Treaty rules continue in to pop up in wildlife news

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.
 
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.
 
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).
 
Last edited:
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
 
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.
👏👏👏
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top