Looks like a State Lands transfer to me.

[shoots-straight]

With the blessing of the Montana Wildlife Federation here's a bill brought forward to pay the Native Americans for Water Rights. In some cases with lands from Montana. Yes, MFW has done great things for Montana, but according to those involved with this deal, they (MWF) were at the table representing Montana sportsmen. I understand this will be a slam dunk.

I have worked on this for a long time, even back when it was brought forward about 8 years ago. Jon Tester was and is at the forefront of this bill even though his name is absent from it. We (MSA) told him then that we weren't willing to trade Montana Public lands for water rights that the whole country owed for. In this bill, State and federal lands are up for disposal to give to the tribes, and those state lands they get will be reimbursed to the State by the Federal Government with Federal lands. Not at all happy with loss of public lands for the hunting purposes. Some lands in the Reservation aren't my concern, but there are a lot of lands outside the Reservation that will be Tribal owned and off limits to hunting. H.R.5673 Gros Ventre and Assiniboine Tribes of the Fort Belknap Indian Community Water Rights Settlement Act of 2020

 

[BigHornRam]

 

[Ben Lamb]

Here's the link to the actual bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th...3/text#toc-ide9ad686b271f418da84d73e2f087d121

Here's the language that gives nontribal members the same rights to hunt, fish and recate on the Grinnell Lands that we currently have (bolded part is the relative text):

(g) Jurisdiction Of Grinnell Lands.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal law, beginning on the date on which the conditions described in paragraph (2) are met, the Fort Belknap Indian Community Council shall have administrative, regulatory, and judicial jurisdiction over the Grinnell Lands described in subsection (b)(3)(C), including jurisdiction over public recreational access, hunting, and fishing, and natural resource management.
(2) CONDITIONS.—The conditions referred to in paragraph (1) are the conditions that the Fort Belknap Indian Community Council shall adopt—
(A) hunting and fishing regulations that grant nontribal members equivalent rights and privileges to those that nontribal members enjoy under the hunting and fishing laws (including regulations) of the State, as in effect on the date of enactment of this Act, including rights relating to permit fees and bag limits; and
(B) public recreational access regulations that grant nontribal members equivalent rights of access for recreational purposes that nontribal members enjoy under Federal law (including regulations), as in effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
(3) REGULATIONS.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—Any regulations promulgated by the Fort Belknap Indian Community pursuant to the jurisdiction of the Fort Belknap Indian Community under paragraph (1) shall be subject to—
(i) a 30-day notice and comment period provided by the Secretary to the State; and
(ii) after that period, the approval of the Secretary, subject to subparagraph (B).
(B) SECRETARIAL APPROVAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date on which the notice and comment period under subparagraph (A)(i) ends, the Secretary shall approve or disapprove the regulations.
(4) NOTIFICATION AFTER FEDERAL OR STATE AMENDMENT.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—If an applicable Federal or State hunting and fishing or recreational access law or regulation is amended after the date on which jurisdiction over that law or regulation on the Grinnell Lands described in subsection (b)(3)(C) is transferred to the Fort Belknap Indian Community Council under this subsection, the head of the appropriate Federal or State agency, as applicable, shall promptly notify the Fort Belknap Indian Community Council of the amendment.
(B) RESPONSE.—
(i) IN GENERAL.—Subject to clause (ii), not later than 120 days after the date on which notification is provided to the Fort Belknap Indian Community Council under subparagraph (A), the Fort Belknap Indian Community Council shall—
(I) amend the regulations of the Fort Belknap Indian Community Council to comply with the amended law or regulation; and
(II) notify the Secretary of the amendment.

But let's put the historical context into play here. The 30,000 acres originally in the Grinnell Notch sale was done so forcibly, and against the Tribe's will in order to take the gold in the mountain and not have to deal with the incursions into tribal land starting around 1890 until the forced sale in 1895. The sale was forced, as negotiators reportedly told tribal leaders that provisions would be withheld from the tribes unless they signed.

Out of that 30,000 acres, Poorly regulated gold mining & illegal mining from nontribal members in the past have created a toxic mess of about 1/2 of it from the Zortman/Landusky mine site. The other half is still good wildlife habitat. I'm not surprised to see the tribes work to get their land back and to find support among the delegation for that. I'm also not surprised to see organizations support this who have a strong track record of leading the fight against transfer & sale of public land. The Compact allows for non-tribal use of the notch, and it's clear that they were able to negotiate permanent use for nontribal members for hunting, fishing and recreaton.

The history of Federal animosity to tribal nations led the gov't of the United States to mistreat tribes and force them to relinquish what little lands they were given if there was a use for white people that was deemed more important (or more likely, profitable for friends and donors).

So, the idea that we're losing hunting and fishing access is wrong, plain and simple. The transfer of this land back to the tribes rights a severe historical wrong, and it saves the taxpayers significant actual dollars.

I'm having a hard time finding a boogerman in this trade.

We trade land all the time. It's why groups testified against Fielder's bills in 2015 - because land management is complex, nuanced and doesn't lend itself to only hardline answers to difficult questions. Yes, we give a total of roughly 30,000 acres of public & state trust lands inside and outside the reservation, but we also have programs to help build that loss back up, like land banking, the land & water conservation fund, legacy project, etc.

 

[Irrelevant]

Here's the link to the actual bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th...3/text#toc-ide9ad686b271f418da84d73e2f087d121

Here's the language that gives nontribal members the same rights to hunt, fish and recate on the Grinnell Lands that we currently have (bolded part is the relative text):




But let's put the historical context into play here. The 30,000 acres originally in the Grinnell Notch sale was done so forcibly, and against the Tribe's will in order to take the gold in the mountain and not have to deal with the incursions into tribal land starting around 1890 until the forced sale in 1895. The sale was forced, as negotiators reportedly told tribal leaders that provisions would be withheld from the tribes unless they signed.

Out of that 30,000 acres, Poorly regulated gold mining & illegal mining from nontribal members in the past have created a toxic mess of about 1/2 of it from the Zortman/Landusky mine site. The other half is still good wildlife habitat. I'm not surprised to see the tribes work to get their land back and to find support among the delegation for that. I'm also not surprised to see organizations support this who have a strong track record of leading the fight against transfer & sale of public land. The Compact allows for non-tribal use of the notch, and it's clear that they were able to negotiate permanent use for nontribal members for hunting, fishing and recreaton.

The history of Federal animosity to tribal nations led the gov't of the United States to mistreat tribes and force them to relinquish what little lands they were given if there was a use for white people that was deemed more important (or more likely, profitable for friends and donors).

So, the idea that we're losing hunting and fishing access is wrong, plain and simple. The transfer of this land back to the tribes rights a severe historical wrong, and it saves the taxpayers significant actual dollars.

I'm having a hard time finding a boogerman in this trade.

We trade land all the time. It's why groups testified against Fielder's bills in 2015 - because land management is complex, nuanced and doesn't lend itself to only hardline answers to difficult questions. Yes, we give a total of roughly 30,000 acres of public & state trust lands inside and outside the reservation, but we also have programs to help build that loss back up, like land banking, the land & water conservation fund, legacy project, etc.

Does that stance hold true for all the treaties we didn't keep? If you dig deep enough I bet well all live in a former reservation established by treaty, that we then broke to reduced in size or eliminated all together. I believe the progress is going forward, not backwards.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Does that stance hold true for all the treaties we didn't keep? If you dig deep enough I bet well all live in a former reservation established by treaty, that we then broke to reduced in size or eliminated all together. I believe the progress is going forward, not backwards.

It's a case-by -case situation, but in this instance, it goes beyond the treaty rights that were broken, to a forced sale. We rectify things like this often through courts. This is a negotiated water rights settlement that, if it went to court, you would see the Tribes flex their legal authority to take far more than what they are negotiating for now.

Is there a timeline on restorative justice & making good on massive wrongs committed under the auspices of greed?

 

[Irrelevant]

Is there a timeline on restorative justice & making good on massive wrongs committed under the auspices of greed?

Yes, there has to be or else we would be paying (in some fashion) for past slavery.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Yes, there has to be or else we would be paying (in some fashion) for past slavery.

What makes you think we've even come close to settling that issue as a nation?

 

[MTGomer]

I think they should be paid with money, not land.

 

[BigHornRam]

Monopoly money or land? I'd take the land.

 

[SAJ-99]

I think they should be paid with money, not land.

That is certainly hard to argue against, and I would be it is everyone's preference. The questions are how much $ and where does it come from? Those are basically the questions to every problem we face in America today.

 

[MTGomer]

That is certainly hard to argue against, and I would be it is everyone's preference. The questions are how much $ and where does it come from? Those are basically the questions to every problem we face in America today.

It would come from the federal government (you and I)

There have been multiple water settlements in the region over the last 20 years.

 

[Ben Lamb]

My understanding for the reasoning on the trade rather than cash was:

1.) This is what the tribes requested
2.) They are giving up significant treaty rights
3.) This was a negotiated settlement around water rights, and based on decades of past desire to see the notch returned to Tribal ownership, the Tribes wouldn't consider trading the land for cash value.

 

[antlerradar]

Monopoly money or land? I'd take the land.

So would I. Some one living in a big city with little interest in outdoor recreation likely is happy to have US debts payed off with land out west. Every time the US uses land to pay debts the easier it will become. Kind of ironic that we could lose more land under the public land champion Tester then we may have under the the land grabbing Rosendale

 

[Ben Lamb]

So would I. Some one living in a big city with little interest in outdoor recreation likely is happy to have US debts payed off with land out west. Every time the US uses land to pay debts the easier it will become. Kind of ironic that we could lose more land under the public land champion Tester then we may have under the the land grabbing Rosendale

We're not losing anything other than which entity the federal gov't manages the land in trust for. Nontribal members retain rights to hunt, fish & recreate on that land.

Rosendale's position is for the transfer & sale of public lands with no ability to purchase lands for the public trust in the future. I think there's a big difference there.

 

[Big Fin]

Some history might also be worthwhile to consider, even though every person here hates to see any situation where lands are no longer accessible.

Part of this settlement is the fact that when the tribe sold the US Government 40,000 acres, 68,000 acres were taken. In addition to water rights and other issues, it is hard to ignore the fact that they have been without those 28,000 acres for over a century and they are now willing to accept half of that amount, 14,000 acres, as the negotiated value to be added to this settlement that includes the water rights and other past issues the courts have ruled on in the favor of the tribes.

End result, US Government ends up with 14,000 acres that the tribes never got paid for. Is the glass half full or half empty?

I struggle to equate that settlement to be equivalent to "State Land Transfer," as the original post references, when after the dust settles we end up with 14,000 acres we never paid a dime for.

Edit - P.S...... And I am sure every person posting on this thread would prefer to see this solved with cash and not land. But, the facts are what they are.

 

[SAJ-99]

My understanding for the reasoning on the trade rather than cash was:

1.) This is what the tribes requested
2.) They are giving up significant treaty rights
3.) This was a negotiated settlement around water rights, and based on decades of past desire to see the notch returned to Tribal ownership, the Tribes wouldn't consider trading the land for cash value.

Do we know what the $ value of the water rights was/is? It is really hard for a bystander (me) to determine if I think this is "fair". Not that anyone is asking.

 

[BigHornRam]

The value of the water rights is a lot more to the folks who stand to lose the water rights (Montana farmers and ranchers) than to those that don't have a stake. It's a complicated mess to be honest. The George Bird Grinnell biography is a good book to read if you are looking to gain some context to this situation.

 

[SAJ-99]

Sounds like we gave them back land that wasn't ours, and even kept some for a later exchange. Sounds like a good deal for one party.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I think they should be paid with money, not land.

Maybe they don’t want the money and instead prefer the land - it is not for one side of a negotiation to set the goals of the other.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Is there a timeline on restorative justice & making good on massive wrongs committed under the auspices of greed?

I was with you through most of this thread, but not to this last point. There has to at some point be the ability to move forward and some humility to admit that we can’t orchestrate “justice” in all things. It’s illusory to think all issues can be left open forever and that all grievances can be rectified.

My very liberal mother-in-law was once justifying the need to return a certain part of MN to a particular tribe since Americans had “stolen it”, and so I challenged her with a much simpler problem - let’s return her home and the .5 acres below it to its supposed “rightful owner”. First, she wasn’t willing to concede that she and her husband were not the rightful owners as they had clean title fee simple and had spent their whole life paying it off (funny how the price of “justice” is for others). But after I got her past that I asked her if we should give it to “tribe A” - the most recent tribe in the area, maybe she said. But, I pointed out, that tribe A had actually taken it from tribe B with significant bloodshed, so shouldn’t she really give it to tribe B. But wait, tribe B had taken it from tribe C (again with force) - so should tribe C be the rightful recipient? Except tribe C hasn’t existed for 200+ years and my knowledge of local Native American history was exhausted so while almost certainly there were tribal claimants prior to C we had no idea who that might be, so should tribe A or B be a proxy for the no longer existing tribe C? If so, why not just any Native American? But would they have to be full blood Native American? What if they were half Native American? What about waiting until she and her husband passed away and then give the humble proceeds to her grandchildren, some of which are of very modest means? Or should she give them to one of her grandchildren’s friends who happens to be a full blood tribe A member who was granted literally millions of dollars by the tribe on her 18th birthday from casino proceeds? What is “just”?

The emotional appeal of “restorative justice” is strong, but without limits it makes no sense, has no logical path forward and it can actually fail to be “just” at all.