Little Rocky Moutains giveaway

[pointingdogsrule]

Ben & Fin: Great posts and thanks for the reply. ONCE MORE: ""D" & "R" should not have anything to do with this debate or any other sportsmen debate. I think we agree on that 100%. It was just that so many times on this site I see the "R's", right or wrong on the stance, getting blasted. Maybe Fin cleared it up a little when he classified some of the "R's" as a fringe group.

I agree with Fin 100% when he says: "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 concerned about the person and how they represent hunters, with "R" or "D" way down the list"

Now on to how we can keep our public lands. Sorry if I unintentionally hijacked this thread. By the way Ben.... I don't think that I agree with many of your stances, however, I always like the intellect that your views bring to this site. They make me think and that's what I am... a thinker.

PS: how can we keep updated on this bill.... what bill number is it???

good luck to all
the dog

 

[montanadogs]

I see both sides. However, this next part will piss some off and probably get a lot of hate over it but I'm not one to always keep my opinion to myself. What do we as a people still owe Native Americans? When you look at the history of the worlds people, we have all somewhere down the line been beat up, pushed, and conquered by someone at some point. So wouldn't we all be entitled to compensation? Heck, we beat the crap out of the British to gain our independence, did we give them something for it? Not that I'm aware of. My family has owned and ranched are fair size of land on the Flathead Reservation since the 1920's. We have also have a ranch next to the Blackfoot Res. since the 40's. We have a lot of dealings with Natives. A lot of elders on both res. say that the biggest problem with their youth today is that they expect everything to be given to them. They rely on the gov. checks etc. and get pissed if for some reason they don't get them on time.(humm, sounds like the rest of the country) IMO, no one is owed anything anymore. We have paid for what was wrongly done to them a hundreds times over. The worst thing we done with them is made reservations. Just my 2 cents.

 

[smarandr]

The worst thing we done with them is made reservations.

I don't think there's a soul alive, red or white, that disagrees with that. However, what to do going forward is where very few people can agree. The US Government's dealings (at least with my local reservation) are governed by the Fort Bridger Treaty; and my guess is the Treaty would have to be renegotiated for there to be any sort of seismic shift in Indian policy.

 

[RobG]

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.

Congressman Newberg, that's how

 

[Rat Fink]

Anyone ever hear of the word "Assimilation"? Each one of us or our ancestors somewhere have done it. We continue paying the bills of a conquered people because they refuse to assimilate into American society. Granting sovereign status during the days of the treaties was the biggest mistake our government made. We continue to pay for it today.

 

[OriginalOscar]

I see both sides. However, this next part will piss some off and probably get a lot of hate over it but I'm not one to always keep my opinion to myself. What do we as a people still owe Native Americans? When you look at the history of the worlds people, we have all somewhere down the line been beat up, pushed, and conquered by someone at some point. So wouldn't we all be entitled to compensation? Heck, we beat the crap out of the British to gain our independence, did we give them something for it? Not that I'm aware of. My family has owned and ranched are fair size of land on the Flathead Reservation since the 1920's. We have also have a ranch next to the Blackfoot Res. since the 40's. We have a lot of dealings with Natives. A lot of elders on both res. say that the biggest problem with their youth today is that they expect everything to be given to them. They rely on the gov. checks etc. and get pissed if for some reason they don't get them on time.(humm, sounds like the rest of the country) IMO, no one is owed anything anymore. We have paid for what was wrongly done to them a hundreds times over. The worst thing we done with them is made reservations. Just my 2 cents.

So it sounds like their kids are like white kids?

I won't comment on the implied tone.

Please give me the directions to your ranches. I embrace your winner take all attitude. Let me roll in and push you off what you feel is yours. It is now mine! No reservation but at least you'll have your family because I can't kill them. I've always wanted a ranch in MT

 

[HSi-ESi]

montanadogs - that is a very simplistic view on a complex problem. I can guarantee that a debate on an internet forum is not the place for this. This is coming from a 'white kid' raised on a reservation.

Let's try to get back on topic though. The court has decided that compensation is due the tribe over this issue (whether or not "we feel as a people that we don't owe Native Americans"). The court has issued that we DO. So the true debate on this is how much and what.

I've heard many arguments on why NOT to have the BLM parcel(s) on the bargaining table. My first question is why is the land swap on the table at this point? Someone has to want this more than an extra 5-10 Million. I think it is silly to think that we are just trying to save a few bucks on this deal.

Any thoughts why?

 

[BigRack]

So it sounds like their kids are like white kids?

I won't comment on the implied tone.

Please give me the directions to your ranches. I embrace your winner take all attitude. Let me roll in and push you off what you feel is yours. It is now mine! No reservation but at least you'll have your family because I can't kill them. I've always wanted a ranch in MT

They are more like black children than white children.

Neither of them will have a chance without the Parents stepping up.

 

[shoots-straight]

montanadogs - that is a very simplistic view on a complex problem. I can guarantee that a debate on an internet forum is not the place for this. This is coming from a 'white kid' raised on a reservation.

Let's try to get back on topic though. The court has decided that compensation is due the tribe over this issue (whether or not "we feel as a people that we don't owe Native Americans"). The court has issued that we DO. So the true debate on this is how much and what.

I've heard many arguments on why NOT to have the BLM parcel(s) on the bargaining table. My first question is why is the land swap on the table at this point? Someone has to want this more than an extra 5-10 Million. I think it is silly to think that we are just trying to save a few bucks on this deal.

Any thoughts why?

This is just what I'm guessing:

Tester courted the Native American vote. He was granted that vote by a large majority, (maybe Ben knows the numbers).

The Native Americans use to own this land, and thought this was a good opportunity for them to get it back, and have pushed Tester to include it in the deal.

 

[Ben Lamb]

This is just what I'm guessing:

Tester courted the Native American vote. He was granted that vote by a large majority, (maybe Ben knows the numbers).

The Native Americans use to own this land, and thought this was a good opportunity for them to get it back, and have pushed Tester to include it in the deal.

American Indians generally vote in a democratic block in Montana. I'm not sure what the overall numbers were but I wouldn't be surprised to see those areas go overwhelmingly to Tester. He's been a strong voice for them on various issues. As someone who is supposed to represent the whole state, I'm glad that he does listen to their concerns. I know some of the folks on both Belknap and Peck who are desperately trying to make things better for their people and having someone like Tester in your corner is good.

There are several tribes looking to get more land. The Blackfeet want the Badger-Two Medicine area because it's sacred to them. There's a lot of historical sites up there that corroborate their claims. We dealt with this during negotiations on the Rocky Mountain Front bill. My position was clear: no transfer, no co-management. The tribes still wanted it, but chose to pursue this in a different arena. The Little Rockies, as others have said before, used to belong to the tribes but they were forced to sell in order for the Zortman-Landusky fiasco to occur. Now they see an opportunity to get what they believe is theirs back. I think everyone in that situation would try to do the same thing.

As Tester has repeatedly said, this is the beginning of the negotiation. How this bill looks in the end will be different then how it looks now. It's up to us to engage in the conversation and help find alternative methods of payment instead of losing public land.

 

[Little Canyon Creek]

Is there any precedent for tribal land with permanent recreational access and game management by FWP? The tribes could have the ability to regulate any commercial operations on the land and they would have the pride of the land being a part of the reservation but the concerns of sportsmen would be addressed. I know I don't really care what government group owns the land just as long as I can access it and it isn't being abused.

 

[MHMT]

Some extra history of this piece of land. at one time this very piece use to belong to the tribe but they traded it to the US Gov't for lower elevation adjacent grasslands that was better for farming ranching and buffalo, in those times the mountain habitats weren't as valuable as they are today, recreation in the late 19th century wasn't a real concern. they traded that land for what they thought was more valuable land at the time anyway,

You forgot to mention the little part about all of the gold up there.

 

[sweetnectar]

You forgot to mention the little part about all of the gold up there

Is that the Zortman mine?

A few other thoughts:
The guy closest to the water doesn't always have the first claim on it. IE a guy down stream with a water right can trump the guy up stream.

BLM land is owned by the people and in this case is mostly used by people from Montana. Because we use it more and tend it more we tend to feel more ownership in it...just like the rancher that uses the BLM land who forgets it is owned by the people because he uses and tends it more. So why is the state land in the swap when the ruling is against the US government (the people)?

It is my opinion that we have enslaved the native american people unintentually via a dole. This dole robs incentive.

 

[howler]

Here's part of an answer as to why we are talking land for a payment, I think just about every Indian nation through out the entire US sued the US Gov't for water rights, it has been going on for over a decade. anyway all suits have been ruled in favor of the tribes, George W. Bush was president when this was going on and it became very clear the US was going to lose every water rights case. Well Old W (the decider) decided when there was going to be a cash settlement the US would just give them land instead, So here we are in a predicament ,,`

 

[shoots-straight]

There are several tribes looking to get more land. The Blackfeet want the Badger-Two Medicine area because it's sacred to them.

Might have something to do with black gold, Texas tea, oil that is.

I see they (whoever that is) leased all the lands around Chief Mountain. Wasn't that sacred to the Blackfeet?+

Ben,
Did the Blackfoot tribe do the leasing or was some other power in control?

http://tonybynum.com/chief-mountain-sold-for-oil-development/

 

[howler]

Is that the Zortman mine?

A few other thoughts:
The guy closest to the water doesn't always have the first claim on it. IE a guy down stream with a water right can trump the guy up stream.

BLM land is owned by the people and in this case is mostly used by people from Montana. Because we use it more and tend it more we tend to feel more ownership in it...just like the rancher that uses the BLM land who forgets it is owned by the people because he uses and tends it more. So why is the state land in the swap when the ruling is against the US government (the people)?

It is my opinion that we have enslaved the native american people unintentually via a dole. This dole robs incentive.

yes the defunct Zortman mine is in the area, it is now a superfund clean up site, not a real sought after piece of land, though.
good question about the state land, not sure except all 29 of the state sections are completely enclosed with in the Rez. and access is either non existent or troublesome

 

[shoots-straight]

I would be inclined to give them federal or state lands within the reservation boundaries. Hell give it all and write that portion off the bill.

 

[Big Fin]

Senator Tester was in Bozeman yesterday. Some good time spent with him, walking some great public land habitat and discussing a lot of access and public land issues.

Lights, camera, action.


A walk to discuss examples of what good habitat and forest management means to wildlife.. And focusing on the great economic value of public access and what that economy represents to Montana. Complete agreement on both sides.


If you don't have a sense of humor, you're not gonna have much fun around me. Especially when I am talking politics.


Making the case for public access; both additional public access and preserving/conserving what we already have. A great discussion. I can tell you that Senator Tester is not one of the guys you need to "get up to speed" on the importance of access. He is already up to speed.


After hearing my case, he asked me, "I want to hear from hunters on all things related to public access, including deals like the Fort Belknap water settlement; are hunters willing to meet with the tribes and the many other interests at the table on this issue?"

Answer, "When and where?"

His final comment to me. "Tell your audience that contacting us makes a difference; a big difference. Hunters and anglers are one of my largest constituents. I want to hear from them. Please give them my email links."

Here is that email link - http://www.tester.senate.gov/?p=email_senator

Here is a link to all Senators - http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Here is a link to all Congressmen/women - http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/

The beauty of the platform provided by this show and this website is that it has a big impact on policy leaders. Trust me, his staff is often aware of what is being discussed here, as are many other national leaders on land and conservation policy.

I intend to continue using this platform to make a difference for access. I think that meeting yesterday, just the Senator and me, walking the public lands and talking about the value of these lands to hunters, makes a big difference.

Will it necessarily change the outcome on this issue? Not sure, but I do think it is a great start. Having his attention and close contact with his staff is an effective way to convey our concerns.

I learned that this deal is only at its beginning point. I gave him some ideas I think could keep the land and still get the deal completed. There will be a lot of negotiation before it gets finalized, if it ever does get finalized.

And, he heard another of Randy's long rants about how important it is that we keep the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) in tact. Though the House has zeroed out the LWCF program in their budget, the Senate has proposed $400 million. And, since he agrees with me on LWCF access funding, I guess it was probably not too much of a rant.

The Senator stated he wants LWCF fully funded and reauthorized. As he and I both commented, a deal was struck whereby the royalties collected under the LWCF program would be used for access and mitigation of habitat, not diverted to other pet programs in DC. If all those funds were actually kept in the LWCF accounts for access, the program would be funded to the tune of $900 million per year. That can create/preserve a lot of public access.

Where we were standing, we were looking over the Gallatin and Madison Ranges, which if not for the use of a few million dollars of LWCF money in the mid to late 1990's about 300,000 acres of public access would have been lost. Hard to imagine living in SW MT; being an elk, deer, or bear hunter, and having huge tracts of the Gallatin and Madison Ranges be off limits. That is what would have happened without LWCF money and the hard work of many groups.

I know many younger hunters are not aware of how the LWCF program protected their hunting access in this location, and in millions of acres across the country. If you ever have time, try to learn more about the LWCF program and how it has been "the" best access-producing program we have ever had benefit of.

All photo credit goes to Ben Lamb. All video credit goes to Warm Springs Productions.

 

[jryoung]

i intend to continue using this platform to make a difference for access. I think that meeting yesterday, just the senator and me, walking the public lands and talking about the value of these lands to hunters, makes a big difference.

yes!

Looks like an awesome meeting and I'm glad to hear that Tester is open to discuss issues and wants to fully fund the LWCF. I really hope that the threat of cutting funding blows up in the face of the Interior Subcommittee.

 

[jryoung]

ps - I'm sure it will go into an episode, but it'd be awesome to get some of the dialogue/video from yesterday onto YouTube or similar platform ASAP.