howler
Active member
what is the e mail address for the US Senate Indian Affair Committee and who do we addresss
Little Rocky Moutains giveaway
- Thread starter 3wisemen
- Start date
Just called the committee staff & they said to direct comments to Senator Tester's contact page & the comments will go to the Senator's staff first, then to the committee:
Email: http://www.tester.senate.gov/?p=email_senator
To contact the committee staff, follow this link, although there is no posted email address for the committee staff.
http://www.indian.senate.gov/
Email: http://www.tester.senate.gov/?p=email_senator
To contact the committee staff, follow this link, although there is no posted email address for the committee staff.
http://www.indian.senate.gov/
Two face
Just received an e-mail from Tester that he is fighting hard to save our federal lands for us outdoors people, while he still has his Senate Bill 1394 giving thousands of acres to the Fort Belknap Tribe. This is land that we hike, fish, hunt, pick berries, cut firewood, ride motorbikes, take a drive to, relax in, admire, etc., this is our "Mountains" in eastern Montana. He talks out of both sides of his face! He can't promise the Grinnell lands to the Tribe without taking from the Public. The only way to win, is to LEAVE IT ALONE!
Just received an e-mail from Tester that he is fighting hard to save our federal lands for us outdoors people, while he still has his Senate Bill 1394 giving thousands of acres to the Fort Belknap Tribe. This is land that we hike, fish, hunt, pick berries, cut firewood, ride motorbikes, take a drive to, relax in, admire, etc., this is our "Mountains" in eastern Montana. He talks out of both sides of his face! He can't promise the Grinnell lands to the Tribe without taking from the Public. The only way to win, is to LEAVE IT ALONE!
howler
Active member
Fort Belknap water compact bill introduced, Tester says
U.S. Sen. Jon Tester introduces the Fort Belknap Indian Community Water Compact in the U.S. Senate on Thursday.
www.greatfallstribune.com
howler
Active member
As it is now both the indian and white man gets to use these lands, after thre lands are given to the tribe the white man will not be able to use
Who did they BUY it from? They got deeds? Papers? Can they prove THEY didn't take it from someone? Did they survey their borders? Did they recognize folks on the land prior to them? How EXACTLY did a culture that didn't believe in owning the land, OWN THE LAND?
Im always curious how history started with western expansion. Almost as if there wasn't anything before that?
I need help. In Herrera we are told we have to follow the exact wording of a treaty and forget that an entire state came afterwards.
Now in this dispute we are to interpret or suppose, or imagine rights where none are specifically spelled out.
Can someone explain how the Indians get things both ways?
Seems to a commoner like myself that if, as in Herrera, the exact words on a paper are the basis for rulings, regardless of statehood, definitions, etc,
THEN,
Should this same principle not apply across the board.?
Explain this to me please
Now in this dispute we are to interpret or suppose, or imagine rights where none are specifically spelled out.
Can someone explain how the Indians get things both ways?
Seems to a commoner like myself that if, as in Herrera, the exact words on a paper are the basis for rulings, regardless of statehood, definitions, etc,
THEN,
Should this same principle not apply across the board.?
Explain this to me please
I'm not an expert on history of real estate titles in America, but I suspect that these became recognized lands with the Laramie Treaties of 1851 and 1868. The United States had two choices;
1) Expedite the settlement of the west via treaties, which meant recognizing tribes, their ownerships, and their sovereignty, and keep what had been taken from tribes to date. This satisfied the heavy political interests of railroad, timber, mining, and cattle barons, as it allowed a faster development path and lowered risks;
or
2) Continue to fight the tribes, knowing the US would eventually win, paying a price in lives of soldiers/settlers and a great financial price in opportunity costs that would be borne by the industries whose grand development plans would be put on hold until such time these pesky tribes could be exterminated from the landscape.
A business decision was made and Option 1 was chosen. When the US did that, the tribes' rights were defined and recognized under law. Many violations and renegotiations happened after that time, but with the tribes that are part of these water settlements of Montana, I think your question is answered by going back to the Laramie Treaties. I suspect that answers the question of how the rights to this land came to be recognized under US Law.
This settlement is a hard one to swallow if you use these public lands or you are a landowner who will now be surrounded by tribal lands. Yet, given how long this has been outstanding and the history that has been presented as part of this settlement negotiation, the pain of this settlement could be a lot worse for public land users. It is my understanding that this settlement has two aspects; 1) Water rights settlement from a 1908 USSC case, and 2) Land settlement from the 1895 negotiations.
The water rights portion is from a 1908 US Supreme Court Case that ruled in favor of the tribes, but not yet solved. Yeah, the court decided in favor of the tribes over 100 years ago. A century later, the tribes have not been made whole as it relates to the water rights. This settlement is supposedly the solution to that 1908 court ruling.
For the land portion at issue, history shows that this tribe sold 40,000 acres to the US Government in 1895. George Bird Grinnell was one of the people who helped negotiate that sale. The US took over 68,000 acres, though only having paid for 40,000. The land portion of this settlement is to repay 14,000 acres of the 28,000 that was taken and not paid for by the US Government.
As much as this sucks, if someone bought 400 acres from me and they took 600, I would want the other 200 acres back. I wouldn't want money. I'd want my land back, not just 100 acres, but all 200. In a nutshell, this is what happened here, albeit on a much larger scale.
Do we want to go to court and fight over the land portion of this deal, likely losing 28,000 acres of land we currently enjoy as public? Or, do we give back half of that 28,000; the 14,000 acres that are part of this settlement? Given the USSC has already ruled in favor of the tribes in 1908 over the water rights, and given the trend of courts to side with tribes under the basis of these old treaties and negotiations, is litigation a risk worth taking?
I hate to see any loss of public lands. I wish it could be settled with cash. But, if the tribe doesn't want cash, how do you settle that? Keep their extra 28,000 acres and tell them "Too Bad," knowing you will be in court? Given how courts have upheld Treaties that recognized these rights of the Tribes, a lot of folks experienced in these matters think the US might lose, providing the tribes with the water rights at issue, lots of money, and 28,000 acres of land (rather than the 14,000 in this settlement).
I've talked to R and D politicians about this. As seldom as it is that they ever agree on something, they seem to agree that this outcome is better than what it could be if the courts decide. It sucks, but it is also a reality that is hard to ignore.
If someone has better/more history to how we got to this point, please chime in. I'm going off notes from a couple years ago, so I could have some things wrong or incomplete.
Last edited:
I can understand that, EXCEPT, we are talking ACRES as if any of that land was surveyed in 1895. The tribes had zero concept of acreage. We may have, but I doubt highly it's anywhere near correct.
I just find it amazing how one day there are roaming bands of people who don't own land, the next they own the land. They took it by force from weaker tribes, they lost it to stronger armies. How did history start in 1865?
I guess my issue is simply how do you apply English law to a civilization with no law.? Why do the tribes get to now benefit from THE US government surveying, mapping, etc in 2019? Why are they not forced to use boundaries agreed upon in 1865? In order to lay claim to a border or boundary, let them produce evidence of one.
It just seems when convient the law and wording in the 1800's are used if it benefits the tribes, or its 2019 language that does. Not sure how they get to play both ways.
I just find it amazing how one day there are roaming bands of people who don't own land, the next they own the land. They took it by force from weaker tribes, they lost it to stronger armies. How did history start in 1865?
I guess my issue is simply how do you apply English law to a civilization with no law.? Why do the tribes get to now benefit from THE US government surveying, mapping, etc in 2019? Why are they not forced to use boundaries agreed upon in 1865? In order to lay claim to a border or boundary, let them produce evidence of one.
It just seems when convient the law and wording in the 1800's are used if it benefits the tribes, or its 2019 language that does. Not sure how they get to play both ways.
I really am hoping at some point an older tribe challenges the landowner rights of the other tribes. How do you "buy" 68,000 acres? Is there a deed? Is their a surveyed land plat? Or are we talking pencil marks on a map? Sorry for the long posts, it just floors me when history started. Or how "ownership" is established with the concept of ownership not part of one sides culture.
howler
Active member
here is some information some of you may not have seen, One thing should remain perfectly clear, the sportsmen of Montana do not have any issues with the Tribe getting water rights and or additional water rights, We also don't have a problem with the 21 thousand acres of state lands within the reservation boundary being transferred but what riles us is the 35 thousand acres of public lands off the reservation that is being given away.
Bottom line: Tribe sold land "Grinnell Land" in 1895. Compensated again in 1981 by Judge John Paul Wiese, 4.3 million dollars paid to tribe. Now in 2020 the Fort Belknap Tribe wants the Grinnell land given to them for FREE!!! If you don't see any wrong in this, you are all f'ed up!!!! Tester and Gallego are insighting people by this action!!!
diamond hitch
Well-known member
Just Testor buying votes on the reservation just like always. See if he doesn't go reservation by reservation with Daines following closely. Nice to see you all get to pay for it years later - again.
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,885
3wise,and diamond, well stated.
Perhaps wwe should revert back to option #2.
