Michigan Sportsman Forum banner
61 - 80 of 261 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
8,867 Posts
John, its just the usual blather from a guy who often instructs others to read the Consent Decree, but opts to not engage in the same activity for personal edification. Example: His recent statements about enforcement disputes between the State and tribes. Resolution framework is actually contained in the document,...

Gee, why do I remember something very different occurring in the late 1990s with regard to management of the northern Lake Huron sport fishery?. What I recall is a sport fishermen lead pressure campaign on the MDNR that eventually successfully overroad their plan to reduce chinook stocking when they announced that there was a signdinficant imbalance in the forage and predator base in Lake Huron. Just the usual grab a couple local State pols and some business leaders and pressure the purse strings.... That fishery liv2 deer farm in the UP describes as being stolen from him and his brethren crashed in the interval from 2003-2006 as a result of inaction precipitated by the sport fisherman users.. Tribal fishing had nothing to do with it. Alewife stocks remain in a predator pit, significantly damping any recovery, despite continued emigration through the Straits from Lake Michigan, along with smelt to a lesser extent..

Even if his arguement were based on actual fact, the difference in the size of the user base between the St. Martins Bay and Traverse Bay fisheries would still warrant the decision.

Besides, it gave Greg Wright free housing and a job at Nunn's Creek!
Another cork, MO. Blast everyone and every event/decision that does not meet with you're skewed reality. Everyone and every decision not to your liking is dismissed by you as wrong. You need to reflect a little, your reporting the past few years is always about how everyone else does not know what they are doing ....you should have figured that out by now that you are the one that's wrong.
It appears your past superiors have dismissed you as not being a team player and have "put you on the shelf" as far as decision making. Apparently your role with the fisheries organization ended at fish squeezer and net puller.
You held hundred's of jobs, by your own admission. Please tell us your meaningful achievements.............please keep it under 2000 words.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,867 Posts
It is expected on the 14th of November.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I have questions. Hopefully we can have a sane conversation.
Lets say the Consent negotiators come to an impasse, they are deadlocked, no agreement whatsoever. What happens next?
Do the courts say the existing Consent is null and void and everything reverts back to the Treaty of 1836?
Do the Native have unfettered hunting and fishing rights in all of the Treaty zone?
Now we come to the political "hot potato", the definition of "settled land".
Does settled land mean all private land or does settled mean only habitable land?
Lets say a land owner has 180 acres and the house is situated on 1 acre. Does settled mean only that 1 acre which means the Natives can hunt and fish on the other 179 acres?
Eliminating the Consent will mean the exclusive netting zones will be eliminated therefore causing a wild west mentality between the recreational anglers, non native netters and the Natives. I see gill nets in front of every river mouth.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,867 Posts
Thanks, Gordon, for posting a few hundred words without ever touching on the reality that a Consent Decree IS a court mandated settlement.
You are right! If the negotiators of the Consent cannot come to a resolution, the courts will make the decision for them. We will still have some form of Consent but it may include wording not to the liking of the negotiators, probably heavily favoring the Tribes.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,867 Posts
I can only speculate, based off of publicly released information on the CPMR website, the Facebook pages, the forums, and the news articles…but will answer your questions. On the 14th of November you can compare my speculation to reality.

1). The negotiations have completed. The draft decree is written. There was no impasse with negotiators. The tribes fought amongst themselves of how to split up their new territories and their new allowed methods of netting and their new populations of all fish to sell. The DNR, USFWS, and tribes all got what they wanted which was to get the decree done and Great Lakes Fishermen and Conservationists had no say at all.

2). The 2000 decree is null and void as of 14 November and the new rules will be in place.

3). I can’t speak to hunting rights. But Yes, the tribes now have unfettered netting in all 1836 water. There is no quota. There is a Total Allowable Catch limit, but without supervision or enforcement, the tribes TAC limit will never be reached.

4). Can’t speak to settled land for hunting, but yes, all 1836 waters are available for gill nets. And without any supervision and enforcement, all waters are available for gill netting.

Who you going to call? The sheriff? The DNR? The USFWS in Lansing? The tribes? Ha! They will point to another organization and keep you leaving voicemails everywhere and they will be relieved when they direct you to someone else.

5). We finally agree on your last statement. Welcome back to 1980. Gill nets will be in front of the every tributary from the Grand River to Saginaw and beyond. The wild west is here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I can believe everything you reported. Now all we need to see is the fine print, cuz that's where reality is.
You already know my mantra........enforcement! Without it there is no TAC.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,867 Posts
There is no way for the tribes to know when the TAC is reached. No reporting, no collection database, no enforcement…nothing. Its every man for himself out there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Just watch, the CPMR will be leaking the information as soon as they see the tentative agreement. They are still butt hurt about that judge that told them to take a hike. Apparently the judge gave them the right to see it and comment.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,867 Posts
The treaty of 1836 stipulates only hunting rights. Fishing is not mentioned. It also only applies to full indians. You really should read it. It should be required reading before posting on threads like this.
Night stalker.
Based on your suggestion, being a novice regarding all the happenings relating to the Treaty and Consent, I scanned that 1836 Treaty. So Night, I refer you to Article 13, there you will find words and in the case of legal words they mean something. Those words say "other usual privileges of occupancy". Courts have ruled those mean hunting, fishing and gathering. The Consent Decree was added in 2000 to better define fishing rights.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,867 Posts
That would be a super liberal extrapolation of that language that I doubt would hold up in high courts.
I'm not going to do anymore work for you but you need to look up court decisions relating to the Treaty. Most all of the interpretations are settled law. One more question! Why was the Consent originated at all? Maybe it was written to better define fishing rites within the Treaty. Don't know haven't studied this much.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,867 Posts
From what I understand about this is it’s the 2000 consent decree that is being negotiated. It has a 20 year term. And it’s only for the Great Lakes and connecting waters of the treaty area. There’s a 2004?or 2008? Not quite sure of the year it was imposed. Consent decree with the state of Michigan only. This decree deals specifically inland and deals with both hunting and fishing rights. There are 2 separate decrees each one governing different areas. Some one can chime in on this if I’m wrong.
I think you are right, but I don't know for sure. We need to ask Night Moves cuz he studied the Treaty and Consent completely. Our hundreds of conversations we had in the past 2+years don't mean much.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,867 Posts
At least you finally scanned over the Treaty. You come on here acting like an expert being critical of posters but up until now you relied on hearsay for your vast knowledge. You never fail to under impress.
Not an expert , just informed. Everyone has an opinion, but some opinions are based on facts. Your post 272 talks about hunting rights only. The Treaty is supported by court decisions, article 13, backed by court rulings confirmed fishing rights. I think the courts ruled that 25% Native heritage makes you a "full patch" Native.
Please correct me if I'm wrong. Need to build up your seniority before entering into debates.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,867 Posts
The skinny armed N.M.'s guy has been around here quite a while.
Not that seniority matters to debate..
At least 543 posts worth. He apparently has not followed the hundreds of previous posts on a variety of forums and threads that gives a little background regarding this Consent debate. I'm all for debate, but please bring at least a little bit of knowledge to the party.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,867 Posts
Europeans have been settled in the Great Lakes region for 400 years. A full blooded Indian in this area is nonexistent. Even Cheif Shingwauk, who was one of the signers of the Huron Treaty on the St. Mary’s was 50% European. It’s not about quantum. If you can prove you are a descendant of one of the families that was documented as being a tribal member back in the day, your in.
If you were to dna test todays card holders, it would be hard to find a quantum greater than 1% Native American. 1% is significant. It means one of your Great, Great, Great Grandparents was full blooded.
My wife is a tall blue eyed blonde American of Scandinavian decent. She recently did her dna testing and found out she is %1 equatorial African. She jokes all the time with her Native friends that she’s just as African as they are Native. Lol
Excellent explanation! Pretty much defines, per the court interpretation, who is a genuine Native. Thanks for the information. Maybe some of the doubters will get some peace.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,867 Posts
Sportfishing regulation changes won’t be posted. Most likely there won’t be any changes to sportfishermen regulations.

There won’t be any published changes from the tribes, USFWS or DNR. They don’t want any publicity on this at all. It will covertly be published on the USFWS website when they get around to it, with no announcement.

The way this works “on the water” is you will feel, see, or smell 300’ of “subsistence netting” in front of the Boardman river for example. It won’t be marked except with a plastic milk jug 4’ underwater because it was pulled down by the weight of rotted fish. If your lucky, you will notice it before your motor does.

You will start making calls to the DNR poaching hotline with no answer to your voicemail.

You will call the local DNR office and they may answer or you will leave another voicemail.

If you do get any response from the DNR, it will direct you to the local tribal Law Enforcement office where you can leave a voicemail…with no response.

You can then call the sheriff. He will direct you to the DNR.

You can call the USFWS in Lansing or Washington DC and they will point you to the DNR.

Unless you have an injury or death, you have no recourse. If you do have injury or death, the sheriff may “take the case”. A personal injury lawyer, if you have saved up for this, may file a lawsuit in federal court.

You (or your lawyer) can then call the press, but they won’t run with it because it doesn’t fit their agenda.

You will dig into the new decree (only buried online on the USFWS site) to find that new miles of large mesh gill nets are allowed and now miles of “new small mesh gill nets” are also allowed (I’ve heard through Facebook posts, forum posts, and other publicly available sources).

Once you stop catching fish, after a few expensive trips, you will find another hobby that will be your new entertainment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,867 Posts
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
The land/water within the Treaty zone is theirs for exclusive, perpetual use for hunting/fishing/gathering. Us recreational anglers are allowed to use it, commercial netters...not so much. The Tribes do plant fish to supplement their harvest. The Fed's also plant fish, per Consent agreement, to also supplement their harvest.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,867 Posts
Two tribal members among the five CORA tribes regected the package. Each will seek settlement via arbitration with the State. I was told that,, of 54 tribal licenses issued, 16 of them are actually active on a routine basis. These fishers want the right to fish within ALL Treaty of 1836 waters. The second issue is the declining whitefish stocks and low price for lake trout, which has prompted the push for expanded species and tribal harvest quotas.
The past few years or so we have all been speculating as to what the results of the negotiations will be . I speculated that the Tribes want to fish within ALL Treaty waters and they also want to expand the species of harvest. If that becomes true, I wasn't that far off. Just wondering what those additional species will be? Salmon? Walleye? Perch?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,867 Posts
Species take is not relevant. Gill nets are kill nets. Everything from perch to salmon are free game.

When you use the term “negotiation” you imply an active discussion, with give and take compromises. No one was negotiating for the 1 million anglers of the state. It was the DNR and the USFWS just wanting to get it done and get out of court.

All waters in the great lakes are free game. There is no oversight, reporting or enforcement.

Who are you going to call to report or stop a gill net operation? See my post above.

The original treaty was OK. The federal judgements allowing further encroachments since 1836 are the real problems.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I have found out from a few reporters on this thread that almost all Natives can trace their lineage back to the signers of the original Treaty. I'm sure you know ALL documented Natives can use gill nets to harvest for subsistence living. Don't worry about the commercial Natives, worry about all the subsistence harvest. Interested in seeing if any new wording applies to subsistence harvest.

You keep getting hung up on the negotiators on this Consent. The negotiators are the State (DNR) Fed's and the Tribes and that's probably it. The 1 million anglers are represented by the DNR. The CMPR also has Amicus Curiae privileges which can suggest angler concerns.

The waters included in the Treaty of 1836 are the area's the Tribes can hunt, fish and gather.

As far as I know the Tribal Police and authorities have the only enforcement authority. That's why I stress enforcement. There will be no control, just as in the past, if the enforcement provisions are not strengthened.

How do you know the Treaty area has been enlarged?
 
61 - 80 of 261 Posts
Top