Little Rocky Moutains giveaway

[Nemont]

You are on the hook due to the malfeasance of the Federal Government, in whose Trust, the Tribe was placed. Has zero to do with benevolence.

I don't really care about your water bill because the protection of your water was not entrusted in me nor have I held a fiduciary responsibility to make sure you water is protect. Our Federal Government was entrusted to protect the tribes water, which it did not do and it holds the fiduciary responsible for that trust.

Apples and Tuesday comparison to your monthly water bill.

Nemont

 

[spook12]

I'm over this one. Good luck to all of you, I hope you all get what you want out of this deal.
I hope wiser minds are able to find a solution that gets the tribe what they are owed and that the rest of us are able to retain ownership of our land.

 

[npaden]

Some folks obviously don't understand the difference between water rights and a water bill.

From my very rough understanding of the situation, they had very valuable water rights that were never exercised or sold to anyone, the water was never used and simply flowed downstream. The Feds at BIA should have either helped the tribe sell the rights or figured out something to use the water for that would generate income to the tribe. They didn't, so the tribe did not receive anything for their right to use the water.

Isn't the same thing an issue with the Fort Peck Reservation, or has that already been settled?

 

[howler]

the water users in this case did not get the water for free they paid for water that appears to be sold to them from somebody who did not own it. Now the question is who sold it, I'm just taking a wild guess here and will say the Bureau of Reclamation which is the US Gov't.

 

[spook12]

Some folks obviously don't understand the difference between water rights and a water bill.

.:W:

 

[spook12]

the water users in this case did not get the water for free they paid for water that appears to be sold to them from somebody who did not own it. Now the question is who sold it.

Crap, howler why didn't you start here. If the people who used that water paid in good faith then by all means pay this tribe and pay them,NOW.

 

[pointingdogsrule]

I read this and just laugh. That's correct I laugh. Here we have Democratic Senator John Tester from Montana wanting to swap land for $$ payment. If this was a Republican Senator proposing this all heck would break loose on this website and he would be burned at the stake. (go and look at previous discussions concerning Republican land proposals). Is it because he has a (D) before his name or because it is for the Native Americans..... and should these points make a difference. In my opinion.. NO.

Heck, the Obama administration has the largest debt in the history of this country. Land is something that once we lose we will never get back. I've heard that many times on this site. Let me inform you guys of a fact..... the national debt increases by 150 million dollars every hour. 150 million dollars every hour.... so Mr. Tester why not add another 10 million. That's only 2 minutes and 30 seconds the way we are going. I have heard this logic before on this site.

Last I don't care who I offend and if I am BANNED from this site.

good luck to all
the dog

 

[RobG]

I wouldn't have known any of this if this thread hadn't came up, so I'm glad the original poster said something, even if the issue is a lot more complicated than described.

My question is how did the tribes lose the water rights? Did they unintentionally forfeit the rights by not using them?

 

[shoots-straight]

I wouldn't have known any of this if this thread hadn't came up, so I'm glad the original poster said something, even if the issue is a lot more complicated than described.

My question is how did the tribes lose the water rights? Did they unintentionally forfeit the rights by not using them?

This isn't new, we have been debating this for awhile. MSA met with Testers guys to go over the trade last year. We aren't in favor of trading the land. We told them that face to face.

It doesn't matter what party they come from. If their trying to give away public lands we are going to raise some he!!

 

[howler]

My question is how did the tribes lose the water rights? Did they unintentionally forfeit the rights by not using them?

Not real sure on that but I wouldn't doubt that water rights were adjudicated after Reservation's were invented.

 

[RobG]

This isn't new, we have been debating this for awhile. MSA met with Testers guys to go over the trade last year. We aren't in favor of trading the land. We told them that face to face.

It doesn't matter what party they come from. If their trying to give away public lands we are going to raise some he!!

Yeah, I didn't come out of my shell until this fall so I'm hearing about issues for the first time. It seems like it would be quite a loss to the locals to lose access to this land because someone didn't want to pony up the cash. Bad deal.

 

[wheelieking]

If one native American lived on the continent of the united states would he be able to own and inhabit the entire continent. One cannot inhabit and claim an entire continent. Such a stupid act for government officials to do what they want with tax payers land. Lets take everything to a VOTE!!! Instead of electing dumb &$$ congressmen lets all vote on it!

 

[jryoung]

You don't want to legislate by ballot initiative that's a friggen disaster.

Continent of the US?

 

[Ben Lamb]

I read this and just laugh. That's correct I laugh. Here we have Democratic Senator John Tester from Montana wanting to swap land for $$ payment. If this was a Republican Senator proposing this all heck would break loose on this website and he would be burned at the stake. (go and look at previous discussions concerning Republican land proposals). Is it because he has a (D) before his name or because it is for the Native Americans..... and should these points make a difference. In my opinion.. NO.

Heck, the Obama administration has the largest debt in the history of this country. Land is something that once we lose we will never get back. I've heard that many times on this site. Let me inform you guys of a fact..... the national debt increases by 150 million dollars every hour. 150 million dollars every hour.... so Mr. Tester why not add another 10 million. That's only 2 minutes and 30 seconds the way we are going. I have heard this logic before on this site.

Last I don't care who I offend and if I am BANNED from this site.

good luck to all
the dog

I can see how it might look that way, but I think there's more to it than partisan politics. Tester has worked with a lot of hunters and anglers in MT and he's delivered on promises made, like delisting wolves. He's also been heavily engaged in these issues since his days at the State Senate, so he knows a lot of folks who have worked on these issues for a long time.

As Shoots said, none of us have been shy in telling Tester personally or his staff, that we think this is a bad idea. There's a relationship built on trust at play. Reducing this issue down to R's versus D's isn't the correct analysis.

 

[BigRack]

If the Feds have money to throw at pigford, they have money for this. There is no need to give land away.

 

[pointingdogsrule]

I can see how it might look that way, but I think there's more to it than partisan politics. Tester has worked with a lot of hunters and anglers in MT and he's delivered on promises made, like delisting wolves. He's also been heavily engaged in these issues since his days at the State Senate, so he knows a lot of folks who have worked on these issues for a long time.

As Shoots said, none of us have been shy in telling Tester personally or his staff, that we think this is a bad idea. There's a relationship built on trust at play. Reducing this issue down to R's versus D's isn't the correct analysis.

Ah, you get my point. You are EXACTLY correct Ben (regarding R and D). That's the whole point of my previous response. Maybe in the future on this site we will not see the R and D when it comes to these issues. (as so many have done in the past). These people know who they are.

Not being a Montanan I have a question Ben: Do the R's not work with hunters and sportsmens also (as they have been chastised so much in Montana)?

Like I stated: concerning this issue..... just spend the extra 10 million and get it over with and don't tell me our children will suffer paying off this debt because that point has long past with our national debt level.

Keep our lands for the future.

good luck to all
the dog

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ah, you get my point. You are EXACTLY correct Ben (regarding R and D). That's the whole point of my previous response. Maybe in the future on this site we will not see the R and D when it comes to these issues. (as so many have done in the past). These people know who they are.

Not being a Montanan I have a question Ben: Do the R's not work with hunters and sportsmens also (as they have been chastised so much in Montana)?

Like I stated: concerning this issue..... just spend the extra 10 million and get it over with and don't tell me our children will suffer paying off this debt because that point has long past with our national debt level.

Keep our lands for the future.

good luck to all
the dog

We have some great folks on the Republican side who work with hunters and anglers at the state legislature. We don't always agree, but we do have a good working relationship with the more thoughtful wing of the party. Our problems there often come from legislators who have little or no understanding of the North American Model or who view public lands as assets to be sold for short term gains or who think privatization of wildlife is a good idea.

Congressman Daines is showing himself to be open and honest in his dealings with us to date though he hasn't taken positions on things like the Land and Water Conservation Fund yet. In the past, our former Congressman would only speak to a select few who gave big enough campaign contributions. His staff was difficult to deal with and often times we'd never even hear from them for months on end.

The other big difference is party leadership (in MT) and party platforms. MT dems have made a concerted effort to reach out to sportsmen and women and incorporate their beliefs into their platform and policy decisions. The Republican party has a tendency to try and fit everyone else into their mold and then wonder why folks scream at them when they try to enact laws and policies that don't reflect the common consensus among the community.

It's a huge difference than when I worked in Wyoming. We had a great relationship with leadership in both chambers and with overwhelming majorities in both Houses, you had to find ways to work with Republicans. In act, we had several folks who started their political careers as antagonists to sportsmen or the agency and ended up being some of our greatest allies.

 

[Big Fin]

Ah, you get my point. You are EXACTLY correct Ben (regarding R and D). That's the whole point of my previous response. Maybe in the future on this site we will not see the R and D when it comes to these issues. (as so many have done in the past). These people know who they are.

Not being a Montanan I have a question Ben: Do the R's not work with hunters and sportsmens also (as they have been chastised so much in Montana)?

This issue is not about "R" and "D" politics, as you seem to imply with your first post. It is about how this gets paid and not a single person on this site wants the settlement paid with land. If someone does, I missed it in their post.

To your effort to frame this as "R" and "D" politics, I give some MT examples that show it is hard to do that classification and generalization in Montana.

An example of MT voters is to look at how we voted overwhelmingly for Romney, an "R", yet in our statewide Senate race, we voted just the opposite by giving Tester, a "D", a double digit win. Hard to pin the "R" or "D" tags in MT.

A very interesting example of the land ethic in MT that permeates our delegates in DC. Senator Conrad Burns was elected to the Senate on a "No net gain" policy. He was considered very "R" on land issues. He was defeated by Tester in 2006.

In a recent interview, Burns was asked what he sees as his legacy from his terms in teh Senate. He pointed to the many public land acquisitions he helped get funded - Taylors Fork, Gallatin Land Exchanges, Royal Teton.

Yeah, a "No net gainer" when he went to DC, becomes another one of the many MT delegates who listens to hunters and others concerned about public lands. He does a lot of good work on our behalf. And now, he looks at his public land projects as legacy-type work that he did. Hard to pin the "R" or "D" idealogical coat on even those who many thought were far right. I liked Conrad. He was there when we needed him.

It is for that same reason you don't see many Montanan hunters throwing Tester to the wolves on this topic, rather trying to work on a better deal with him. Tester has done a ton of good for hunters in his first seven years in the Senate. No one cares if he is "R" or "D". They care if work is done to our benefit and who is willing to listen and try make changes when things are not to our benefit.

I am a pretty good distance right of center. I don't really care if the person is an "R" or "D". If it is a close on all other aspects, the "R" is gonna get my vote. But, I am most concered about the person and how they represent hunters, with "R" or "D" way down the list. That is how most MT voters are and that is why you see things where a "R" Presidential candidate can win in a landslide and a "D" Senate candidate can win a statewide election by turning so many of those who had voted for the "R" President.

For evidence of how our legislature has been hijacked, on needs to watch the Frontline documentary about the American Traditiona Partnership and their illegal activities in Montana. A fringe group that has come to Montana and targeted every sane "R" in the primaries and funded extremely fringe candidates. It has had a big impact on MT politics, though illegal and in violation of the Montana election rules.

Guys like me who used to participate in the "R" system are told we are no longer welcome. We would go and press hunting and fishing issues. We were told we are not "R" enough. I suspect I am more fiscally conservative and more libertarian in my views than many of the counterfiets who told me I am not "R" enough.

Another example of bloody knuckle politics on far "R" fringe in MT. Last session I helped craft a bill with a guy I consider a good friend who happens to be an "R". When his party leadership got ahold of it, they told him it was going to be a different kind of bill. It was a train wreck, and all due to the fringe leadership not wanting one of their members working on reasonable solutions.

I wish I could tell you that the "R" group represented Montana hunters the way they did years ago. Some of the individual candidates do. But as a whole, party leadership views the hunter and angler as a pain in their arse and they go out of their way to appoint the "fringe of the fringe" within their group to represent the party on hunting, fishing, and land issues.

So to answer your question - Do "R"s not work with hunter and anglers? Some as individuals do and try to keep some sanity to the discussion. Since these older guard "R"s are the minority in their party and have been replaced by the American Traditions Partnership puppets, these guys no longer in party leadership, thus when they attempt work with hunters and anglers, they are often taken to the woodshed and "straightened out." Yet, we have a few very independent "R"s who will tell party leadership to take a hike. If not for a few of those types on the House FWP Committee last session, hunters would have been abused beyond belief.

It wasn't always that way. It started that way about a dozen years ago.

Your original post made it sound as though you are upset that MT doesn't really get too carried away with categorization of "R" and "D" and "Liberal" or "Conservative." As a general rule lumping people into categories that allows one to vilvify a person due to some sort of "He's with the bad guys" thought process doesn't work well in MT and is a big part of why I like living here.

The end .........

So after all that, the question still remains, "How do we change this proposed settlement and get the Feds to pay this in cash, not in land?" We aren't making any more land, but as pointingdog stated, we are making a lot more cash in DC. Just fire up the presses.

 

[OriginalOscar]

I would want the land back http://www.trailtribes.org/greatfalls/shrinking-reservation.htm

 

[EODRay]

I would want the land back http://www.trailtribes.org/greatfalls/shrinking-reservation.htm

Yea, as a "White Eye", I don't want to give up any public land. However, I think I would have a much different outlook as a Native American.