jimh
Offline
Salted and Unsalted Boater!
Profile Status:
Reged: 10/27/02
Posts: 4288
Loc: Area 8.1, 8.2, 9 or an S river...
|
|
I was watching the news and they said the indians who shot and killed the grey whale a few months ago could lose their treaty rights. So, what do indians have to do to lose their treaty rights, and why isn't this pursued more?
Shouldn't wasting resourcings like piling up dead salmon to rot count? How about overharvesting?
Thoughts?
--------------------
Wear a PFD if you want to live.
|
hmitchel
Offline
steelie
Profile Status:
Reged: 08/22/05
Posts: 230
Loc: Idaho
|
|
Quote:
jimh said:
I was watching the news and they said the indians who shot and killed the grey whale a few months ago could lose their treaty rights. So, what do indians have to do to lose their treaty rights, and why isn't this pursued more?
Shouldn't wasting resourcings like piling up dead salmon to rot count? How about overharvesting?
Thoughts?
Most likely because it is the particular indian nation (they are considered their own sovereign nation) that must revoke the treaty rights of the individual, rather than the feds. If any of us had the ability to revoke the fishing/hunting license of a buddy of ours because of their activities, how likely would we be to do it? For most of us, not very, unless their conduct was so far out of bounds that it created PR problems for us, or made our own lives more difficult.
|
Lead_Bouncer
Offline
Native Slab
Profile Status:
Reged: 08/09/07
Posts: 1195
Loc: king county
|
|
Sounds like a good punishment, but probably wont last forever.
|
Trouthead
Offline
Subject of the Puritan Rep. of Washington
Profile Status:
Reged: 09/17/02
Posts: 4466
|
|
They are looking at taking their fishing rights for 3 years.
--------------------
Trouthead
ABU/Ambassaduer Rest Home - Maître d' (New residents welcome)
C.A.S.T. volunteer, supporter and advocate
http://www.castforkids.org/
|
Gooose
Offline
Ancient Mod
Profile Status:
Reged: 09/14/01
Posts: 11056
Loc: Area 12
|
|
Jim a Treaty Tribe is unlikely to lose their fishing rights due to the actions of some of it members.
A tribe may remove an individual tribal members harvest rights though. Two different legal subjects. The actions of the 5 Makahs are not germaine to treaty rights.
--------------------
Independent Advocate For The Fish
Not Represented By Any Organization
Simple Solutions to Simple Problems
Simple Solutions to Complex Problems
There's lies, damned lies and then there are statistics......Mark Twain
|
Salmo_g
Offline
silver
Profile Status:
Reged: 12/29/04
Posts: 103
Loc: south Sound
|
|
Treaty fishing rights belong to sovereign treaty Indian tribes, not to individual Indians. Any tribe can revoke fishing privileges from a member for any reason the tribal government deems appropriate.
The treaty fishing rights of a treaty tribe can only be revoked by an act of Congress because it is Congress that ratifies treaties.
Sincerely,
Salmo g.
|
jimh
Offline
Salted and Unsalted Boater!
Profile Status:
Reged: 10/27/02
Posts: 4288
Loc: Area 8.1, 8.2, 9 or an S river...
|
|
So, hypothetically, a bill that got through Congress could eliminate the treaties... That would be a lot of money. What are the downsides?
--------------------
Wear a PFD if you want to live.
|
Trouthead
Offline
Subject of the Puritan Rep. of Washington
Profile Status:
Reged: 09/17/02
Posts: 4466
|
|
Jim,
Are you asking the tribes about the downsides or some of us old rednecks? I submit that the answers could be very different. LOL
--------------------
Trouthead
ABU/Ambassaduer Rest Home - Maître d' (New residents welcome)
C.A.S.T. volunteer, supporter and advocate
http://www.castforkids.org/
|
Eddie
Offline
steelie
Profile Status:
Reged: 12/11/01
Posts: 160
Loc: Puyallup
|
|
Jim, you asked, "What are the downsides?" I submit that the biggest downside is the lack of trust that the Government's word (treaty) means anything. It would seriously inhibit that Government's ability to enter into new treaties with anyone.
--------------------
"You're not a g*dda*n looney Martini, you're a fisherman!"
RP McMurphy - One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.
|
Mojo
Offline
Instigator
Profile Status:
Reged: 09/10/03
Posts: 7488
Loc: Bootsville, Idaho
|
|
How about the cost of the years and years of legal costs involved in defending the decision.
I'd submit that (depending on what argument was used to throw out the treaties) it may also invalidate any other treaties the US has entered in to since the tribal treaties were ratified.
I guess it would be great for the tribes, because they would regain ownership of a bunch of the US. Look what happened to Canada when they were forced to re-negotiate most of the treaties with the First Nations Peoples...
--------------------
Tight Lines,
Mojo
TEAM MOOSE DROOL
TEAM SMOKIN' MERC
TEAM JACKSON BALDWIN
Alaksa Nitro Baits Pro Staff
|
cupo
Offline
cookin' reels and killin' wading boots
Profile Status:
Reged: 12/26/01
Posts: 2236
Loc: speeding on 530
|
|
Congress would never get rid of the treaties with our poor, abused, taken advantage of, downtrodden, oppressed, tribes.
--------------------
This can't be healthy. All this fishing is really messing with my head.
|
Salmo_g
Offline
silver
Profile Status:
Reged: 12/29/04
Posts: 103
Loc: south Sound
|
|
Congress can unilaterally modify the Steven's treaties, and it wouldn't affect other treaties currently in effect or the ability of the US to make future treaties. While treaties are the supreme law of the land, they are still like other laws in that they can be modified. It's beyond doubtful that if Congress modified the treaties, they'd return all the land to the tribes. And the situation isn't comparable to Canada, which BTW didn't have any original treaties, so they weren't renegotiated. I'm pretty sure that was new stuff with most of the First Nations Mojo.
Most importantly, it's extremely unlikely that Congress will consider nullifying the Steven's treaties any time soon.
Sincerely,
Salmo g.
|
hmitchel
Offline
steelie
Profile Status:
Reged: 08/22/05
Posts: 230
Loc: Idaho
|
|
Quote:
Salmo_g said:
Congress can unilaterally modify the Steven's treaties, and it wouldn't affect other treaties currently in effect or the ability of the US to make future treaties. While treaties are the supreme law of the land, they are still like other laws in that they can be modified. It's beyond doubtful that if Congress modified the treaties, they'd return all the land to the tribes. And the situation isn't comparable to Canada, which BTW didn't have any original treaties, so they weren't renegotiated. I'm pretty sure that was new stuff with most of the First Nations Mojo.
Most importantly, it's extremely unlikely that Congress will consider nullifying the Steven's treaties any time soon.
Sincerely,
Salmo g.
Sorry, but treaties cannot be unilaterally modified. Rather than being the supreme law of the land, they are more like a contract between the entities that entered into them. As such, they require the consent of both parties for modification and, absent that agreement, a unilateral modification would breach the treaty and eliminate the limits both sides agreed to.
|
jimh
Offline
Salted and Unsalted Boater!
Profile Status:
Reged: 10/27/02
Posts: 4288
Loc: Area 8.1, 8.2, 9 or an S river...
|
|
Of course then, there would be only one side, and it wouldn't matter!
--------------------
Wear a PFD if you want to live.
|
Gooose
Offline
Ancient Mod
Profile Status:
Reged: 09/14/01
Posts: 11056
Loc: Area 12
|
|
Reality...the treaties are not going away or going to be changed. Deal with it.
--------------------
Independent Advocate For The Fish
Not Represented By Any Organization
Simple Solutions to Simple Problems
Simple Solutions to Complex Problems
There's lies, damned lies and then there are statistics......Mark Twain
|
Todd R
Offline
Chromer
Profile Status:
Reged: 10/29/01
Posts: 888
Loc: Seattle, Washington
|
|
Two points...
1. hmitchel, Congress absolutely has the power to change, modify, or abolish the Stevens Treaties.
2. They aren't going to.
Fish on...
Todd
--------------------
http://www.rvrfshr.com
For all your fishing hardware needs!
"Correct in Design"
|
Gooose
Offline
Ancient Mod
Profile Status:
Reged: 09/14/01
Posts: 11056
Loc: Area 12
|
|
I repeat what previously stated....deal with it.
--------------------
Independent Advocate For The Fish
Not Represented By Any Organization
Simple Solutions to Simple Problems
Simple Solutions to Complex Problems
There's lies, damned lies and then there are statistics......Mark Twain
|
hmitchel
Offline
steelie
Profile Status:
Reged: 08/22/05
Posts: 230
Loc: Idaho
|
|
Quote:
Todd R said:
Two points...
1. hmitchel, Congress absolutely has the power to change, modify, or abolish the Stevens Treaties.
2. They aren't going to.
Fish on...
Todd
For purposes of my own curiosity, on what do you base your conclusion that Congress can unilaterally change the terms of the treaty? Such a unilateral right would generally have to be reserved in the document. Granted I do not have the text of the treaty so I don't know if it contains such language. If it's not in the treaty, what would be the basis for Congress's ability to make the change?
|
Todd R
Offline
Chromer
Profile Status:
Reged: 10/29/01
Posts: 888
Loc: Seattle, Washington
|
|
It's just inherent Congressional power...they have the sole authority among the branches of government to enter into, or leave, treaties made with other nations. It doesn't have to be in the document.
That being said, so long as the treaty is still in force the government (executive branch) is bound to its terms, and that is enforced by the judicial branch. It would take some serious political will to get Congress to abrogate the Stevens Treaties, and there is nowhere near the amount of it necessary to even touch them, much less ditch 'em.
The Stevens Treaties that the fed gov't entered into with the local tribes, and the Boldt Decision (not to mention the dozens of related cases pre- and post-Boldt) are, as Gooose pointed out, simple facts of life that are not going anywhere...they are going to have to be dealt with.
While it would be perfectly legal for Congress to abrogate the treaties, with specific language, it is tough on credibility for a nation to enter into a treaty and then down the road decide they don't want to play anymore...that's why it doesn't happen all that often.
What good is treaty power if no one trusts you to stick to your word under it?
Fish on...
Todd
--------------------
http://www.rvrfshr.com
For all your fishing hardware needs!
"Correct in Design"
|
AuntyM
Offline
Looking for a few good fish!
Profile Status:
Reged: 05/07/01
Posts: 10189
Loc: Harstine Island
|
|
I think Congress is more likely to modify the ESA, weakening protections, than the treaties.
Too much big money pushing it that direction and too many humans that won't sacrifice personal comfort.
--------------------
Landslide: Stevie Nicks greatest song!
http://www.ccapnw.org
The Monster Breathes!
"Don't fall in!" Doug Richert Sr. 10/18/2008 
|
hmitchel
Offline
steelie
Profile Status:
Reged: 08/22/05
Posts: 230
Loc: Idaho
|
|
Quote:
Todd R said:
It's just inherent Congressional power...they have the sole authority among the branches of government to enter into, or leave, treaties made with other nations. It doesn't have to be in the document.
That being said, so long as the treaty is still in force the government (executive branch) is bound to its terms, and that is enforced by the judicial branch. It would take some serious political will to get Congress to abrogate the Stevens Treaties, and there is nowhere near the amount of it necessary to even touch them, much less ditch 'em.
The Stevens Treaties that the fed gov't entered into with the local tribes, and the Boldt Decision (not to mention the dozens of related cases pre- and post-Boldt) are, as Gooose pointed out, simple facts of life that are not going anywhere...they are going to have to be dealt with.
While it would be perfectly legal for Congress to abrogate the treaties, with specific language, it is tough on credibility for a nation to enter into a treaty and then down the road decide they don't want to play anymore...that's why it doesn't happen all that often.
What good is treaty power if no one trusts you to stick to your word under it?
Fish on...
Todd
Todd:
While it is true that Congress is vested with the sole authority to enter into, and leave, treaties, it is a completely different question whether they can simply change the terms and have the treaty remain in force and effect. Without the consent of the other side (express or implied), they cannot. In essence, it is an all or nothing question. Either they are part of the treaty as negotiated, or they are not. They cannot simply unilaterally change the terms of the treaties with the tribes anymore than they could unilaterally change the terms of the SALT treaties with the old Soviet Union.
|
AuntyM
Offline
Looking for a few good fish!
Profile Status:
Reged: 05/07/01
Posts: 10189
Loc: Harstine Island
|
|
If you have read the treaties, you will see that changes CAN be made by the President himself. The executive has reserved several powers in the treaties. Would it ever happen? I doubt it.
Here's the law.
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm
--------------------
Landslide: Stevie Nicks greatest song!
http://www.ccapnw.org
The Monster Breathes!
"Don't fall in!" Doug Richert Sr. 10/18/2008
|
hmitchel
Offline
steelie
Profile Status:
Reged: 08/22/05
Posts: 230
Loc: Idaho
|
|
Great points, Aunty!
|
AuntyM
Offline
Looking for a few good fish!
Profile Status:
Reged: 05/07/01
Posts: 10189
Loc: Harstine Island
|
|
Oops... I forgot to add, if such a thing occured, the land would not revert back to the tribes. They could however, declare war on us.
--------------------
Landslide: Stevie Nicks greatest song!
http://www.ccapnw.org
The Monster Breathes!
"Don't fall in!" Doug Richert Sr. 10/18/2008
|
Trouthead
Offline
Subject of the Puritan Rep. of Washington
Profile Status:
Reged: 09/17/02
Posts: 4466
|
|
The treaties can and have been modified in the past but there was negotiation involved. An example would be the use/possession of alcohol on the reservation.
--------------------
Trouthead
ABU/Ambassaduer Rest Home - Maître d' (New residents welcome)
C.A.S.T. volunteer, supporter and advocate
http://www.castforkids.org/
|
Mojo
Offline
Instigator
Profile Status:
Reged: 09/10/03
Posts: 7488
Loc: Bootsville, Idaho
|
|
Hell Marsha, with all our troops deployed overseas or on reconstitution leave, they would probably win... 
--------------------
Tight Lines,
Mojo
TEAM MOOSE DROOL
TEAM SMOKIN' MERC
TEAM JACKSON BALDWIN
Alaksa Nitro Baits Pro Staff
|
AuntyM
Offline
Looking for a few good fish!
Profile Status:
Reged: 05/07/01
Posts: 10189
Loc: Harstine Island
|
|
Hey, I can shoot perty gud fer a girl if I have to.
One thing that bugs me. Calling Boldt the law of the land is absurd. The Supreme Court is the law of the land and if they can overturn themselves, they can overturn Boldt.
Of course, I'm still agonizing over the emminant domain thing. They crapped all over us and the Constitution.
If the tribes are smart, they will NEVER appeal anything to this Supreme Court.
--------------------
Landslide: Stevie Nicks greatest song!
http://www.ccapnw.org
The Monster Breathes!
"Don't fall in!" Doug Richert Sr. 10/18/2008
|
Todd R
Offline
Chromer
Profile Status:
Reged: 10/29/01
Posts: 888
Loc: Seattle, Washington
|
|
hmitchel,
You are mistaken about the treaties with the various tribes in the U.S., Congress d |
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
[Re: