Not sure how to feel about Tribal Hunting…

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

Bottom line it's none of your business what they do with their land and their game. That is the point.

Folks are talking about what they can do on OUR land with OUR game, not the reservation. Did you think tribal members only hunted their own reservations?

 

[UpNorth89]

Or you should just fish red while you can, the tribe is trying to take upper / have the rez “rezoned” to include upper and all the land around it

That failed miserably. While I'm fine with them doing what they want within the reservation, I'm not okay with them doing whatever they want and setting their own limits outside the reservation because it's in the "treaty territory".

 

[Q child]

Folks are talking about what they can do on OUR land with OUR game, not the reservation. Did you think tribal members only hunted their own reservations?

They have a right to hunt those lands and that game. Everyone else has a privilege granted by the state. Their rights supersede the privileges of others. It's theirs first. I could be misunderstanding, but the cited document seems pretty clear.

 

[KurtR]

In both Dakotas they can’t hunt private or public land with out having a state issued tag. Just the same a non member can’t hunt tribal land with out a tribal tag.

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

They have a right to hunt those lands and that game. Everyone else has a privilege granted by the state. Their rights supersede the privileges of others. It's theirs first. I could be misunderstanding, but the cited document seems pretty clear.

It’s not their land to be clear, hard stop. It US land they argue is “unclaimed” because it wasn’t developed or is privately owned (they would loose access it it was sold). Even the semantics of that aside, because others have off reservation access without that particular verbiage, it is not their land. They have treaty rights to hunt our land.

They are part of “our” but don’t have to abide by “our” rules on “our” land. Feathers get ruffled when sone of us with racial privilege get access to a resource and consume it to a degree it takes away opportunities from others on “our” land.

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

In both Dakotas they can’t hunt private or public land with out having a state issued tag. Just the same a non member can’t hunt tribal land with out a tribal tag.

Varies by tribe, some have generous access and set their own rules, some don’t.

 

[UpNorth89]

In both Dakotas they can’t hunt private or public land with out having a state issued tag. Just the same a non member can’t hunt tribal land with out a tribal tag.

That's how it should be.

 

[Q child]

It’s not their land to be clear, hard stop. It US land they argue is “unclaimed” because it wasn’t developed or is privately owned (they would loose access it it was sold). Even the semantics of that aside, because others have off reservation access without that particular verbiage, it is not their land. They have treaty rights to hunt our land.

They are part of “our” but don’t have to abide by “our” rules on “our” land. Feathers get ruffled when sone of us with racial privilege get access to a resource and consume it to a degree it takes away opportunities from others on “our” land.

It certainly seems like the land is more theirs than anyone else's if they are able to use it in ways that others cannot. But fair enough, agree to disagree.
The cited document makes clear that the opportunities of non-tribal hunters come after the rights of tribal hunters. The tribal hunters aren't taking away anything from anyone else. They are exercising the rights that they have to harvest game. Again, agree to disagree.

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

It certainly seems like the land is more theirs than anyone else's if they are able to use it in ways that others cannot. But fair enough, agree to disagree.
The cited document makes clear that the opportunities of non-tribal hunters come after the rights of tribal hunters. The tribal hunters aren't taking away anything from anyone else. They are exercising the rights that they have to harvest game. Again, agree to disagree.

-it’s US land, not sure what their is to disagree about, that’s just a hard fact. They have tribal access to it but they don’t own it and would loose access if it was developed or sold.

-“The tribal hunters aren't taking away anything from anyone else.” that part is false. They ARE taking opportunity away from those without racial privilege in the case of the original example. Reducing tags for those without racial privileges is really the only tool Montana has if groups with racial privilege who set their own limits harvest in a manner Montana doesn’t feel comfortable with normal citizens getting a quota. You can certainly argue you feel it’s their right despite that implication to continue to do what they want, but you can not argue they aren’t taking away anything from anyone else when it’s a highly limited resource.

 

[Q child]

-it’s US land, not sure what their is to disagree about, that’s just a hard fact. They have tribal access to it but they don’t own it and would loose access if it was developed or sold.

-“The tribal hunters aren't taking away anything from anyone else.” that part is false. They ARE taking opportunity away from those without racial privilege in the case of the original example. Reducing tags for those without racial privileges is really the only tool Montana has if groups with racial privilege who set their own limits harvest in a manner Montana doesn’t feel comfortable with normal citizens getting a quota. You can certainly argue you feel it’s their right despite that implication to continue to do what they want, but you can not argue they aren’t taking away anything from anyone else when it’s a highly limited resource.

“Agree to disagree” is a common phrase that people use when they are unconvinced by what you are saying and aren’t interested in hearing your arguments again.
Maybe take it up with your Congress people?

 

[KurtR]

Varies by tribe, some have generous access and set their own rules, some don’t.

Yep . What they decide to do on tribal land should be their decision but on land not owned by the tribe they should have to abide by state laws. That’s on thing they got right with how it’s set up here.

 

[displacedtexan]

Guess what...

No matter what we say/think/like about their tribal rights given to them by their treaties, that is an unbreakable contract between them and the Federal Government that supersedes our states right for game harvest. MT FWP has little authority over what happens on these hunts.

Jay

Treaties between the US government and the tribes are unbreakable?

 

[Shortschaf]

The quality of life on some reservations is so poor I cannot imagine focusing on the hunting regulations instead

Tunnel vision

 

[roadrunner]

It's a "right" because it is a fundamental foundation of sovereignty and can't be revoked.

Privileges come and go with the will of the government.

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

No, the sovereignty merely means self government within a government. No different than a state, but still subservient to the Supremen Law of the Land.

That same fundamental foundation extends to all, not just a few.

 

[WRO]

I have a hard time envisioning them having an all out shootout and wiping out animals on the landscape they can freely hunt. I have a feeling it's probably decently policed within their groups and ethics are outlined by their own elders. I really have no experience with it, but that's how I view it going down anyways.

It’s not in the pacific nw, they use traditional spotlights and Chevys. It’s a shit show as a general rule.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[roadrunner]

They have a right to hunt those lands and that game. Everyone else has a privilege granted by the state. Their rights supersede the privileges of others. It's theirs first. I could be misunderstanding, but the cited document seems pretty clear.

You can't grant an absolute right to a specific group of people based on race, ethnicity, or creed that without extending it to everyone.

Treaties were made because tribes were viewed as a non American group of people operating under their own form of government. By that same stipulation, the Right to Vote should not have been extended because they were not American citizens, but it was.

Treaty "rights" granting privileges to a limited few, now full American citizens, is as Unconstitutional as limiting the Right to Vote because you could not afford a tax at the ballot box...

 

[UpNorth89]

The quality of life on some reservations is so poor I cannot imagine focusing on the hunting regulations instead

Tunnel vision

It's their choice to live the way they do.

 

[The Guide]

Treaties between the US government and the tribes are unbreakable?

Without an act of Congress. Breaking a treaty would be equal to an act of war, by law.

Jay

 

[realunlucky]

The proverbial battle between those having something and those wanting it.

This conversation has run it's course.

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk