Treaty rules continue in to pop up in wildlife news

[BuzzH]

Yes you are. Butthurt over your compadre. Keep playing your bully boy games, I'll be your huckleberry in this thread as well...

How many more articles should I post about NW Montana and the skinhead/white supremacy influence found there?

True colors on full display...nothing screams treating another race of people more fairly than denying them their treaty rights, forcing them to assimilate into YOUR culture, and taking their land AGAIN.

All things in your opinion, you believe should happen...remember?

For chits n grins, as we all share opinions, the "Native Americans" should have been assimilated into America, as Americans. No reservations, no treaties, but hey, JMO.

I'm sure a strongly shared opinion by a certain type of white folk living in NW Montana...

 

[Sytes]

Buzz, stick to the topic. This thread, as with the Bozeman thread, I've shared nothing related to your deep desire to proclaim racism only resides in the little corner of NW MT.

My comment relates to America, Americans - all equal. Not separated tribal from American. All American. Irish American, African American, Native American, etc. ALL American.

You want to continue painting racism to bully another hunt talk member. Play ball.

You have your cheerleaders, as mentioned before, you have great moments and some really childish, arrogant moments you trip upon.

Share your Indian, "Native American", Tribal, treaties, etc. Share your opinion.

As for your deep rooted desire to paint racism as only in NW MT, move on.

 

[HONEYBADGER]

Meh let them destroy it, not like it will be any worse than Chicago, Detroit, San Fran or anywhere else the welfare culture dominates.

 

[BuzzH]

Buzz, stick to the topic. This thread, as with the Bozeman thread, I've shared nothing related to your deep desire to proclaim racism only resides in the little corner of NW MT.

My comment relates to America, Americans - all equal. Not separated tribal from American. All American. Irish American, African American, Native American, etc. ALL American.

You want to continue painting racism to bully another hunt talk member. Play ball.

You have your cheerleaders, as mentioned before, you have great moments and some really childish, arrogant moments you trip upon.

Share your Indian, "Native American", Tribal, treaties, etc. Share your opinion.

As for your deep rooted desire to paint racism as only in NW MT, move on.

Right...like you stuck to the topic of wildlife related treaty rights.

All you did was make sure you took your best shot at, how did you put it, "Native Americans"...and how much you loathe their treaty rights and land holdings.

Making sure to post a couple totally unrelated articles about reservation crime...as if the part of NW Montana you live in isn't plumb full of drug, alcohol, domestic violence, racism...

Shouldn't throw stones in that glass house of yours.

 

[Dave N]

You guys need a room?

 

[Sytes]

Carry on Buzz.

 

[longbow51]

Like so many things about America, we were not the first, but we “perfected” and industrialized it to a whole other level. I don’t think a single person on this thread has argued against the reality that slavery was a part of broad history, so not “disingenuous.”

I do not understand why this history is something to be denied, excused or minimized. I suppose for the same reasons Japanese students are not told about Pearl Harbor or the sex slaves of Korean. But I reject phony histories - whether offered by the simply ridiculous “lost cause narrative” or the excesses of the 1619 project.

So, are you arguing against yourself? And, yes, no one is minimizing the past injustices. The question is, what are you doing about the slavery in 2023? Human trafficking at the border for sex/cheap labor, kids (essential slaves) digging for cobalt in Africa so rich white people can virtue signal about electric cars?

So is it actual slavery that you could do something about by maybe electing folks in MN who won't be pro-slavery (trading with China, etc.) that you object to, or folks 200 years ago?

We can't reverse the past; we could change the future by refusing to do business with folks who practice slavery.

Or, if you are OK with slavery in 2023, please explain.

 

[MattK]

So, are you arguing against yourself? And, yes, no one is minimizing the past injustices. The question is, what are you doing about the slavery in 2023? Human trafficking at the border for sex/cheap labor, kids (essential slaves) digging for cobalt in Africa so rich white people can virtue signal about electric cars?

So is it actual slavery that you could do something about by maybe electing folks in MN who won't be pro-slavery (trading with China, etc.) that you object to, or folks 200 years ago?

We can't reverse the past; we could change the future by refusing to do business with folks who practice slavery.

Or, if you are OK with slavery in 2023, please explain.

It's tough in a global economy to become an isolationist country. At the same time, it's nearly impossible to control other countries and make them abide by our morals and values. Yes, we should try to invoke change in other countries...yes we should stop it from happening here and yes we should abide by treaties that we agreed to. The best answer is the US was imperfect but we now are attempting to do better...so the most current treaty needs to be followed. Whether "we" like it or not. All laws should be abided by but as everyone knows...some are much easier to enforce than others and law enforcement has limitted resources. Abiding by a treaty isn't that tough but in many cases has to be litigated to get through the mud...and that's how it should work.

 

[Derek44]

So, are you arguing against yourself? And, yes, no one is minimizing the past injustices. The question is, what are you doing about the slavery in 2023? Human trafficking at the border for sex/cheap labor, kids (essential slaves) digging for cobalt in Africa so rich white people can virtue signal about electric cars?

Wow!!!! The attempts at deflecting, minimizing, and justifying are mind blowing

 

[longbow51]

Wow!!!! The attempts at deflecting, minimizing, and justifying are mind blowing

So you are OK with current slavery? If so, please explain why.

 

[Derek44]

So you are OK with current slavery? If so, please explain why.

 

[Hawk Tuah]

A treaty is a treaty. If it wasn't end-dated, that's not the natives' fault.

 

[SAJ-99]

So, are you arguing against yourself? And, yes, no one is minimizing the past injustices. The question is, what are you doing about the slavery in 2023? Human trafficking at the border for sex/cheap labor, kids (essential slaves) digging for cobalt in Africa so rich white people can virtue signal about electric cars?

Is there cobalt in Arkansas?

Arkansas Gov. Sanders signs measure rolling back child labor protections

The bill eliminates a requirement that the state verify the age of children under 16 before companies can hire them.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[grizzly63]

I would think a man of power would shut this thread down as it doesn't seem to be accomplishing much but an airing of grievances and opinions. Carry on. I did apply for my first chance to get a deer tag this last week so thats huntng related. i have a couple of preference points so that should help. Its not on any reservation ground though. To scared to hunt there.

 

[Rzrbk]

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 h

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

That's the common thinking with this generation so you're more in line with current societal standards than myself. So, I'm hearing you say that the Treaty was crap, times have changed and the folks agreeing to the Treaty did not anticipate Indians using modern methods. So, the Treaty is crap and meaningless but we'll keep the land nonetheless. That's awesome reasoning since you just change the rules as needed to win across the board. I mainly see that argument used by gun control advocates saying the founding fathers had no way of anticipating we'd have ak's and clips capable of firing multiple rounds. I guess you're in favor of that argument as well.
Basically, I'm hearing that you can pick and choose what's legitimate based on one's selfish desires. I'll stick with one of my grandfathers favorite quotes that "I'd crawl five miles to pay back a nickel debt". A city boy moved into our neighborhood and cut a deal (common handshake) that he'd provide 50 round bales in exchange for a neighboring landowner managing his fields. Well, there was a drought in Texas and the price of hay more than doubled. The city boy went back on his deal citing that he had never anticipated the cost of hay would be so high. In fact, conditions had changed to the point to where he didn't pay even a single bale. From his opinion it was the difference in the hay being worth $50 vs/ $120 bale. Sadly, nowadays folks can live in a community without being part of a community and so there are no repercussions for this type action other than having the disdain of locals. People can define things as they choose in todays world. A world without standards is great as long as it goes your way.

 

[BuzzH]

That's the common thinking with this generation so you're more in line with current societal standards than myself. So, I'm hearing you say that the Treaty was crap, times have changed and the folks agreeing to the Treaty did not anticipate Indians using modern methods. So, the Treaty is crap and meaningless but we'll keep the land nonetheless. That's awesome reasoning since you just change the rules as needed to win across the board. I mainly see that argument used by gun control advocates saying the founding fathers had no way of anticipating we'd have ak's and clips capable of firing multiple rounds. I guess you're in favor of that argument as well.
Basically, I'm hearing that you can pick and choose what's legitimate based on one's selfish desires. I'll stick with one of my grandfathers favorite quotes that "I'd crawl five miles to pay back a nickel debt". A city boy moved into our neighborhood and cut a deal (common handshake) that he'd provide 50 round bales in exchange for a neighboring landowner managing his fields. Well, there was a drought in Texas and the price of hay more than doubled. The city boy went back on his deal citing that he had never anticipated the cost of hay would be so high. In fact, conditions had changed to the point to where he didn't pay even a single bale. From his opinion it was the difference in the hay being worth $50 vs/ $120 bale. Sadly, nowadays folks can live in a community without being part of a community and so there are no repercussions for this type action other than having the disdain of locals. People can define things as they choose in todays world. A world without standards is great as long as it goes your way.

Well, of course, there are those pesky Supreme Court rulings on the treaties as well...you know, the one's that say they're still valid.

 

[rjthehunter]

That's the common thinking with this generation so you're more in line with current societal standards than myself. So, I'm hearing you say that the Treaty was crap, times have changed and the folks agreeing to the Treaty did not anticipate Indians using modern methods. So, the Treaty is crap and meaningless but we'll keep the land nonetheless. That's awesome reasoning since you just change the rules as needed to win across the board. I mainly see that argument used by gun control advocates saying the founding fathers had no way of anticipating we'd have ak's and clips capable of firing multiple rounds. I guess you're in favor of that argument as well.

My argument is based on this situation and this situation only. It has no relation to gun control. You can't just take someone's opinion and apply it to all situations.

That's as asinine as me saying "Oh you like to hunt elk? So that means you like to hunt people you freak." See how dumb that sounds?

The second amendment is a little different than addressing & protecting the overharvest of fish and game.

 

[Rzrbk]

Folks wanting to end the Treaties should research "The Dawes Act" (allotment era) and "Tribal Termination Policy", both were done by our Gov at a time when they agreed with ending the Tribal Trust and ignoring our obligations. Ultimately, Congress has the authority over Treaties and they could end it tomorrow if they choose and the Courts allow it to stand.

 

[FI460]

My argument is based on this situation and this situation only. It has no relation to gun control. You can't just take someone's opinion and apply it to all situations.

That's as asinine as me saying "Oh you like to hunt elk? So that means you like to hunt people you freak." See how dumb that sounds?

The second amendment is a little different than addressing & protecting the overharvest of fish and game.

What's your remedy here RJ?

Are you advocating that we ignore the possibly legitimate claims that these tribes are making to hold the status quo due to the implied impact on the fishery?

Or are you saying you wish it weren't so and that congress should fix it?

 

[Rzrbk]

My argument is based on this situation and this situation only. It has no relation to gun control. You can't just take someone's opinion and apply it to all situations.

That's as asinine as me saying "Oh you like to hunt elk? So that means you like to hunt people you freak." See how dumb that sounds?

The second amendment is a little different than addressing & protecting the overharvest of fish and game.

me thinks you are stirring the pot on purpose. You're mixing an illegal act (homicide) with hunting legal game animals while all we are doing is saying that whether it's Treaty, Constitution, Fed Law, local law or whatever, you are picking which ones are meaningful based on arguing that it's foundationally wrong, or conditions have changed. A better comparison is that you might want to legalize homicide because you feel that our aversion to homicide is outdated and needs revision.

I'm not getting stirred up on this issue because I believe most folks arguing to disregard Treaties are just trying to push buttons. For the time being, the Courts support Treaty rights and our opinions won't change it. Rzrbk out!