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.