Treaty rules continue in to pop up in wildlife news

FI460 said:
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?
Click to expand...
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 umedia.lib.umn.edu
 
rjthehunter said:
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 umedia.lib.umn.edu
Click to expand...

Zero personal experience.

If the tribe is correct and they have treaty rights to an expanded area of the lake why would they not pursue that though?

That would mean that the currently marked boundary has always been incorrect.
 
BuzzH said:
Meh, welcome to the way the world works.

I can sport fish AK and I'm allowed 2 halibut, one any size one less than 26-28 inches depending on the year. Can't fish certain days of the week either, you know, to "conserve" the resource.

Commercial guys are limited by TONS...
Click to expand...
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.
 
BuzzH said:
🤡
Click to expand...
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.
 
geetar said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
VikingsGuy said:
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.
Click to expand...
The point is tribes talk about sovereignty, but it isn't what they really want.
 
Considering the diversity of thought from non natives concerning treaties, it is a given there is a diversity of thought from the other side of the treaty.

The Red Lake issue is a good an example as any. Some number of the tribal members, when they study the treaty, have determined that the line presently drawn is drawn in the wrong spot. So they are pressing the issue. They may or may not succeed, but it is their right to seek a legal resolution.

Generally speaking, tribal members have a more complete understanding of their particular treaty than non tribal members.
 
BuzzH said:
They want the treaties the us government signed with them upheld.

Pretty gdamn simple...
Click to expand...
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.
 
VikingsGuy said:
I want a discussion, but I don't include stupid strawman arguments as part of a useful discussion.
Click to expand...
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?
 
406dn said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ugh, can’t believe I am going here but… here I go. I almost deleted this like 3 times…

I can’t argue that there wasn’t a healthy dose of white supremacy involved.

It does beg the question though: So what kind of supremacy were all the other ethnicities that took over territory and held slaves that made up varying ethnicities practicing? Why do we never talk about those people?

It is commonly theorized that the word slave is derived from slav or slavonic due to their being held in bondage by folks over in the middle east in like the 6th century. Was that Arab supremacy?

Were the indigenous tribes that displaced other indigenous tribes practicing some form of ethnic supremacy?

Or was everyone back then just doing what people did back then. Holding people of the past to modern ideals is really strange.

I never understood why early Americans are held to a higher standard than everyone else throughout human history as if Americans concocted the concept of conquest and slavery and were the only ones practicing them at the time.

How far back do we want to go with our finger pointing?

Damn glad most of the world wised up like 160 years ago. Well hopefully…

I don’t even know what this has to do with the topic honestly.

With that said, if we as Americans signed a treaty with these folks, honor it and/or renegotiate in good faith.

The law is the law.
 
BWALKER77 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Sure it has. Try reading one.

Also, why should treaties be renegotiated?

If the U.S. Government wanted me to renegotiate my treaty rights I think I'd be inclined to tell them to K.M.A.

In particular when the SCOTUS has upheld my current treaty and associated rights.
 
Last edited:
I've also debated posting to this thread, but here we are.

It seems that some of us are stuck in a bit of the perspective we learned early on. I think it is worthwhile recognizing that there are additional perspectives worth considering.

Some/many of the treaties from the late 1800's were not signed or joined voluntarily by the Tribes. They were forced and coerced into new terms by the US Government which was not upholding previous treaty terms. The US Government was not providing the housing, food, or other means set forth in the initial mid-century treaties. The US Government also attacked peaceful groups and other tribes for various reasons, some of which resulted in retaliation by Natives which the Government used to deny treaty provisions.

I'm not saying one perspective is completely right or wrong, just that the truth probably isn't as simple as some of us initially were taught. This post is a drastic oversimplification of the situation, but if you want the full perspective then check out "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee."
 
BuzzH said:
Sure it has. Try reading one.

Also, why should treaties be renegotiated?

If the U.S. Government wanted me to renegotiate my treaty rights I think I'd be inclined to tell them to K.M.A.

In particular when the SCOTUS has upheld my current treaty and associated rights.
Click to expand...
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.
I already stated why they should be renegotiated, but I will say it again. To reflect modernity.
And sure you could tell them to fug off, but that goes both ways.
 
Last edited:
BrentD said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.

I am not sure which squatter thread you are referencing, but that raises the issue of "adverse possession" - a different but well litigated and defined area of state property law (that does vary significantly state to state).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
114,025
Messages
2,041,645
Members
36,433
Latest member
x_ring2000

Share this page

Back
Top