"NEXT!!!"

So now the the destroyers are targeting Lake Vermillion.

What a sham, what a shame!

Shefland posted this last week. Look for “what lake is next”, it is back a few pages.

I know I seen the article. How can this be legal. And why is it ok for them to do it now verses other years. Not happy about this as my wife’s family has a cabin on this lake.

What’s the non-tribal quota there?

puddlepounder wrote:

Shefland posted this last week. Look for “what lake is next”, it is back a few pages.

Well now… “Dammit” I can’t remove the post? No delete button!!!!

Don’t worry about it. The more posts the better

Pug I think the quota was pretty low something like 2500lbs. As far as it being legal fishing and hunting are they’re rights and our privilege. The state of Minnesota has zero say in what or where they decided to exercise that right.

Just another + in the SD column

timschmitz wrote:

Pug I think the quota was pretty low something like 2500lbs. As far as it being legal fishing and hunting are they’re rights and our privilege. The state of Minnesota has zero say in what or where they decided to exercise that right.

I think this is incorrect. I believe the MN constitution was amended to list hunting/fishing/trapping as rights in our state.

Some races of people just have significantly more legal rights than others based upon skin color.

No, we’re all equal

Some are just more equal than others

desperado wrote:

No, we’re all equal

Some are just more equal than others
You sure got that right..

Timmy wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>timschmitz wrote:</div>
Pug I think the quota was pretty low something like 2500lbs. As far as it being legal fishing and hunting are they’re rights and our privilege. The state of Minnesota has zero say in what or where they decided to exercise that right.

I think this is incorrect. I believe the MN constitution was amended to list hunting/fishing/trapping as rights in our state.

Some races of people just have significantly more legal rights than others based upon skin color.

You may be right Timmy. My point was more twards the state have no control over the natives rights. These are federal treaty and the state of Minnesota has zero say in what goes on. If the natives felt like it they could run nets on almost any body of water they wanted to and there’s not a damn thing we can do about it. Amending the treaty’s is the only thing that will change any of this and that’s about as likely to happen as pigs flying.

We could always declare war on them for an hour and declare all treaties null and void.

Until we defeat them and bring them back down to our level of equality.

mplspug wrote:

We could always declare war on them for an hour and declare all treaties null and void.

Sure go for it.

The Native conversations always confuse me.

It really sucks that they can harvest the way they do… believe me I don’t like it at all but what is the alternative?

We can honor the treaties that Americans drafted and forced Natives to sign many, many years ago… or we can renege…

I would be willing to bet that most on this board- hard working, middle class Americans who pride themselves on a firm handshake and keeping his word would not renege on a contract he personally signed, why should our government?

About the time the treaties were being signed the railroad industry went to the government to get imminent domain rules put in place to help them grow. Those rules have since been changed to conform to a more modern world. I see no reason that natives need any more “rights” today than I have. If I can’t operate a casino in Minnesota, why should they be able to? A step further….if the indian casinos are taking care of the Indians, as they claim to be doing, why then do the Indians need further government monies? They sure as hell don’t need to net fish what with all the Kmarts, Kwik Trips, Walmarts, Targets and other named grocery stores around.

The problem isn’t the treaties. Its how the treaties have been “re-interpreted”, just like our rights to bear arms, but a judicial system that needs a serious overhaul. We, as a people, need to saw the legs off the high court’s stools.

I don’t think when the treaties were signed are forefathers could foresee the size of gill nets manufactured today the effectiveness of the nets and the equipment available today to deploy them. If the tribes want to have a ceremonial netting or spearing get together to honor there way of life, I would be all for it. I am against netting 40,000 lbs of walleyes during the spawn. Do you really believe they are netting these walleyes for subsistence?

Your points are heard and I agree. That is for the courts to decide. Passing judgement on the Native people for this however I firmly disagree with. Someone above already said that the Natives could be netting a lot more if they wanted. The American people are no better than the Natives… look at the modern day exploitation of the welfare system.

I just like to point out the difference between being angry at the treaties and lobbying for our government to make the appropriate changes versus being angry at a group of people who very awkwardly occupy small sections of what we previously considered wasteland and utilizing the afforded benefits they have available to them… it is a very big difference.

The problem is NOT the Native people… that is all.

if we are gonna reference treaties, then follow the agreed upon treaties, not just cherry pick them. read the treaty and see if it is even close to being adhered to…. thatsa big fat NO… unless they are referencing hunting/gathering, then they whip it out. I have no problem with native americans, I have a problem with pigs… white, green, brown or otherwise.

Still a sham, and still a shame! Any way you spin it.

meestro wrote:

…
We can honor the treaties that Americans drafted and forced Natives to sign many, many years ago… or we can renege…
…

meestro wrote:

Your points are heard and I agree. That is for the courts to decide. Passing judgement on the Native people for this however I firmly disagree with.
…
The problem is NOT the Native people… that is all.

Would you like to review the last article of the 1855 treaty and get back to us on that ?

desperado wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>meestro wrote:</div>
…
We can honor the treaties that Americans drafted and forced Natives to sign many, many years ago… or we can renege…
…

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>meestro wrote:</div>
Your points are heard and I agree. That is for the courts to decide. Passing judgement on the Native people for this however I firmly disagree with.
…
The problem is NOT the Native people… that is all.

Would you like to review the last article of the 1855 treaty and get back to us on that ?

That would be great. Do you have a reference?

“1855 chippewa treaty”
It’s not hard to find

desperado wrote:

“1855 chippewa treaty”
It’s not hard to find

The bottom line is that the Natives are doing what the US government is allowing them to do… you can’t blame the Natives for that… you need to blame the current accepted policies and laws of the US government.

If you were born into a Reservation/Native family, let me guess… you would personally refuse to net fish because it would be against your personal principles?

meestro wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>desperado wrote:</div>
“1855 chippewa treaty”
It’s not hard to find

The bottom line is that the Natives are doing what the US government is allowing them to do… you can’t blame the Natives for that… you need to blame the current accepted policies and laws of the US government.

If you were born into a Reservation/Native family, let me guess… you would personally refuse to net fish because it would be against your personal principles?

You seem to confuse the treaty with reality. Treaty states the fish is for subsistence and tribal ceremonies. These fish are being taken for profit. Add up the amount of fish being netted in the ceded territory and divide it by the number of members. They would need to be sprinkling ground fish on their Cheerios in the morning and they still couldn’t use all the fish.

Anyway, this discussion isn’t (and never is) about the treaty. It’s about netting. All the people of Minnesota are asking for is not to net during the spawn. Simple and to the point. Anybody advocating & bitching about anything else is just fanning the fire and playing the race card.

I have little sympathy for anybody who starts complaining about Vermilion that did’t stand up for Mille Lacs.

timschmitz wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>mplspug wrote:</div>
We could always declare war on them for an hour and declare all treaties null and void.

Sure go for it.

For the record we share the same view. That was sarcasm.

I sort of understand people’s frustration but I also see hypocracy in some. I also see futility.

I tend to agree that netting during the spawn is the same as any other time. Whenever you take them it is always before “a spawn”, even if done right after the spawn.

If you have a dog with a belly full of pups and you kill her a month before they are born how many will survive? How many have a chance to survive?

Apply the same process to fish. If they are never born they have zero chance to survive.

I don’t understand why the math is so hard to understand.

It’s so frikin simple,it’s netting during the spawn.

What a sham, what a shame

Yes taking a walleye in April is the same as taking a walleye in August. the difference is, allowing someone to “net” during the spawn, guarantees they are taking “spawning” fish. These are the fish that sustain the lake. These fish are also concentrated to spawning areas, making the nets highly effective in catching/maiming/killing lots of walleyes/pike/musky/perch in short amounts of time. (remember the piles of rotting guts and pike pictures… shown dumped east of the lake) Because of this, you then have “natives” coming from 300+ miles away, because it is so fast and easy, you can really be a walleye pig in a matter of days. If it was limited to after the spawn, I can about guarantee you, the “natives” with blond hair and blue eyes, will not be dragging their boat 300+ miles, to catch a measly 30 walleyes a day…. it’s all about the pigs for me. I would bet a hundred dollars to $1, the true “Mille Lacs Band” would just as soon see the blue eyed/blond pigs with gillnets, stay away from their resource as well.