Michigan Sportsman Forum banner
21 - 40 of 91 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,471 Posts
Treaty sounds fine….using 1836 practices…
I think the courts have ruled that subsistence living changes with the times. Boats, motors, 4 wheelers, snowmobiles are necessary for subsistence living today. Hell, the treaty had a provision for trap netting rather than gill netting. The governments bought the nets, reconfigured the boats and taught the Natives how to use the nets.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,335 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.

View attachment 838990
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"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41,362 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.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,291 Posts
I think the courts have ruled that subsistence living changes with the times. Boats, motors, 4 wheelers, snowmobiles are necessary for subsistence living today. Hell, the treaty had a provision for trap netting rather than gill netting. The governments bought the nets, reconfigured the boats and taught the Natives how to use the nets.
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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,049 Posts
Without legislation & true enforcement your just pissin in the wind! Tell me again why I keep giving money to have someone sit in a room that has no authority to speak or hear? We have zero ground to stand on the way things are now! Like it or not
Because they advise the state on the wants and needs of the sports fishing community and also aid in legal expertise to nail down the results of the negotiations. If the State totally screws the pooch the Coalition actually knows what went down during the negotiations vs the story the State,Feds, and tribes may try to forward.
Feel free to throw your hands in the air. I'll choose to fight in any way I can. Throwing $100 is equivalent to a days gas bill. Seems like a good deal to me to support the group who is our hope for an outcome that is not disastrous.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41,362 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
·
8,471 Posts
Because they advise the state on the wants and needs of the sports fishing community and also aid in legal expertise to nail down the results of the negotiations. If the State totally screws the pooch the Coalition actually knows what went down during the negotiations vs the story the State,Feds, and tribes may try to forward.
Feel free to throw your hands in the air. I'll choose to fight in any way I can. Throwing $100 is equivalent to a days gas bill. Seems like a good deal to me to support the group who is our hope for an outcome that is not disastrous.
Throw your 100 dollar bill at the tribes rather than the Coalition. The tribes are in the drivers seat, the coalition can do very little if anything. Need to convince the Tribes to your way of thinking.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,424 Posts
Because they advise the state on the wants and needs of the sports fishing community and also aid in legal expertise to nail down the results of the negotiations. If the State totally screws the pooch the Coalition actually knows what went down during the negotiations vs the story the State,Feds, and tribes may try to forward.
Feel free to throw your hands in the air. I'll choose to fight in any way I can. Throwing $100 is equivalent to a days gas bill. Seems like a good deal to me to support the group who is our hope for an outcome that is not disastrous.
I used to think that way. Fact is, the dnr is in a better position to have input & will be directly involved & informed with implementing & enforcing the new laws. A better bet would be to improve our relationship with the DNR. Truth be told, the decree, or lack of, has a profound effect on the charter boat guys & very little effect on the every day fisherman. Suddenly, the prick in the big charter boat that refuses to give way to help a fellow fisherman stay on course, or he runs his wire divers in another fisherman's spread & laughs about it, needs that pee on fishermen to help him stay in business. Irony or karma?

No legislation or enforcement? Nothing will ever change!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,975 Posts
Can someone give me a Cliff Notes version of what the treaty allows natives to do that has people so worked up? I really have no idea, having lived in Michigan only a few years.

But I’ve fished and hunted everywhere on all the Great Lakes, and I’ve never run into a situation where I wasn’t able to do what I wanted.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,424 Posts
Can someone give me a Cliff Notes version of what the treaty allows natives to do that has people so worked up? I really have no idea, having lived in Michigan only a few years.

But I’ve fished and hunted everywhere on all the Great Lakes, and I’ve never run into a situation where I wasn’t able to do what I wanted.
There is so much going on with this, both current & historically, it’s almost impossible to clif note.

1836 treaty, leaves us with land but tribes retain possession of fishing rights from roughly Frankfort around the tip to roughly alpena.

2000 consent decree, we pay the tribes a ransom for a tid bit of controll over what goes on in this area.

2020 decree expires, tribes are now holding us by the weenie & flickin our aggies because they don’t care what we have to say as they’re fighting between tribes over which one will milk the most cash out of the lakes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,471 Posts
Can someone give me a Cliff Notes version of what the treaty allows natives to do that has people so worked up? I really have no idea, having lived in Michigan only a few years.

But I’ve fished and hunted everywhere on all the Great Lakes, and I’ve never run into a situation where I wasn’t able to do what I wanted.
Commercial fishermen were the ones impacted by the Consent Decree. The natives have exclusive netting rights and subsistince living rights in certain zones within the treaty zones. I heard of one "white man" commercial netter that had to move his boats 40 miles to get outside of the exclusive zones. Most people complain that the natives don't deserve special treatment and that the times have changed. The fact is that we are the intruders in those 1836 defined area's. I am tired of hearing/reading that our fishing tax dollars are funding the stealing of OUR fish by the natives. Didn't someone post on here that the Natives reared and planted over 40 million fish into the Great Lakes and inland waters.Maybe the recreational anglers should pay a tax to the natives whenever they catch a fish in THEIR exclusive zones.
I don't think the recreational anglers got impacted much with the declaration of the Consent Decree. We can fish wherever we want on public water and and hunt on public land.
I'm not trying to start a pro vs con fight, just making what I believe to be the reality of this situation. Lots of emotion going on whenever you discuss Native fishing rights.
Most reporters on M-S are attune to to the 1836 Treaty, but I wonder how many Joe Fisherman, recreational anglers, knows that the Tribes plant so many fish?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,975 Posts
Thanks guys. So it’s really just commercial fishing that they have exclusive rights to?

As long as recreational fishing is allowed anywhere I don’t really see what the hubbub is about. From a commercial standpoint, I don’t see it as being very attractive. I mean the state is pretty straightforward on the levels of pollution present in the fish, is there really a commercial market for something people aren’t suppose to eat much of?

I’m sure I’m stepping on toes but I don’t mean to. Just a relatively new Michigander trying to get up to speed.
 
21 - 40 of 91 Posts
Top