Possible Spending of Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council

Once again Steve I find myself in 100% agreement with you. Seems like follow the money might be a good strategy.

Mocha wrote:

Once again Steve I find myself in 100% agreement with you. Seems like follow the money might be a good strategy.

I see your view, but do you see 12,000 acres pine forest in the northwest part of Mn to be converted to patatoe fields. Thankfully DNR PUT A HOLD ON THIS for now.

Yo llu dont want a certain group to ask for money to protect some land with a few constraints you dont agree with. Where is your concern over this 12000 acre land grab that will effect negatively on the enviroment and sportsman alike.

Yep this land is potlasch land (spelling)

The purposely blind eye and ear threatens us all.

Where are you getting the potato field story ? Why does a tribe want to protect land by buying it from a private seller, with MN taxpayer monies and putting it into a federal trust ??? Suspect anything ? Is there any advantage to them or is it for the greater good of all Minnesotans ? Specifically from the start, they want to “limit” wolf hunting on the 12,000 acres…. problem is, their idea of “limit” is allowing none. To me, it should disqualify any consideration for funds. Don’t think there are not a few lawyers in on this… do we not think the DNR and state agencies could “preserve” this 12,000 acres, with the funds ? If it smells a little like an onion, it should get stronger as you peel the layers back.

ou asked. for some reason the link is not being forward. ? Try this link.this better I dont understand the link thing going on here.. I will try copy and paste.dont trust it do the research.
Copy paste is not working on my end sorry.

One of the committee members told me that potato story. She said that the land in southern mn is so expensive now that it is cheaper to go north and clear the land and make it into agriculture. What was said is a big corporation like McDonald’s will buy it and grow potatoes. I don’t know if potatoes grow in this state or not. But I am torn as we have lots of public pine forests up north and I don’t see another 12,000 acres put aside as good or bad. What would be wrong with some ag land would that not create some jobs? The committee person told me the white earth Indians are doing this because they just do not want the land developed. I cannot believe this is the only reason. If I could be convinced that the land would be open to everyone equally I probably would not oppose. I heard from one committee member who said the Indians will have say as to when hunting on this property seasons are open and closed not the state of MN. Doing this they could be within the letter of the law and make it so no one uses it.

Also if the tribe has a say as to hunting regulations & seasons on the proposed property, are the tribal members also held to the same game & fishing laws on the proposed land? Once they own the land and have the legal clout and money I am very confident it would be two different regulations for tribe members and the rest of us.

Where the regulations will differ is, you won’t get on the land. It will get folded into the reservation and be treated as such. Just like Red Lake. Stay off their portion. Period, no discussion.

tomr wrote:

What was said is a big corporation like McDonald’s will buy it and grow potatoes. I don’t know if potatoes grow in this state or not.

Never waste a crisis and always introduce a red herring.

I am pretty sure MacDonalds buys their potatoes and don’t grow their own. I suppose saying this makes me a racist.

hl&sinker wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Mocha wrote:</div>
Once again Steve I find myself in 100% agreement with you. Seems like follow the money might be a good strategy.

I see your view, but do you see 12,000 acres pine forest in the northwest part of Mn to be converted to patatoe fields. Thankfully DNR PUT A HOLD ON THIS for now.

Yo llu dont want a certain group to ask for money to protect some land with a few constraints you dont agree with. Where is your concern over this 12000 acre land grab that will effect negatively on the enviroment and sportsman alike.

Yep this land is potlasch land (spelling)

The purposely blind eye and ear threatens us all.

You simply are not comparing apples to apples here–far from it.

“Trust status would result in the removal of state regulations, non-member rights to freely use the land, and removal of the land from the Clearwater County property tax roll.
The transfer from private land ownership to trust status will transfer all management rights, licensing, game regulation and enforcement to the tribe. The tribe can set its own limits and seasons, which normally include a longer season and a higher game limit than the state’s.
Once the land becomes trust status, the tribe can and probably will restrict access to the property for multi-use access such as hunting, hiking, and the all-around enjoyment of the land by members and non-members. The intention of the Legislature when they voted to authorize the creation of the Outdoor Heritage Fund was the open access to public lands for everyone. In trust status, the tribe has the right to restrict access anyway it sees fit without the oversight of the state of Minnesota. This can be through outright exclusion or the issuing of permits to allow individual access….. Everyone is aware Indian law is very complicated and can put non-members that cross onto trust land at the mercy of the tribal court, as seen in Red Lake fishing violations in 2006.”

Your potato scenario is about a potential threat to water supply/wildlife in that area–1/11th the size of Lake Mille Lacs. It is about a private entity/citizen developing land for their private use–using THEIR money–in the process creating jobs and revenue for the tax base in the area/state/fed. Simply, not much different than any farmer anywhere in the region–just a bigger operation. Good or bad–the proposed study that the DNR has stepped in with due to public pressure will be the answer.

The basis of this thread is about using tax dollars to fund a PRIVATE landowner’s purchase–that by current federal law, can then restrict and set rules for the same tax payers that gave them the money to own it. Instead of revenue being created–this potential land grab takes money away from the public coffers/county tax rolls in that area.

The potato thing and the Tribal regime thing are two different animals–in every form and fashion. One animal has the potential of a far more reaching bite than the other–based on recent history.

I agree with you mplspug voicing an opposing view in this debate seems to automatically label you a racist. It was insinuated I was a racist by a couple council members for simply voicing my two cents without anyone asking why I oppose. What if Canada or Mexico wanted to buy this land and the state taxpayers helped them with the purchase? Would not everyone question why and what their agenda was in purchasing it? The Canadian, Mexican and White Earth Band all share one thing, they are not bound by the laws of the state of MN. If public money is spent on any project I believe the entity purchasing it should be bound by MN law. They should not have the right to mandate it’s own laws that the people who helped fund the project will have no voice in. The white earth band currently control 63,000 acres. They claim the White Earth Reservation encompasses approximately 829,000 acres in Clearwater, Becker, and Mahnomen Counties. The size of the purchase is 1994 acres not 12,000 as in previous post and this seems to me just an attempt to control more land and we help pay for it.

Dutchboy wrote:

Where the regulations will differ is, you won’t get on the land. It will get folded into the reservation and be treated as such. Just like Red Lake. Stay off their portion. Period, no discussion.

I agree with you Dutchboy.

I was just trying to illustrate that once the tribe, with their casino money & legal clout, have ownership that the rules for use will probably not be equal to all.

tomr wrote:

I agree with you mplspug voicing an opposing view in this debate seems to automatically label you a racist. It was insinuated I was a racist by a couple council members for simply voicing my two cents without anyone asking why I oppose. What if Canada or Mexico wanted to buy this land and the state taxpayers helped them with the purchase? Would not everyone question why and what their agenda was in purchasing it? The Canadian, Mexican and White Earth Band all share one thing, they are not bound by the laws of the state of MN. If public money is spent on any project I believe the entity purchasing it should be bound by MN law. They should not have the right to mandate it’s own laws that the people who helped fund the project will have no voice in. The white earth band currently control 63,000 acres. They claim the White Earth Reservation encompasses approximately 829,000 acres in Clearwater, Becker, and Mahnomen Counties. The size of the purchase is 1994 acres not 12,000 as in previous post and this seems to me just an attempt to control more land and we help pay for it.

I wish I had a dollar for every time I got an email or phone call accusing me, in no uncertain terms , of being racist when it comes to this Tribal debate! LOL

Fact is, the ONLY racism, in very clear definition, is being pushed and practiced by Tribal related people/entities. They are the ONLY ones who are saying some citizens, based on skin color and or ethnic origin should have rights others should not have.

How the heck can anyone saying everyone should have EQUAL RIGHTS, therefore not one group having exclusive rights, be called racist?

Anyone that says that is, simply, stupid. And maybe illiterate….

$2.2M for 1994 acres…??? and to plant some trees ? Who in their right mind would feel this is a good use of the funds ? This has now become an outright laughing stock joke to me.

big_g wrote:

$2.2M for 1994 acres…??? and to plant some trees ? Who in their right mind would feel this is a good use of the funds ? This has now become an outright laughing stock joke to me.

Many might not recall, but this same White Earth group, who seems to convey they need outside money to operate etc., came to St. Paul 3-4 years ago and offered 400 million dollars to the state to fund the new Viking stadium in return for being allowed to build a casino downtown Mpls. They have 400 million to build a stadium and millions more to build a proposed casino but need EXCLUSIVE subsistence fishing and hunting rights, free license plates ( and countless other taxpayer subsidized scenarios), and taxpayer dollars to fund land purchases?

THAT is laughable as well! And sadly, evidently, the majority of voters in this state/country side with them? Laugh or cry….??

In the 21st century on U.S. soil, this is embarrassing!!

http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/291162041.html

One piece at a time, they thrive on legalized racism. This will be up to a “Tribal referendum” vote? What a joke….as over 50 percent of the voters in this country pacify these groups.

big_g wrote:

$2.2M for 1994 acres…??? and to plant some trees ? Who in their right mind would feel this is a good use of the funds ? This has now become an outright laughing stock joke to me.

Good point. I did a bit of looking into land trust. Found this disturbing little tid bit.
land trust scams
I guess the tribes are not the only ones to look after. Definitely nothing to laugh at.

steve-fellegy wrote:

http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/291162041.html

One piece at a time, they thrive on legalized racism. This will be up to a “Tribal referendum” vote? What a joke….as over 50 percent of the voters in this country pacify these groups.

And yet another reason they should never get a dime of this Lessard Sam money!
http://www.startribune.com/local/291411221.html

And the following is the reason you can not trust the tribal regime when you sell/give or whatever land….from the U.S. courts…

“Although courts have held that tribal authority does not extend to nonmembers in all cases, the Supreme
Court ruled in 1981 that “A tribe may regulate . . . the activities of nonmembers who enter consensual relationships
with the tribe or its members, through commercial dealing, contracts, leases, or other arrangements. A tribe may also
retain inherent power to exercise civil authority over the conduct of non-Indians on fee lands within its reservation
when that conduct threatens or has some direct effect on the political integrity, the economic security, or the health
or welfare of the tribe.” [Citations omitted] Montana v. United States, 450 US 544 (1981), at 565-566.”