quote:

Originally posted by Mike_Dettorre:
Lindy,

Accept I am not arguing about the treaty.

You said "we stole their land forever".

What made it their land in the first place?

What were the boundaries of their land before the treaty existed?

What makes their claim of a boundary legitimate?

Because they hunted their once and they believe nobody else did?

Let's see if your response will actually be on point.

quote:

Originally posted by bentaframe:
Lindy, The Indian came over the Bering Land Bridge approx. 20,000 years ago or so thought and they carry a great deal of Asian DNA. Prior to the Great Smithsonian controversy or conspiracy there is/was evidence that North America had been occupied by a Norse type of people prior to the Red Man's arrival, thus making the Indian an invader. This was evidenced by the "Kennewick Man" whose skeleton was found in lower central Washington State. The political climate of the day (Clinton Administration) took possession of the bones, supposedly studied them without conclusion and because of the pressure put up from the national tribes released them in secrecy for immediate tribal burial. Maybe thats why Greenland was called Greenland. End of story.

quote:

Originally posted by lindy2:
"Why do you keep talking your self in circles?"



Lets put it this way. I think that most native American tribes had their land taken against their will. If you don't, for whatever reason agree, that's fine. Different strokes for different folks. My main point has always been that this man and his family and tribe should continue to take as many sheep as they want based on their Federal treaty rights.

quote:

1) Whether Indians have a right to hunt on these Treaty lands outside of State Seasons. The Supreme Court has recently said yes.

quote:

I care that they are exhausting limited resource with impunity

quote:

just saying that it is patently false that we are experiencing scarcity of land

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

1) Whether Indians have a right to hunt on these Treaty lands outside of State Seasons. The Supreme Court has recently said yes.

Isn't the SC the highest court in the land?

If that is correct, why the arguments??

quote:

Originally posted by lindy2:

quote:

I care that they are exhausting limited resource with impunity

I recently went on a driving trip from my home in Minneapolis to Clearwater Beach, Florida to attend a "destination" wedding. The first state after Minnesota that I drove through was Wisconsin, and then of course Illinois and so forth. I could not believe the number of dead deer that I saw on the highways. It was, to say the least, incredible. And just recently I went on another shorter trip on the same route, and it amazed me that most of those dead deer were now gone. So I assume that they were picked up by either the states or some organization.

This is just the tip of the iceburg on what Man has done to the environment that has harmed not only game animals, but all wildlife.

Wildlife is relatively scarce because Man has increased his/her population exponentially, causing more use of precious land, and more use of precious resources.

WE fill our oceans with plastic. We fish out entire populations of certain species of fish. We kill hundreds and thousands of animals and birds with our cars. We cut down or forests to make paper. We drain our wetlands to make more farms. We pave our land to make highways, We subdivide our land to make towns and cities. We pollute our land with chemicals that harm wildlife. Its a wonder we have any wildlife at all. It is the human race who is exhausting limited resources with imputiny. I do not have any facts or figures, but I would argue that what native people take under treaties in one year is a mere pittance compared to the damage that is done to wildlife each and every day by ever encroaching populations of people and their destruction of the wild environment.

This whole issue of native American hunting and fishing under federal treaties may come back to the Supreme Court. And it may get tweaked here and there. But I don't think it will be decided much differently. Precedent (stare decisis) is still alive an well.

Only time will tell. And in the meantime Native People who have federal treaty rights should exercise those rights.

quote:

Loony 2 is from the State that voted for Jessie Ventura and Al Frankenstien should be a clue on his tree hugging anti American views.A typical Bernie Sanders supporter who does not have a clue on the world really works.

quote:

Originally posted by lindy2:

quote:

Loony 2 is from the State that voted for Jessie Ventura and Al Frankenstien should be a clue on his tree hugging anti American views.A typical Bernie Sanders supporter who does not have a clue on the world really works.

Argumentum Ad Hominem

The fallacy of shifting an argument from the point being discussed to the personality of an opponent.


Instead of dealing with the opponent's thesis, the fallacious argument attacks his reputation and moral character, or refers to low intelligence, inferior social position, lack of education, or similar personal shortcomings.
This type of reasoning is most often used by those who have nothing intelligent to say about the issues being discussed.

quote:

but they never considered the land as theirs.

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:

quote:

but they never considered the land as theirs.

It was theirs only as long as they had the force to hold it.

quote:

Originally posted by Poyntman:

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:

quote:

but they never considered the land as theirs.

It was theirs only as long as they had the force to hold it.

Funny how Liberals only seem to think these "evils" are somehow uniquely American or Western. The entire Globe has been settled in the last few centuries and by definition "ownership" in the modern sense established.
I wonder if these folks are upset that Rhodesia in modern times was converted to "Zimbabwe"?
Are they upset the Neanderthals lost out in Eaurope to Modern Humans 10,000 years ago?
Mayans lost out?
Are we upset that Mongols no longer control huge parts of the Earth?
That the Roman Empire collapsed?
Yes, however, what happened to Indians is not palatable in any way by today's standards, but the modern world was being established and tribal and nomadic peoples in ALL parts of the world, that we're literally centuries behind in development (and still would be) were forced into the modern paradigm 1,000 years ahead of schedule.
We cannot go back and relitigate the past....which is what liberals want to do...typically from the 27th floor of a high rise building in a dense modern urban metropolis sipping a Nespresso with copies of The NY Times and Washington post in their laps eating a poached organic egg....

quote:

Originally posted by Poyntman:

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:

quote:

but they never considered the land as theirs.

It was theirs only as long as they had the force to hold it.

Funny how Liberals only seem to think these "evils" are somehow uniquely American or Western. The entire Globe has been settled in the last few centuries and by definition "ownership" in the modern sense established.
I wonder if these folks are upset that Rhodesia in modern times was converted to "Zimbabwe"?
Are they upset the Neanderthals lost out in Eaurope to Modern Humans 10,000 years ago?
Mayans lost out?
Are we upset that Mongols no longer control huge parts of the Earth?
That the Roman Empire collapsed?
Yes, however, what happened to Indians is not palatable in any way by today's standards, but the modern world was being established and tribal and nomadic peoples in ALL parts of the world, that we're literally centuries behind in development (and still would be) were forced into the modern paradigm 1,000 years ahead of schedule.
We cannot go back and relitigate the past....which is what liberals want to do...typically from the 27th floor of a high rise building in a dense modern urban metropolis sipping a Nespresso with copies of The NY Times and Washington post in their laps eating a poached organic egg....

quote:

Most of the Indians out here in Montana are slobs in regards to hunting and they kill everything they see but of course not with a bow and arrow or off horseback. most are hypocrites and are poor stewards of the land

quote:

Originally posted by skb:
What a total crock of shit. My bet is I have spent more time hunting Reservations than all of the other posters on this thread combined. I hunt there because the hunting is incredible and the land is full of all manner of wildlife. The scenes I have witnessed have been amazing and our group has taken quite a few trophy animals. I would not have bought a house in the area otherwise. The Indians that I consider my friends are salt of the earth people. It looks simply like jealousy to me. I'll be back again this year assuming we pull tags. You guys continue to bitch and moan. I'll load up the bird dogs and gear and head on out to some of the best hunting to be had anywhere.

Steve

quote:

Originally posted by white eagle:
typical treatment of native peoples of this country (by that I mean ancestry that goes back 600 + years)
problem lies with the fact he didn't pay big money to the state or some outfitter
same old story of the have's and the have not's

quote:

Originally posted by skb:
What a total crock of shit. My bet is I have spent more time hunting Reservations than all of the other posters on this thread combined. I hunt there because the hunting is incredible and the land is full of all manner of wildlife. The scenes I have witnessed have been amazing and our group has taken quite a few trophy animals. I would not have bought a house in the area otherwise. The Indians that I consider my friends are salt of the earth people. It looks simply like jealousy to me. I'll be back again this year assuming we pull tags. You guys continue to bitch and moan. I'll load up the bird dogs and gear and head on out to some of the best hunting to be had anywhere.

Steve

quote:

Originally posted by lindy2:
They should be allowed to hunt on the land that the federal government gave them. Whether its 7 miles one way and 6 miles the other way, or up and down a mountain, it was the federal government that made this treaty based on the lands that the people occupied at the time of the treaty.

The white man forced his ways on these people and should not expect them to relearn their own ways and hunt primitively as they once did.

A treaty (contract) was made between our government and them. There was no time limit placed on it. They have a right to hunt and fish in conformance with the treaty. We should not be jealous of it. And I hope this man enjoys taking many more majestic rams in his lifetime.

quote:

Originally posted by Alec Torres:
Guy bagged a record ram - in Idaho - leave politics and BS out of it. It should go in the book.

Petty bullshit is what I EXPECT from bureaucrats.