Red Lake

Nodakk wrote:

They could be making money by charging the white man to fish lower red but they don’t. Why would you expect something different from the upper portion?

Because the infrastructure, businesses, and customers are there and ready. Lower red has no resorts, accesses, etc. They’re looking to make money, not spend it.
For upper red, all they have to do is sit back and collect money from fisherman via license sales, and from resort owners for lease/ rent.
I very well could be wrong, this is the trajectory I see it going in though.

So you suggest resort owners that have already invested capital into the land and business they created to pay rent to the tribe?

I have words for this but will refrain.

Here is a link to the MN Senate district map showing which party holds the seat. Scroll down. The DFL only holds a 1 seat majority so convincing just one of them to vote against it would stop it. Anyone know where these DFL senators stand on it?
Grant Hauschild district 3 (far northeast)
Rob Kupec (Detroit Lakes to Moorhead)
Aric Putnam (St. Cloud)
Nick Frentz (New Ulm)
MN Senate Map

Michael Best wrote:

So you suggest resort owners that have already invested capital into the land and business they created to pay rent to the tribe?

I have words for this but will refrain.

I dont think he’s suggesting it – it may become a necessity if your business “ends up” on someone else’s property, and they don’t outright boot you and take over…

It’s hard to know what the tribe will do if this would go through (extremely unlikely this go round).

They essentially have 2 choices brought up by recent posters above:

1. Seize the land (with our government tax dollars buying out existing property owners), and keep everything related to the reservation closed which would mean no fishing, guiding, ice house operations on any portion of URL for non-tribal members.

2. Seek to maximize profits by approaching existing resorts and operations with “lease” opportunities to operate their businesses on tribal land in exchange for paying rent or a healthy fee

***My guess is they would go with choice #1. The tribe has shown no history of letting non-tribal members anywhere near Lower Red Lake and hasn’t hesitated to do nothing for many members who currently live in some real tough situations (crime, drugs, trashed properties, etc). I also can’t foresee any existing operations wanting to do business with the tribe nor invest in a business that the tribe could essentially shut down at any point on a whim or terminate land leases.

Michael Best wrote:

So you suggest resort owners that have already invested capital into the land and business they created to pay rent to the tribe?

I have words for this but will refrain.

I’m suggesting that will be their option given from the tribe if this goes through. Pay the tax/ rent/ lease or leave.
I hope that isn’t the case. I’m just guessing that’s what will happen.
I feel for them. Some have been living and working there for generations and they’ll be forced to leave or bend to the tribe.

What makes you think if the land goes back that they will even have that option or that we could even fish it? I dont think that would be the case because Red Lake is a closed reservation not like Leech or Mille Lacs.

They probably want to give it back to the Dakota… From the Red Lake Nation website.

The Ojibwe migrated from the northern Great Lakes area to what is now Minnesota, during the 17th century. Warriors preceded the colonizers and ordered to clear the way for the Anishinaabe families who would be moving into the area.

Ojibwe warriors established a village just west of Duluth, known as Wi-yah-kwa-chi-ga-ming and later called Fond du Lac by French fur traders. These men were believed to be the first Europeans to interact with the Ojibwe in that area.

From there, the warriors pressed on to the Sandy Lake and Red Lake regions sometime between the years of 1650 and 1750. Other Anishinaabe communities had already been established in what is now known as Grand Portage, Pembina and Rainy Lake in Northern Minnesota.

The Ojibwe battled the Dakota for the land in and around Red Lake, eventually forcing the Dakota out of the area. Initially, the Noka (Military and Police totem of the Anishinaabe tribe) settled the area. Other totems were eventually allowed to live in the Red Lake area as well. Many villages were established in the region, and most immigrants were part of Noka totem.

CaptainMusky wrote:

What makes you think if the land goes back that they will even have that option or that we could even fish it? I dont think that would be the case because Red Lake is a closed reservation not like Leech or Mille Lacs.

They’ll have that option because, it will be their land…..
I sure hope nobody would pay to fish there, I sure wouldn’t. Looking at the success they have with casinos in this state, it’s obvious some don’t mind giving them their money. People will still travel to fish there if they can.
I totally understand it’s a closed reservation. I just refuse to believe they want the land back for sacred reasons. They want the money!!

grubson wrote:

I just refuse to believe they want the land back for sacred reasons. They want the money!!

Then why wouldnt they open up Lower REd and build some resorts? People would come in droves, but they dont. They want the land and for themselves.

CaptainMusky wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>grubson wrote:</div>
I just refuse to believe they want the land back for sacred reasons. They want the money!!

Then why wouldnt they open up Lower REd and build some resorts? People would come in droves, but they dont. They want the land and for themselves.

I doubt they’d have the money to invest in building roads, resorts, etc. Upper Red is turn key ready. They just get to collect the money. No investment needed.

The road CR 89 I believe goes right along the shores of the lake for quite a distance so they wouldnt need to build much for roads at all. Even one resort would get them started. Tourism is of little interest for that band. They only finally built a Casino what a decade ago?

If I was a resort owner there is absolutely zero chance I would stay and pay the tribe anything after building my business and paying taxes into this state. I would take the settlement and flee the state.

As a MN sportsman if the tribe took over the resorts on Red. I would not give them the business.

What happens then when they deplete red. Our state will re stock it on our own dime ?

Bearcat89 wrote:

What happens then when they deplete red. Our state will re stock it on our own dime ?

You mean like there currently gonna do in Minocqua??

The lDF tribe is the same ones that blocked residents from their homes last year.

Attachments:

1. 

   521AA2B4-7551-41DB-BA48-BBBFE43C0CFA-scaled.jpeg
   

CaptainMusky wrote:

The road CR 89 I believe goes right along the shores of the lake for quite a distance so they wouldnt need to build much for roads at all. Even one resort would get them started. Tourism is of little interest for that band. They only finally built a Casino what a decade ago?

It’s still a major investment for a poverty stricken tribe. Just a landing off of that road would cost them significant money. Add in buildings, utilities, plow trucks, insurance, employees, fish houses, fuel costs, maintenance, and that initial cost gets even higher. Upper red would require none of those costs, just profit from the resorts paying rent and fisherman buying licenses.
If tourism is of little interest why did they build the casino? Apparently they changed their ways in that aspect. White man money is always welcome on the reservation.
All we can hope is that it never happens. If it does, we will see which route they take.

Link for a petition.

https://chng.it/w7jncpYcHd

Michael Best wrote:

If I was a resort owner there is absolutely zero chance I would stay and pay the tribe anything after building my business and paying taxes into this state. I would take the settlement and flee the state.

As a MN sportsman if the tribe took over the resorts on Red. I would not give them the business.

I agree. It’s hard to say what the resort owners will do. Some of those families have been there for over a hundred years. Roots go deep, they may choose to do whatever necessary to stay on their family land. I wouldn’t be surprised if this turns violent if they do get their properties taken away.
I know my family land in Voyager’s National Park wouldn’t go away without a fight.

The cold hard truth is that BOTH political parties, in the end, gain from this dissension.
GOP wins votes on the social issue.
DFL gets a few tribal votes & serious tribal $$$$.

The Rez system is nothing but appartied in the USA. A class of people being treated differently on their ethnicity.

All this talk of the red lake band needing money is forgetting 1 thing.
Right now they are the largest seller of legal Marijuana in the state.
They have their income source figured out.

The way I understood the bill is that only state land would be involved. Not that it makes the bill better in anyway. It also doesn’t say anything about using eminent domain or foreclosing on private property. So I’m missing how all the talk of the tribes shutting down fishing would happen. This certainly may be step one in the Red Lake Band getting control on the entire lake though.

As far as their pot goes, once the dispensaries open in most cities, no one is driving up there to buy anything. I highly, no pun, doubt they could grow their own quality product given the soil up there is cr@p for any type of crop.

I think Baitwaster was making the logical point that the land was taken from the Dakota, pioneers took it from the currant tribes of the area. Now those tribes want the land back. Unless I missed his point the land should go all the way back to the Dakota or we can just go with the point that the white man took the land the same way the tribes have been taking it forever.

In the meantime, be sure to support all the casino’s and their related businesses.

Tom schmitt wrote:

All this talk of the red lake band needing money is forgetting 1 thing.
Right now they are the largest seller of legal Marijuana in the state.
They have their income source figured out.

You’re correct. They also know that their sales will steadily decrease as more and more dispensaries get opened closer to the population centers.

Dutch – exactly what I was getting at – land had been bought and sold, given and stolen since the the beginning of time.

And those who think they need to go to Red Lake for the dispensary – how soon you forget…

https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/breaking-the-news/minneapolis-transfer-land-red-lake-nation/89-e3e6607c-a388-4356-93b8-3a07129282ef

To the victor go the spoils.

Isn’t Russia forcefully trying to take land from Ukraine? I’m sure there is an agreement for where that border is located. Similar situation only not in the US.

Big difference is the Feds aren’t sending billions to either side in the Red Lake case.

blackbay wrote:

The way I understood the bill is that only state land would be involved. Not that it makes the bill better in anyway. It also doesn’t say anything about using eminent domain or foreclosing on private property. So I’m missing how all the talk of the tribes shutting down fishing would happen. This certainly may be step one in the Red Lake Band getting control on the entire lake

White Earth Band just up the road is answering all your points already. Once given authority over these lands, the tribes will start by charging a nominal fee, and then Raising the fee so high that you either sell for pennies on the dollar (who else is gonna buy a property liability like that?) or you go broke fighting it in court. Even a poor tribe would be supported by a wealthier one, far beyond any citizen group could afford to fight. So unless we can involve the Cargills on our side, the line in the sand is now imo.

http://www.inforum.com/opinion/letters/letter-minnesotas-heartland-is-not-up-for-grabs?fbclid=IwAR0m9XJgrA61v1SPSEQQEJkHe0ar5M0MDdJrneMC-HXodPJaz43N6eykuhs_aem_AYqe2q8lebBXGNi2xw_3Fw6mFGm7-b0L3d7th-IlwPqus4FxTMpOUKWML33D-6Kayf4

That was an excellent opinion letter by that farmer and agree with everything he pointed out.

I signed that petition and will be emailing the proper government officials.

Did they pull the petition? Pulled it up a few times and it says “This Petition is null and void”