Michigan Sportsman Forum banner
81 - 100 of 250 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
40,747 Posts
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.
As you know the term settled has never been defined. The Federal government and the tribes have never attempted to get the defined in Federal court for fear of loosing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,743 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.
We deplete the resource separately or together there is no mention in the 1836 treaty of D.N.R. responsibility for creating a resource to substitute.

The right to fish in 1836 treaty waters mean exclusively?
Does the right to fish in treaty waters as defined by the original treaty make anyone else responsible for if fish exist? As in , the right to fish is not the same as the right to have fish provided for you to catch.

Anything else wrangled out of the original treaty since is not the original treaty.
Who wrangles and the balance of why and when and how is not on me.
I'm of the same mind as the native that stood on the Manistee pier long ago throwing rocks at a native craft pursuing fish.
It's not up to us.
But subject to our like or dislike just as well. As well as throwing rocks.

fish doc1 (glifwc.org)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,743 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.
Drop barriers to define treaty waters to keep fish stocks seperate and leave the natives qualifying under the treaty terms to have at it. IF the treaty specifically perpetuates the right beyond those alive at the time.
Fine by me. And answers conflict over "who's" stock is being harvested where.

Deal is a deal. Here's the limit of your range. And here's the limits of ours until which time use for settlement exists.
My definition of settlement is to settle upon / occupy. And per treaty , "until settlement" was not a reference to natives settling upon. Rather an eventual consumption by others. A deal I'd not have applauded were I a native then.
Looked good on paper though?

Varied definitions of settlement exist.
For one...
[an arrangement whereby property passes to a succession of people as dictated by the settlor ]
Bringing us back to who defines and interprets what the treaty's terms were.
And where legally binding for what defined amount of time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40,747 Posts
Go back a read the treaty, consent agreement along with the court interpretation and all your questions will be answered. You won’t have to make things up to suit your narrative.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Waif

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,588 Posts
As you know the term settled has never been defined. The Federal government and the tribes have never attempted to get the defined in Federal court for fear of loosing.

Wait a minute...did you not state in your earlier post that all anyone need do is take one reading of the Treaty of 1836 document as well as the Federal Court decision which would provide a clear understanding that the tribal government signatories both have the right to fish the Great Lakes for ALL species of fish and the State of Michigan is fully obligated to " backfill" species to garantee them a catch? How is it that your previous statement implied what is not stated clearly nor implied within the document's actual language?

I learned something quite new from your posts, hunting is a synonym of fishing, not bad for a tribe that built freighter canoes, fIshed the St. Marys Rapids, as well as for other riverine stocks, yet did not posess the means, skill, and wherewithall to actually fish the Great Lakes waters you state they have full control over now as well as a right to exploit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,229 Posts
Drop barriers to define treaty waters to keep fish stocks seperate and leave the natives qualifying under the treaty terms to have at it. IF the treaty specifically perpetuates the right beyond those alive at the time.
Fine by me. And answers conflict over "who's" stock is being harvested where.

Deal is a deal. Here's the limit of your range. And here's the limits of ours until which time use for settlement exists.
My definition of settlement is to settle upon / occupy. And per treaty , "until settlement" was not a reference to natives settling upon. Rather an eventual consumption by others. A deal I'd not have applauded were I a native then.
Looked good on paper though?

Varied definitions of settlement exist.
For one...
[an arrangement whereby property passes to a succession of people as dictated by the settlor ]
Bringing us back to who defines and interprets what the treaty's terms were.
And where legally binding for what defined amount of time.
Years ago I scanned a large "coffee Table" book that my friend purchased from the Ft. Michililmackinac book store. Published by the Michigan State publishing dept. and provided an in depth review of the fur trade in the area. Explained all the trapping routes (paths) from Minnesota to Ohio to New York and Canada. Very interesting read. A section of the book discussed all the Treaties with the natives. You talk about settlements and that caused me to remember what the settlements were as defined in the Treaties.

Need to remember that the Treaties were written by the white men in Washington using the mentality they had about how things SHOULD be based on their knowledge at the time.
The Natives had no idea what settlements meant. Nobody OWNED the land, it was to be used by everyone. Tribes were somewhat nomadic, they had areas where they foraged, areas where the hunted and fished. They spent the most time wintering where there was water and hunting/fishing available.
Maps of the Treaty areas had land for habitation, sometimes called reservations. The Tribes were illiterate to the white mans thinking and really had no understanding what they signed.
I tell the story about those 2 fishing tugs in the Leland harbor marina. Could be that Leland and the surrounding area was defined as habitation in a Treaty and maybe the Natives owned the town. Needless to say those tugs have been in the harbor since the 2000 Consent.
I read somewhere, in some Federal Court decision regarding the Treaties that the Natives had the "wool pulled over their eyes" , they did not understand and it was the Governments responsibility to properly inform them to where they understood.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,743 Posts
Years ago I scanned a large "coffee Table" book that my friend purchased from the Ft. Michililmackinac book store. Published by the Michigan State publishing dept. and provided an in depth review of the fur trade in the area. Explained all the trapping routes (paths) from Minnesota to Ohio to New York and Canada. Very interesting read. A section of the book discussed all the Treaties with the natives. You talk about settlements and that caused me to remember what the settlements were as defined in the Treaties.

Need to remember that the Treaties were written by the white men in Washington using the mentality they had about how things SHOULD be based on their knowledge at the time.
The Natives had no idea what settlements meant. Nobody OWNED the land, it was to be used by everyone. Tribes were somewhat nomadic, they had areas where they foraged, areas where the hunted and fished. They spent the most time wintering where there was water and hunting/fishing available.
Maps of the Treaty areas had land for habitation, sometimes called reservations. The Tribes were illiterate to the white mans thinking and really had no understanding what they signed.
I tell the story about those 2 fishing tugs in the Leland harbor marina. Could be that Leland and the surrounding area was defined as habitation in a Treaty and maybe the Natives owned the town. Needless to say those tugs have been in the harbor since the 2000 Consent.
I read somewhere, in some Federal Court decision regarding the Treaties that the Natives had the "wool pulled over their eyes" , they did not understand and it was the Governments responsibility to properly inform them to where they understood.
Would be delighted to read that book. Another I regret not nabbing had Jesuit accounts of native activities and someways. Gambling even up to thier village being lost. And method of torturing native prisoners. Methods I don't know how they could be topped. Ans prisoners expected to be stoic.
Burials. Bones cleaned and stored till intermittent mass burial. Ect..

Other accounts show groups going from Green Bay to Detroit under pressure from other natives. The Mohawk North. The "Neutrals "wiped out by other tribes over fur trade.
The Straits. Canada. Multiple groups and multiple terms.

And early Euro contact siding with a group to combat the Iroquois resulting in Northern routes being the best way to avoid conflict again. Steering much further traffic North instead Well , sort of. But certainly affecting former trade routes. Like the E-W one below water kinda on a line through Chicago.


1600's forward was an object of study for me a while when reenacting through shoots ect.. Thin gravy those 1600's details today compared to later years.
Which are there. Including the "Indian problem".

Grandfather and Great Grandfather had "stores" in Northern Mi.
I've one picture of Gramps with a pet deer at one.
Great Grandfather had kegs of beads in the top /loft of his store.
Beads were found beyond the store in sand. from?
Natives stopped by at times.
What either party thought of things I've no written account of from family.
Another area a house had natives sleep in the room nearest the entry on thier way through. An informal getting along kind of thing.

Natives gaining anything more than what was being ceded by any treaty would be quite an exception.
As you mention those involved in "agreeing" to terms were not likely aware of every implication.
Accepted as representing all , "All" may not have agreed either. Such are politics.
Feigned good will can be both aggression , and submission. Being being nice while being robbed of a lifeway wasn't working any more.
If marking a paper gets you off my back and not demonstrating my / our demise is suitable to your proven ability's goals , should I sign?

Post civil war near where I'm at "conflict" with natives involved thier hanging out at a spring and grazing horses.
They moved on eventually.
But one doesn't need guess they knew they got the short end of the deal when land was ceded.
I'd probably let my horse poop on your property too if I was them.

Sustenance through taking fish as a native right? Sure.
Selling for money or to nonnatives? I wouldn't offer that as a sustenance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,229 Posts
Would be delighted to read that book. Another I regret not nabbing had Jesuit accounts of native activities and someways. Gambling even up to thier village being lost. And method of torturing native prisoners. Methods I don't know how they could be topped. Ans prisoners expected to be stoic.
Burials. Bones cleaned and stored till intermittent mass burial. Ect..

Other accounts show groups going from Green Bay to Detroit under pressure from other natives. The Mohawk North. The "Neutrals "wiped out by other tribes over fur trade.
The Straits. Canada. Multiple groups and multiple terms.

And early Euro contact siding with a group to combat the Iroquois resulting in Northern routes being the best way to avoid conflict again. Steering much further traffic North instead Well , sort of. But certainly affecting former trade routes. Like the E-W one below water kinda on a line through Chicago.


1600's forward was an object of study for me a while when reenacting through shoots ect.. Thin gravy those 1600's details today compared to later years.
Which are there. Including the "Indian problem".

Grandfather and Great Grandfather had "stores" in Northern Mi.
I've one picture of Gramps with a pet deer at one.
Great Grandfather had kegs of beads in the top /loft of his store.
Beads were found beyond the store in sand. from?
Natives stopped by at times.
What either party thought of things I've no written account of from family.
Another area a house had natives sleep in the room nearest the entry on thier way through. An informal getting along kind of thing.

Natives gaining anything more than what was being ceded by any treaty would be quite an exception.
As you mention those involved in "agreeing" to terms were not likely aware of every implication.
Accepted as representing all , "All" may not have agreed either. Such are politics.
Feigned good will can be both aggression , and submission. Being being nice while being robbed of a lifeway wasn't working any more.
If marking a paper gets you off my back and not demonstrating my / our demise is suitable to your proven ability's goals , should I sign?

Post civil war near where I'm at "conflict" with natives involved thier hanging out at a spring and grazing horses.
They moved on eventually.
But one doesn't need guess they knew they got the short end of the deal when land was ceded.
I'd probably let my horse poop on your property too if I was them.

Sustenance through taking fish as a native right? Sure.
Selling for money or to nonnatives? I wouldn't offer that as a sustenance.
I bet if you called the Ft. Michilimacknac gift shop and asked them the name of a large rectangular book about the fur trade and native life they would give it to you. I copied the name and borrowed a copy from our local Public Library.
Most people don't realize how big the fur industry was in the entire mid west and Canada. Beaver pelts were the only real source of income for a huge geographic area. Mackinac Island and the surrounding area was the hub for all trade activity. Fish became the industry when the fur business petered out.
You can find a lot of books related to the fur, fish era in the Mackinac Island book store.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,743 Posts
The federal government controls the waters of Michigan and the great lakes? Then the native does not.
With the 1813 death of Tecumseh , so to the control of Michigan by natives.

Ohio. Southern Indiana. Treaties appeased the natives contesting squatters. So the hotly contested Ft. Wayne treaty followed.

What treaty ended the "scootch over " method of displacement?
Making most treaty moot following capitulation. That being thier intent.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,349 Posts
This thread is too long and complicated for me to take the time for it all. Having said that, just this last weekend I found out an interesting tidbit of info.

We had a family gathering whereby one of my brothers oldest friends came up in conversation. My father had seen him this summer and my brother keeps in constant contact. This friend has focused on tribal issues since he got his license to practice law, so I guess it's around 30+ years now. I always assumed he's a do-gooder living in a desert just outside of tribal lands, barely making a living. Turns out it's the opposite.

He's now a partner in the firm which has locations around the country. They are making money hand-over-fist representing tribes. The way he described it is that this is all settled law. The Feds don't really screw around anymore, it's rare to deal with them. What happens is a state or local municipality doesn't believe it's all settled law and does something breaking the treaties. The tribe calls this firm and they sue...and win every time. They use casino money to pay for the lawsuits and the firm wins big because, well, they're damn lawyers!! I asked 'is it like shooting fish in the proverbial barrel?' and the answer was yes. Apparently these are slam-dunk lawsuits.

What I'm getting at is the folks in this thread thinking otherwise are apparently just being emotional or may not understand the history. You can think it's unfair, illegal or whatever. MI tribes are apparently playing nice by negotiating at all. Sure, it's not in their best interests to kill the fish/game populations. You would hope that additionally they would understand, as their ancestors likely did, that there is a proper way to manage wildlife. But at the end of the day, according to the family friend, they can tell us to pound sand. It'll just cost money to find that out legally.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,229 Posts
This thread is too long and complicated for me to take the time for it all. Having said that, just this last weekend I found out an interesting tidbit of info.

We had a family gathering whereby one of my brothers oldest friends came up in conversation. My father had seen him this summer and my brother keeps in constant contact. This friend has focused on tribal issues since he got his license to practice law, so I guess it's around 30+ years now. I always assumed he's a do-gooder living in a desert just outside of tribal lands, barely making a living. Turns out it's the opposite.

He's now a partner in the firm which has locations around the country. They are making money hand-over-fist representing tribes. The way he described it is that this is all settled law. The Feds don't really screw around anymore, it's rare to deal with them. What happens is a state or local municipality doesn't believe it's all settled law and does something breaking the treaties. The tribe calls this firm and they sue...and win every time. They use casino money to pay for the lawsuits and the firm wins big because, well, they're damn lawyers!! I asked 'is it like shooting fish in the proverbial barrel?' and the answer was yes. Apparently these are slam-dunk lawsuits.

What I'm getting at is the folks in this thread thinking otherwise are apparently just being emotional or may not understand the history. You can think it's unfair, illegal or whatever. MI tribes are apparently playing nice by negotiating at all. Sure, it's not in their best interests to kill the fish/game populations. You would hope that additionally they would understand, as their ancestors likely did, that there is a proper way to manage wildlife. But at the end of the day, according to the family friend, they can tell us to pound sand. It'll just cost money to find that out legally.
Well said! The tribes usually retain the best lawyers they can find for whatever situation they are in. An old Native, I met over 20 years ago at the Sault, told me the Natives only care about traditions, festivals, hunting and fishing rites and free expression with nature. This guy was old school, maybe todays generation think differently. Since having money in their lifestyle is no big deal, they spend whatever it takes to resolve any legal issues.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,677 Posts
Wow, I just read both of the treaties. It seemed like the 1820 listing was abbreviated. It did include fishing rights in perpetuity to the Falls of the St Mary’s. However the Treaty of 1836 was quite explicit. No fishing rights of any kind were mentioned, and it was quite explicit in stating the tribes were to move to a permanent reservation in Missouri. I wonder if there were subsequent agreements later. The other possibility is Judge Fox (?), considered the treaty a “living document”, which allowed him to interpret the treaty in any manner he felt justified.
Rush Limbaugh was correct when he deemed a certain train of thought a “mental disorder”.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,229 Posts
Wow, I just read both of the treaties. It seemed like the 1820 listing was abbreviated. It did include fishing rights in perpetuity to the Falls of the St Mary’s. However the Treaty of 1836 was quite explicit. No fishing rights of any kind were mentioned, and it was quite explicit in stating the tribes were to move to a permanent reservation in Missouri. I wonder if there were subsequent agreements later. The other possibility is Judge Fox (?), considered the treaty a “living document”, which allowed him to interpret the treaty in any manner he felt justified.
Rush Limbaugh was correct when he deemed a certain train of thought a “mental disorder”.
Funny. I spent a lot of time the last 24 years in the Sault area fishing the upper and lower river. I have never seen any type of commercial fishing activity in the rapids......never. Sure, the Treaty was written before the locks and power plant were built so the area looked a little different back then. Don't know if people know that there was a lock on the St. Marys all the way back to the 18th century. The remnant of one is still on display at the old paper mill office building.
 
81 - 100 of 250 Posts
Top