Michigan Sportsman Forum banner
1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
40,747 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
·
40,747 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
·
40,747 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
·
40,747 Posts
Till required for settlement.
No period (.) following the right to hunt. It is subject to native occupancy as stated ; prior to being needed for settlement.

[Article Thirteenth. The Indians stipulate for the right of hunting on the lands ceded, with the other usual privileges of occupancy, until the land is required for settlement.]

set·tle·ment
[ˈsedlmənt]

NOUN
  1. an official agreement intended to resolve a dispute or conflict:
    "unions succeeded in reaching a pay settlement" ·
    [more]
    synonyms:
    agreement · deal · arrangement · resolution · accommodation · bargain · understanding · pact · compromise · decision · conclusion · determination
  2. a place, typically one that has hitherto been uninhabited, where people establish a community:
    "the little settlement of Buttermere"
    synonyms:
    community · colony · outpost · encampment · trading post · post ·
    [more]
  3. law
    an arrangement whereby property passes to a succession of people as dictated by the settlor:
    "inheritance tax could be due if you make a substantial gift or settlement and then die within the following seven years"
Considering the Great Lakes have never been inhabited makes it pretty clear that natives have retained all treaty rights to the lake. Ask them, all the fish belong to the tribe. That is why consent decree was negotiated. The law has never defined exactly what settlement means either. That is why neither side wants to discuss hunting rights on deeded private lands per the meetings I’ve attended. I hope that day never comes to pass.

I hear rifle shots on opening day of archery season on private land. Tribal police will not address it since tags are legal and neither will the DNR since it’s a tribal member. A non tribal member is not allowed to aid in taking of game on public land in the ceded lands but the courts have not defined if granting permission to hunt on private land to a tribal member is a punishable offense. Call the DNR and tribal police, I have. Both have their opinions but neither side will enforce it when tribal members are involved.

I find it interesting when sitting in a meeting when hunting and fishing rights are involved. You get to hear both sides of the story. I encourage anyone to attend an information meeting. It changed my views on treaty rights.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40,747 Posts
If they are "subsistence living" then no going to meijer or McDonald's. They live off paychecks from us. Then get to spear fish that weren't there when there ancestors made the treaty. I saw subsistence living in Alaska. The natives are the worst ones on resource. Kill 20 caribou and kill 500 salmon eat a quarter of it amd feed rest to the dogs. Because it's there right. I'm sick of people living off the rights of long dead ancestors. In all walks.
So are you renouncing the Constitution of the United States? I believe you are living off the rights established by dead ancestors unless of course you are a new immigrant.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40,747 Posts
While it would suck in the near-tear, this is what would certainly move the needle. Most people have zero clue about the treaty and because what's taken from the lakes is a trivial matter to them, they could care less and hop on the feel good social wave and side with the tribes without all the info. You start infringing on their land rights and i think the tide would turn swiftly. People would start to care about the lakes because it would add to their case to reestablish land rights.

I certainly believe in the tribes right to the natural resources found in Michigan, but it needs to be in a balanced (sustainable quantities taken) and responsible (nets removed when needed, fish harvested from nets in a timely mannner, nets safely marked, boats properly tended/maintained at moor, work to leave no evidence of commercial fixing behind) manner.
As a non tribal member I was pretty ignorant on what tribal rights/treaties were all about. My only real exposure was going with my landlord down to the reservation in Lanse/Baraga and help his Mother put up firewood for the winter and whatever chores were deemed necessary. She lived in a dirt floor shack. I was paid in choke cherry brandy in a Clorox jug. That was in the pre casino era. I moved below the bridge in ‘76. In ‘86 some of my buddies and I purchased some land and built a camp in Mackinac county which renewed contact with tribal members. About 20 years later I purchased another camp in Chippewa county, by then casinos were up and running allowing the tribe to purchase businesses with their new found wealth to become the largest employer in the UP. It wasn’t until I after meeting more tribal members and sitting on the Coalition board that I broadened my knowledge. I used to bitch on this site about tribal rights until I found out was not seeing both sides of the equation. I was wrong in so many ways. It’s everybody’s right to remain ignorant but that doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do.

To put things in perspective our government has given more money to the Ukraine in the last couple of months than it has provided to our tribal communities in the last +/- 50 years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40,747 Posts
Although the current decree has some elements that many sportfisherman find hard to swallow it is not what we're worried about. It's the "2020" decree.
Who's in favor of having gill nets all the way down to Grand Haven on Lake Mi?
Who's in favor of having gill nets all across the inland lakes of 1836 boundaries?
Who's in favor of the tribes determining what and when you can fish?
Without researching it I would say it’s spelled out in the treaty. Ask a tribal member, they beilieve they have the right to all the fish in the ceded territory not just half. They are the ones sharing not the ancestors of immigrants.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40,747 Posts
In your experience, or view, what's the bigger picture that most are missing regarding the tribes position on the Great Lakes fishery?
Lack of understanding on the part of the public. The public’s opinion is formed by one sided news releases like the OPs. In this age of instant fact checking it should never happen but it does everyday of the week. Ignorance is bliss.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40,747 Posts
I'm not sure you have a grip on the constitution.
I’m positive you have never read the consent decree or the courts interpretation. No one here is surprised at that, it does have words with more than one syllable. Based on your spelling maybe your mommy could read it too you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40,747 Posts
You seemed to have implied that you learned a good deal by having conversations with tribe members, which shed light on information the general public isn't privy to. The consent decree and federal court's opinion on the matter is public information, so the information you're eluding to won't be found there. What's the side of the equation that you've been informed of as it relates to the tribes position others aren't aware of?

I'm guessing there are many folks who'd look at things through a different lens with the knowledge of the information you've obtained through discussions with tribal members or those closely connected.
You are in luck. The national powwow is being held in Mt. Pleasant the last weekend of July. It is open to anybody. Bring your questions along with a copy of the consent degree. You will be directed to someone with intimate knowledge on the subject. Another option is call the tribal biologists from the 5 bands signatory to the agreement. You should be able to get all your questions. The only difference between them and you is their ancestors.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40,747 Posts
Not trying to be obtuse, but is there a reason you won’t answer the question? I definitely understand the encouragement to go and see, and talk to people, but as much as I might like to attend the powwow, i know I’m not going to be able to.

Could you just answer the question and give us your opinion on what the general public is unaware of?
If you want first hand tribal opinions why wouldn’t you take the time to get it directly from tribal members? It’s the biggest tribal gathering of the year. I gave you another option, call the tribal biologists. Very simple solution with first hand answers to questions. It doesn’t get easier than that. Nothing will be lost in translation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40,747 Posts
I’m also curious about this insider information you obtained. Is there a tribal news source so you can point us towards?

These negotiations are more secure then the scotus. They aren’t leaking anything.

I’m also curious to where these treaties are protected by the constitution?
Article 2 section 2.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top