Michigan Sportsman Forum banner
101 - 120 of 167 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
931 Posts
There is one important element to this discussion that isn’t really mentioned. They are more tribes today than there was back then. For instance Sault tribe broke away from Bay Mills tribe and now Mackinaw Band is breaking away from Sault Tribe. And, each tribe is fighting for their own piece of the pie. That issue needs to be resolved. And I don’t see any of the tribes budging on this unless the federal government steps in.
the other problem is that no one is contesting the right to fish. It’s the take that’s the problem. There are only so many fish. The idea that the tribes deserve more or one tribe deserves more than another is a loosing argument. It didn’t work in South Africa and it won’t work here. “One man one vote”. “ one man one fish”. 😊
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,494 Posts
Discussion Starter · #102 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
517 Posts
Thanks for posting this SJC. Maybe with this filing a "few" might begin to understand how far down the river the loathing State of Michigan has sold you and I.

Kisutch

God Bless Dr Howard Tanner

Former Lake Michigan Stakeholder

Lake Michigan Lake Trout Gillnetters Association "We pledge to kill them all"

Alewife what?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,486 Posts
So, we now know the CPMR has been involved in negotiations via amicus curie status granted in 1985 and again in 2000. The tribes are advancing the argument it is too late to allow their intervention directly in negotiation. CPMR agues that they now have determined that theii interests are not being effectively advanced by the State. Interesting the the Soo and Odaw Bands found it necessary for them to file their own individual rebuttals... One of them previously requested that fishing access quotas provided in the previous consent decree be struck down, allowing tribal fishers to fish anywhere within Treaty of 1836 waters reducing costs and travel time. I always found it interesting that Odawa fishers had a yellow perch zone provided off Big Summer Island. Do they fish there? Yes, but I never see any perch in their catch, just whitefish and lake trout. I asked one of the Peterson brothers last fall about this. He just smiled and made no response... fall yellow perch are huge fillets, since they are not spawning or just spawned.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
517 Posts
I took the separate filings by the tribes as a thwarting of a possible argument if the no good State of Michigan, in their own filing, had in fact sided with CPMR. The old two sides to one game plan. If the tribes and feds had ganged up as one entity and then the no good State of Michigan sided with the sportsman then a real honest discussion would have ensued. But no, the loathing State of Michigan would have nothing to do with you and I, or any group looking out for our interests. Disgusting and extremely weak actions by our overpaid and terribly underperforming leaders. If we can call them leaders. I prefer to call them sheep and they are for sure leading us to slaughter.

Kisutch

God Bless Dr Howard Tanner

Former Lake Michigan Stakeholder

Lake Michigan Lake Trout Gillnetters Association "We pledge to kill them all"

Alewife what?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,840 Posts
I took the separate filings by the tribes as a thwarting of a possible argument if the no good State of Michigan, in their own filing, had in fact sided with CPMR. The old two sides to one game plan. If the tribes and feds had ganged up as one entity and then the no good State of Michigan sided with the sportsman then a real honest discussion would have ensued. But no, the loathing State of Michigan would have nothing to do with you and I, or any group looking out for our interests. Disgusting and extremely weak actions by our overpaid and terribly underperforming leaders. If we can call them leaders. I prefer to call them sheep and they are for sure leading us to slaughter.

Kisutch

God Bless Dr Howard Tanner

Former Lake Michigan Stakeholder

Lake Michigan Lake Trout Gillnetters Association "We pledge to kill them all"

Alewife what?
I got an idea! Since all the negativism about the State, Feds, DNR decision making, you know they can NEVER do the right thing, so lets have the Federal Courts make the decision for us. They have in the past and can do it again. Would all the negative people, and there are many on here, be satisfied?
I have no idea what is happening in the negotiations and everyone else outside of the bargaining table only provides rumors. All I am saying is that there are sensitive issues and we are bargaining from weakness.

Do you really think all the court actions by the CPMR will have any effect on the Consent?
I'm as concerned as anyone as to the outcome of the re write, but I'm a realist. I said MANY times before, hope for the best regarding the fishery but spent all the time in bargaining discussing enforcement. Past history has shown illegal netting practices is rampant by some criminal netters. Tribal courts almost always side with violators but when found guilty they impose a 100 dollar fine just like the commercial netting fine.
Granted, I painted these complex issues with a 4 foot wide brush but the gist of the explanation is on target. I can throw around rumors just like everyone else.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,486 Posts
I got an idea! Since all the negativism about the State, Feds, DNR decision making, you know they can NEVER do the right thing, so lets have the Federal Courts make the decision for us. They have in the past and can do it again. Would all the negative people, there are many on here, be satisfied?
The Crabb decision determined tribal fishing rights in Treaty of 1842 coverage geography; the Fox decision determined tribal fishing rights in Treaty of 1836 language; the decision by Judge Richard Enslen in 1985 established a Consent Decree as the means of apportioning sport fishing rights and quotas between the State of Michigan and what is now CORA affiliated tribes- CORA was established in 2000 as a joint management entity.

The Federal courts are ;both overseeing and actively directing the negotiations, Gordon, why we are where we are. Why do you think that the tribes are requesting as their treaty rights are reasonable, given that the weight of the Federal courts has repeatedly broadened their access to the fishery, while also failing to provide adequate oversight on enforcement and enactment of punitive actions with "teeth".for serial offenders.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,243 Posts
Oh geez, why not!

in 1836 we also had rights to freely fish wherever we wanted in the lakes. (We being non tribal members). The treaty does not exclude us from fishing those waters it just gave permission to the tribes to fish the way they wanted to fish in those specific areas. In 1836 the feds also had balls enough to enforce this without worrying about recourse or retaliation through discrimination. Let’s just give the feds back their balls and let the tribes do whatever they want. Let try hem net what they plant, who cares. If their take out is equal to what they put in I’m good with it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,840 Posts
The Crabb decision determined tribal fishing rights in Treaty of 1842 coverage geography; the Fox decision determined tribal fishing rights in Treaty of 1836 language; the decision by Judge Richard Enslen in 1985 established a Consent Decree as the means of apportioning sport fishing rights and quotas between the State of Michigan and what is now CORA affiliated tribes- CORA was established in 2000 as a joint management entity.

The Federal courts are ;both overseeing and actively directing the negotiations, Gordon, why we are where we are. Why do you think that the tribes are requesting as their treaty rights are reasonable, given that the weight of the Federal courts has repeatedly broadened their access to the fishery, while also failing to provide adequate oversight on enforcement and enactment of punitive actions with "teeth".for serial offenders.
I think you are agreeing with me, I think?
Keep the federal courts out of it.....we will lose.
Make ENFORCEMENT the number #1 priority.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,840 Posts
Oh geez, why not!

in 1836 we also had rights to freely fish wherever we wanted in the lakes. (We being non tribal members). The treaty does not exclude us from fishing those waters it just gave permission to the tribes to fish the way they wanted to fish in those specific areas. In 1836 the feds also had balls enough to enforce this without worrying about recourse or retaliation through discrimination. Let’s just give the feds back their balls and let the tribes do whatever they want. Let try hem net what they plant, who cares. If their take out is equal to what they put in I’m good with it.
I think the 2000 Consent banned non Native commercial netters from fishing some exclusive Native waters. Recreational anglers can fish anywhere in the Consent zone but have to follow white man reg's.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,243 Posts
I think the 2000 Consent banned non Native commercial netters from fishing some exclusive Native waters. Recreational anglers can fish anywhere in the Consent zone but have to follow white man reg's.
I’m OK with that too, I don’t think non-native commercial fishing is any different than native commercial fishing. It shouldn’t be done in the Great Lakes. And not that I’m a stickler for this but I would change that term from white to non-native. There are a lot of non-whites that are in this fight also.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,486 Posts
Oh geez, why not!

in 1836 we also had rights to freely fish wherever we wanted in the lakes. (We being non tribal members). The treaty does not exclude us from fishing those waters it just gave permission to the tribes to fish the way they wanted to fish in those specific areas. In 1836 the feds also had balls enough to enforce this without worrying about recourse or retaliation through discrimination. Let’s just give the feds back their balls and let the tribes do whatever they want. Let try hem net what they plant, who cares. If their take out is equal to what they put in I’m good with it.

The issue is not about fishing, John, it's about who gets to catch what, species, where they can fish, and how much they can keep for each commercial gear type employed.. Enforcement is the second issue. I would welcome a peak fine of 100 dollars for violation on a catch that nets me a figure in the thousands of dollar range.

If I were a CORA tribal biologist, I would scoop up your put-and-take proposal in a heartbeats, since my "costs'' of production would be artificially low. Why? Your math is way off. You seem to forget that less than ten percent of the fish "made" survive to legal size, even less for planted species, more like 6%. Now, outside of a token efforts by the Soo band to raise walleye and the Odawa cisco rearing facility, the planted fish are produced via Fedeeral dollars, either directly in their hatcheries or reared by the State with subsidies from the Feds.. Plus, I pretty sure I could make the argument that the Odawa cisco rearing effort essentially contributes to genetic drift in the population, since wild fish are an amalgam of several morphotypes and sub-populations that exhibit a distinct behavioral characteristic: piscivory on round gobies. The shoal spawning stocks the Feds are using to plant outer Saginaw Bay waters are planktivores and macro-invertebrates eaters.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,243 Posts
All good points here. I think the bottom line is, rules mean nothing without enforcement, & the way things are now, we have no legs to stand on. Outlaw commercial fishing in the Great Lakes ,across the board ,on a federal level & let the tribes & commercial guys come at us. Think outside the box, what we’re doing isn’t working so why keep doing it? Seems like all the money were donating would be better spent buying our own politician! They’re cheaper than they used to be!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,840 Posts
All good points here. I think the bottom line is, rules mean nothing without enforcement, & the way things are now, we have no legs to stand on. Outlaw commercial fishing in the Great Lakes ,across the board ,on a federal level & let the tribes & commercial guys come at us. Think outside the box, what we’re doing isn’t working so why keep doing it? Seems like all the money were donating would be better spent buying our own politician! They’re cheaper than they used to be!!
I can see the outlawing the non native commercial fishery, that can be done by the States. Outlawing Tribal netting is a whole different story, Federal Treaties and settled law dictate what happens. In the woke world we live in today, that will never happen. I don't think corrupt politicians can even help us.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,486 Posts
All good points here. I think the bottom line is, rules mean nothing without enforcement, & the way things are now, we have no legs to stand on. Outlaw commercial fishing in the Great Lakes ,across the board ,on a federal level & let the tribes & commercial guys come at us. Think outside the box, what we’re doing isn’t working so why keep doing it? Seems like all the money were donating would be better spent buying our own politician! They’re cheaper than they used to be!!
Whiskey is for drinkin', Water is for fightin' over! - Mark Twain

Michigan was well on its way to eliminating the commercial fishery on the Great Lakes when the Leblanc brothers opted to challenge the State by setting gillnets in Brimley Bay. Had the State ignored then MUCC director and grand potentate, tom washington and abrogated the treaty rights via a one time payment what you propose would be doable.

Remember, the Feds make no direct revenue from the Great Lakes Sport Fishery...none. While all the states are heavily dependent on the revenue streams both for their coastal economies as well as Fish and Game Management agency operating monies.

When Howard Tanner and Wayne Tody sent the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Federal agency in charge of management and oversight of commercial fisheries, both coastal marine and int he Great Lakes, they did not ask permission to plant coho. The notification was a proof of concept transmission only stating that it was the State of Michigan's intent to convert the largely useless alewife biomass that dominated the Great Lakes fish stocks into a viable SPORT fishery product. They recieved no official response, which I would take as an abrogation of oversight rights and responsibility by the NMS and Federal government. When that effort succeeded, the Feds were left scrambling to gain some level of oversight and control of the Great Lakes since it represents 22% of all fresh surface water on the planet. Two initiatives were "hatched" and slowly expanded: the Sea Lamprey Control Program and the International Joint Commission agreement that lead to the formation of Great Lakes Fishery Commission a joint International, and Federal/State agency that oversees Great Lakes management. The GLFC established lake specific management committees that were populated by State-level biologists to provide annual oversight and management concensus decisions with NO Federal representation or oversight. Well, that WAS until the Federal Courts actions that interpreted the Treaty of LaPointe (Treaty of 1842) granting commercial fishing rights to tribal signatories via the Crabb decision and the Fox decision interpreting the wording of the Treaty of 1836 to grant hunting AND fishing rights on Great Lakes waters.

From the initial Consent Decree in 1985 and forward a tribal representativis assigned to all lake management committees for Lakes Huron, Superior, and Michigan, essentially serving as serving as Federal proxies...

One thing I really found both irritating and VERY unprofessional was the near across the board attitude that Michigan had erred. I still get the Stinky Salmon comment from USFWS and USGS biologists. IF lake trout should remain as the keystone predator supported by nearly sixty years of Federal Dollars

In the seventies and eighties, if you were sitting in a Great Lakes management meeting with members of the USFWS, sometime, somewhere, somehow the "Sea Lamprey Card" would be played...just to remind everyone in the room the Federal resources were supporting sea lamprey control and thus propping-up the fishery. Over the last decade Federal managers would always point-out that it was a duel effect phenomenon that was impairing lake trout percent wild origin fish proportion in the the five statisctical grid districts that encompass the northern Lake Michigan segment- Sea Lamprey wounding mortality AND tribal commercial fishery exploitation. Every other year TFM treatments of the Manistique watershed over this interval has removed the sea lamprey wounding impacts, yet the lake trout wild origin trend remains nominal. How odd. That is why I had to chuckle when the Odawa tribal biologist whined about all the lake trout in tribal nets damaging their fisher's profitability since whitefish were their target species and higher profit catch item. "Guys are just leaving the fishery because they can't catch enough whitefish to make it worthwhile."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,428 Posts
The heart of this story is recreational fishermen have zero representation in the future of the fishery. The CPMR, MUCC and other conservation organizations have spotlighted the disregard of the general population of 1 million license buyers for 40 tribal licenses.

The CPMR motion to intervene and the follow-on response should serve as a black eye for the DNR.


Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40,142 Posts
There is no reason for CPMR or MUCC to have a seat at the negotiation table. Neither one is signatory to any treaty. If they want to meet with the DNR separately to air their grievances that’s fine. Next thing you know PETA and Sierra Club will want a seat at the table to protect all fish that does not fall under tribal resource management. Let the tribes and the Feds come up with an agreement both can live with and the State can come up with a plan to monitor sport fishermen’s allotment of the resource. Win win for all involved.
 
101 - 120 of 167 Posts
Top