Treaty rules continue in to pop up in wildlife news

[VikingsGuy]

Not advocating that position at all, US should honor the treaty.... no grey area there. However the State of Minnesota may be reluctant to fund any future restocking efforts (if needed) when their citizens do not have access to it. Perhaps the Feds should be the funding source if that need arises.

I agree.

My point through this thread is not that I like gill netting. It is that after two centuries of dismissing the inconvenient rights of non-whites I prefer to follow the rule of law and let them do well or poorly, just like the rest of us.

 

[VikingsGuy]

@VikingsGuy, you sure can pick the topics. Nothing like debating 250yrs of history in a thread about walleye.

Gotta speak truth to power

Actually just like to see posts about places not the mountain west.

 

[Rhcuam]

Please point out the section of the treaty that then allows the fisherman of MN to take over the territory in that event.

Seems like Bernie Sanders has more respect for property rights than the average HT “sportsman” these days.

Please show me in the treaty where it states the tribe can destroy the walleye fishery.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Please show me in the treaty where it states the tribe can destroy the walleye fishery.

If it’s theirs it’s theirs. Your suggested language not needed.

 

[OntarioHunter]

Tribes often harvested fish and game as a means of barter/trade/profit. It most certainly was not based just on minimal personal use/consumption.

Oh, but according to Martin that was something the white man introduced. Before us, they were purely noncommercial hunter gatherers. Many "treaty rights" have evolved simply because treaties did NOT exclude them. Mid 19th century treaties did not specifically limit where or when or how the Natives in my area could take game, ergo it is implied they have total freedom to harvest game everywhere, anytime, and in any way they want. But wait ... why would there have been anything in 19th century treaties restricting game harvest when there were no restrictions on anyone else back then? But eventually because wildlife was unable to be sustained across the board due to advancements in harvesting technology, human population growth, and loss of habitat, regulations had to be adopted. There was no historical precedent for regulating hunting and fishing but it still became necessary ... except of course for the Natives. Somehow they get to stay in the 19th century context for game harvesting in spite of living and breathing the present context and surviving on 21st century tax dollars (which it has also been determined by unwritten default is a "treaty right" that they don't have to pay).

 

[Rhcuam]

If it’s theirs it’s theirs. Your suggested language not needed.

Fair enough. If/when they fish the lake into oblivion again that is their problem, not the taxpayers and Minnesota.

 

[Nicoli7153]

I agree.

My point through this thread is not that I like gill netting. It is that after two centuries of dismissing the inconvenient rights of non-whites I prefer to follow the rule of law and let them do well or poorly, just like the rest of us.

I concur! They are a sovereign nation and have the right to self governance on lands they have those rights on. Many tribes in our state (Michigan) have exerted that those rights exist in some form on lands that were ceded by them to the US in treaties.

A deal's a deal until you renegotiate in my book

 

[Rhcuam]

Oh, but according to Martin that was something the white man introduced. Before us, they were purely noncommercial hunter gatherers. Many "treaty rights" have evolved simply because treaties did NOT exclude them. Mid 19th century treaties did not specifically limit where or when or how the Natives in my area could take game, ergo it is implied they have total freedom to harvest game everywhere, anytime, and in any way they want. But wait ... why would there have been anything in 19th century treaties restricting game harvest when there were no restrictions on anyone else back then? But eventually because wildlife was unable to be sustained across the board due to advancements in harvesting technology, human population growth, and loss of habitat, regulations had to be adopted. There was no historical precedent for regulating hunting and fishing but it still became necessary ... except of course for the Natives. Somehow they get to stay in the 19th century context for game harvesting in spite of living and breathing the present context and surviving on 21st century tax dollars (which it has also been determined by default is a "treaty right" that they don't have to pay).

Say it again for the people in the back.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Fair enough. If/when they fish the lake into oblivion again that is their problem, not the taxpayers and Minnesota.

Does that include my fed tax dollars fixing MT elk shoulder season mess?

 

[VikingsGuy]

I concur! They are a sovereign nation and have the right to self governance on lands they have those rights on. Many tribes in our state (Michigan) have exerted that those rights exist in some form on lands that were ceded by them to the US in treaties.

A deal's a deal until you renegotiate in my book

A deals a deal until after both side agree to a renegotiated deal/treaty. Not when one side doesn’t like it anymore- and 95% of that hasn’t been the tribes.

 

[Nicoli7153]

A deals a deal until after both side agree to a renegotiated deal/treaty. Not when one side doesn’t like it anymore- and 95% of that hasn’t been the tribes.

That's when the lawyers enter! They're usually the winners in these cases

 

[Rhcuam]

Does that include my fed tax dollars fixing MT elk shoulder season mess?

We are are not talking about whatever you’re mad about in Montana.
But nice change of topic

 

[Bowmannate2000]

They usually allow 5 or so stories a month for free.

And that's about all that's worth reading in the strib .

 

[VikingsGuy]

We are are not talking about whatever you’re mad about in Montana.
But nice change of topic

No, sticking with your reasoning that if folks screw up fish and game, they shouldn’t expect other taxpayers to fix it. I agree with that concept.

 

[VikingsGuy]

And that's about all that's worth reading in the strib .

I refer to it as the RedStar & Tribune

 

[Buffs35]

I just calling a spade a spade they want to have all the luxuries of living in the United States on the federal dime but none of the responsibilities.

This mentality isn't a tribe issue, it's a modern American mentality. Nothing to do with race, tribe, creed or color.

 

[Scott85]

So what would happen if these tribes went back to their original treaties and demanded their land back that was original promised by the US? A person could argue that any ratification was done under duress of said tribe.

 

[Rhcuam]

No, sticking with your reasoning that if folks screw up fish and game, they shouldn’t expect other taxpayers to fix it. I agree with that concept.

We will see.

 

[Bowmannate2000]

I refer to it as the RedStar & Tribune

Minneapolis fish wrap factory.

 

[rjthehunter]

On a different note, keeping it in Minnesota, look up all the lawsuits filed by tribes throughout the state. Start doing some math and you'll realize that's a pretty big dollar amount every year that the state has been sued for.