Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 2 Now viewing page 2 [30 messages per page] Muskie Fishing -> General Discussion -> Large Fish Kill Near Leech Lake |
| Message Subject: Large Fish Kill Near Leech Lake | |||
Both Sides |
| ||
| 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. | |||
| firstsixfeet |
| ||
Posts: 2361 | FISHUNT - 12/9/2011 4:34 PM FSF- Really?!! "redskins"...? Scott Westenberg "Brownies" was already taken by pre-pubescent girl scouts. | ||
| esoxaddict |
| ||
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. | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| (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 | |||
| Jump to page : 1 2 Now viewing page 2 [30 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2024 OutdoorsFIRST Media |