Treaties With Tribal Nations Are the Law

[JLS]

One of the most honest things a Christian can do in conversation with a non believer is admit there IS a chance they are wrong

 

[rwc101]

 

[Big Fin]

With the derailing religious distraction behind us, can we get back to treaties and how those decisions will have ramifications for hunting, access, and land ownership?

 

[SD_Prairie_Goat]

I wonder if these treatied lands (probably not the greatest wording, but the land which was promised in a treaty, but then taken back) will now be challenged to allow the tribal leaders to set the hunting regulations and tags?

I don't know how it is in OK, but here in SD, the reservations have their own tags that they can sell to non tribal individuals to hunt.


That could be a decent chunk of land across the US that we are no longer able to access and hunt.


Is that possible? to me it seems logical after this decision by the courts, but I'm not an expert in laws and treaties....

 

[WildWill]

I don't know how it is in OK, but here in SD, the reservations have their own tags that they can sell to non tribal individuals to hunt.

Not how it works here for any tribe.

 

[SD_Prairie_Goat]

Not how it works here for any tribe.

That answers that then, must be a state by state basis.

Thanks

 

[WildWill]

That answers that then, must be a state by state basis.

Thanks

Although with the new ruling I would think that at least on reservation land the Creeks can now set their own wildlife laws if they so choose. If I'm wrong someone please correct me as I'm no expert.

 

[idahohuntr]

Just to clarify...The McGrit v. OK ruling related to jurisdiction, not land ownership. Nothing about that ruling changed land ownership or causes some swath of land to be turned back over to the Tribe. If a non-indian owns land within the bounds of the reservation (that still exists according to this SCOTUS ruling)...this doesn't really affect you or your property rights...contrary to some headlines you might read.

 

[406dn]

I think it would be more accurate to say it is a reservation by reservation basis. At the end of the day, states cannot set game laws on reservations.

 

[Irrelevant]

Sorry, but I'm not about to let your absolutism "pass; no, matter how popular." There was nothing in that post #41 or this thread that is white guilt. You want to make it that as some sort of victimized viewpoint. You can't receive facts without spinning it to your view of the world with some sort of political pot-stirring slant to it.

Nobody is bashing Christianity. It is an observation by many, even those of us raised in Christian households and churches, that Christianity has an arrogance problem. You prove that in your next post that I quoted below.

To call other religions "witchcraft," as was stated in another post, because it doesn't meet the same parallels as the faith one practices is a rather arrogant manner by which to frame the faith of others. There is a reason Christianity and every other religion is called "faith." It is not proven and people follow the tenets of those teachings based on their own "faith" in such. To think that the faith of others is somehow wrong and our own faith is somehow correct surely reinforces the arrogance reputation that hangs over Christianity.



You can now take your self-righteousness to other parts of the internet. Your continual division and narrow world view derails every thread you chime into.

When @Festus started his weekly posts on "Wednesday's Word," some folks got pissed that I allowed him to post his weekly Christian message of hope and kindness to our fellow man, a message I support. I told those critics to get over it. Some left the forum over it. Good riddance. Some wouldn't let it drop, so they were banned. I'm not going to let your arrogance and know-all proclamations go after others who follow a different faith anymore than I was willing to tolerate the complaints about Festus' Christian posts from those offended by his faith.

So, your days here are done. Long overdue, but done.

GD @Big Fin you go and ban him right after I finally started using the ignore feature... LOL

 

[MTLabrador]

GD @Big Fin you go and ban him right after I finally started using the ignore feature... LOL

Same here...

 

[idahohuntr]

I think it would be more accurate to say it is a reservation by reservation basis. At the end of the day, states cannot set game laws on reservations.

Treaty by treaty basis is important too...in many circumstances (based on treaty language), state's don't have authority to set game laws for tribal members hunting off reservation (on USFS, BLM, state land etc.) either.

 

[406dn]

Treaty by treaty basis is important too...in many circumstances (based on treaty language), state's don't have authority to set game laws for tribal members hunting off reservation (on USFS, BLM, state land etc.) either.

True. The various tribes hunting bison north of YNP is a good example.

 

[COEngineer]

Hard to be happy about this ruling since it was brought to the Court by a convicted child molester trying to get out of his conviction: "The case was brought by Jimcy McGirt, a member of the Creek Nation who was convicted in state court of molesting a child."
from here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...dc42d4-c1e2-11ea-9fdd-b7ac6b051dc8_story.html
Not that one d-bag is a reason to ignore a treaty, it's just unfortunate.

I haven't heard this addressed in this conversation, and I wonder if some people are lumping all tribes together. I am not an expert on Native American treaties, but from what I have read, many treaties were written with the expectation that one or both sides would immediately break the terms. And/or the treaties were signed by one chief without the consent of other chiefs of the same tribe - basically, the concept of a treaty (as Americans understood them, an agreement between two different nations) did not fit the mold of some tribes' form of government (dispersed responsibilities with little or no hierarchy or defined procedures for interacting with other nations). I am assuming that these situations do not apply with the treaty/Nation that was involved in this case (Creek, right?).

 

[406dn]

Hard to be happy about this ruling since it was brought to the Court by a convicted child molester trying to get out of his conviction: "The case was brought by Jimcy McGirt, a member of the Creek Nation who was convicted in state court of molesting a child."
from here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...dc42d4-c1e2-11ea-9fdd-b7ac6b051dc8_story.html
Not that one d-bag is a reason to ignore a treaty, it's just unfortunate.

I haven't heard this addressed in this conversation, and I wonder if some people are lumping all tribes together. I am not an expert on Native American treaties, but from what I have read, many treaties were written with the expectation that one or both sides would immediately break the terms. And/or the treaties were signed by one chief without the consent of other chiefs of the same tribe - basically, the concept of a treaty (as Americans understood them, an agreement between two different nations) did not fit the mold of some tribes' form of government (dispersed responsibilities with little or no hierarchy or defined procedures for interacting with other nations). I am assuming that these situations do not apply with the treaty/Nation that was involved in this case (Creek, right?).

What the individual bringing the case did is irrelevant to the Supreme court's ruling. If I murder someone in Montana,,,, South Dakota can't try me for murder. Mr. McGirt should have been charged and tried in Federal court.

Now why would any tribe ever agree to give up land (face it, they were always agreeing to less land),, if they expected the United States to immediately break the terms of the treaty?

 

[COEngineer]

What the individual bringing the case did is irrelevant to the Supreme court's ruling. If I murder someone in Montana,,,, South Dakota can't try me for murder. Mr. McGirt should have been charged and tried in Federal court.

No argument. Like I said, it's just unfortunate. Leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Now why would any tribe ever agree to give up land (face it, they were always agreeing to less land),, if they expected the United States to immediately break the terms of the treaty?

In at least some cases, it was for very short-term benefits, like food, blankets, whiskey.