Michigan Sportsman Forum banner
1 - 20 of 91 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,124 Posts
Its pretty painful to understand how second class our rights are, but feeling bad won’t change it.

Always wished we could have bought those fishing rights back from the tribes somehow….

Oh well….
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,308 Posts
A friend's native friend on the pier with him throwing rocks at a certain netting craft long ago. But not that long ago.

What matters more , take? Or method of take?
Which has priority , native take , or non native sports take?

Balance is in the resource more than what removes from the resource.
Splitting the baby sounds easy enough. But someone is going to get the bigger half.
Who and why shouldn't be based on revenue.

So says I , non committee member.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,124 Posts
The natives have all the priority, the sports fisherman have most of the hatcheries. If there were no hatcheries, there wouldn’t even be negotation. The federal planting of lake trout continues largely unabated due to trying to appease the natives.

As the saying goes; “they hold the highland”. The courts, (God Bless Them), have already ruled we have no out on ancient tackle methods; or that we were represented by incompetent counsel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41,331 Posts
The article is very one sided to say the least. The tribes gave up the right to half the fish in the treaty area unless you ask a tribal member who says they have all the right to every fish. Look at their side, why would they want to give up even a tiny portion more without compensation is really what’s at stake. There is plenty of water out there that does not fall under the 2020 consent decree that’s open to all, feel free to use it. Both sides negotiated in good faith and the Federal government ensures the treaty rights are upheld. There will be an agreement made in time but one thing for sure both sides will think they got screwed.

One thing that had not been taken to the courts is hunting rights on all the private land that falls under the treaty. Neither side wants to lose that in court, that’s why neither side has filed suit. I know I would not want to share my private land that I thought I purchased all the rights for.

Map World Rectangle Slope Font
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41,331 Posts
The natives have all the priority, the sports fisherman have most of the hatcheries. If there were no hatcheries, there wouldn’t even be negotation. The federal planting of lake trout continues largely unabated due to trying to appease the natives.

As the saying goes; “they hold the highland”. The courts, (God Bless Them), have already ruled we have no out on ancient tackle methods; or that we were represented by incompetent counsel.
You must mean aside from the 44 million fish that are raised/released in tribal hatcheries.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,452 Posts
The fact we dont have a seat at the table so to speak is a joke.
We have had plenty of discussion regarding Consent Decree in past posts. A real lightening rod issue with a lot of emotion.
The reality is that the Feds assigned area's to the natives for exclusive fishing and hunting rights. Thus the 1836 agreement and related Consent Decree. Back in the day the Federal Government has a long history of taking back what they given away. In today's culture along with Federal Courts siding with the Natives, we can only hope the negotiations don't hurt us too much.
I have stated many, many times that the "enforcement" of the new Decree must be specifically defined in the new rulings. I fish a lot in Northern MI including the UP and Canada. I know a few Natives, some radical and others understanding. The 2000 Decree had no teeth, the Tribal courts do nothing to stop infractions, the State Courts had their hands tied and the Fed's do not want to stir the pot.
Some natives feel they have been screwed and net and keep whatever they want and sell them in their stores.....nobody does nothing.
We the fishers and somewhat the DNR, as explained in the memo can only be "listeners and not talkers" in the re write.
Lets hope we don't get hurt too bad.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,104 Posts
We have had plenty of discussion regarding Consent Decree in past posts. A real lightening rod issue with a lot of emotion.
The reality is that the Feds assigned area's to the natives for exclusive fishing and hunting rights. Thus the 1836 agreement and related Consent Decree. Back in the day the Federal Government has a long history of taking back what they given away. In today's culture along with Federal Courts siding with the Natives, we can only hope the negotiations don't hurt us too much.
I have stated many, many times that the "enforcement" of the new Decree must be specifically defined in the new rulings. I fish a lot in Northern MI including the UP and Canada. I know a few Natives, some radical and others understanding. The 2000 Decree had no teeth, the Tribal courts do nothing to stop infractions, the State Courts had their hands tied and the Fed's do not want to stir the pot.
Some natives feel they have been screwed and net and keep whatever they want and sell them in their stores.....nobody does nothing.
We the fishers and somewhat the DNR, as explained in the memo can only be "listeners and not talkers" in the re write.
Lets hope we don't get hurt too bad.
Id say let them have a free for all from Empire up in exchange for changing the southern boundry in Lake Michigan but that's just me.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,049 Posts
Make no mistake. The sportfishermen and women of this state are on their way to getting screwed. The only way to protect ourselves is to support the one entity in the negotiations soley representing the sports fishery in Mi and that is the coalition. They are in the process of building a war chest to challenge the outcome in court if that gives you any idea on how they feel things are going. If you care about this subject you need to put your money where your mouth is. I have

Donate – Coalition to Protect MI Resources
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,293 Posts
Make no mistake. The sportfishermen and women of this state are on their way to getting screwed. The only way to protect ourselves is to support the one entity in the negotiations soley representing the sports fishery in Mi and that is the coalition. They are in the process of building a war chest to challenge the outcome in court if that gives you any idea on how they feel things are going. If you care about this subject you need to put your money where your mouth is. I have

Donate – Coalition to Protect MI Resources
Challenge it on what basis?

The Treaty gave the tribes the authority to do as they choose in their waters. End of story.

Unless of course we want to use the argument that the world is a much different place than it was in 1836 and therefore the Treaty is outdated and should be revoked or altered…..

That’s probably a pretty valid argument, but just keep in mind there are a few amendments in a document that’s even older that many in our society say the same thing about….. tread carefully.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,452 Posts
Challenge it on what basis?

The Treaty gave the tribes the authority to do as they choose in their waters. End of story.

Unless of course we want to use the argument that the world is a much different place than it was in 1836 and therefore the Treaty is outdated and should be revoked or altered…..

That’s probably a pretty valid argument, but just keep in mind there are a few amendments in a document that’s even older that many in our society say the same thing about….. tread carefully.
Today, addressing all the social injustice, it's highly unlikely that the courts would reverse long standing treaty rights. With all the past failures out west regarding treaties, along with all the watchdog organizations, the courts especially the Federal would not change a thing. They would want the Consent Decree negotiations to remedy any conflict. The best thing we, the recreational fishers/hunters, can do is compromise and hope for the best.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41,331 Posts
Reneging on a treaty in your own countrymen sends a very bad message to the entire world. If the US won’t honor a treaty with its own citizens means the US won’t honor a treary with any country in the world. Bad idea all around. I’m sure a monetary agreement can be reached and paid for by those who use the resource instead of tax payers as a whole. There is room for another sticker on every boat fishing in treaty waters of the Great Lakes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,452 Posts
Reneging on a treaty in your own countrymen sends a very bad message to the entire world. If the US won’t honor a treaty with its own citizens means the US won’t honor a treary with any country in the world. Bad idea all around. I’m sure a monetary agreement can be reached and paid for by those who use the resource instead of tax payers as a whole. There is room for another sticker on every boat fishing in treaty waters of the Great Lakes.
My understanding, having had many conversations with the Treaty involved Natives is that they don't give a squat about money. The Fed's wanted to buy them out years ago and they said take a hike.
Most important is their hunting/fishing rights, their traditions and festivals. Money is way down the list for MOST Natives. You are not going to buy them out, maybe supply many fish for them to net.
 
1 - 20 of 91 Posts
Top