Michigan Sportsman Forum banner
81 - 100 of 261 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
8,867 Posts
The Treaty stipulates that only full indians have a right to hunt and says nothing about fishing or gathering. That right to hunt expired when Michigan was settled. The Treaty does mot state that those rights can't be regulated by the state either. Any other interpretation of that Treaty is exceptionally liberal reading thi gs into it that are not there. I doubt that the current Supreme Court would agree with liberal interpretations so perhaps now is the time to settle this issue for good.
You apparently have not read all the Court decisions.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,867 Posts
Actually, you've opted to read right past the treaty clause that was ignored in the original Federal court decision by Fox, which negated thier rights to the resource should the land be needed for settlement...

Sport fisherman as a group plying the Great Lakes, as well as charter captains and their "industry" did not exist in any numbers in 1836.
It begs the question.....what does settled mean, what is the legal interpretation?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,867 Posts
We rent a cabin from a joint soo tribal commercial fisherman to hunt ducks from as a base camp for a week to hunt divers, mainly redheads on the Lake Michigan side of the peninsula . He usually drops by for some grilled duck or goose and some appetizers. This year he dropped-off some smoked whitefish for us when we arrived to give us a heads-up on some maintenance he just did prior our arrival.. Three I kept whole and the fourth I made into a dip. Pretty sad to see their size, a little over half the size of the fish we used to buy from him in 2007. When your target species is in decline, both numerically and on a density basis, what options do you have to continue to earn a living... I hold that the Feds and State will eventually launch a whitefish recovery program similar to the decades old initiative for lake trout, since coregonids are central to a functioning Lake Michigan ecosystem.

We can all count on you to be self-congratuulatory. Your suppositions and speculations on this subject have been all over the map, supporting or arguing against any and all possible outcomes, combinations and permutations, Gordon. . As the saying goes even a blind pig finds a truffle occasionally. I seem to recall your last pronouncement was that the CPMR would divulge the results of the Consent Decree prematurely....still waiting on that prognositcation to prove true. Puxatawney, Pa. could use your exuberance and enthusiasm as a 'Phil interpreter"! It is a role you are born for.
Bet the CPMR does not have the rewrite yet. Maybe they are being blackballed for being bad to the DNR.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,867 Posts
These two screen shots on the subject published by the DNR may help clear things up. They are from the FAQ on the subject.

View attachment 864741

View attachment 864742
Should be required reading, especially for night moves. The example of mineral rights is interesting. You own the mineral rights even if the land is sold to others. How about the Natives have perpetual rights for hunting, fishing and gathering within the Treaty area, non natives may own the land but the Natives still have the right of subsistence living.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,867 Posts
It does not stipulates fishing or gathering. I'm not sure why you keep posting that. Show me where the 1836 Treaty supports your notions. The Supreme Court has never ruled on that. The current Supreme Court could certainly set things straight. They have shown to have no problem reversing liberal decisions much bigger than this illegal stuff.
Refer to post #319
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,867 Posts
That is not what I asked but rather just the DNR'S opinion. The Supreme Court has never ruled on the Treaty of 1836. Maybe they have on other treaties, but not that one. One biased judge's ruling is not the law of the land. Past liberal courts do not seem to have much weight with the current court. The DNR under the current liberal governer is not likely to push it though.
I think you just don't get it! The DNR and the State can do nothing to change settled law determined by the Federal Courts. Have a good evening.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,867 Posts
Imma continue to just do whatever the F—k I want! Seems to be workin so far!😂! Tell me about line limits!🤣, size limits🤣, oh ya, possession limits!!rotfl. As I fish up against a a gillnet!
I'm with you! Everyone appears to be up in arms regarding this new Consent and as I said before, recreational anglers are not affected what so ever. Still can fish wherever we want and can take what the DNR regulations allow. Maybe the State and fed's will plant more fish for us to catch.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,867 Posts
You seem to be so negative in shutting down any doubt about the certainty of the situation to the point that your motives are highly suspicious. You argue on every thread on comercial fishing issues siding with the netttrrs every time. Do you even fish the great lakes? What's your motivation to be so pro commercial fishing? I wonder? Still waiting for proof that the Supreme Court has ruled on this issue on the 1836 Treaty as you claim.
We are a country governed by laws. The Native Americans have Treaties that protect their rights and I'm all for their rights. If you REALLY read my posts I probably talk more about enforcing the violations of the Treaties and hopefully the new Consent will address the issue.

The non native commercial netters are governed by laws as well. I'm all for rewriting those old, outdated laws and approve new ones that are appropriate for the times. The netters unlike the Natives have their laws bargained by our State politicians and not the Fed's. Just as in collective bargaining, compromise solutions are the norm. If you take something away from the netters they should get something in return. It's the American way. If you really read my reporting you will find I have a balanced approach to most issues, but many feel I'm too one sided because most on here are all in on their stance and screw the other opinion.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,867 Posts
Make no mistake, recreational anglers will notice the difference! We all will!
Please explain! Lower creel limit on Lakers? Too many Lakers and not enough steelhead? Looks like more whitefish if cork is correct. Forget about Kings and Coho, it's the DNR's plan of attack for the Great Lakes fishery. I'm all for planting more salmon but the need to plant more Lakers (Consent) outweigh the planting of more salmon. The DNR will plant just enough salmon to keep us from rebellion.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,867 Posts
Update: According to the most current extension, the latest consent decree is set to expire on November 14, 2022. However, there is now no indication that a new Consent Decree agreement will be ready on November 14, 2022.

At this time, there is also no indication that Judge Maloney and the seven parties to the agreement have made any progress.

More will be known more come late November 14th or early November 15th.

The CPMR has filed to intervene in this court case. Judge Maloney has denied that request to intervene.

So, the CPMR legal team has filed an appeal with the 6th Circuit Court of U.S in Cincinnati.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Do you really think we are going to see something official from the parties involved? Nobody is probably proud of the outcome. The court will publish the Consent Decree without much fanfare and we will have to disseminate it.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,867 Posts
Announcing Outdoor News on 11-15 is kinda like announcing political news late on Friday afternoon. Sounds though like it’s extension time, again. This whole process makes less sense each time.
There is an article in the Leelanau Enterprise newspaper regarding the Consent impasse. Looks like the Sault Tribe is creating all the havoc. It appears the Sault tribe has 41 commercial fishers, Bay Mills have 28, Grand Traverse has 13 and Little River has 8. Looks like there are 69 fishers on Lake Superior and only around 21 fishers on Lake Michigan. There appears to be a disproportionate number when comparing Superior vs Michigan.

The Sault tribe wants to fish all the Treaty waters in Lake Michigan. The Sault tribe harvest (if you can believe it) constitutes 68% of the total harvest. They need more water for the 41 fishers.
Some confusion about deadlines. An area in the article talks about a1 week extension, another talk about indefinite.
I did not read the paper but the detail was told to me. Please correct me if I don't have all the detail explained correctly.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,867 Posts
Thanks, Cork! Looks like we finally seen some actual, legal findings from the negotiations and Court. Wondering what will happen when those deadlines are not met? The Courts rule? The 2000 Consent is dead? Anyway, something should be happening soon.

Looks like Natives are on the warpath.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,867 Posts
Gotta thank our resident MS commercial fishermen for that and gotta send a big shout out to Senator McBroom!
Come on now Josh. I didn't think, just being a concerned citizen, that I had anything to do with the Consent. Your giving me way too much credit for just being interested in the goings on, that's all.
McBroom being a Senator had absolutely nothing to do with the negotiations, why are you shouting out to him?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,867 Posts
Come on now Josh. I didn't think, just being a concerned citizen, that I had anything to do with the Consent. Your giving me way too much credit for just being interested in the goings on, that's all.
McBroom being a Senator had absolutely nothing to do with the negotiations, why are you shouting out to him?
On second thought, you are piling on....un warranted, un necessary and erroneous.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,867 Posts
Mcbroom stopped the legislation that would have reigned in state licensed commercial fishermen. The lack of any progress on that gave the Indians better bargain ing power.
What happened in the Legislature had absolutely nothing to do with Consent negotiations. The Natives had all the bargaining power they needed regardless what happened to the commercial netting laws. If the house would have sent a balanced bill to the Senate there would have been new commercial netting laws. You can thank the DNR and MUCC for killing the bills. Balanced can also mean collective bargained where both sides win or at least have consensus.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,867 Posts
Responses like this are why many on here believe you work for commercial fishing interests. This is a sport fishing and sport hunting forum. Nobody else on here want to see an expansion of commercial fishing except you here.
This is the general discussion forum.....everything about everything. Who ever talked about expansion of commercial netting, you are full of it. If you really take the time to read my posts I talk mostly about enforcement of the rules. I also talk about an equitable resolution of the commercial netting law revisions. You hard core, one sided, proponents of your feelings are blinded by the reality of making new laws. It's always your way or no way.....I read it all the time.
If you also read my posts you will see I search both sides of any issue and come up with conclusions that are equitable to all parties.
Remember, bull headed people that only look in one direction almost always lose.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,867 Posts
This just set the stage for the Soo tribe in Lake Huron and Lake Suprior to have a big win in these negotiations. Nobody really cares about the minor give backs in Lake Michigan in the entire scheme of things.
I think what we know is only the tip of the ice burg. I think the reality of things will be found in the fine print. Dogs post defines the fishing zones in Lake MI. What about species, quota's, allowable times. I assume that gill nets are kill nets, they will be allowed to keep everything they catch, including salmon and steelhead. Will trap nets be allowed? Will the State and Fed's continue to plant fish?
Same scenario with Superior and Huron. Will Superior be the exclusive fishing zone for the Tribes only? What species will be fair game? Will walleye be included? Lots of questions to be answered before the truth is known.
I'm anxious to read about stricter Treaty/Consent enforcement. But , if they have no rules there is nothing to enforce.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,867 Posts
I think you're wrong.....
Bull headed people won it looks like
Josh
If you are talking about the failure of the non Tribal commercial netting law updates, I think the process won. One side would not budge 1 inch, the other side had the power to kill the bill. Now that the political power shifted in the Legislature, compromise solutions will get a Bill passed. Back room deals with linkages to other non related Bills will get horse traded to get multiple Bills passed.
 
81 - 100 of 261 Posts
Top