Good cause imho opinion

[fishing life]

Allen I do understand the cause the problem is not the cause. It is the ownership of the (I am not sure of the boundaries) land and lake 16,000 acres. It is their country it is not the United States. We agreed (our government) to their control of that 16,000 acres. They are not U.S. citizens they are citizens of their own nation. This is the problem we are trying to tell them what to do in their backyard not ours. That's how wars start. I respect you and all others here and your posts . These are the facts of the issue. Hopefully they can be resolved.
And I might add I will contribute to Steve's cause. Even though I don't live in that area. I believe In sound management of all natural resources !

[jigstop]

[quote=v-bay gord;1412963]The point you are missing is that your ancestors (not that long ago actually) made some legally binding agreements (treaty) with these folks. I suppose if you want all people to be treated equally then you should expect to honor your word (ie your governments word) on these agreements, as you would have others honor any agreements you might have made (and would affect you).[/quote]

Did those same treaties also make the US government give the indians all the entitlements that they have? How about the government take away all the entitlements they get since they don't consider themself to be Americans. No more roads, schools, food stamps, etc.

Times have changed and the real losers in this are the indians. By continuing to try to live in the past they are restricting themselves to be second class people. Take a look at most reservations, most are dumps! This is not because indians are lazy or anything like that, it's that way because they try to cling on to 150 year old treaties and traditions in todays society/

[jigstop]

[quote=fishing life;1413169]Allen I do understand the cause the problem is not the cause. It is the ownership of the (I am not sure of the boundaries) land and lake 16,000 acres. It is their country it is not the United States. We agreed (our government) to their control of that 16,000 acres. They are not U.S. citizens they are citizens of their own nation. This is the problem we are trying to tell them what to do in their backyard not ours. That's how wars start. I respect you and all others here and your posts . These are the facts of the issue. Hopefully they can be resolved.[/quote]

Then make them stay on their 16,000 acres!!! Rape and piliage all the natural resources off of it and see what they have left.

[fishnutbob]

If you missed this Wanton Waste from Net's This is why all net's should be banned !!!

This story was on WCCO that I reported to them.

[url]http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2011/12/02/large-fish-kill-discovered-near-leech-lake/[/url]

The FBI has been in the Leech Lake area doing a sting for two years on the netting and sale of walleyes by the Natives which is illegal.

The blatant waste of our Natural resource should not be allowed by any citizen of the USA period!!!

For the record again when I found the site I didnt see who did it. It could of been a whiteman, native, or anyone so we just can’t assume because its on the Rez its a Native and start pointing fingers.

The focus has to be on the Wanton waste maybe in the end we know who did it.

I spoke to The tribal warden yesterday I gave him the GPS cor. to the site and hes heading out to look. When he has some info he will give me a call. When I know more Ill post it. I want to keep in contact with them so I know their serious and I get a follow up call. I also gave this info to our DNR.

I also want to thank James at WCCO for this report. He did a great job

Thanks James

Update from my report Ive heard nothing about who did this or is Law enforcement charged anyone. Go figure just brushed under the water!!!! Such a shame!!

——————–

[LOW1]

[QUOTE=fishnutbob;1413165]Stay on the topic its not about TREATY Rights its about the resource and equal Rights for all Citizens and, Very SIMPLE NETTING!!!!

Netting 70,000 lbs of fish before they spawn should not happen today!!! Period!!!! by any Race!!!!

Miigwich
Thank You[/QUOTE]

But it is ALL about the treaty. As determined by our own Supreme Court, the treaty we promoted and agreed to gives the fishery rights to the Native Americans.

It is not our resource. They are not our walleyes.

And the way to change a treaty is through renegotiation by the two sovereigns, not by one sovereign passing a law or otherwise deciding to change the treaty.

Ironically, our motivation for the treaty was to obtain valuable timber, which we promptly harvested as we saw fit and without concern for Native Americans' views on the same. Now it is Native American's turn to use a resource which they have rights to as they see fit.

The only solution is to try and reach a common understanding on management of the resource, but this common understanding needs to be mutually reached and not imposed upon Native Americans.

[LLewellin]

Is the Supreme Court always correct? NO! Have they ever reversed a decision from a previous Supreme Court? The answer is obviously YES! It has happen many times in the past. Just because a decision was made does not necessarily mean that it was correct.

[fishing life]

[quote=LOW1;1413188]But it is ALL about the treaty. As determined by our own Supreme Court, the treaty we promoted and agreed to gives the fishery rights to the Native Americans.

It is not our resource. They are not our walleyes.

And the way to change a treaty is through renegotiation by the two sovereigns, not by one sovereign passing a law or otherwise deciding to change the treaty.

Ironically, our motivation for the treaty was to obtain valuable timber, which we promptly harvested as we saw fit and without concern for Native Americans' views on the same. Now it is Native American's turn to use a resource which they have rights to as they see fit.

The only solution is to try and reach a common understanding on management of the resource, but this common understanding needs to be mutually reached and not imposed upon Native Americans.[/quote]

X2 Well said

[cyber16]

Tribes here in Minnesota don't treat other tribes equally nor do they share much profits from the casinos with other tribes that are not well off.
If the sportsman people of Minnesota want the tribes to meet at the negotiating table over these issues.
They need to also push to eliminate tribal casinos within the state, OR compete with state ran casinos built within major metropolitan areas.
The DNR needs to stop wasting our paid fee's in stocking the lakes that are being raped via netting, it will not take long and we will have many more Cass lakes on our hands.
Only then maybe we all can come to common ground and get this resolved in a modern-day way
Casinos are NOT part of federal treaties.

edit:
Yes these moves would potentially escalate the issue/confrontation on the short term with financially hurting tribes, just as the resources are being hurt.
Something needs to be done and Steve is doing what he can yet he also needs those that are concerned to speak up and be heard as well.

[fishnutbob]

A treaty can be nullified by a statute passed by the U.S. Congress (or by a sovereign State or States if Congress refuses to do so), when the State deems a treaty the performance of a treaty is self-destructive. The law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others. When you've read this thoroughly, hopefully, you will never again sit quietly by when someone -- anyone -- claims that treaties supercede the Constitution. Help to dispell this myth.

This is the Key. Netting 70,000 lbs of fish before they spawn should not happen today!!! Period!!!! by any Race!!!! DESTRUCTIVE netting of the resource.!! That should clear some ? up about the TREATY

[LOW1]

[QUOTE=fishnutbob;1413220]A treaty can be nullified by a statute passed by the U.S. Congress (or by a sovereign State or States if Congress refuses to do so), when the State deems a treaty the performance of a treaty is self-destructive. The law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others. When you've read this thoroughly, hopefully, you will never again sit quietly by when someone -- anyone -- claims that treaties supercede the Constitution. Help to dispell this myth.

This is the Key. Netting 70,000 lbs of fish before they spawn should not happen today!!! Period!!!! by any Race!!!! DESTRUCTIVE netting of the resource.!! That should clear some ? up about the TREATY[/QUOTE]

No, what you are describing is the making of the decision to violate a treaty. And if by "state" you are referring to Minnesota, Iowa or some other state in the United States, the supremacy clause of the constitution prohibits a state from overriding the federal treaty or other federal law for that matter.

Violating a treaty is always an option, just like violating a contract is always an option. But there are very serious consequences if this option is taken.