|
|
| Pretty sad what a waste of natural resources!
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2011/12/02/large-fish-kill-discovered... | |
| | |
Posts: 374
Location: Bemidji | Happens all the time up here. Usually they are in the ditches and not deep in the woods. | |
| | |
Posts: 112
Location: Nielsen's Fly-In Lodge, on Rowan Lake | It's about time this activity is stopped from being swept under the rug
Some one has to be paying attention to this slatter that has been going on to long their has been lots and lots of time effort and money spent in this area to bring this fishery back and how can this continue to happen someone has to really take a stand on this issue PLEASE | |
| | |
Posts: 1057
Location: Medford, WI | Read this...
"Under Tribal Law, Wanton Waste carries a stiff penalty, including a $100 fine and then another $20 for each dead fish."
Is that really that stiff??? 100 fish wasted would be $2,100 - is that really that stiff for breaking the law 100 times??? To me, it's just the opposite! Maybe there's more than just the fines (I sure would hope that your stripped of your licenses for a while), but the article doesn't mention anything more than the fines.
Sad.
-Jake | |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Medford Fisher - 12/3/2011 12:50 PM
Read this...
"Under Tribal Law, Wanton Waste carries a stiff penalty, including a $100 fine and then another $20 for each dead fish."
Is that really that stiff??? 100 fish wasted would be $2,100 - is that really that stiff for breaking the law 100 times??? To me, it's just the opposite! Maybe there's more than just the fines (I sure would hope that your stripped of your licenses for a while), but the article doesn't mention anything more than the fines.
Sad.
-Jake
The initial fine is what needs to be stiffer. The $20 per fish is likely an estimated replacement cost. I don't have any figures of cost per fish for muskies, but the 20 dollar number seems on the ballpark. Perhaps even a bit low as the $20 figure may be a few years old now. I'm not certain, just a guess. Obviously there would be other fish in the net beyond muskies. A hefty front end fine, in the 4 digit range would be better. | |
| | |
Posts: 3479
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | Hiya,
I would bet this is going to be a bigger issue than just larger fines, though...
Quantities of fish like that are a product of nets I suspect, which, when you consider the location of the find, might have some bearing on what can be done and how law enforcement can go about taking action.
From what I understand, Both the Minnesota DNR and tribal officials are working jointly on the investigation. Definitely would be nice to somehow curtail some of these acts, but that is an awfully tough task considering...
Steve
| |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | VMS - 12/3/2011 5:39 PM
Hiya,
I would bet this is going to be a bigger issue than just larger fines, though...
Quantities of fish like that are a product of nets I suspect, which, when you consider the location of the find, might have some bearing on what can be done and how law enforcement can go about taking action.
From what I understand, Both the Minnesota DNR and tribal officials are working jointly on the investigation. Definitely would be nice to somehow curtail some of these acts, but that is an awfully tough task considering...
Steve
About all I can think of getting tacked on to a fine would be the revocation of the netting rights for that individual, but even that I doubt. Will be interesting to see though. | |
| | |
Posts: 14
| Am i missing something? This happens all the time?!?!?
Who would net 300+ fish, drag them deep into the woods and throw them into a ditch to rot? And WHY?
I'm 100% C&R and this thoroughly disgusts me, having said that, I can understand somebody having a huge fish fry and eating everything they catch regardless of species, size or bag limit. But who would go to such great lengths to purposely KILL fish? | |
| | |
Posts: 3479
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | I sit and wonder why they could not regulate the net size and mesh size, and although the "right" might be to net fish, the wanton waste of undesired fish somehow needs to be dealt with. Would be nice that the nets would be humane enough for the fish to live allowing the owner to sort out the desired fish to keep, and be able to return the other fish to the water unharmed.
could only wish for that though...
| |
| | |
Posts: 112
Location: Nielsen's Fly-In Lodge, on Rowan Lake | It is the Leech Lake Indian Res they can do what ever the wan when ever they want and have casinos and pay NO taxes any where sorry just mt opinion
| |
| | |
| This happens all the time. I spend a lot of time 4-wheeling in the Chippewa National Forest, and I encounter at least two fish dumps each year, usually late spring, in the Cass Lake/Pike Bay area on the Leech Lake Indian Reservation. With each dump I usually find at least one storage or processing tub labeled with the Red Lake Fisheries logo. (you make the connection, for I have not been able to). Numbers have ranged from 50 to 200 game fish ranging in size from 2 to 10 lbs. I suspect that netters are not checking their nets as frequenty as required, and snagged fish begin rotting before being retrieved for tribe consumption. Instead of leaving excessive kills for predator consumption (eagles, crows, ravens, etc), the evidence is being covertly dumped in the forest and consumed by maggots. | |
| | |
| I am also a witness to seeing many similar fish waste piles. All are the same... Walleyes are filleted, and all other by catch is just dumped in the woods meat and all, small or large fish are all totally wasted. For years we would come across a few piles each year. In addition we have seen many nets left drifting for days filled with spoiled fish. We also have seen the same nets being "tended" for weeks on end by the same Indians. All of this verifies without a doubt violations of Indian treaty which permits netting for personal consumption only. This has gone on for many years, and has gotten worse since the Red Lake Indian processing facility was built. Something needs to be done. | |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | CabinOwner - 12/6/2011 8:46 PM
I am also a witness to seeing many similar fish waste piles. All are the same... Walleyes are filleted, and all other by catch is just dumped in the woods meat and all, small or large fish are all totally wasted. For years we would come across a few piles each year. In addition we have seen many nets left drifting for days filled with spoiled fish. We also have seen the same nets being "tended" for weeks on end by the same Indians. All of this verifies without a doubt violations of Indian treaty which permits netting for personal consumption only. This has gone on for many years, and has gotten worse since the Red Lake Indian processing facility was built. Something needs to be done.
So what are YOU going to do about it? Serious question. | |
| | |
Posts: 32878
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The larger question is, "Is there anything anyone except Tribal Authorities can do ?"
Short answer is in some cases cooperation between the State DNR and Tribal Fish and Game results in arrests and fines. Sometimes tribal authorities act unilaterally, and arrests are made.
Sometimes nothing at all happens.
One needs to remember the MN and WI Tribes represent Sovereign Nations under the operating US Government Treaties, so the dynamic is far more complicated and varies from Tribe to tribe.
| |
| | |
Posts: 743
| To me, this crap goes hand in hand with the spearing that Steve so readily defends because "it's the treaties stupid".
What's the difference between dead fish in a pile in the woods or speared dead fish on the bottom of the lake. Dead is dead.
"The larger question is, "Is there anything anyone except Tribal Authorities can do ?"
The answer is NO.
Tribal Fish,Do they really work with the DNR or against the DNR?
Indians,the great protectors of the resource. Does anyone still believe that lie?
It smells as bad as a pile of rotting dead fish dumped in the woods.
How long before this post gets deleted?
Edited by KSauers 12/7/2011 7:18 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | KSauers - 12/7/2011 6:58 AM
"it's the treaties stupid".
How long before this post gets deleted?
if you are talking about native spearing then yah, unfortunately they fall under the same and are rights provided to native Americans by Treaty right or wrong.
my guess is you gave yourself the term of endearment ... unfortunately you can't fix that either. | |
| | |
Posts: 32878
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Wait a minute....you are angry at me because I point out the reality of the situation? I don't know where you were when the whole thing went down in WI starting the legal process that reaffirmed treaty law in the Ceded Territory. I was in the middle of it. I knew most of the very public figures involved in the social unrest and protests. I talked to them about what they were doing, and what they hoped they could accomplish.
One of the people who recently attacked us because we insisted the information be posted properly so we don't get angry phone calls and emails from another media source, accused me personally of trying to 'bury' the story...total crap bordering on paranoia and very baffling to me. We have no issue at all with discussing the story; but as you mentioned, in that process we will point out the reality of the situation whether it's popular to do so or not. In doing so, it's a good idea to point out where the information can be found so a person can get all the facts and better understand why the Native Americans have the right to hunt and gather governed by the Tribes in the Ceded Territory, and we have the privilege, at the pleasure of our Governor. We have done that several times in just the last couple years.
Let's see...this detractor and his supporters were about 11 years old or younger when this all went down. Revisionist history is what really stinks, and we have a tendency to create whatever suits. That is both ignorant and dangerous. Absolutely no apologies we demand the subject be discussed reasonably, and certainly no personal apology from me to those who would rather rail into the wind than learn about how this could happen and understand why it isn't dealt with they want WE want it to be.
Yes, I was at the landings, and witnessed the protests. Rhinelander became a staging area for the State Police and County Police. Millions of dollars were spent in the process of guaranteeing the Tribes their court affirmed rights. It was pretty crazy.
Instead of putting on a blaze orange suit and throwing rocks and racial taunts, I decided to learn what the history is, and what was probably coming next, went to the Nicolet College library and begin reading. I talked with people from the local reservations, and got their perspective, and talked with the folks at the Native American resource center at the school. In order to fully understand Chippewa treaty issues, one needs to read them and all the reams of supporting information from the courts, States, and more. It's all there, and now that the courts have made their decision based upon the history, agreements, and actions taken since, we are where we are today. Not my doing.
The Native Americans didn't put forth the myth they assigned themselves, as you put it, 'the great protectors of the resource'. The White man did that, along with a bunch of even more ridiculous stereotyping. So that 'lie' isn't theirs to deal with, it's ours. They have, for over 100 years, hardly been in any position to care for what amounted to 'our' environment....that's also been our historic 'lie' and our miserably executed responsibility, large picture.
I despise the waste as much as anyone. I'd like to point out this act wasn't by the entire Nation, it was by a couple individuals, and they need to be caught and punished to the full extent of the law. Understanding and acting responsibly to why they may not be is paramount to being able, as a society, to eventually build back the trust between the peoples and create an atmosphere where we can work together for mutually supported change in practices.
I have great remorse over what this 'division' did to northern WI and how much the racism and stupidity displayed (by both sides) since has driven relations between our Government and theirs.
I have posted the links many times, and anyone truly interested in the situation needs to take a look.
The Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission does indeed work hand in hand with our DNR. My son works for the Woodruff offices of the DNR, and much of the money that's spent on creeling, netting, and other work is provided by GLIFWC.
http://glifwc.org/
http://glifwc.org/Fisheries/Inland/inland.html
There's a big difference between defending and posting reality.
| |
| | |
Posts: 2361
| Wait you guys. I am not in favor of tribal rights in particular, and more in favor of renegotiating the treaties at the point of a U.S. dollar aimed straight at the tribal heads, but...
One guy gets on here, registered poster, posts a verifiable blurb about a pile of dead fish, then we have two posters, non registered who, just by coincidence drop by and have both seen these big fish kills, one of them claiming at least two a year and the other claiming "many"??? I don't like the spearing situation in WI or MN, but hey, I gotta call bull#*#* on the allegations. If these claims were documented everyone would be in an uproar including the redskins, they don't like to be publicly associated with waste of resources, bad for business and image.
"Mark" and "Cabin Owner", if you can document what you claim, do it, whether you are one person or the same BSr getting on here twice, if you can't document stuff like this and do it under the guise of anonymity, you don't deserve any credibility or respect in a thread like this.
BS is for BS fish theories, not wild claims about opponents utilizing the same resources we are.
| |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | KSauers - 12/7/2011 5:58 AM
To me, this crap goes hand in hand with the spearing that Steve so readily defends because "it's the treaties stupid".
What's the difference between dead fish in a pile in the woods or speared dead fish on the bottom of the lake. Dead is dead.
"The larger question is, "Is there anything anyone except Tribal Authorities can do ?"
The answer is NO.
Tribal Fish,Do they really work with the DNR or against the DNR?
Indians,the great protectors of the resource. Does anyone still believe that lie?
It smells as bad as a pile of rotting dead fish dumped in the woods.
How long before this post gets deleted?
Read the links Steve posted. Contact some of the people involved on both sides, you might learn a thing or two.
I agree to a point with FSF. A lot of wild claims out there with very little proof. There is no doubt stuff like this happens, but with the posts here you'd think you couldn't walk through the woods without stepping on a dead walleye. I highly doubt that is the case. | |
| | |
Posts: 994
Location: Minnesota: where it's tough to be a sportsfan! | There was an arrest in the news for "selling" fish illegally not too long ago. I would almost suspect that others involved in netting and illegal sales had to get rid of their inventory. | |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | jakejusa - 12/7/2011 2:45 PM
There was an arrest in the news for "selling" fish illegally not too long ago. I would almost suspect that others involved in netting and illegal sales had to get rid of their inventory.
Another wild claim, with no substantial evidence. | |
| | |
| http://outdoornews.com/minnesota/news/article_6ece2430-b883-11e0-a1... | |
| | |
Posts: 49
| Four miles of unattended nets....that's alot on the water.
http://www.gofishn.com/ned/reports/12385-wade-jensen-of-the-sault-t...
They took his nets..........wonder what his penalty will be ?? Hopefully more than a double-minor for roughing.
Edited by Jolly Roger 12/7/2011 5:04 PM
| |
| | |
| Steve,
Good conversation. This seems to be about the only topic that gets me to post.
I respectfully disagree with your apparent resignation to the fact that we (meaning, in this case, the federal government) are out of options to end or significantly curtail native spearing/netting. Here’s why:
First, you and I agree that the treaties grant natives a limited, but substantial, right to spear/net for subsistence. No one seriously questions that. We also agree that the courts have spoken as to the validity of the treaties, and it is highly unlikely that they will re-open the question in any meaningful way.
Here, however, is where we part ways. You see the last paragraph as a clear and explicit mandate allowing tribal harvest in more or less its current form. You feel that there is no real legal recourse left for those who oppose spearing/netting, and that the only real option available is working with the tribes in hopes they will harvest responsibly. I do not believe this is the case, and here’s why:
The federal government regulates all of us in areas of life that, at first glance, they have no business regulating. Our Constitution mandates a limited Federal government, and states clearly that all powers not enumerated to the feds are reserved to the states respectively. So how is it that the feds regulate everything from factory emissions to health care to marijuana to agriculture to …..(you get the point)? The answer lies in a) the Constitutionally enumerated power of Congress to tax and spend and b) the Commerce Clause, which says (basically) that the feds have the power to regulate commerce with foreign countries, among the states, and (notably) with Indian tribes.
A practical application of the use of the Clause is as follows: A superficial reading of the Constitution shows that the feds have no enumerated power that allows them to tell states what the legal age should be to consume alcohol (because it’s not given to them in the Constitution). So why is it that every state has a 21 year old drinking age? Coincidence? No, it’s because if your drinking age is below 21, you don’t get federal highway $$$, which the feds get to dish out how they want (as long as refusal to pay doesn’t constitute coercion) because of Article 1 (tax & spend) and the Commerce Clause.
How does this relate to native spearing? Here’s one way it could relative to the current thread: I once posted on this site the amount of $$$ the feds give the tribes annually. I’m not gonna try to find the link again, but it’s in the billions of $$$. So we have a serious financial incentive on the part of the tribes not to jeopardize this funding. Without going into even more boring detail than I already have, just trust me when I say that walleye fall into a category of goods like wheat, melons, guns, marijuana that the Supreme Court considers “fungible”, meaning that there’s no way to tell a Wisconsin walleye from a Minnesota walleye. The importance of this is that the feds can regulate such fungible goods under the Commerce Clause as if they were traded in interstate commerce, EVEN IF THEY’RE NOT. Why does this matter? Because if the feds wanted to, they (maybe) could restrict or even eliminate tribal harvest if they could show that such regulation furthered a sufficiently important government interest. Maybe that interest would be fish stocks, maybe it would be drying up the market for illegal game (which it sounds like might exist in this case), maybe it would be something else. The point is that, if they (and remember “they” is “we” when we’re talking about the government) wanted to, the feds (maybe) could tie tribal funding to limiting harvest under the Commerce Clause. This is just one of many strategies that COULD be used to address the inequity that some people see in allowing one racial group, and only one racial group, to utilize a public resource in a way no one else can.
My point in all of this is that your instruction to “read the treaty” as if all of the answers lie therein is inaccurate, or at least incomplete. The treaties are a small part of a much bigger picture, and if you consider the picture as a whole, I think you’ll find that there ARE options available for those who care to try to limit tribal harvest.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32878
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | pjonas, thanks, and I appreciate your argument.
'trust me when I say that walleye fall into a category of goods like wheat, melons, guns, marijuana that the Supreme Court considers “fungible”, meaning that there’s no way to tell a Wisconsin walleye from a Minnesota walleye. The importance of this is that the feds can regulate such fungible goods under the Commerce Clause as if they were traded in interstate commerce, EVEN IF THEY’RE NOT'
Not true. The fish and game regulations in the Ceded Territory (look up the meaning of that term to further reduce the effectiveness of your argument) are the Tribe's to regulate for their people under the treaty rights to hunt and gather, and they COULD take 100% of the TAC (total allowable catch) with no interference from the US Government or the State of Wisconsin or Minnesota. That in fact has occurred over the years on select bodies of water reducing the angler harvest to zero or 1. There certainly IS a difference between Ceded Territory Walleyes and those out of the Ceded Territory and not subject to the treaties, and there's the rub.
The TAC is decided upon by the State DNR and GLIFWC, and other outside attempts at negotiations with the Tribes won't accomplish much. The Tribal Councils can and sometimes do limit harvest on some waters to increase the bag limit sport angling as a PR move. Sometimes the Native American harvest is over the agreed upon numbers, reducing the sport fishing daily bag to 1. Usually, it's not hard to find out why.
Ceded Territory timber harvest would fit your description better as Timber harvest was not part of the treaties, and the Tribes were rejected by the Courts when attempting to claim unlimited access. If the treaties had been written 50 years later, we'd have no logging companies off Reservation in the Ceded Territory.
And you still are missing the most important point, the Tribes are Sovereign Nations, we formed Treaties with them, and Government Agencies to deal with all of the issues involved in managing the fact there are multiple Sovereign nations operating on millions of acres of land within the United States, and the US Government has responsibilities clearly described in the Treaties and law created since like The Snyder Act, the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, the Indian Education Amendments of 1978, and the Indian Reorganization Act.
In fact, your arguments were forwarded in the courts by the States of MN and WI in similar form, and got absolutely no where.
'remember “they” is “we” when we’re talking about the government'
That is where your argument fails completely, because that is simply not the case. 'They' have US Government treaty rights our State Government TRIED to take away and failed...miserably. 'we' have the privilege to hunt and fish at the pleasure of our Governor. And the Feds see it exactly that way.
Read the SC decisions, and what each Justice had to say, it's very interesting and helps one understand where we are today.
Read Judge Barbara Crab's decisions as well.
Then read what organizations like PARR had to say, and you will see what racism and stupidity breeds for logic and why they failed to get a single thing that was substantive done.
The State of Wisconsin and Minnesota attorneys dissected the treaties every which way but with a shredder, and lost the case in District court and again in front of the Supreme Court. There's nowhere else to appeal, and simply trying to reduce treaty rights through different government agency action with a bad camouflage job applied won't fly.
The largest failure in your argument, and one that obviously colors the entire post, is this:
'This is just one of many strategies that COULD be used to address the inequity that some people see in allowing one racial group, and only one racial group, to utilize a public resource in a way no one else can. '
The treaty rights are not based upon 'race', one has rights by tribal affiliation. One most certainly can be a Native American and have no right at all to hunt and gather in Wisconsin's or Minnesota's ceded Territory. The Nations our Government signed treaties with were here first, the US Government took their lands, placed the entire population on Reservations, and in the process granted them rights in Gov't to Gov't treaties, and those rights have been reaffirmed clearly by the US Supreme Court.
You see a racial group, and the US Government recognizes a Nation.
This US Government agency oversees the US Government's responsibilities. Big organization.
http://www.doi.gov/budget/2004/04Hilites/BH75.pdf
I'd ask this:
If what you are arguing has any merit what so ever, don't you think the states would have won in court already? | |
| | |
| Steve,
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I don’t disagree with a lot of it, but I think you’re still missing my point to some degree. As I mentioned at the start of my last post, I and most agree that 1) the Tribes have the right to harvest and 2) the courts have spoken and will likely not speak again. The issue is closed.
I also agree that the various treaties and acts put in place over the past few hundred years give the government certain responsibilities to support the tribes, on the one hand, and refrain from interfering with their business to too great an extent on the other.
I would suggest to you, though, that the contents of any of those documents are NOT the issue. The issue is 1) WHAT is the government trying to do and 2) WHY are they trying to do it and 3) are the two CLOSELY RELATED enough to warrant the action. Again without going into excruciating detail, there are various tests the courts use to determine what level of scrutiny these three questions get, but the bottom line is that if the ends are important enough, and the means used by the government are closely related enough, they can do essentially what they want, up to and including taking your, my or the Tribe’s Life, Liberty or Property. Example: The U.S. Constitution (again, THE law in this country. Nothing can supercede it) says, among lots of other things, that freedom of speech shall not be infringed. So why, in the classic example, can’t I yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater? Because the government has correctly decided that the low value of my speech is trumped by the bad effects it will have. In so doing, the feds have taken from me a portion of a Fundamental Constitutional Right as an American. A right more ironclad, I would suggest, than any right granted by any government document or treaty to any member of a foreign nation, including the Tribes. The government is within the scope of their allowable power to do this. This leads me to . . .
“(you said) The fish and game regulations in the Ceded Territory (look up the meaning of that term to further reduce the effectiveness of your argument) are the Tribe's to regulate for their people under the treaty rights to hunt and gather, and they COULD take 100% of the TAC (total allowable catch) with no interference from the US Government or the State of Wisconsin or Minnesota”
Correct, but irrelevant in regards to my point above. Once interstate commerce (or some other federally enumerated power, for that matter) is invoked, what matters is the nature of the good moving in commerce and the government’s interest in regulating that good. This includes goods moving illegally, which (allegedly) may be taking place in some spearing/netting scenarios. Not to get all legal here, but check out a famous case called Wickard v Filburn. The Court said government CAN tell you how much wheat to grow for your own use, on your own property. A blatant infringement on the Constitutionally granted 14th Amendment property rights of Americans, but perfectly Constitutional. Why? Because the government’s interest (in that case manipulating the price of wheat) was strong enough for the Court to allow the infringement of the right. Again, remember, we’re talking here about a CONSTITUTIONAL property right, a right (in theory) greater than any other, including treaty rights.
Don’t misunderstand, I’m not saying this would be an easy argument to make, nor am I saying it would win. What would the government interest be (maybe blatant waste of a resource, maybe drying up a black market, maybe impact on migratory birds, maybe….who knows)? What means would they use to accomplish the purpose (maybe heavily punitive fines or jail time for violations, suspension or renegotiation of treaty rights…)? Would those means be narrowly tailored enough to satisfy a likely high level of Constitutional scrutiny? All questions that would be decided by a court, or the Court.
(You said “In fact, your arguments were forwarded in the courts by the States of MN and WI in similar form, and got absolutely no where.”)
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of arguments that once failed that have since succeeded. Even if we assume the pertinent facts (maybe levels of abuse of the right, maybe illegal fish trade, maybe something else) haven’t changed (and they really weren’t even established at the time most pertinent cases were argued), the makeup of the court deciding the question well may have. All one need do is study the history of judicial decisions on discrimination against blacks in this country (see Dred Scott, Plessy, Brown v Board, Shelley v Kramer) to know that attitudes change, and courts (over time) change with them.
Finally…
(you said “The largest failure in your argument, and one that obviously colors the entire post, is this: 'This is just one of many strategies that COULD be used to address the inequity that some people see in allowing one racial group, and only one racial group, to utilize a public resource in a way no one else can. ' The treaty rights are not based upon 'race', one has rights by tribal affiliation. One most certainly can be a Native American and have no right at all to hunt and gather in Wisconsin's or Minnesota's ceded Territory. The Nations our Government signed treaties with were here first, the US Government took their lands, placed the entire population on Reservations, and in the process granted them rights in Gov't to Gov't treaties, and those rights have been reaffirmed clearly by the US Supreme Court. . .You see a racial group, and the US Government recognizes a Nation.”)
Race is a topic that’s very difficult to discuss without getting emotional, for good reason. If by saying my Equal Protection argument “colors”, you mean it’s somehow racist, I would respectfully, but very strongly, disagree. I think it is unrealistic to argue that race does not(or at least did not) play a role in who does and does not get treaty rights, but so what if it does? The government discriminates all the time based on race in hiring, school admissions, etc, legally and with, some believe, good reason. Arguing that Equal Protection under the law should apply to all people who use a resource does not make one racist against the Tribes any more than arguing in favor of affirmative action makes one racist against whites or arguing in favor of strong border enforcement makes one racist against Mexicans. The same logic would apply to discrimination based on gender, religion, or (most pertinent given we're talking about a sovereign nation) alienage. My argument MAY not be a winner, I concede that, but that does not equate to racism. Bear in mind, I’m not speaking for others who may approach the issue differently (challenging enough to speak for myself).
Along those same lines, I would respectfully suggest that your argument here, as well as in past threads, may be “colored” by the fact that you obviously have strong personal relationships, friendships even, with the Tribes. That is, in my opinion (which of course means zero on the topic) a very good thing, especially given your place in the "debate" such as it is. The Tribes were here first, the government took their land and put them on reservation. True, tragic and deserving of reparations. I would only suggest that there are many groups that could lay equal or greater claim to past and current government persecution who receive no where near the level of deference that the Tribes get. Blacks and women are the easiest examples. I would simply ask what kind of world we would live in if we used your logic to support the level of deference granted to the Tribes in regards to every group (racial, gender, alienage, whatever) that has a rightful claim to past horrific persecution. I would suggest that seen though this lens, the Tribes, as sovereign nations, have FAR more power as an entity that most of the groups that have suffered past wrongs at the hands of the U.S. government.
OK, this really is ...Finally…
(you said, in response to my comment “'remember “they” is “we” when we’re talking about the government” . . . “ That is where your argument fails completely, because that is simply not the case.”)
If you go back and look, I was talking about the relationship between we (the people) and the Federal government. I simply meant that in a representative democracy, the government (they) and the voting populace (we) are, in theory, one and the same. I was not using “they” and “we” to refer to the Tribes in any way in that context.
Thanks for your thoughts so far, Steve. As you can probably tell, I really enjoy talking about this topic and this area of law in general. I appreciate your insights, though we clearly come down on different sides of the issue, and I appreciate the tone of your comments as well.
Paul | |
| | |
Posts: 32878
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Along those same lines, I would respectfully suggest that your argument here, as well as in past threads, may be “colored” by the fact that you obviously have strong personal relationships, friendships even, with the Tribes. '
No, and I find it amusing offering realistic perspective based on reality backed by reams of proof regarding a contentious subject almost always results in accusations of coercion if it goes against common 'belief' or perception, and especially if it bothers cetian predictable segments. That truly does border on some form of paranoia for some. Certainly not in your case, I enjoy the exchanges.
I took the time to speak with all parties in great detail, and to study the cases and get legal interpretive help from a friend who handles this sort of litigation. I have no friendships or business/personal relationships with any Wisconsin or Minnesota Tribal member or organization. I have, in the past, met with tribal leaders to discuss issues related to PR attempts, and that, as a result of what happened in the 80's, was an extraordinarily complicated process I would almost classify as covert. I would not classify their perception of me as a 'friend'.
Why would I do all that? Because the enforcement of the treaty law in WI and MN forever changed the landscape of fish and game management, tourism, fishing and hunting related businesses, and the pursuit of our sport in the Ceded Territories. When I chose the North as the place I wanted to live till I'm pushing daises, I was ill informed as to the fact reservations even existed in the scope they do, and was perfectly happy to ignore the Chippewa and Oneida Nations . Then came the Menominee uprising, literally, which generated all sorts of action including covert attempts to contain Native American Activism, which had exactly the opposite effect. I was interested.
I found that we ended up where we are today because of the complete and total failure of past US and Wisconsin and Minnesota State Governments to properly handle the Treaties, and found the resulting cause/effect landslide to be extraordinary. I had the contacts and resources...and the time... to study the facts as this multifaceted story continued to unfold in the 80's, and was interested, and...there it is.
Again, the resources given to the Nations in Treaty are not available for litigation of the type you offer, and the bloody nose any Government Attorney would get from trying would probably bleed them and all who were involved right out of a job.
'I would only suggest that there are many groups that could lay equal or greater claim to past and current government persecution who receive no where near the level of deference that the Tribes get. Blacks and women are the easiest examples. I would simply ask what kind of world we would live in if we used your logic to support the level of deference granted to the Tribes in regards to every group (racial, gender, alienage, whatever) that has a rightful claim to past horrific persecution. I would suggest that seen though this lens, the Tribes, as sovereign nations, have FAR more power as an entity that most of the groups that have suffered past wrongs at the hands of the U.S. government. '
Exactly. White, Asian, Hispanic, African American, all came here after...LONG after...the Native Americans were here. We moved the entire population of the Tribes off their lands at the end of a gattling gun barrel (right or wrong, it was a war) and crafted the treaties to CONTROL those Nations. It was racism that drove the desire to keep the Native Americans out of 'our' society and created the reservation concept, racism that drove the abuse you mention, and greed that prompted the taking of everything the Tribes claimed as theirs. The difference between the history of the Native Americans and the African Americans and other races here in the US is...our Government crafted legal documents and signed them into law with the Indian Nations with the implied full faith and credibility of the United States of America cleanly spoken within, and then....screwed around with those and caused what we have today. The US made the Treaties with the Nations, and in an era of civil rights and social change the likes of what we saw from the 60's to the 80's, it was inevitable we'd get caught trying to dodge our collective responsibilities. The Supreme Court evidently agrees.
As long as the Reservations exist, this ain't changing much by legal manipulation. It's impossible to assimilate a segment of the population if they are intentionally isolated. Add the new Native American business ventures, and you have strengthening, well heeled and well organized Nations to deal with, no longer repressed as they were for over 100 years. I bet our fine Government forefathers never saw THAT coming.
That said...why would this issue of wanton waste be less than aggressively resolved? Is it 'fair' that the very situation that Tribal members can net at ALL exists? I suggest we are in a collectively poor position legally, socially, and even morally to pose the question. Ya Get what Ya pay for, is one way to put it.
That's why I've always pushed for better relations with the Tribes in the Ceded Territories, more understanding how we ended up where we are now, and greater cooperation between GLIFWC and our DNRs. Things will not improve much (from our perspective) any other way. | |
| | |
| (You said: " I find it amusing that offering realistic perspective based on reality backed by reams of proof regarding a contentious subject almost always results in accusations of coercion if it goes against common 'belief' or perception, and especially if it bothers certain predictable segments. ")
Not "coerced", just "colored", which was the word you originally used. I didn't mean to imply that you're carrying water for the Tribes or that there's some sort of quid pro quo. Far from it. I obviously have no knowledge of your relationship with the Tribe or its members beyond the fact that your son works with them which you stated in a previous post. I just meant to say that it's human nature that having a personal relationship with a member of a certain group likely impacts a person's view of that group as a whole. Not a bad thing (probably a good thing, actually), but, in my opinion, a true statement. I can’t speak for others who may approach you differently on the subject, but rest assured, I’m not questioning your motives, just your conclusion.
I would also say, along those same lines, that I find it equally “amusing” that submitting logical, legally- and Constitutionally- based arguments on questions arguably pertaining to race almost always results in accusations that the argument is “colored” by racism. A pretty strong accusation, especially if one substitutes “motivated by” for “colored”. It’s a way to discredit the argument on its face, the same way I’m sure some people try to discredit your argument with claims of “coercion”. I know you’ve seen first hand that racism has played a role in this debate in the past, and in some quarters, maybe (probably) it still does. I just think it would be better if blanket characterizations like “coerced” or “racist” stayed in the bag until it becomes clear they are applicable.
I think you identified the crux of the issue when you asked why waste would be “less than aggressively” addressed. I think DNR officials would say they are pursuing offenders as “aggressively” as the law allows. It’s (arguably) not working. As I mentioned in my previous post, the government has lots of ways to get what it wants other than pure legislation. Spending is one. Penalties are another. Could much more severe penalties (loss of all hunting/fishing privileges, jail/prison time, felony classification, etc) for wanton waste by ANYONE (not just tribal fishermen) as a deterrent to such behavior withstand Constitutional scrutiny? Would it matter if the problem was shown to be severe and negatively impacting commerce? How much impact would be enough? These are legitimate questions that would be asked by a court when evaluating a policy aimed at deterring or ending abuse of Tribal harvest rights.
You clearly know the treaties and the court rulings, doubtless much better than I do. You’ve also spoken with the players, which I’ve not done. I respect that you’ve taken the time to get educated on the subject. I’ve spent some time as well educating myself on the power of the federal government and how it can be used to accomplish many things that would seem, at first glance to be beyond its reach. I agree that the Tribes have accumulated wealth and influence such that aggressively moving to curtail any of their current rights, spearing or other, would be a very bold political move and not advisable for those politicians who like their jobs. But we’re not talking about the politics of the question (at least I don’t think we are). We’re talking about the legal ABILITY of the government to intervene to stop waste and, possibly, curtail (not end, curtail) tribal harvest in general. In this regard, I think we’ll probably have to agree to disagree. You believe the treaties are ironclad agreements placing Tribal harvest beyond the reach of the Federal government to meaningfully regulate. I believe that the government can and does regulate anything it wants. It just needs a good enough reason and good enough way to do it.
We will also disagree on the differences between discrimination against the Tribes and other similarly situated groups. You believe that the Tribes are uniquely situated by virtue of their presence here before Europeans and by virtue of the fact that we (again, “we” being the Federal government) signed treaties with them and not, for example, with Africans captured and shipped here as slaves. I agree that the Tribes are unique in that they have legally enforceable documents supporting their rights, but I would suggest that this makes them LESS oppressed than most other oppressed minorities, not more.
Again, Steve, I appreciate your time and your tone. You’ve given me (and hopefully others) food for thought.
| |
| | |
Posts: 18
| FSF-
Really?!! "redskins"...?
Scott Westenberg
Edited by FISHUNT 12/9/2011 4:35 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32878
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'I obviously have no knowledge of your relationship with the Tribe or its members beyond the fact that your son works with them which you stated in a previous post.'
No, my son works for the WIDNR, and a pretty fair share of the funding for Creel work and other surveys comes from GLIFWC. He doesn't work with or for GLIFWC and I never said he did, he creels for the WIDNR in the winter and works for the hatchery the rest of the year. So you missed the mark entirely on that one.
'Could much more severe penalties (loss of all hunting/fishing privileges, jail/prison time, felony classification, etc) for wanton waste by ANYONE (not just tribal fishermen) as a deterrent to such behavior withstand Constitutional scrutiny?'
Not if on reservation lands or waters and not if the offenders are arrested by tribal officials. Tribal law applies. take it off ceded territory land and reservation land, and all bets are off.
'I agree that the Tribes are unique in that they have legally enforceable documents supporting their rights, but I would suggest that this makes them LESS oppressed than most other oppressed minorities, not more'
As I said in my last post...exactly.
'How much impact would be enough? These are legitimate questions that would be asked by a court when evaluating a policy aimed at deterring or ending abuse of Tribal harvest rights. '
Those acts were the acts of a criminal or criminals, not the acts of the tribe. No court anywhere in this country would punish the Nations for the criminal acts of a few. If this were widespread and supported tribal policy, that would be a different story.
'I believe that the government can and does regulate anything it wants.'
There's the rub. Reality is they won't touch this because they tried and lost, tried and lost, and tried and lost again. Besides....What's the use of a treaty negotiated with any country if the US Government can't even fairly and honestly under the law keep them with those who share our lands?
'Not "coerced", just "colored", which was the word you originally used.'
You don't have to imply it, others have done that quite well. They were wrong. | |
| | |
| I am sorry but as much as I love to hunt and fish, this is one issue that I am willing to bite the bullet on and speak out. I want to thank Steve for being so educated on this subject because he can provide insight that would take me years to gather and articulate. What I can offer is a bit of common sense here. In each respective state the Native American population roughly makes up 1% of the total population of the state. In total, this makes up roughly 100,000 people. Now this may seem like a lot but these are not the number of Native Americans that are able to exercise the tribal rights that we are discussing. This number is significantly less. Now, of those that are able to exercise the Treaty Rights, what is the percentage that does. The number keeps getting smaller and smaller. What do you honestly think is responsible for decline in numbers of fish for the most part? The 1% of the 1% of Native Americans in these two states that spear or the other 99% of us? Think about and it.
I am really curious as to how everyone has this perception that all of our troubles with our fisheries stem from Native Americans not from the rest of us going out and keeping a limit of walleye every time we fish. You think that Native Americans are more apt than everyone else to violate their tribal laws that regulate the number of fish they take? Unless you think Native Americans have an inherent predisposition to disregard laws I don't see how this makes any sense.
I am sure that this kind of stuff happens and I'm sure that a handful of these incidents are the results of a FEW people from the Native American population. Just how most horrible incidents involve a FEW people, these are no different. The majority of Native Americans that participate in these activities do them respectfully and within the confines of their regulations. Why? It's not because they have been doing these things for thousands of years. While that is true, I think it’s more or less because they enjoy doing these activities just as all fisherman enjoy going on the lake and catching fish. Several years ago a couple groups of high school kids were busted for shining and poaching deer. Based on a lot of the logic that you are implementing I should conclude that all high school kids are responsible for the poaching that occurs. No. What you should realize is that 99% of high school kids do not do this and hunt within the law and do so respectfully. The same logic should hold true when looking at this topic. Unless, like I said before, you think that being Native American predisposes someone to want to break the law. I'm just going to ask a question here. Do you HONESTLY think that someone who is a Native American has any more of an inclination to throw a couple extra walleye in the bottom of the boat than your average Caucasian fisherman that has been on a hot bite all day? Common sense tells me no. If you disagree please enlighten my ignorant mind.
It just shocks me that so many people are so ignorant. Seeing people use the word like Redskin or Redman is disgusting. Would those of you that feel the need to display these words on this forum be just as comfortable saying Negro or Spic? They're all the same in my book because they all mean the same thing. It means that you are reducing a group of people. How do you know that members of this forum aren't Native American? How do you know that people you regularly interact with on here don't have Native American lineage in their family? What if their spouse or best friend was Native American? Exactly, you don't. I am Native American. While I am not part of a tribe that is of issue for these topics, it makes no difference.
These rights are guaranteed in a treaty. You know those things that we have with other countries. Why don't you try going back on one of those? It would never even be a thought because people don't view the Tribes as sovereign nations. No matter whether or not you can say the words does not determine the perception of the situation.
Like I said, I love to fish as much as anyone on this board. I just realize that things are the way they are. If we want to change this situation then we need to change the way we go about things. Instead of trying to figure out how the treaties can be reveresed and we can steal away rights that we promised to this group of people, let's continue to try and work with them in managing resources that we both love. I realize that this has been done in the past and maybe there hasn't been alot of success but all it takes it a couple of people on each side of this to start turning things around. Remember that we are all people here and while some of us may have different rights this does not change the fact that everyone should be treated like human beings.
| |
| | |
Posts: 2361
| FISHUNT - 12/9/2011 4:34 PM
FSF-
Really?!! "redskins"...?
Scott Westenberg
"Brownies" was already taken by pre-pubescent girl scouts. | |
| | |
Posts: 8772
| I suspect a lot of overharvest and waste takes place for one reason and one reason only, and that is spite. Reading some of these comments, it's not surprising. People advocating taking their rights away, people insisting that we should change the laws... If someone came up to you said basically: "We're taking your house. You can go live over there instead. Oh, and here's a treaty. You can still use the garage to store your boat. But the house, and the garage belong to us now." You'd be pretty angry. Now how would you feel if suddenly after years of this less than favorable arrangement, everyone started complaining about your boat in their garage, how you should not be allowed to keep it there, because it was ruining the neighborhood for everyone else??
I know it's a poor analogy, but the bottom line is much of the abuse that takes place is probably a result of how we treat them as a result of exercising those rights which the U.S. supreme court upheld. You don't have to LIKE the fact that they can net and spear. You don't have to like the fact that you may have to deal with a 1 fish posession limit, but you would be wise not to forget that you purchase a priveledge to use those resources, while the native Americans have a right to them. You can believe that it belongs to everyone, but federal law states otherwise.
One would hope that both parties could come to an agreement that favors everyone involved, by making sure whatever practices are used by either side do not decimate the resource that we all enjoy. But that's never going to happen when one side approaches the discussion with rocks in hand, ready to start throwing them at the first sign of disagreement. | |
| | |
| (You said "If someone came up to you said basically: "We're taking your house. You can go live over there instead. Oh, and here's a treaty. You can still use the garage to store your boat. But the house, and the garage belong to us now." You'd be pretty angry. Now how would you feel if suddenly after years of this less than favorable arrangement, everyone started complaining about your boat in their garage, how you should not be allowed to keep it there, because it was ruining the neighborhood for everyone else??")
I guess I'd feel about as bad as if someone said I was "free", yet pushing a century later I was getting lynched for the color of my skin. Or as if someone told me I lived in a country where all men are created equal which, less than 100 years ago meant, among other things, I couldn't vote becasue I was the wrong gender. Or if someone told me marriage was a fundamental right, but one that didn't let me, a male, marry my boyfriend. Or if I didn't a job because someone less qualified but of the right demographic got it instead. The list goes on and on.
This country's history of discrimination is long and distinguished. No one group has a monopoly on the claim to historical or contemporary discrimination, though I think there is a strong case to made that some groups (blacks and women in particular) have an equal or greater claim that the Tribes. As I stated before and will state again, the historical treatment of the tribes was unfair, tragic and deserving of reparations. What makes the Tribes different from nearly all other oppressed minorities is that they got formal, legal recognition and some measure of pecuniary compensation. Blacks, gays, women, immigrant groups....they should be so lucky. So while I agree with your argument as far as it goes, spiteful, illegal waste based on past discrimination (if it happens, which I actually doubt) gets as much deference from me as would bad acts by any minority (or majority) based on some political belief belief that they have a "moral right" to break the law. None.
All of this is beside the point anyway. This discussion started based on a) waste by Tribal fisherment while exercising a right; and b) the contention that there is, basically, nothing anyone other than the Tribes can do about it becasue the treaties are what they are. In every post on this thread, I have stated, and will state again, that the Tribes have a RIGHT to harvest under the treaties, and this right is not likely to go away. My point has been, and continues to be, that calling something a "right" doesn't make it sacrosanct or untouchable. It just means that the government needs to have a better reason and a better way to infringe the "right" than it would if it were merely a "privilege". That's not racist, it's not unfair, and it's not wrong. It's Con Law 101. You and I have our rights infringed every day in a thousand ways and not only do we not complain, we like it. Because the RIGHT to Free Speech does not encompass yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater. And the RIGHT to harvest on ceded lands does not encompass hundreds or thousands of purposfully dead and wasted walleyes in a woods. Maybe (probably) the government interest in keeping those walleye out of the woods is not equal to the government interest in keeping order in the crowded theater. Maybe it doesn't have to be. But if the right is abused enough, the federal government can act. That was my point orinially and, after about 10,000 words in this thread, that's still my point.
Paul | |
| |
|
Large Fish Kill Near Leech Lake