Treaty rules continue in to pop up in wildlife news

[YukonGold]

So what would happen if these tribes went back to their original treaties and demanded their land back that was original promised by the US? A person could argue that any ratification was done under duress of said tribe.

^^^ not to mention that many of the tribes signing treaties (most of which were eventually violated by the U.S. anyway) couldn't speak or understand the language the treaties were written in when they were forced to sign them.

As for tribes not having wildlife...might have something to do with the fact that the U.S. government often gave them the crappiest lands available for their reservations. The CSKT was given decent land with good resources (most of which was eventually stolen back by the U.S. when they realized their mistake, and the tribe is still fighting to get it back) and they do a pretty good job managing their wildlife.

I don't think there's much that tribes can do that can compare with all the atrocities we've done to them, their land, and wildlife. Forgive and forget, eh?

 

[Rzrbk]

My understanding is that a Treaty is like keeping a promise except it's the promise of a Nation and in the case of Tribal Treaties, the tribes have already given their side of the bargain. In my experience, folks that want to ignore tribal treaties are also the sort that would go back on their own word or promise, or sacred oath. I want my Nation to keep it's word the same as I do for my own standards.

 

[rjthehunter]

My understanding is that a Treaty is like keeping a promise except it's the promise of a Nation and in the case of Tribal Treaties, the tribes have already given their side of the bargain. In my experience, folks that want to ignore tribal treaties are also the sort that would go back on their own word or promise, or sacred oath. I want my Nation to keep it's word the same as I do for my own standards.

Except I had nothing to do with the treaty. If I promise someone something, I'll keep my promise 100% of the time. If someone promises something on my behalf, it means nothing to me.

I want my nation to keep its word, but I also want it to stay modern. This isn't late 1700s to early 1800s anymore. Times have changed, people have changed, and technology has changed. They're no longer netting fish out of a dugout canoe. They're also not shooting critters with handmade bows and arrows.

It's not the same world it was when these treaties were signed.

 

[MTGomer]

I wonder when the tribes are going to start demanding that we uphold our other obligations, such as healthcare and education. Sure, those things exist, kind of, but they are garbage. Not even veterans under the VA system have as bad of a system as IHS.

 

[rjthehunter]

I wonder when the tribes are going to start demanding that we uphold our other obligations, such as healthcare and education. Sure, those things exist, kind of, but they are garbage. Not even veterans under the VA system have as bad of a system as IHS.

The whole sovereign nation thing doesn't fit well with the government providing so much for them. One demands independence, the other demands being looked after...

 

[BuzzH]

Except I had nothing to do with the treaty. If I promise someone something, I'll keep my promise 100% of the time. If someone promises something on my behalf, it means nothing to me.

I want my nation to keep its word, but I also want it to stay modern. This isn't late 1700s to early 1800s anymore. Times have changed, people have changed, and technology has changed. They're no longer netting fish out of a dugout canoe. They're also not shooting critters with handmade bows and arrows.

It's not the same world it was when these treaties were signed.

You clearly don't understand treaty law...just because you didn't personally sign the document doesn't absolve the Government from their binding agreements.

You weren't around when the Constitution was signed and had nothing to do with it either...which one of the two first amendments do you think we should make "modern".

I mean, because, you know, its not the same world when that pesky second was signed...

 

[307Fflam]

“It's always been a thorn in our side," Pemberton said. "They [the federal government] stole it from us."

Lol. Conquered old son, Conquered is the word you’re looking for not stolen. I think sovereign nations should start funding themselves. We’ll see how that goes.

When they net out the lake again, just leave it barren.

Couldn’t agree more.

 

[Nicoli7153]

The whole sovereign nation thing doesn't fit well with the government providing so much for them. One demands independence, the other demands being looked after...

Think we're still ahead (and they are still behind) in the long run. That manifest destiny stuff is a bitch

 

[VikingsGuy]

So what would happen if these tribes went back to their original treaties and demanded their land back that was original promised by the US? A person could argue that any ratification was done under duress of said tribe.

Duress is not a defense in treaties.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Except I had nothing to do with the treaty. If I promise someone something, I'll keep my promise 100% of the time. If someone promises something on my behalf, it means nothing to me.

I want my nation to keep its word, but I also want it to stay modern. This isn't late 1700s to early 1800s anymore. Times have changed, people have changed, and technology has changed. They're no longer netting fish out of a dugout canoe. They're also not shooting critters with handmade bows and arrows.

It's not the same world it was when these treaties were signed.

Does this mean France can have MN back? Flows with your logic.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Does this mean France can have MN back? Flows with your logic.

Fellows, if you could kindly turn in your AR's that would be great. The 2A is great and all that, but I also want it to stay modern. This isn't late 1700s to early 1800s anymore. Times have changed, people have changed, and technology has changed.

It's not the same world it was when the treaties constitution was signed.

 

[rogerthat]

^^^ not to mention that many of the tribes signing treaties (most of which were eventually violated by the U.S. anyway) couldn't speak or understand the language the treaties were written in when they were forced to sign them.

As for tribes not having wildlife...might have something to do with the fact that the U.S. government often gave them the crappiest lands available for their reservations. The CSKT was given decent land with good resources (most of which was eventually stolen back by the U.S. when they realized their mistake, and the tribe is still fighting to get it back) and they do a pretty good job managing their wildlife.

I don't think there's much that tribes can do that can compare with all the atrocities we've done to them, their land, and wildlife. Forgive and forget, eh?

In Montana in my opinion they got some of the most beautiful land the state has but maybe that’s not the case elsewhere.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

they got

Interesting word choice...

Relegated to...

 

[rjthehunter]

Does this mean France can have MN back? Flows with your logic.

The US bought that land right?

Fellows, if you could kindly turn in your AR's that would be great. The 2A is great and all that, but I also want it to stay modern. This isn't late 1700s to early 1800s anymore. Times have changed, people have changed, and technology has changed.

It's not the same world it was when the treaties constitution was signed.

No one is talking about the second amendment. That's a completely different discussion. I suppose you can just interject it here, but that's not even remotely close to the discussion we're having. The second amendment is unrelated to the tolls commercial harvest is having on fish & wildlife.

 

[VikingsGuy]

In Montana in my opinion they got some of the most beautiful land the state has but maybe that’s not the case elsewhere.

In the 1700s and 1800s it wasn’t about “beauty” it was about commercial viability.

 

[VikingsGuy]

The US bought that land right?

Via Treaty - here is the first page.

 

[VikingsGuy]

On a different note, keeping it in Minnesota, look up all the lawsuits filed by tribes throughout the state. Start doing some math and you'll realize that's a pretty big dollar amount every year that the state has been sued for.

Usually if some one says, “look at all those lawsuits against Walmart” the clear implication is that Walmart is a pervasive bad actor that need to get its sh*t together and start obeying the law. So, what does, “look at all the lawsuits against MN” suggest?

 

[BuzzH]

The US bought that land right?

No one is talking about the second amendment. That's a completely different discussion. I suppose you can just interject it here, but that's not even remotely close to the discussion we're having. The second amendment is unrelated to the tolls commercial harvest is having on fish & wildlife.

The US Government signed the treaties, doesn't matter when and they apply now just as they did then.

Wyoming recently found out the hard way, and yes, I can tell Wyoming, "I told you so"...another case where the SCOTUS got it right.

 

[BuzzH]

Usually if some one says, “look at all those lawsuits against Walmart” the clear implication is that Walmart is a pervasive bad actor that need to get its sh*t together and start obeying the law. So, what does, “look at all the lawsuits against MN” suggest?

Exactly right...

 

[VikingsGuy]

The whole sovereign nation thing doesn't fit well with the government providing so much for them. One demands independence, the other demands being looked after...

Dude, I am sure you are a good guy, but read one of the treaties cuz your are just pulling these points out of thin air. We made them surrender independence in favor of dependency because we needed the land they used to feed themselves with and in turn we offered to support them.