837.

The Great Lakes fishery is managed under the International Joint Commission (IJC) umbrella via the Great Lakes Fishery Commission which is a joint tribal, State, Provincial aggregate whose guiding principles are summarized here:
Four important principles guide this cooperative fishery management process: consensus, accountability, information sharing; and ecosystem-based management. Fishery management happens for each lake through "lake committees" comprised of state, provincial, and U.S. tribal agencies with primary management jurisdiction on each lake, supported by federal agencies. Lake committees develop strategic fishery management goals for each lake, called Fish Community Objectives (FCOs) and set agreed-upon harvest levels for key fish species of common interest. More detailed management guidance is provided through rehabilitation plans and management plans for each lake. Lake committees also provide a "state-of-the-lake" report every five years to summarize recent trends in fish populations and progress toward FCOs. Mutually agreed-upon management actions are implemented by individual agencies.


Source Great Lakes Fishery Commission Treaty of 1836 summary agreements pdf

Although the tribes retained the right to fish in the Great Lakes, conflicts among tribal fishers, state licensed commercial fishers, and sport fishing groups continued. In 1985, the tribes, the state, the U.S. Department of the Interior and various sport fishing organizations entered negotiations. The U.S. District Court ordered a 15-year agreement called the “Consent Order” into effect in 1985. The Order, which expires in 2000, allocates fishery resources between user groups. Its purpose is to reduce social conflict while conserving and enhancing valuable fish stocks. It also established a mechanism to resolve disputes by the formation of an Executive Council. COTFMA-member tribes’ chairmen and a state and federal representative sit on the council. When the mechanism fails, the U.S. District Court steps in to resolve the conflict. A court-appointed Special Master may serve as arbitrator.

COTFMA member tribes jointly manage their fishery resources via the Chippewa, Odawa, Resource Authority (CORA)

Overall, this information seems to be at-odds with your interpretation and contentions...
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,660 Posts
Only when both sides agree. Right now the tribes feel they have rights to all fish in the treaty waters of the Great Lakes. They are sharing that resource so we know which side will have to give up their share to ensure the tribes treaty rights are not infringed. I looked through the treaty along with Federal interpretation of the decent decree, I don’t see where a seat at the negotiating table is available for special interest groups are included. If charter captains and the tourism interests wanted to be included in the treaty they would have been at the table in 1836.
The CPMR is not a special interest group. It is an amicus signatory representing 1m fishermen statewide.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
14,298 Posts
Maybe someone could explain why these talks are kept so quiet? I mean people who are involved are required to sign non-disclosure agreements, and you really can't find, anything about what is discussed in their meetings.
Maybe I'm reaching but I always worry when meetings like this, which uses public funds, keeps everything so secret, when it virtually effects every citizen living in the treaty area.
Do they fall under the open meetings rules?
Were they not the last owners until we stole it from them. LOL
That's not a very good argument. Historically it's your land only as long as you can hold it. Likewise "our Indians" have been the easiest to interests historically. They have a history that they can be proud of. I don't fault them for representing their intrests.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,050 Posts
Remember, it was their land not ours! We took it away from them but gave them perpetual use of the land in the 1836 Treaty zone. The Treaty allows hunting and fishing rights on all public and PRIVATE land. Netting Houghton, Higgins, Torch lakes would be allowed.
The Consent better defined fishing zones, quota's and obligations by the Fed's, State to maintain an adequate supply of catchable fish.
You stated we don't have a chance to keep our rights. You got that backwards, it's their rights not ours.
I have always found it interesting that Article Thirteen of the Treaty of 1836 is always cited as providing guidance for hunting and fishing "rights" being garanteed. Oddly, it also states that these rights remain intact until the land is needed for settlement...a sentence that oddly has disappeared form the original treaty language, which also only mentions hunting, not fishing...

Yes,in this instance, the Ojibwe benefit from a lack of written history and documentation, particularly with regard to their "assimilation" of those indigenous people who actually previously occupied the shoreline of western Lake Huron, northeastern Lake Michigan, and southern Lake Superior prior their displacement as the Annishnabe migrated wesward from the point of origin at the mouth of the St Lawrence River.
 
61 - 80 of 1017 Posts
Top