Senator Franken off limits in StarTribune

Quote:

---

you need to chang your attitude on this issue. this is a race issue, having to sit in the back of the bus so to speak. all i want to see is equal rights for ALL, and no gill nets for ANYBODY

---

I did not say I liked it or think it is right, I said it was our current reality.

Until we get some leaders at all levels of our government that agree with you and are willing to do something about it ( legislative, executive, judicial ) I do not see a change occurring.

Something to keep in mind I suppose the next time you step into the voting booth.

Steve I will send you a pm later. I realize I do have a limit knowledge base here, But I have done some brief checking of all the court rulings pertaining to the treaty issue in MN, which can be found here http://www.geog.umn.edu/faculty/squires/research/American_Indians/mille_lacs.html
and read the 1999 majority supreme court opinion here
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/97-1337.ZS.html
All of them say the tribes retain their treaty rights, and are governed ONLY by their own commissions, and that the state of Minnesota does not have any authority over rights granted in the treaty. Its possible my reading is wrong, or I am missing some critical court ruling. Where does it say that the State can go to court over conservation issues? They can always try and go to court with new arguments over what the treaties themselves say, they don’t need the supreme courts to specifically rule they can do this. Any lawyers on IDO want to pontificate? I am not arguing in favor of tribal netting, I just thought (and still do from what I have just read) that there really is no easy or realistic way to change it.

You reference the Supreme Court Order. You need to do your homework on “Phase 2” of the rulings, all being handled by the lower courts and dealing with how the upper courts orders are enacted/negotiated between the state and the tribal regime. I believe you will find that the DNR can bring it back to court for review if there is a public safety concern, public health concern and or a conservation concern. (the DNR actually told the Mille Lacs Input Group that in the past few months but said the scenario doesn’t meet the conservation concern level and therefore will not be brought to court at this time by the DNR–even though survey numbers show big concern and the potential of closing the lake to hook and line anglers sometime in 2012 looms over us if fishing is too good.)