Michigan Sportsman Forum banner
61 - 80 of 91 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
41,309 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
·
3,975 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?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,291 Posts
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 positive I've been to way more great lakes meetings and been involved in them more than you. Funny how stuck up guys go to people's spelling when all else fails. Shows your color's!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,291 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.
He has none. Just likes to talk.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41,309 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.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,291 Posts
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.
Maybe you could just answer. If you actually had one. How many discussions have you sat in on about the great lakes? How many sit downs with officials? How many nrc meetings? Please enlighten me on how uneducated me and many individuals in this post are on what's going on.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,004 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?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chriss83

·
Registered
Joined
·
41,309 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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
672 Posts
The treaty should be followed verbatim. The Indians don't want that though. Many would be shocked to learn that only full Indians had any rights under the treaty of 1936, although halfbreeds (that word was used in the treaty) did get some consideration. All rights to hunt, fish and gather expired when the state was settled. By the way, I have native ancestry, so don't bother to attack me with labels. This should be required reading before anybody comments on this subject: https://www.saulttribe.com/images/pdf/treaties/1836_treaty_washington.pdf
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,666 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….
The State was offered an opportunity to abrogate the treaty rights when Abe Leblanc case was established. Tom Washington was MUCC Director then. HE decided he would lobby the State hard to go to court instead.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,666 Posts
Treaty sounds fine….using 1836 practices…
..and target the species that were native fish stocks then. Lake whitefish are not doing well. Annual recruitment continues to lag...oddly at highest rates where they are being exploited by tribal commercail fishers in both Lakes Michigan and Huron. So much for CORA manager's oversight and species management...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,440 Posts
..and target the species that were native fish stocks then. Lake whitefish are not doing well. Annual recruitment continues to lag...oddly at highest rates where they are being exploited by tribal commercail fishers in both Lakes Michigan and Huron. So much for CORA manager's oversight and species management...
Cork, no way do I have the detailed knowledge on this subject like you have. I know you have your agenda, everyone has, so I will ask this question in lay men language

Didn't the Consent sorta kinda make a promise to the Natives that the State and Fed's will PROVIDE enough fish for them to net and provide a living? There are all kinds of data showing certain fish populations going up and down which may limit the take of the Native netters. Didn't the DNR and Fed's increase planting of certain species to accommodate the Natives.
Didn't the Consent sorta kinda dictate fish for the Natives to catch? Sadly, the way I see it, the recreational anglers and non Native commercial netters will suffer with reduced catch allowances.
Under the 2000 Consent, quota's mean little to the Natives. They will catch whatever they need to make a living. I found this out when talking with Leblanc's grandkid at the fish market. The Native netters don't give a hoot what CORA and the oversight managers have to say. They just need fish to catch.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,666 Posts
Cork, no way do I have the detailed knowledge on this subject like you have. I know you have your agenda, everyone has, so I will ask this question in lay men language

Didn't the Consent sorta kinda make a promise to the Natives that the State and Fed's will PROVIDE enough fish for them to net and provide a living? There are all kinds of data showing certain fish populations going up and down which may limit the take of the Native netters. Didn't the DNR and Fed's increase planting of certain species to accommodate the Natives.
Didn't the Consent sorta kinda dictate fish for the Natives to catch? Sadly, the way I see it, the recreational anglers and non Native commercial netters will suffer with reduced catch allowances.
Under the 2000 Consent, quota's mean little to the Natives. They will catch whatever they need to make a living. I found this out when talking with Leblanc's grandkid at the fish market. The Native netters don't give a hoot what CORA and the oversight managers have to say. They just need fish to catch.
Didn't the CORA managed tribal commercial fishery kinda, sorta, conisistently violate the Consent Decree of 2020 agreement by exceeding their catch quotas for lake trout in four statistical discricts for multiple years in sequence, ignoring the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) values set by the Sustainable Fishery Model that boat signatories originally agreed to use as a guiding document to set those annual quotas? Now, let's take a look at lake trout recovery in the three broad assessmment untis of Lake Michigan: the southern basin has roughly 42% of its lake trout stocks of wild origin; the middle basin is running at 28-32% wild origin fish; while the northern basin is running at 13% whild origin lake trout. Yes, the Consent Decree of 2020 specifies a set amount of lake trout plants be make in Treaty waters in Michigan.

'Need fish to catch'. That, on its face, is an interesting comment that ties well with the three judge appeals court panel that heard the LDBN subsistance fisher''s appeal for their four year effort to sell walleye and yellow perch to the Jensens for them to resell them as "by-catch" from their tribal commercial nets. Subsistance fishers are allowed 75lbs. round weight per week that cannot be bartered, sold, or traded. That is about thirty pounds of fillets...per week. They are allowed to fish 350' nets, not gang-rig them to a thousand feet to fish under-ice. When the judges asked Tom Gorenflo, CORA head biologist, whether CORA biolgists had ever turned-over any catch reports that evidenced discrpencies since the inception of the CORA managed fishery in 2000, His eventual answer was NO. Kinda, sorta begs the question of who is complicit ....

One of my recent "favorite" quotes was the Odawa tribal biologist who presented at the Great Lakes Fishery Commission Lake Committee meetings recently. He complained about the impacts of too many lake trout in tribal gillnets and trap nets in Treaty Waters because it has resulted in a net decrease in commercial netters because they have to handle of these fish...to catch the dwindling stocks of whitefish... Say, aren't these lake trout the ones the Consent Decree requires the State of Michigan to plant annually?

Yup, they just 'need fish to catch'. Sadly, both of us well know that that desire comes at the expense of the fishery and its constituent species. So, tell me again how they have a right to fish in any way they deem personally acceptable?

I also recall the one year follow-up from the 2015 USFWS fake fish wholesale sting operation run in L'Anse/Baraga. In that follow-up, agents identified an additional 6,430 violations by Treaty of 1842 and Treaty of 1836 tribal fishers that totaled just under 700,000 lbs of illegally caught and sold Great Lakes fish; fish caught from closed zones, illegally caught species including lake sturgeon, etc. Gordon, that is 350 tons of fish that somebody 'just needed to catch'. What was the response of the tribal governments who fish under the Treaty of 1836? They sent a battery of lawyers to Washington to point-out to the Dept. of Interior officials, the parent agency of both Indian Affairs and the USFWS, how much of a "black eye" further convictions would give the agency....

Gordon, I have fished salmon off Fairport in the midst of a tribal fishery since 2002. I have seen some ridiculous stuff occuring over that interval...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,666 Posts

Here is the actual discussion of lake whitefish stock trends in northern Lake Michigan waters. So, again, help me understand what is impacting the recruitment difference within these stocks, particulary when contrasted against Treaty of 1836 waters which has experienced an 80%decrease in recuitment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,440 Posts
Didn't the CORA managed tribal commercial fishery kinda, sorta, conisistently violate the Consent Decree of 2020 agreement by exceeding their catch quotas for lake trout in four statistical discricts for multiple years in sequence, ignoring the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) values set by the Sustainable Fishery Model that boat signatories originally agreed to use as a guiding document to set those annual quotas? Now, let's take a look at lake trout recovery in the three broad assessmment untis of Lake Michigan: the southern basin has roughly 42% of its lake trout stocks of wild origin; the middle basin is running at 28-32% wild origin fish; while the northern basin is running at 13% whild origin lake trout. Yes, the Consent Decree of 2020 specifies a set amount of lake trout plants be make in Treaty waters in Michigan.

'Need fish to catch'. That, on its face, is an interesting comment that ties well with the three judge appeals court panel that heard the LDBN subsistance fisher''s appeal for their four year effort to sell walleye and yellow perch to the Jensens for them to resell them as "by-catch" from their tribal commercial nets. Subsistance fishers are allowed 75lbs. round weight per week that cannot be bartered, sold, or traded. That is about thirty pounds of fillets...per week. They are allowed to fish 350' nets, not gang-rig them to a thousand feet to fish under-ice. When the judges asked Tom Gorenflo, CORA head biologist, whether CORA biolgists had ever turned-over any catch reports that evidenced discrpencies since the inception of the CORA managed fishery in 2000, His eventual answer was NO. Kinda, sorta begs the question of who is complicit ....

One of my recent "favorite" quotes was the Odawa tribal biologist who presented at the Great Lakes Fishery Commission Lake Committee meetings recently. He complained about the impacts of too many lake trout in tribal gillnets and trap nets in Treaty Waters because it has resulted in a net decrease in commercial netters because they have to handle of these fish...to catch the dwindling stocks of whitefish... Say, aren't these lake trout the ones the Consent Decree requires the State of Michigan to plant annually?

Yup, they just 'need fish to catch'. Sadly, both of us well know that that desire comes at the expense of the fishery and its constituent species. So, tell me again how they have a right to fish in any way they deem personally acceptable?

I also recall the one year follow-up from the 2015 USFWS fake fish wholesale sting operation run in L'Anse/Baraga. In that follow-up, agents identified an additional 6,430 violations by Treaty of 1842 and Treaty of 1836 tribal fishers that totaled just under 700,000 lbs of illegally caught and sold Great Lakes fish; fish caught from closed zones, illegally caught species including lake sturgeon, etc. Gordon, that is 350 tons of fish that somebody 'just needed to catch'. What was the response of the tribal governments who fish under the Treaty of 1836? They sent a battery of lawyers to Washington to point-out to the Dept. of Interior officials, the parent agency of both Indian Affairs and the USFWS, how much of a "black eye" further convictions would give the agency....

Gordon, I have fished salmon off Fairport in the midst of a tribal fishery since 2002. I have seen some ridiculous stuff occuring over that interval...
Cork, you are replaying the same song you have been singing the last few years regarding the state of the Consent and tribal fishery. I believe every word you typed for the umpteenth time. Everyone knows the tribes abuse the system as defined by the Consent....openly without repercussion by anyone including the DNR, Tribal courts and Fed's. Some Tribal members believe that fish and wildlife solely belong to them in the Treaty zone. On a rare occasion, the Tribal courts levy a pittance fine, maybe just to satisfy those people that are watchdogs of the goings on. You written, in detail, some of the laughable fines and hand slaps of violators.
Again, the consent means NOTHING if there are no teeth in the new agreement. They will continue to do what they are doing currently. Words mean absolutely nothing without enforcement of violations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,440 Posts
Didn't the CORA managed tribal commercial fishery kinda, sorta, conisistently violate the Consent Decree of 2020 agreement by exceeding their catch quotas for lake trout in four statistical discricts for multiple years in sequence, ignoring the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) values set by the Sustainable Fishery Model that boat signatories originally agreed to use as a guiding document to set those annual quotas? Now, let's take a look at lake trout recovery in the three broad assessmment untis of Lake Michigan: the southern basin has roughly 42% of its lake trout stocks of wild origin; the middle basin is running at 28-32% wild origin fish; while the northern basin is running at 13% whild origin lake trout. Yes, the Consent Decree of 2020 specifies a set amount of lake trout plants be make in Treaty waters in Michigan.

'Need fish to catch'. That, on its face, is an interesting comment that ties well with the three judge appeals court panel that heard the LDBN subsistance fisher''s appeal for their four year effort to sell walleye and yellow perch to the Jensens for them to resell them as "by-catch" from their tribal commercial nets. Subsistance fishers are allowed 75lbs. round weight per week that cannot be bartered, sold, or traded. That is about thirty pounds of fillets...per week. They are allowed to fish 350' nets, not gang-rig them to a thousand feet to fish under-ice. When the judges asked Tom Gorenflo, CORA head biologist, whether CORA biolgists had ever turned-over any catch reports that evidenced discrpencies since the inception of the CORA managed fishery in 2000, His eventual answer was NO. Kinda, sorta begs the question of who is complicit ....

One of my recent "favorite" quotes was the Odawa tribal biologist who presented at the Great Lakes Fishery Commission Lake Committee meetings recently. He complained about the impacts of too many lake trout in tribal gillnets and trap nets in Treaty Waters because it has resulted in a net decrease in commercial netters because they have to handle of these fish...to catch the dwindling stocks of whitefish... Say, aren't these lake trout the ones the Consent Decree requires the State of Michigan to plant annually?

Yup, they just 'need fish to catch'. Sadly, both of us well know that that desire comes at the expense of the fishery and its constituent species. So, tell me again how they have a right to fish in any way they deem personally acceptable?

I also recall the one year follow-up from the 2015 USFWS fake fish wholesale sting operation run in L'Anse/Baraga. In that follow-up, agents identified an additional 6,430 violations by Treaty of 1842 and Treaty of 1836 tribal fishers that totaled just under 700,000 lbs of illegally caught and sold Great Lakes fish; fish caught from closed zones, illegally caught species including lake sturgeon, etc. Gordon, that is 350 tons of fish that somebody 'just needed to catch'. What was the response of the tribal governments who fish under the Treaty of 1836? They sent a battery of lawyers to Washington to point-out to the Dept. of Interior officials, the parent agency of both Indian Affairs and the USFWS, how much of a "black eye" further convictions would give the agency....

Gordon, I have fished salmon off Fairport in the midst of a tribal fishery since 2002. I have seen some ridiculous stuff occuring over that interval...
You posted that subsistance fishers are allowed 75 pounds per week. Is that per individual or family? Husband, wife and 2 adult children in the household would allow the catch of 300 pounds of potentially contaminated fish. Apparently the law states they cannot give away or sell their catch.
That is the most asinine mandate in the Consent! Only the most naive person would believe they would not sell those fish.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
672 Posts
I saw one year where the Indians reported zero lake trout caught in MH2 on Lake Huron when I saw with my own ey3es lakers in their catch at least once that year. They are supposed to report lake trout thrown back to, but they reported catching zero in a area loaded with lakers. I have also witnessed Indians selling gill net caught fish (subsistence) in MH1 too.
 
61 - 80 of 91 Posts
Top