Leave it alone? This has been the boundaries since at least the early 1900s based on what I can find.
Leave it alone? This has been the boundaries since at least the early 1900s based on what I can find.
There's a lot larger issues within the reservations that should probably be address before looking into expansion IMO.
How much time have you spent in/around the Red Lake Reservation? Any first hand experience?
UMedia
umedia.lib.umn.edu
And if you come to the east coast it’s the same with founder and drum. Commercial guys get away with tons while the rod and reel anglers are limited to one per day.
I am never sure if remarks (like passports for tribes) are due to a shocking lack of understanding of even the most basic legal principles, are due to a complete lack of respect (and a healthy disdain) for others who are different than themselves in any of the common ways (race, gender, urban/rural, etc), or are just the work of self-congratulatory jack*sses. But your clown icon makes such a determination unnecessary and I look forward to using myself when circumstances call for it.
And the big timber guys cut millions of board feet, while my neighbor got pissed when I cut down the apple tree in his yard -- #lifeissounfair
The point is tribes talk about sovereignty, but it isn't what they really want.
They want the treaties the us government signed with them upheld.
I want a discussion, but I don't include stupid strawman arguments as part of a useful discussion.
In the history of treaties with the Tribes that's never happened so why start now? It's not like treaties are monolithic and can't be changed. IMO they should all be renegotiated to reflect modernity.
I haven't been following this closely, but I am interested in it. I don't know the terms of this particular treaty but has the tribe been demanding this all along and just now getting traction? I ask because I'm wondering about this in light of another thread about property rights by squatters after x-many years supposedly turn into ownership rights. Or something like that. Does this apply hear? Probably not. But is it realistic to think that all the people whose lives and livelihoods hang in the balance here can be simply dismissed?
Sure it has. Try reading one.
Buzz, treaties where changed almost as soon as they were signed in some cases. For instance the Crow reservation at one time started in Paradise valley and its agency was located in Livingston, then it was shrunk and the agency moved to Absarokee, then it was shrunk again and moved to Crow Agency.
As I mentioned in the OP I have not dug deeply into this particular one, but in general, what we are seeing is a significant influx in new tribal claims. And that makes sense -- for over a hundred years they got whatever the fed gov and fed courts wanted them to have regardless of the actual text and context of the treaties. Many rounds of govt. and locals shrinking and shrinking the pie for them. But now that SCOTUS is willing to enforce the treaties many are starting to look back at how misuse and misapplication of these treaties "shorted them". Some of these claims will likely be legit and upheld, and some of the claims will likely be found to be wishful thinking and they will lose those. But many decades without a fair tribunal has left us with a bit of a log jam of long-festering concerns that will take a decade or more to work their way through the system.
