Red Lake article in Star Tribune

[Hoffer]

It was interesting to read the article in the Star Tribune regarding the guy who had his boat confiscated for crossing into the tribal waters. I know I will probably recieve criticism for saying this - but I would just think they could have given him a warning without confiscating his boat. He wasnt even sure he had crossed over the boundary - and I suppose he should have had GPS or something to make sure he didnt cross over. They quoted a representaive from the Red lake tribal council he stated that they have to protect their land - and " If you owned 1,000 acres and I came over and started shooting your deer, how would you like it?" I guess I can see his point, but it just seems extreme. Especially considering all of the fishermen who have visited the lake since it reopened and have been very good about watching the border lines. It just seems to be me that they have been waiting for this to happen and are looking for someone to make an example of. I know laws are laws - and I agree - but nonetheless at the same time I feel like a little leniance would have been in order -maybe a fine of some sort - but confiscating his boat and all - it just seems like alot.

[blue_healer_guy]

Hoffer, hear your point and agree for the most part. I fish a lake nw of Bemidji that is about 2/3 fishable and 1/3 not. There are no markers or anything but I dont even get close to the imaginary line. The only thing I don't understand is this, with no open water experience on Red, why would you even get close. Is the 12 ft of water on the Indian side better than the 12 feet of fishable water?

[PierBridge]

If you want other opinions on this topic here is a 41 page 401 post Thread for you......

WHO OWNS RED LAKE

[Slyster]

YES.. goto the outdoor forum post.. a most interesting read! And very long if you haven't been keeping up with it daily.

[Eiger0304]

Just to add to Hoffer's comment about "How would you like it if someone shot deer on your 1000 acres". Yes, I too would not be happy with someone hunting on my land. But does that give me the right to confiscate his weapon, binoculars, or any other gear he is carrying? I think I would tell him to turn around and exit the property. if anything give the man a tresspassing citation and send him on his way.

I do agree a person should know their location on the lake.

How come they don't confiscate your car when you drive on the reservation to get to there casino???

[BobT]

Personally, I think it would be best to continue this thread in the other forum mentioned because it will keep the comments concentrated in one area.

Bob

[webdude]

Quotes from Testimony Concerning S. 1691 "The American Indian Equal Justice Act" made by WILLIAM J. LAWRENCE, J.D., publisher of the Native American Press/Ojibwe News, Bemidji, MN before The Committee On Indian Affairs, United States Senate concerning S. 1691 "The American Indian Equal Justice Act"

"Democracy is not simply the existence of free and fair elections, which I would argue often do not exist in tribal elections. Democracy is also defined by limiting the power of the government by such things as the rule of law, separation of powers, checks on the power of each branch of government, equality under the law, impartial courts, due process, and protection of the basic liberties of speech, assembly, press, and property. These do not exist on Indian reservations.

A given tribal government may claim these protections exist, but closer analysis usually reveals that claim to be a charade. And where one tribal government may extend some rights to its citizens, the next regime may not be so kind and can instantly reverse or ignore any tribal law or tribal constitutional protection, in the name of self-determination, and with the defense of sovereign immunity.

James Madison, a founding father and signer of the U.S. Constitution, said that government with no separation of powers and no checks and balances is the very definition of tyranny. That is what we have on America's Indian reservations.

Tribal government opposition to a free press in Indian Country is very strong. Over half of Minnesota's tribal governments do not allow the Native American Press/Ojibwe News to be sold on their reservations, and tribal interests have harassed and attempted to intimidate our advertisers and retail outlets. The paper has been confiscated from newsstands on numerous of occasions.

We are currently in state court fighting charges of trespass against one of our reporters for attending a meeting of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe at a casino on the Mille Lacs reservation. He was arrested, handcuffed, and put in jail until the meeting they did not want him reporting on was adjourned. The state recognizes and enforces tribal police actions such as this.

Tribal sovereign immunity gives Indian people less rights and more government corruption, unaccountability, discord, and abuse of power. With the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, which has overlaid a multi-billion dollar cash industry on top of an unaccountable government, the abuse of power has taken on new ferocity.

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said recently, "The guiding mechanism of a free market economy ... is a bill of rights, enforced by an impartial judiciary." There can be no denying that the lack of civil rights, the lack of legitimate courts, and the lack of government accountability is the single biggest reason there is so little economic activity on America's reservations.

I first exposed the abuses of tribal court in 1972 in a law review article. Even after the U.S. Commission of Civil Rights put the BIA on notice of these abuses, the BIA's only response was to increase funding to the tribal court. Since then I have personally been the victim of the Red Lake Tribal Council's use of the sovereign immunity defense on five occasions.

On four separate occasions I have tried to get tribal financial statements which, according to our Constitution, are supposed to be available to tribal members. Tribal officials would order hearings to be postponed seconds before they were scheduled to occur, switch judges without notice, deny a right to a jury, change from a scheduled pre-trial hearing to a full trial without notice, deny an opportunity to call witnesses, and come to the first day of trial with a typed decision already in hand. Needless to say, I was denied my right to see tribal financial records.

In 1994, three tribal members asked me to represent them in Red Lake tribal court in an election dispute. Despite my legal background and eligibility in every way, I was denied a license to represent people in my own tribal court. They were afraid I would take cases against the council for violating people's rights.

The 1990 U. S. Civil Rights Commission Report was published without one word about the abuses in the Red Lake courts, in spite of the fact that their investigation resulted in a 31-page description of civil rights problems at Red Lake. They left it out of the final report because the Red Lake government didn't want it made public.

Former Washington Congressman Lloyd Meeds wrote a well-thought-out dissent to the 1977 American Indian Policy Review Commission Final Report, in which he said:

"If Indian governments are to exercise governmental powers as licensees of the United States, it is imperative that they be fully answerable for the improper exercise of those powers. Tribal sovereign immunity should ... not be allowed to interfere with Federal court enforcement of federally protected civil rights."

And a 1989 report of the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs made the following accurate observation:

"Since Congress has the ultimate responsibility for federal Indian policy, we in the Senate and House must accept the blame for failing to adequately oversee and reform Indian affairs. Rather than becoming actively engaged in Indian issues, Congress has demonstrated an attitude of benign neglect. ...y allowing tribal officials to handle hundreds of millions in federal funds without stringent criminal laws or adequate enforcement, Congress has left the American Indian people vulnerable to corruption."

Let it be said right now that sovereign immunity has nothing to do with Indian culture or tradition. It is a concept that developed in the Roman empire and was used by European monarchs to protect them from challenge or criticism. Tribal sovereign immunity has essentially told a generation of tribal leaders that once they are in office they are above the law and can do whatever they please. The only culture that tribal sovereign immunity is protecting is a culture of corruption, denial of rights, and unaccountability.

In closing, I would like to quote a great American, the late Dr. Martin Luther King. He said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

[hawkeye43]

The point was brought up that you can drive the roads though the reservation and they don't take your car.

[upnorth]

I am not positive, but I think the only roads we are welcome on are the state run/maintained roads. I do believe on the rest of them we are perona non grata.

[gunflint]

It's your responsibilty to know where you are. This isn't a tribal issue as much as a responsibility issue. I can't just pop back and forth across the Canadian border with leeches, minnows, firearms etc. If I do It's my fault, and I expect to suffer the consequences.

On a related matter. If someone from the Res. were to catch a 18 pound walleye (in their waters) would it be classified as a new state record?

[ozzie]

Good read webdude!!! very interesting!!

[harvey lee]

I agree with webdude 100%.I also agree that you should know where you are.

But,I thought that in this great country That there were some rules to make the playing field for everyone the same.Doesnt look that way at all.We dont hang people for speeding,but I guess we could.All we need is some common sense,which it seems is gone in todays world.

In todays world its all about whats in it for me.

[KidWalleye]

It think people need to know that there is corruption on BOTH sides. I don't pretend to know alot about this subject. I would like to know who paid for the red lake walleye project. Also it is a joke that someone can stake claim to any water without a definate border. Not everybody can afford GPS's. But I know the tribes probably can afford to place bouys every 1/2 mile to protect THEIR waters.

[deepportage01]

This whole topic just makes me sick. first of all there is no need for a sovern nation in the good ol USA. you dont hear of any other races geting a reservation.

[Fishin4Life]

Quote:

---

This whole topic just makes me sick. first of all there is no need for a sovern nation in the good ol USA. you dont hear of any other races geting a reservation.

---

Not sure what you mean by a "sovern nation". I tried to look up sovern, but found no definition.

Also, I could be wrong, but I don't believe there were any other races here prior to us that would be in need of a reservation. Have you read any of the history books to read about what happend to the native americans when the white man came here, not neccisarily nice things... IMO

[treble]

Sovereignty is the exclusive right to exercise supreme political (e.g. legislative, judicial, and/or executive) authority over a geographic region, group of people, or oneself.

It was spelled wrong

[Fishin4Life]

Thanks for the clarification

[SomethingFishy*]

I am part Native American and I'm not looking for "special rights". To me it is a bunch of talk. If they want there special rights they should be 100% cut off from any forms of government aid and assistance. It is bad enough that we are subsidizing things all over the rest of the world and then you come back "home" and get raped from the inside by the "Soverign Nations".

Just my opinion.

[Rost]

I agree that you should know where you are at on the lake. But, there is no way this should take place w/o some sort of visual boundry (buoys, markers, etc..)in place to at least let people know where the line is at. I've never been on Red, but from the looks of it on the map, it seems pretty darn big. Without a gps, I can see how a person could get easily dissorientated.

I'm certainly not an expert on this subject, but after reading through this topic, it sounds like this place is ran by the Mophia.

[Fishin4Life]

Quote:

---

I agree that you should know where you are at on the lake. But, there is no way this should take place w/o some sort of visual boundry (buoys, markers, etc..)in place to at least let people know where the line is at. I've never been on Red, but from the looks of it on the map, it seems pretty darn big. Without a gps, I can see how a person could get easily dissorientated.

I'm certainly not an expert on this subject, but after reading through this topic, it sounds like this place is ran by the Mophia.

---

I agree

[Guest]

I agree with Gunflint.

Red is a big lake. Why on earth would yo even fish that far out to the west without a GPS knowing that somewhere there is a boundry you can't cross.

It might tick people off for saying this, but I don't feel sorry for this guy.

[GotOne]

I have kept my mouth shut long enough. Have to voice my opinion. Over time, there have been a lot of rights/wrongs done to various groups of people. I, for one minute do not believe we owe any group of people one thing. None of us alive today have anything to do with what happened many years ago-be it slavery, taking land or whatever. No one group of people should have special rights or privileges. Have you heard of "One Nation Under God"-yes I said "God". Today, it's not even politically correct to say "God", without some group of people b$$tching. That some group of people can have special rights to fish, hunt, net(during prime spawning time) is just plain wrong-period. Most of these sovereign nations couldn't survive without the state or federal agencies footing the bill. We have our deer shack on the northwest side of Red Lake and I have to drive over 3/4's of the way around Red just to fish on the "proper side of the lake". One more thought, why can they fish on our side of the lake and we can't fish on there side???

[BigWadeS]

Wallabee, that is a very good point!

I gaurantee you someone will probably try to do the right thing and but bouys of some type along there due to this issue, however; who would dare, you might lose everything because they might say you are littering.

[LABS4ME]

This subject has been bought up here many times on FM. The Natives didn't always do right by the white man either. Depends on which side of the fence you want to sit on. History books are a way for an author to tell you how he percieved events to have happened... they are usually slanted one way or the other and in this PC / revisionist world it is only getting worse.

It was far from perfect, but as I know of, we are one of the only conquering nations that took into account an aboriginal group of people and tried to make provisions for them. Was it perfect? far from it, but it is what it is. That was 100 years ago, my family had yet to even come to America, does that remove me from implications on how they should percieve treatment towards me?. My family had nothing to do with the treaties or any treatment of the bands until the 1920's...

It would have been just as easy for the early settlers to try and lay claim to the land the way it was done in Europe for centuries, overcome, occupy and exterminate. Those that survived had better assimilate quickly into the "new" civilization... Did the Natives provide "reservations" for each other as the individual bands took over territory held by another band... They were constantly at war with each other, or did they run them off and kill as many as possible? Unfortunately, it was the way things were done then... This is now, 2006... Whether the lake is theirs or not affects me little... but what does irk me is the way that this incident has been handled. It will do nothing but cause further divide among the band and the rest of the State. I tried to be "open" to the idea of working together, good neighbors, improved relations... but it is still the same ol' dump that's been going on up there for years. The court unfortunatley will have to take this up and settle it one way or another. By the way, the federal code (which the band falls under) states that you can only be prosecuted for tresspassing if you are "knowingly tresspassing". They were not warned they were tresspassing, they were not asked to leave "their" waters, nor did they ignore any signs, markers or buoys... show me a state that confiscates vehicles when you are unknowingly tresspassing. I can maybe go so far as to understand a citation... but confiscation? by machine gun toting game wardens? NO Way!

As far as I'm concerned, the phrase "Sovreign Nation" really should be changed to "Sovreign State". That is a much more accurate statement of what they are trying to be. They are under the umbrella of the federal govt. and use federal funds for much of what they do. Much as every other State in this Nation. A "nation" standing on their own would not abide by any directives of "our" federal govt. nor pay taxes to it. They are part of "our" nation and so are governed by it.

Carry on... all these good posts should really be moved to the thread in the political forum...

Good Luck!

Ken

[BobT]

Quote:

---

As far as I'm concerned, the phrase "Sovreign Nation" really should be changed to "Sovreign State". That is a much more accurate statement of what they are trying to be. They are under the umbrella of the federal govt. and use federal funds for much of what they do. Much as every other State in this Nation. A "nation" standing on their own would not abide by any directives of "our" federal govt. nor pay taxes to it. They are part of "our" nation and so are governed by it.

---

I agree with this statement.

I think what many seem to forget is the fact that the Native Americans "get" special consideration because we, that is the government of the United States, agreed to certain terms in contracts (treaties) we signed years ago. There was no time limit placed on those agreements so therefore they are still in force.

The specifics of those agreements are constantly under attack by both sides of the issue and the court system is constantly making rulings when these complaints are brought before the judges.

It really gets upsetting when I hear people bashing the recipients of the situation. In this case, our Native American neighbors. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Is there anyone here that would refuse to take advantage of a situation if it was presented? Don't blame those that are taking advantage. If you want it changed, use appropriate channels.

Regarding the idea of placing marker bouys. I own farmland. Am I required to mark my property to keep hunters out? Absolutely not! I am taking advantage of a state law that doesn't require me to mark my land. I probably wouldn't press it but anyone caught tesspassing is subject to the same laws whether I have the property maked or not.

Does the United States or Canada have a marker bouys to indicate the border between us on LOTW? NO! But whether we cross in I-Falls at the border crossing or somewhere else, we are subject to the same laws. If Canada's laws include confiscating our boat, then there is nothing we can do about it.

Bob