Michigan Sportsman Forum banner
41 - 60 of 91 Posts
Kind of how the Indians got screwed, after the Government gave them all that land, and water in the treaty - and then white people bought, settled, and developed their land ? Talk about trespassing, lol. Traverse City is basically a bunch of Squatters.
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
Thanks. Section V (a) is all I’m really concerned with.
Yeah you can say the same thing for the whole State of Mi. We're all squatters
Kind of how the Indians got screwed, after the Government gave them all that land, and water in the treaty - and then white people bought, settled, and developed their land ? Talk about trespassing, lol. Traverse City is basically a bunch of Squatters.
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?
  • Like
Reactions: ThreeDogsDown
The best answer is obviously some kind of middle ground.

Tribes only care about money that’s it. Absolutely nothing else matters. That’s the only thing they bring up.

Believe it or not this will likely be resolved out west. As the tribes continue to dig their heels in, support for the treaties is dwindling rapidly. Once the support is gone the treaties will all be abolished. It’s getting close now and the tribes are being more and more offensive every day.

These treaties only hold up because the American people support them.

If the tribes really plan to abuse their power in the CD (I’m not convinced they are stone walling as much as people think) it will be the end of the decree.
  • Like
Reactions: perchjunkie
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Agree with this. Enforcement of those measures is another whole ordeal. Rotational Government Inspector on every tribal boat and facility?

I think a separate salmon stamp to buy out the tribes or pay for Rotational Government Inspectors is also an option.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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.
It seems to me the current impasse is possibly amongst the 5 (?) tribal governments involved in the negotiations maybe more than the other potential avenues of disagreements.

I also wonder as Botiz tangentially did why Lake Trout is considered a commercial species. Managing for Salmon+Whitefish would seem to have a better ROI all the way around for tribal commercial interests - more tourism in Casino country from sports fishing plus a better commercial product. I would rather stop at a tribal dock retail outlet for some fresh Coho; I will never be purchasing Lake Trout. Has always been a bit telling to me that one tribe operates a commercial weir for Chinooks, not Lakers.

So I have to wonder if part of this long struggle might be between the precepts of Restoration Ecology on the part of Federal biologists in particular, plus some portions of the tribal interests wanting only a 19th Century species mix, vs. some tribal members now wanting the same thing sports fishermen want: more Salmon, less Lake Trout (just my imagination making things up, possibly). But, no one is saying anything on anything right now.

Meanwhile, things change as ecosystems are more irreversibly dynamic than Restoration Ecologists will seem to admit, from what I know of the field. Can’t have such a debate about Lake Erie any more, that’s for sure.
  • Like
Reactions: Bluegill Ike
In your experience, or view, what's the bigger picture that most are missing regarding the tribes position on the Great Lakes fishery?
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.
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.
In your experience, or view, what's the bigger picture that most are missing regarding the tribes position on the Great Lakes fishery?
  • Like
Reactions: Gordon Casey
So what is it that you think the general is missing? What information have you learned that the general public doesn't know?
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.
I’ve read the consent degree along with the Federal court opinion.
So what is it that you think the general is missing? What information have you learned that the general public doesn't know?
You are bliss then.
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.
I’ll admit I was until I sat down and read the consent decree and the opinion of the court. We are a nation of laws along with treaties. I believe in the Constitution.
You are bliss then.
I'm not sure you have a grip on the constitution.
I’ll admit I was until I sat down and read the consent decree and the opinion of the court. We are a nation of laws along with treaties. I believe in the Constitution.
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.
I’ve read the consent degree along with the Federal court opinion.
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.
I'm not sure you have a grip on the constitution.
  • Like
Reactions: Boardman Brookies
Excellent post. I too would like to benefit from this information and look forward to you sharing as much as you can
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.
41 - 60 of 91 Posts
Top