Some Consent Decree news...
Log into Facebook
Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.
www.facebook.com
981 - 1000 of 1021 Posts
I'll gladly be labeled "ilk" by you dusty since it means I'm fighting to keep the lakes by me full of fish for EVERYONE to enjoy, but then again after reading your garbage your opinion stinks as bad as a 2 month old pile of barn scrapings.
I couldn’t read the routinely horrible “Cork Dust Wall Of Text” but got a little way into it. But yes, the proposed consent decree comes along with a $21 million dollar welfare check as well.
Page 57.
$1.5 Million ($7.5m total) to each tribe for whatever they want.
$4.0 Million for a new electronic reporting system with no mandatory use date (will never be up and running)
$9.5 Million for luxurious retirement homes in south Florida.
Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman
Page 57.
$1.5 Million ($7.5m total) to each tribe for whatever they want.
$4.0 Million for a new electronic reporting system with no mandatory use date (will never be up and running)
$9.5 Million for luxurious retirement homes in south Florida.
Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman
Attachments
So, once again, Carrafino is saying everything he can to get this CD signed. Doesn’t matter what he says, as long as it pushes this CD along.
Hey Cork…go ahead and read the decree. You’ll find all the receipts to back up my “ilk-y” claims.
Do you talk like you type? I seriously believe you don’t. If you did, I would buy the beer as the price for your entertainment.
Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman
Hey Cork…go ahead and read the decree. You’ll find all the receipts to back up my “ilk-y” claims.
Do you talk like you type? I seriously believe you don’t. If you did, I would buy the beer as the price for your entertainment.
Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman
Never would ignore you, your posts are hilarious. Your original statement was backwards. The Tribes dictated the negotiations and demands as evidenced by the tentative changes in the new Consent.
Another useless comment by our resident commercial fishing rep.
Keep the damn gill nets out of the Great Lakes!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Save the Fish, Stop the Gillnets, organized by Amy Trotter
A proposed Great Lakes Consent Decree, agreed to by the State of Michigan and its Depart… Amy Trotter needs your support for Save the Fish, Stop the Gillnets
gofund.me
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Just asking for clarification on this post Gordon. "The Tribes dictated the negotiations and demands..." I'm reading this as the Tribes somehow "told" the Mi DNR and the Feds how this was going to be, and then got everything they wanted? Is that what you mean here? From my perspective that's now how a negotiation works. I have no clue, and based on the gag order no one else does either, what the original conditions the Tribes wanted. For that matter no one knows what the State's list of wants was either. While it may appear that the Tribes got everything they wanted, we don't really know where they started from, where the State started from, and what either side gave up (if anything) to come to this agreement.
I was stating an opinion because us non negotiators don't really have a clue as to what the actual negotiations really concluded. My opinion was based on the fact that the 1836 Treaty dictated perpetual fishing rights in the Treaty zone. I conclude that they can do whatever they want to do. In 1836 there were no fishing seasons, bag limits, species not allowed and illegal methods on how to harvest.
If the base line for the negotiations was the Treaty, they held all the bargaining chips. Again, in my opinion, regarding fishing rights, the conversations started with them saying, we can do whatever we want.
The 2000 Consent placed restrictions on their fishing rights, they were not happy with what transpired. The tribes asked for gill nets and expansion of the area in which they can fish. Specifically, the Sault Tribes wants completely out of the Consent agreement and want to manage their own resource. Lets see what happens with the Sault Tribe demands.
Just my humble opinion, don't want the Treaty/Consent Sheriff to throw too many stones.
If the base line for the negotiations was the Treaty, they held all the bargaining chips. Again, in my opinion, regarding fishing rights, the conversations started with them saying, we can do whatever we want.
The 2000 Consent placed restrictions on their fishing rights, they were not happy with what transpired. The tribes asked for gill nets and expansion of the area in which they can fish. Specifically, the Sault Tribes wants completely out of the Consent agreement and want to manage their own resource. Lets see what happens with the Sault Tribe demands.
Just my humble opinion, don't want the Treaty/Consent Sheriff to throw too many stones.
I think you nailed it Gordon.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think its not 1836 anymore and that wasn’t taken into consideration. Fishing methods, techniques, and technology are far too advanced to make OUR waters the wild west again.
I hear a lot of people use those exact same arguments about many parts of the US Constitution. Should we toss that piece of parchment in the trash can too?
Didn’t think so.
Not saying I like the thoughts of more netting happening in the Great Lakes, but reinterpreting these 200 year documents based on “modern times and advancements” could go sideways on us really quickly in more ways than just fishing.
Didn’t think so.
Not saying I like the thoughts of more netting happening in the Great Lakes, but reinterpreting these 200 year documents based on “modern times and advancements” could go sideways on us really quickly in more ways than just fishing.
The Tribes Sold the land/water to the US in the 1836 Treaty but the US gave the Tribes perpetual fishing and other rights. I liken the transaction like giving the Tribes "mineral rights" where the US owns the land/water but the Tribes have exclusive rights to the fishery.
The original treaty was mis-interpreted in 1979 and has slid downhill ever since. A complete review and re-interpreting will need to be done.
A new federal administration and several state governments would have to change leadership to get this done…and start working for the general population.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
A new federal administration and several state governments would have to change leadership to get this done…and start working for the general population.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yup, their enforcement boats are largely paid for by the Federal Government. So is their monitoring equipment. Hey, wait a minute. Aren't these treaties interpreted as contracts with the Federal government, with inherent garantees? Who gets to decide the issues validity? Soooooooooooo, how is this the State of Michigan's fault and failure?
Help me understand the connection you SEE, wher Dave Carrofino's actions as State negotiator and a seperate FEDERAl entity-Department of the Interior- intesect to support your conclusion that this was connected with any actions by the State of Michigan? Is this related to your unique interpretation of how, when and where these Fedeeral payments will be used? I admit some confusion. You want the tribal fishery diminished. You supported the buyouts of commercial fishers to convert their trap net gear to application within the tribal fishery, but paying them to stop fishing, particularly the subset that continue to fish is unjustified and unwarranted. That is a unique dichotomy, or just failed logic.
Apparently, you mised the previous posts where I mentioned several times to Biggbear over the years that it would be nice to see the tribes stop suckling at the "Federal tit' and behave like sovereign entities. Yeah, it was lost in that wall of text to be lost on you, along with reason and logic. Reading for content would also underscore the glaring reality that the FEDERAL courts determined the tribe's right to fish with gillnets. I took civics a long time ago, but I recall something about federal jurisdiction overriding that of the individual state's. Help me out. Yes, I realize that that reality undercuts your soapbox's stability.
Help me understand the connection you SEE, wher Dave Carrofino's actions as State negotiator and a seperate FEDERAl entity-Department of the Interior- intesect to support your conclusion that this was connected with any actions by the State of Michigan? Is this related to your unique interpretation of how, when and where these Fedeeral payments will be used? I admit some confusion. You want the tribal fishery diminished. You supported the buyouts of commercial fishers to convert their trap net gear to application within the tribal fishery, but paying them to stop fishing, particularly the subset that continue to fish is unjustified and unwarranted. That is a unique dichotomy, or just failed logic.
Apparently, you mised the previous posts where I mentioned several times to Biggbear over the years that it would be nice to see the tribes stop suckling at the "Federal tit' and behave like sovereign entities. Yeah, it was lost in that wall of text to be lost on you, along with reason and logic. Reading for content would also underscore the glaring reality that the FEDERAL courts determined the tribe's right to fish with gillnets. I took civics a long time ago, but I recall something about federal jurisdiction overriding that of the individual state's. Help me out. Yes, I realize that that reality undercuts your soapbox's stability.
Let's play Venn diagram: What is the degree of overlap between the "general population" and the set of folks who agree with your unique interpretation and solution? Which set is larger? Which set has greater overall wealth and political clout? Assuming all of the proviso array you set forth occurs, where do you see the actions you describe to be necessary listed in the progression of to-do priorities once this happens. DING, Ding, ding!
What group of people felt that the Treaty was mis-interpreted ? Native or white man?
Cork, I agree with you! Don't know if that's good or bad.
Unfortunately you are correct. All we can do now is let things play out and document the real causes of the destruction of the fisheries and then hope that eventually the political arena will change some day to something that will actually work for the citizens of this state and country instead of foreign interests including the Indian nations.
Tribal enforcement boats? Hardly. If you are referring to the trap net boats that were bought for them, then ok.
Monitoring equipment? Hardly. There was never any monitoring equipment bought. The state had to beg for a written report, which weren’t on time or accurate.
The State is directly at fault for not protecting the fishery. This should have been settled in 1980 between the state (states and Ontario) and the tribes. Sportsman should have been able to rely on the state to represent them…but the state failed to do anything.
Carrafino (DNR Tribal Unit Coordinator), represents the Tribes, the States Attorney Generals Office and the Governor’s agenda. His mandate was to give every wish to the tribes, throw out biology, and get the damn thing signed. The DNR’s mandate was never to protect the fishery or represent the fishermen of the state.
My unique payment interpretation is right there in the proposed decree. That $21 million dollars ought to pay for weigh stations and salaries for new enforcement officers.
The rest of your gobblygook needs to be re-typed. You’re coming in unreadable.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Monitoring equipment? Hardly. There was never any monitoring equipment bought. The state had to beg for a written report, which weren’t on time or accurate.
The State is directly at fault for not protecting the fishery. This should have been settled in 1980 between the state (states and Ontario) and the tribes. Sportsman should have been able to rely on the state to represent them…but the state failed to do anything.
Carrafino (DNR Tribal Unit Coordinator), represents the Tribes, the States Attorney Generals Office and the Governor’s agenda. His mandate was to give every wish to the tribes, throw out biology, and get the damn thing signed. The DNR’s mandate was never to protect the fishery or represent the fishermen of the state.
My unique payment interpretation is right there in the proposed decree. That $21 million dollars ought to pay for weigh stations and salaries for new enforcement officers.
The rest of your gobblygook needs to be re-typed. You’re coming in unreadable.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So the tribal enforcement boat in Manistique was not purchased with Federal dollars? Wrong. The tribal enforcement boat that sat three years in a vacant field off west Wright Street in Marquette was not purchased with Federal grant monies? Wrong, again. The Keweenaw Bay enforcement boats are both paid for via Federal monies as well, via Treaty of 1842 settement language.
Fascinating, interpetation of what transpired in the 1980s. I was still squeezing fish for the USFWS and MSU then. For some reason I remember a former president of MUCC pulling every marker he held to steer the state into the confrontation with Ave LeBlanc to put an end to all the tribal claims to fishing rights. At the same time Minnesota was opting to abrogated tribal fishing righs for a one time series of payments So was Abe LeBlanc who sought a now ridiculously small payment from the State in exchange for surrendering fishing rights. Oddly, I RECALL a Federal Judge, Fox, making a judicial decison, followed by FEDERAL Judge Enslen's subsequent interpretation, which lead to the 2000 CD. Mr Johnson was directly involved in those negotiations. I recall him criticizing the State's actions currently, but lauding them previously when those discussions eventually resulted in the 2000 CD. What did you say recently about Mr. Johnson's credibility? Did you catch the part in both the Michigan Out-of Doors interview and the radio interview where he stated the State traded trap nets for reduction in court approved gillnet usage? You sure you didn't get that given your unique abilities to see forward and back in time with infinite clarity/
Where did you graduate from law school? What do you base your keen incites into Federal treaty laws on? How is it that your interpretation of events doesn't have nearly any overlap with reality?
The soo band tribal fisher i know, sends his daily catch reports to the clerk who works for CORA via electronic form, sent digitally. Apparently, per your contentions, these are all transposed to paper copies for internal use for their purposes? How odd. Certainly doesn't square with what I was told by Guy Fleischer when he worked for them, prior joining the USFWS GLIFL LAB Iin Ann Arbor. Nor, do your comments square with tribal fishery data I vewed via Tom Gorenflo's computer the two times we all car pooled to American Fishery Society meetings together. Sure seems like you are fibbing again...
Yes, I am unreadable...and you are quite transparent!
You have a keyboard, tell Judge Maloney the clear flaws YOU note in the CD. Yeah, I get it, hard to understand what you don't want to understand. Life is much more enjjoyable.
Fascinating, interpetation of what transpired in the 1980s. I was still squeezing fish for the USFWS and MSU then. For some reason I remember a former president of MUCC pulling every marker he held to steer the state into the confrontation with Ave LeBlanc to put an end to all the tribal claims to fishing rights. At the same time Minnesota was opting to abrogated tribal fishing righs for a one time series of payments So was Abe LeBlanc who sought a now ridiculously small payment from the State in exchange for surrendering fishing rights. Oddly, I RECALL a Federal Judge, Fox, making a judicial decison, followed by FEDERAL Judge Enslen's subsequent interpretation, which lead to the 2000 CD. Mr Johnson was directly involved in those negotiations. I recall him criticizing the State's actions currently, but lauding them previously when those discussions eventually resulted in the 2000 CD. What did you say recently about Mr. Johnson's credibility? Did you catch the part in both the Michigan Out-of Doors interview and the radio interview where he stated the State traded trap nets for reduction in court approved gillnet usage? You sure you didn't get that given your unique abilities to see forward and back in time with infinite clarity/
Where did you graduate from law school? What do you base your keen incites into Federal treaty laws on? How is it that your interpretation of events doesn't have nearly any overlap with reality?
The soo band tribal fisher i know, sends his daily catch reports to the clerk who works for CORA via electronic form, sent digitally. Apparently, per your contentions, these are all transposed to paper copies for internal use for their purposes? How odd. Certainly doesn't square with what I was told by Guy Fleischer when he worked for them, prior joining the USFWS GLIFL LAB Iin Ann Arbor. Nor, do your comments square with tribal fishery data I vewed via Tom Gorenflo's computer the two times we all car pooled to American Fishery Society meetings together. Sure seems like you are fibbing again...
Yes, I am unreadable...and you are quite transparent!
You have a keyboard, tell Judge Maloney the clear flaws YOU note in the CD. Yeah, I get it, hard to understand what you don't want to understand. Life is much more enjjoyable.
981 - 1000 of 1021 Posts
