Treaty rules continue in to pop up in wildlife news

VikingsGuy said:
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.
Click to expand...
No kidding...for the spoils the US Government received and the enormous wealth created via that land...its seems allowing tribes to pick berries, net a walleye, and whack a bison leaving YNP, we still got the better deal.

Just sayin'...
 
VikingsGuy said:
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.
Click to expand...
Et Tu Brute
 
Since none of us seem to have all of the info at this time, it's a waste to complain IMO. If the line was "redrawn" as stated, well show me the proof. IF it was not, well, problem solved, don't go over the magic line in the water...if there was redrawn lines and they own all the land around the lake then somehow give it back to them. Lawyers and judges make this sh!t so complicated. Another easy fix is we don't put any more resources toward the lake if they own it...another easy decision. Just make all the roads that lead up to the land toll roads and that solves even more issues....they can have the lake to do as they wish.
 
rjthehunter said:
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.
Click to expand...
Your argument was that old agreements joined into by the citizens of the United States don't matter...
 
VikingsGuy said:
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 wanted the land they used to feed themselves with and in turn we offered to support them.
Click to expand...

I made a small edit. A common denominator in every treaty is that the Federal government made claim to the land they wanted, and offered land they felt was inferior, to natives. It is very hard to find an exception to that.

Our history, really if you want to be brutally blunt about it is about as white supremacist as it comes. We felt entitled to enslave black people and just displace indigenous people, as needed.

Those are original sins that trouble us to today.
 
Last edited:
VikingsGuy said:
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.
Click to expand...
I really have no care about the treaties.

I just want access to the amazing fisheries we have that are being mismanaged and over harvested. I don't want to lose access to Red Lake. I don't know how much money that area brings in, but it has to be a pile. To sink all those businesses (resorts, fishing guides, bait shops) and prevent non-natives from accessing the lake is pointless. Natives have 240,800 acres while most of us can only access 48,000 acres of water on Red Lake.

The original article has everything to do with the natives wanting sole fishing rights to Red Lake.
 
wllm said:
Your argument was that old agreements joined into by the citizens of the United States don't matter...
Click to expand...
If you generalize my argument enough, yeah I suppose you could see it that way. But it's not meant in a general meaning. We're talking about a specific issue.
 
rjthehunter said:
I really have no care about the treaties.

I just want access to the amazing fisheries we have that are being mismanaged and over harvested. I don't want to lose access to Red Lake. I don't know how much money that area brings in, but it has to be a pile. To sink all those businesses (resorts, fishing guides, bait shops) and prevent non-natives from accessing the lake is pointless. Natives have 240,800 acres while most of us can only access 48,000 acres of water on Red Lake.

The original article has everything to do with the natives wanting sole fishing rights to Red Lake.
Click to expand...
I reiterate - a nation of laws not (sports)men - a wonderful idea that is as good today as it was centuries ago when founding father John Adams said it.
 
wllm said:
You'd probably fit right in with the current supreme court, only the laws I like are valid, the rest don't matter.
Click to expand...
BS - both sides like the ones they like and hate the ones they hate. Heller and Citizens United have a half-life of 9 months if the left gets 2 more votes. Such is the way of a democracy. Elections have always had consequences.
 
Last edited:
VikingsGuy said:
BS - both sides like the ones they like at hate the ones I hate. Heller and Citizens United have a half-life of 9 months if the left gets 2 more votes. Such is the way of a democracy. Elections have always had consequences.
Click to expand...
Exactly... and that is the problem I'm tossing Sotomayor right in there with Thomas.

~a nation of laws~

You should be able to have 9 justices appointed by a President of either party and not have a total change of course, that steering should be done by the legislature.
 
MTGomer said:
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.
Click to expand...
Here’s the thing, they are free to move to a better school district or get a job with better healthcare.
The treaty didn’t say it would be good education or healthcare.

Next problem you need solved.
 
Last edited:
Rzrbk said:
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.
Click to expand...
^^Exactly!^^
Here's just a short list of the MANY broken treaties.

Broken US-Indigenous treaties: A timeline
  • Treaty With the Delawares/Treaty of Fort Pitt (1778) ...
  • Treaty of Fort Stanwix (1784) ...
  • Treaty of Hopewell (1785-86) ...
  • Treaty of Canandaigua/Pickering Treaty (1794) ...
  • Treaty of Greenville (1795) ...
  • Treaty with the Sioux (1805) ...
  • Treaty of Fort Wayne (1809) ...
  • Indian Removal Act (1830)
More items...
•
Nov 17, 2021
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
114,034
Messages
2,041,964
Members
36,439
Latest member
backstraps

Share this page

Back
Top