More Inland Coverage: The Settlement from the POV of U.P. Whitetails Assn

From the Escanaba Daily Press: “The conservation work performed by organizations such as the Bay De Noc Sports Fishermen and the MDNR was recognized as an integral component of the successful management of our inland fisheries. Is [the settlement] perfect? Not totally. However it is a far cry better than what was in place before because now everyone is thinking towards the future.”

The longer article appears to be an interesting CYA from the treaty rights opponents.

One nit to the author — the settlement doesn’t “change[]” the treaty, just interpret it.

More News Coverage of the Inland Settlement

From WLUC: “DNR officials say the agreement should be acceptable to both Indians and non-Indians. Generally, you won’t see an impact not only to the state-licensed anglers and their opportunities to fish, but also in terms of their harvest,” said Kelly Smith of the DNR Fisheries Division. On October 22, the DNR, the tribes and an Assistant Attorney General will present the agreement to a judge. If it’s accepted, it’ll become law.”

From the Escanaba Daily Press: “The state’s consent decree with five Michigan Native American tribes is the culmination of a process over a century in the making. It also avoids a disastrous outcome in which the state could have had no regulatory power over tribal hunting and fishing in a wide section of the state. The 1836 Treaty of Washington was reached between the United States and the Ottawa and Chippewa tribes of what later became Michigan. The state of Michigan did not exist at the time of the treaty (it was founded in 1837).”