Senator Jon Tester has just introduced another water settlement bill for the Fort Belknap Indian Council and again he bill proposes to give hundreds of millions of dollars to the Fort Belknap Tribe along with thousands of acres of land that you and I use for recreation and hunting. This land in the Little Rocky Mountains are known as the Grinnell lands and are included in this water settlement to be given to the tribe as Federal Government compensation for lack of monies available to give to the tribes in this water settlement. These lands are now there for use by all people, we all own this land together and can use it as equals, but if this land goes to the Fort Belknap Tribe, it would then be under Indian jurisdiction and Indian Laws, remember people, the reservation is a sovereign Nation and do not use or respect our justice system or laws, they have their own. Reservation do not need to become larger, as they have trouble controlling what they have now. Remember that reservations pay little taxes and are are exempt from paying for many things you and I have to pay for, for example enrolled members of a tribe in Montana do not have to pay for license plates and registration on their car, but everyone else does. it's time that any sovereign nation be denied outrageous demands and receive only a fair compensation and not be compensated over and over again for the same demand, which the Fort Belknap Tribes has been. When will they be paid enough?
Little Rocky Moutains giveaway
- Thread starter 3wisemen
- Start date
Bambistew
Well-known member
Why all the hate towards the Indians? They sure are living the good life, that's for sure. All that land they were just given, who would do such a thing. I mean they only owned it all before we showed up and took it from them.
Nice first post by the way.
Signed an Indian lover.
Nice first post by the way.
Signed an Indian lover.
A little background to that settlement based on talking with many of the parties involved, and I preface it with being a person who never likes to see any public land sold/traded without equal or more public land received.
The tribes are being compensated for the water that was taken from them and used by people in the area. They have offered to settle for a lower total settlement amount if they get some land, rather than all cash. I understand they have agreed to lessen the settlement amount by over $10 million if they get some of this in the form of land, rather than all cash.
It is also believed by most that if this goes to court and not settled before that, the tribe will be awarded a lot more in such proceeding than what they are getting in this deal.
Thus, the reason for the settlement being structured the way it is.
All parties seem to agree that the tribes have had the pipe laid to them as it relates to their water being taken. That is not the argument. The contention comes from how much is a fair to compensate for the water taken and what manner of payment should be made.
Personally, I don't want to see any land as part of the payment. The rest of America, and their delegates in Congress, none of whom will ever step foot on the lands of Grinnell Notch, would rather save millions of dollars by paying in land and cash, rather than all cash.
Those lands that might be traded would allow public hunting/public access for twenty years after such trade is approved. Again, I would want perpetual access or no lands traded, but not sure that is going to happen.
The part of the deal that sucks is that the US Government did not get the benefit of the water. Rather, the BIA/US Government failed to adequately manage the water rights held by the tribe and it cost the tribes a lot of value. Seems those who got the benefit of the water should be the ones writing the check, but the claim by the tribes is not against those who got benefit from the water, rather their claim is against the US Government for not managing tribe assets in a manner that was agreed to.
To blame the tribe seems ridiculous and/or uninformed. If I was a tribe member and the US Government allowed my assets to be given away to others, I would be making a claim also.
The tribes are being compensated for the water that was taken from them and used by people in the area. They have offered to settle for a lower total settlement amount if they get some land, rather than all cash. I understand they have agreed to lessen the settlement amount by over $10 million if they get some of this in the form of land, rather than all cash.
It is also believed by most that if this goes to court and not settled before that, the tribe will be awarded a lot more in such proceeding than what they are getting in this deal.
Thus, the reason for the settlement being structured the way it is.
All parties seem to agree that the tribes have had the pipe laid to them as it relates to their water being taken. That is not the argument. The contention comes from how much is a fair to compensate for the water taken and what manner of payment should be made.
Personally, I don't want to see any land as part of the payment. The rest of America, and their delegates in Congress, none of whom will ever step foot on the lands of Grinnell Notch, would rather save millions of dollars by paying in land and cash, rather than all cash.
Those lands that might be traded would allow public hunting/public access for twenty years after such trade is approved. Again, I would want perpetual access or no lands traded, but not sure that is going to happen.
The part of the deal that sucks is that the US Government did not get the benefit of the water. Rather, the BIA/US Government failed to adequately manage the water rights held by the tribe and it cost the tribes a lot of value. Seems those who got the benefit of the water should be the ones writing the check, but the claim by the tribes is not against those who got benefit from the water, rather their claim is against the US Government for not managing tribe assets in a manner that was agreed to.
To blame the tribe seems ridiculous and/or uninformed. If I was a tribe member and the US Government allowed my assets to be given away to others, I would be making a claim also.
howler
Active member
The Little Rockies is an island mountain range 40 miles south of Malta Mt. 90% of it is on the Fort Belkknap Indian reservation, the Grinnell Notch is not and is controlled by the BLM for everyone the land being given to the fort Belknap tribes is about 15K acres, it is all controlled by the BLM and is open to the public for recreation, there are also 29 sections of state lands all with in the reservation boundry that will be given to the tribe and nobody has any problem with that, It is basically inaccessible now. the BLM land do provide a lot of recreation to area sportsmen. The lawsuit that was won by the tribe is a done deal nobody has any problem with the outcome and all feel the tribe is due their water rights and associated benefits, BUT the 15K acres of BLM land thrown in on the deal is not acceptable. This is the only mountain terrain available to eastern Mt. for mountain recreation. The debt owed to the Tribe is owed to the tribe by the whole United States, yet the area recreationist are the ones paying the bill. Some guy from Alaska or Colorado don't have any skin in the game he won't miss a thing but the local guy who hunts there hikes there is giving up a lot. in some cases he is giving up all his recreation. We are losing more and more recreational land everyday for various reasons and now were just giving it away needlessly, ,
Last edited:
shoots-straight
Well-known member
No land! Print more money, and if they want to purchase private lands from willing sellers then go for it.
OriginalOscar
Active member
Yep. After 400 years of genocide we owe the tribes access to lands and resources. MT issue and it sounds like a fair and public process.
CabinFever
Member
...
Last edited:
spook12
New member
No skin in the game?
What a dumbass statement!
Here's an idea, how about the people of Eastern Montana pay their own damn bills,with their own assets and leave me and ''Some guy from Alaska and Colorado'' out of it.
Jorgy
Active member
Excellent point Howler.
jryoung
Well-known member
Who took their water? Ranchers? Farmers? How was it used, and are those that used it have any restitution?
Goldtip
New member
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2009
- Messages
- 1,142
My question exactly. Why is the Government being held responsible for the loss of the tribes water?
TheShootist.41
Banned
BambiStew, Big Fin, Dukes Daddy, & Spook12 seem to have done the research and devoted fair time to thought about the matter. I believe their point is well stated and agree. JMO
RobG
Well-known member
I normally agree with you Spook, but I think you misunderstood his point.
Nemont
Well-known member
Really? How do you know it was only people from Eastern Montana who owe the tribes for land and water taken? .
Arkansas and Montana are just about on par at being takers from the Federal Government. In total dollars Arkansas get far more from the Federal Treasury than Montana does. I guess right back at you, pay your damn bills and don't ask for more of my tax money.
Last edited:
Nemont
Well-known member
these water compacts have been funded all over the country without requiring a single acre of land to be traded. Seems odd that giving up public lands to the tribes is the only way this can be done.
Nemont
Nemont
spook12
New member
Nemont you're too smart for that. We both know it's much more nuanced.
Just so I'm clear.
Being against the transfer of these federal lands on the basis of lost recreational opportunity for a relatively small number of locals (GOOD).
Being against the transfer of these federal lands to pay a debt incurred by a relatively small number of PRIVATE individuals (BAD) .
So I don't continue to bring down the wrath of the Montana contingent lets talk in hypotheticals.
Some private individuals ''Somewhere'' owe some money for something they received. The people owed the money,knowing they will never collect from the private individuals call in big brother to collect, big brother decides that trying to collect from all the private individuals is just too much trouble. It's just easier for big brother to pay the bill himself and move on. So big brother goes back to the rest of the family and says ''we gotta pay this bill''. The rest of the family agrees to help as long as those who ''ran up the tab'' in the first place have a little extra skin in the game. Big brother goes back to those who owe the bill and tells them the good news. The whole family has agreed to help you out this time,but here's the deal ''You have to give up a little more than everyone else'', if you want their help.
BULLSHIT, no way! TELL them that all I'm willing to pay is an equal share seems to be the response.
By the way my water bill came the other day. It's $107.50 which state out there's got a couple sq ft of ground that I can get deeded over to my local water department?
Just so I'm clear.
Being against the transfer of these federal lands on the basis of lost recreational opportunity for a relatively small number of locals (GOOD).
Being against the transfer of these federal lands to pay a debt incurred by a relatively small number of PRIVATE individuals (BAD) .
So I don't continue to bring down the wrath of the Montana contingent lets talk in hypotheticals.
Some private individuals ''Somewhere'' owe some money for something they received. The people owed the money,knowing they will never collect from the private individuals call in big brother to collect, big brother decides that trying to collect from all the private individuals is just too much trouble. It's just easier for big brother to pay the bill himself and move on. So big brother goes back to the rest of the family and says ''we gotta pay this bill''. The rest of the family agrees to help as long as those who ''ran up the tab'' in the first place have a little extra skin in the game. Big brother goes back to those who owe the bill and tells them the good news. The whole family has agreed to help you out this time,but here's the deal ''You have to give up a little more than everyone else'', if you want their help.
BULLSHIT, no way! TELL them that all I'm willing to pay is an equal share seems to be the response.
By the way my water bill came the other day. It's $107.50 which state out there's got a couple sq ft of ground that I can get deeded over to my local water department?
Nemont
Well-known member
Prove it wasnt big brother himself who ran up the bill. It is not just locals who benefitted from this.
Nemont
Nemont
spook12
New member
How many large federal installations are there in Eastern Mt. ?
Sorry I meant, How many federal installations are there'' around where the folks who owe the bill live''.
Last edited:
Similar threads
