DNRE Examining Legal Options in Little Bay de Noc Gill Net Case

[Editor]

The Department of Natural Resources and Environment will seek other legal options in the 2009 Little Bay de Noc gill net case.

“In light of the U.S. Attorney’s Office decision to not pursue charges, we are continuing to explore our legal options regarding potential violations of state law outside of the jurisdiction of the 2000 consent decree,” said DNRE Director Rebecca Humphries.

In 2000, the United States, the state of Michigan, and five separate Native American tribes in Michigan entered into a consent decree that established an agreement between all the parties regarding allocation, management, and regulation of fishing in 1836 Treaty waters.

DNRE conservation officers from the Commercial Fishing Enforcement Unit and Delta County worked on the investigation into an alleged illegal commercial fishing operation in Delta County. The investigation revealed that as much as 22,000 pounds of fish may have been taken from the Little Bay de Noc area in early 2009, and as much as 72,000 pounds of fish between 2004 and 2009.

The DNRE is committed to conserve, manage, protect, and promote accessible use and enjoyment of the state's environmental, natural resource, and related economic interests for current and future generations.

[springfield]

I truly hope the DNRE can do something to put these guys to some kind of justice. I feel like more now than ever the DNRE is looking out for our interest. I dont know if it’s just hopeful thinking or there is something to it. I wonder if the State can put pressure on the Casino's in some way or maybe the 1836 treaty itself (doubt it, its Federal I'm sure) but I get the feeling the Tribes are laughing at all of us right now, Is it just me or does anyone else feel the same way?

[Mike P]

I am in total agreement as there HAS to be some type of consequence. you cannot just let these guys walk away .

Lets try to put things in perspective here.
1. You ILLEGALLY net 94,000 pounds of gamefish from waters stocked for YEARS by sportsman trying to bring back the walleye stocks to something resembling years ago.

2. You ILLEGALLY NET over 5 years, every year, and get away with doing it, without the DNR stopping it. You dont do it for sustenanse fishing as provided by the1836 treaty. Instead you make MONEY selling them to the commercial fishery who than RESELLS THE ILLEGAL FISH FOR A PROFIT !

3. The "sustenace" fishers along with the people who bought an inordinant amount of walleyes all make a lot of MONEY ILLEGALLY !

4. No governmental agency who "supposedly" is paid by the taxpayers to protect the resource does anything to provide a suitable punishment, so the likelyhood of ILLEGAL NETTING continuing is pretty high.

5, And last but not least the "sustenance fishers who did the "ILLEGAL NETTING" laugh all the way to the bank!

End result, somebody better do something now!

DNRE , Bart Stupak , anybody HELP!!! PS KEYWORDS HERE BEING..... ILLEGAL NETTING...CASH... KNOWINGLY SELLING ILLEGALLY NETTED FISH...

[hook em and cook em]

Tribal members need not heed the MDNR. They have their own conservation officers, and they are supposed to police the tribal fishing. We have seen the end of any type of charges being brought against these guys. The feds could have prosecuted them in federal court. If nothing else, they are guilty of tax evasion.

Saddest part of this whole deal is, the netting will take place more frequently now. Seeing as there are no consequences, what is to stop tribal members from cleaning the bay out completely? Seems all that arguing about keeping the slot limit and all that was for nothing. We'll be lucky to catch one walleye of any size in a few years.

[In the G]

Can't the people/company that purchased these illegal walleye to re-sell, be prosecuted??? Hey any CO'S monitoring this site can ya give us any facts on this?

[upfish08]

just a quick note on the taxes, tribal fisherman don't have to pay taxes on any fish caught;;

[rockbass]

Don't hold your breath. :rolleyes:

[packrat]

I just want to know I thought the treaty gave them the right to net for sustenence that I thought that means to feed you and your family. Not to sell for a profit the people buying the fish SHOULD have wondered where are they getting all the fish and should have contacted the DNR or they are as guilty as the people doing the netting.

[Mike P]

I Couldnt Have Said It Better My Self ......exactley !!!

[rockbass]

because the people buying the fish from the so called Indians know just like the "indians" they will never get in trouble. This has been going on for years without penalty and will continue.

[packrat]

Maybe the DNRE should monitor the commercial fishermen closer "REQUIRE THEM TO TURN IN SAMPLES" of fish taken checking for "VHS" or be penalized. Make it a LITTLE bit more difficult for them. And at the same time be helping out the DNRE with their monitoring. Heck if we can get a ticket and be fined for MINNOWS if you don't have a reciept for them.Why should they be excused? Also this would allow closer monitoring of what species of fish and amounts being taken. And watch more closely for VHS disease.