Looks like a State Lands transfer to me.

[BigHornRam]

For a little more context, the eastern half of Glacier National Park used to be part of the Blackfoot Reservation. Grinnell convinced (coerced, stole, gave too much for, negotiated, ect) the Blackfeet to sell it back to the U S Government. Was this a bad deal for the Blackfeet? Hard to say IMO.

 

[MTGomer]

Maybe they don’t want the money and instead prefer the land - it is not for one side of a negotiation to set the goals of the other.

Then I would prefer that they keep negotiating.
I’m not saying they aren’t owed the land/cash equivalent of said land. its no different than in other water settlements where there is a valuable material commodity usually water, but in this case land, we don’t pay them with water, but the cash equivalent of such water.
This is just my opinion of how I want my representatives to represent me in regards to my land.
The tribe is smart to want the land.

 

[Irrelevant]

Seems like there's quite a bit of area we once signed a treaty and said they could have: http://usg.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=eb6ca76e008543a89349ff2517db47e6

How 'bout we give back 1/2 of Montana while we're righting historic wrongs.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Then I would prefer that they keep negotiating.
I’m not saying they aren’t owed the land/cash equivalent of said land. its no different than in other water settlements where there is a valuable material commodity usually water, but in this case land, we don’t pay them with water, but the cash equivalent of such water.

In litigation, which this settlement is in leu of, typically cash fixes all wrongs - except with real property - real property is not “fungible” and “specific performance” is appropriate - lots of legalese to say that if they want land, it is land they will get.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Seems like there's quite a bit of area we once signed a treaty and said they could have: http://usg.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=eb6ca76e008543a89349ff2517db47e6

How 'bout we give back 1/2 of Montana while we're righting historic wrongs.

I would start with - the tribe isn’t asking for 1/2 of Montana at this time and the Fed Gov. isn’t offering 1/2 of Montana at this time - so seems like in irrelevant “logical extreme” argument, which doesn’t do much to further debate/discussion.

 

[BigHornRam]

Seems like there's quite a bit of area we once signed a treaty and said they could have: http://usg.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=eb6ca76e008543a89349ff2517db47e6

How 'bout we give back 1/2 of Montana while we're righting historic wrongs.

The Sanders/AOC wing are all over that idea.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I was with you through most of this thread, but not to this last point. There has to at some point be the ability to move forward and some humility to admit that we can’t orchestrate “justice” in all things. It’s illusory to think all issues can be left open forever and that all grievances can be rectified.

My very liberal mother-in-law was once justifying the need to return a certain part of MN to a particular tribe since Americans had “stolen it”, and so I challenged her with a much simpler problem - let’s return her home and the .5 acres below it to its supposed “rightful owner”. First, she wasn’t willing to concede that she and her husband were not the rightful owners as they had clean title fee simple and had spent their whole life paying it off (funny how the price of “justice” is for others). But after I got her past that I asked her if we should give it to “tribe A” - the most recent tribe in the area, maybe she said. But, I pointed out, that tribe A had actually taken it from tribe B with significant bloodshed, so shouldn’t she really give it to tribe B. But wait, tribe B had taken it from tribe C (again with force) - so should tribe C be the rightful recipient? Except tribe C hasn’t existed for 200+ years and my knowledge of local Native American history was exhausted so while almost certainly there were tribal claimants prior to C we had no idea who that might be, so should tribe A or B be a proxy for the no longer existing tribe C? If so, why not just any Native American? But would they have to be full blood Native American? What if they were half Native American? What about waiting until she and her husband passed away and then give the humble proceeds to her grandchildren, some of which are of very modest means? Or should she give them to one of her grandchildren’s friends who happens to be a full blood tribe A member who was granted literally millions of dollars by the tribe on her 18th birthday from casino proceeds? What is “just”?

The emotional appeal of “restorative justice” is strong, but without limits it makes no sense, has no logical path forward and it can actually fail to be “just” at all.

Except in this instance, it is with limits & makes sense.

 

[VikingsGuy]

The Sanders/AOC wing are all over that idea.

After Sanders/AOC running the place for a few years, the tribes won’t want this place back

 

[Irrelevant]

I would start with - the tribe isn’t asking for 1/2 of Montana at this time and the Fed Gov. isn’t offering 1/2 of Montana at this time - so seems like in irrelevant “logical extreme” argument, which doesn’t do much to further debate/discussion.

How so? We're "righting" a historical wrong. What sets this one from any other to be pursued in the future. If we're going to set the precedent of right wrongs with land. Let's take a look at some of those wrongs and the lands associated with them?

 

[VikingsGuy]

Except in this instance, it is with limits & makes sense.

We are in agreement on that point. I was responding to what appeared to be a more open ended rhetorical challenge.

 

[BigHornRam]

How so? We're "righting" a historical wrong. What sets this one from any other to be pursued in the future. If we're going to set the precedent of right wrongs with land. Let's take a look at some of those wrongs and the lands associated with them?

You ask too many questions grasshopper.

 

[Ben Lamb]

We are in agreement on that point. I was responding to what appeared to be a more open ended rhetorical challenge.

All of my open ended rhetorical arguments are specific to whatever I want them to be about at the time of writing.

 

[VikingsGuy]

How so? We're "righting" a historical wrong. What sets this one from any other to be pursued in the future. If we're going to set the precedent of right wrongs with land. Let's take a look at some of those wrongs and the lands associated with them?

I agree (as was probably suggested by another comment of mine on this thread) that there are challenges and impossibilities that are worth discussing, I was just reacting to the seemingly flip “just give it all away” nature of your remark. But I may have misunderstood your intent.

 

[VikingsGuy]

All of my open ended rhetorical arguments are specific to whatever I want them to be about at the time of writing.

That’s one of the things I admire most about you

 

[VikingsGuy]

Tapping out early on this one - don’t have it in me to chase this for #150 responses

 

[Irrelevant]

I agree (as was probably suggested by another comment of mine on this thread) that there are challenges and impossibilities that are worth discussing, I was just reacting to the seemingly flip “just give it all away” nature of your remark. But I may have misunderstood your intent.

Know you read it right, my preferred method of debate is to take it to the extreme and see how that tastes. In this case terrible.

 

[shoots-straight]

Some history might also be worthwhile to consider, even though every person here hates to see any situation where lands are no longer accessible.

Part of this settlement is the fact that when the tribe sold the US Government 40,000 acres, 68,000 acres were taken. In addition to water rights and other issues, it is hard to ignore the fact that they have been without those 28,000 acres for over a century and they are now willing to accept half of that amount, 14,000 acres, as the negotiated value to be added to this settlement that includes the water rights and other past issues the courts have ruled on in the favor of the tribes.

End result, US Government ends up with 14,000 acres that the tribes never got paid for. Is the glass half full or half empty?

I struggle to equate that settlement to be equivalent to "State Land Transfer," as the original post references, when after the dust settles we end up with 14,000 acres we never paid a dime for.

Edit - P.S...... And I am sure every person posting on this thread would prefer to see this solved with cash and not land. But, the facts are what they are.

on reservation State lands they receive 20296.1
off reservation State Lands they receive 7413
Total State lands: 27709.10

Total Federal lands they are to receive 30844

Total lands transferred. 58553.10

We paid for 40,000 and took 28,000 but are giving 58553.10 so I'm struggling to see how we made 14,000 more than we should have.

I must be missing something here.

So we take out the 20296.10 as being on reservation lands anyway, but those will have to be made up to the state with a transfer of federal ground Correct?
Then we give 7413 acres of lands outside the reservation that we could always hunt and then those lands will have to be made up to the state with Federal lands? Correct? Seems like a Federal land transfer of 27709.10 is going to occur.

 

[geetar]

Anybody against land transfer and public land conservation should look into supporting this t shirt company. Sam Soholt the guy behind it raises money from the sale of merchandise to stop land transfer and conserve public hunting and fishing areas. The T shirt I’m wearing in my Avatar pic with Deckard Flats in the background is one of their T shirts. I believe it’s $5 from every sale goes to conservation. https://www.facebook.com/publiclandtees/

 

[Oak]

Anybody against land transfer and public land conservation should look into supporting this t shirt company. Sam Soholt the guy behind it raises money from the sale of merchandise to stop land transfer and conserve public hunting and fishing areas. The T shirt I’m wearing in my Avatar pic with Deckard Flats in the background is one of their T shirts. I believe it’s $5 from every sale goes to conservation. https://www.facebook.com/publiclandtees/

Hey @Dinkshooter, check it out.

Tag Soup T - Public Land Tees

Whether you’ve had a rough season, or want to give a buddy a hard time for never actually filling his tag, the Tag Soup tee is perfect for any shit giving opportunity.

www.publiclandtees.com

 

[elkduds]

Anybody against land transfer and public land conservation should look into supporting this t shirt company. Sam Soholt the guy behind it raises money from the sale of merchandise to stop land transfer and conserve public hunting and fishing areas. The T shirt I’m wearing in my Avatar pic with Deckard Flats in the background is one of their T shirts. I believe it’s $5 from every sale goes to conservation. https://www.facebook.com/publiclandtees/

What "conservation?" You can skip the middleman and directly support the conservation groups that best carry your water. Could be Audubon, Wilderness Society, TRCP, Nature Conservancy, DU, WSF, MDF, RMEF, BHA, or the best acronym of all: WTF. Most of them will sell you a Tshirt as well.

$ is power. And the entities opposing these conservation groups have deep pockets for years. Because every time you buy gas, oil or natural gas, you contribute to the opponents of conservation.