Tribes want free Discover Passes

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by Go Fish, Aug 22, 2011.

  1. Dustin Bise

    Dustin Bise Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2007
    Messages:
    3,086
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    509
    I am not sure what your asking ed, if you could be more specific I could give you a better answer. History should potray it as genocide via chemical warefare (disease) that dates back to the 1491 in north america and 1519 in central america, eventually reaching peru in 1525. It was all downhill form there.

    Im not blaming anyone, I just think when they ask for a free prking pass to public lands it isnt unreasonable and we should give it to them.
     
  2. Ed Call

    Ed Call Mumbling Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    19,698
    Likes Received:
    4,731
    Location:
    Kitsap Peninsula
    Genocide, cheese and rice man, enjoy your free shit compliment of the government. Genocide. Serioiusly?
     
  3. Alex MacDonald

    Alex MacDonald that's His Lordship, to you.....

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    Messages:
    5,313
    Likes Received:
    2,718
    Location:
    Haus Alpenrosa, Lederhosenland
    Gents, isn't this a perfect campfire discussion, accompanied by a good whisky and a fine cigar!

    Dustin; my opinion is that their request is unreasonable on three counts: first, are you now part of the country, or not?; second, at what point, once we start down that road, do we stop dispensing "reparations", and third, at what point do we begin considering reparations? I'm curious though, what was going on in north America regarding biological warfare in 1491, considering the first English colony wasn't founded here until the Roanoke Colony in 1586?

    Dflett68, well, I think we agree that an act of thuggery isn't a civilized act. Does thuggery exist today? Saddam Hussein's little "saunter" into Kuwait comes to mind. Where it exists, it should be stamped out. Same with gangs, wherever they exist. Perhaps I'm missing the thrust of your question?
     
  4. Dustin Bise

    Dustin Bise Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2007
    Messages:
    3,086
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    509
    Your allowed to have your historical perspective and I will have mine. If you wanna think native americans just agreed to everything, handed over there land, and are now just chillin happy be my guest. And I think imma buy some steak with my food stamps today, in your honor.

    It isnt like the native americans were only fuked when they signed the treaty.

    Maybe genocide is a harsh word, maybe not even completely accurate, but about half the inka empire was wiped out by smallpox, and then was able to be invaded.. in new england in 1617 almost all of the popultion was wiped out by disease.

    You remember what happend at Plymoth too? At the time, it was common belief of many settelers that the disease acting upon the indians was an act of god, with the intent of opening new land.

    What about the 1864 event where the government marched 8000 navajo to a desert prison camp where disease, malnutrion, and hunger where rampant for there 4 year stay.

    Now of course, we are talking about washington state so those examples arent perfectly relevent, but about 30 percent of the northwest indians died aroun 7170. In the next 80 years to 1850 it is estimated that 28000 native americans died to disease in WESTERN WASHINGTON, leaving the population around 9'000.

    This is mirrored in many different tribes all over. Again, maybe genocide isnt the right word. But it sure did make it easier to occupy.

    And ill be sure to purchase a steak with my food stamps tonight ed. It isnt easy being young and trying to get on started in todays economy, and i have few luxuries in my life. Tonight the steak is gonna be one of them, thanks.
     
  5. Dustin Bise

    Dustin Bise Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2007
    Messages:
    3,086
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    509
    The english were not the first visitors to the Americas.

    Im not sure where that line gets drawn. I do know that The spokane tribe recieved about 4000 dollars as compensation for grand coulee damn though, so i think we still owe them some money. So for a government who is in debt to the tribe to charge them to park at land that was once sacred to them, just seems to me... wrong.
     
  6. Dustin Bise

    Dustin Bise Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2007
    Messages:
    3,086
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    509
    I was reading the 1855 treaty just for fun. This line seemed relevent to discover passes.

    Provided, also, That the exclusive right of taking fish in the streams running through and bordering said reservation is hereby secured to said Indians, and at all other usual and accustomed stations in common with citizens of the United States, and of erecting suitable buildings for curing the same; the privilege of hunting, gathering roots and berries and pasturing their stock on unclaimed lands in common with citizens, is also secured to them.

    im not a lawyer, but wouldnt a state park be unclaimed lands in common with citizens, be a state park? in which case they have already had the rights secured to them to be there, after they cough up 30 bucks?

    Maybe im not interpeting it right, it can be a confusing thing.
     
  7. Alex MacDonald

    Alex MacDonald that's His Lordship, to you.....

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    Messages:
    5,313
    Likes Received:
    2,718
    Location:
    Haus Alpenrosa, Lederhosenland
     
  8. Salmo_g

    Salmo_g Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2004
    Messages:
    10,023
    Likes Received:
    5,681
    Location:
    Your City ,State
    Dustin,

    My guess is that is the crux of the dispute. Treaty tribes may regard state and federal parks as open and unclaimed in the same sense as state forest land and federal national forests. I think so far the courts have held that parks are not open and unclaimed, but rather reserved and set aside for specific purposes, like recreation and conservation of fish and wildlife. For example, tribes are allowed to hunt on state and federal forest land, but not in state or national parks (exceptions in Alaska).

    Alex,

    For the benefit of your analysis it might help to understand that treaty tribe Indians have dual citizenship. Indians were not citizens of the US until 1935 (Indian Reorganization Act) or maybe it was 1954, when it finally became legal, although biologically ill-advised, to sell alcohol to Indians. Kind of amazing by today's standards, but Indians could not vote until they were granted US citizenship, when they became dual ciitzens, of their respective tribes and of the US. Also up to 1954, Indians throughout Puget Sound area tribes were shipped off to the Indian boarding school at Tulalip (where they were beaten for speaking native coastal Salish). After that they began attending the local public schools near their homes. Naturally it costs more to fulfil the education promise of the treaties to provide the extra education assistance in schools located near Indian reservations, but most of us would regard it as far more humane than the old boarding school method. Education effectiveness remains about the same, however, with 1 in 4 Indians graduating from high school.

    The only legal reason I can see for treaty Indians not to have to buy a Discover Pass is if a state park is co-located with a "usual and accustomed fishing ground or station." Then it gets sticky with the assertion that the entirety of the ceded lands comprises usual and accustomed, when in fact it doesn't. There are plenty of court cases that clearly establish that present-day owners of known historic fishing locations cannot deny access to treaty Indians when the purpose is fishing (US v Winans 1905, is one I think). Entering a state park containing a lake to go water skiing does not qualify.

    Sg
     
  9. Lenkerr

    Lenkerr Aimless Wanderer

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2007
    Messages:
    93
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Bellingham, Washington
    With all the talk about treaties and "tribal rights" and "historically" this and entitlement that, I wonder, as I have for many years now, if Native American rights, traditions etc. are to be kept sacred and need to be passed along through generations, why are they fishing with purse seiners, reefnetters, gillnetters and stringing nets across rivers? Or hunting elk and deer with high powered rifles? How is that "traditional" or in anyway part of their heritage? I am all for our Native American friends pursuing their heritage. As long as they do it as their fore fathers did, with nets made of woven cedar bark and spears. Oh and they never sold their fish or any seafood products to anyone else, so that should stop also. Just sayin'.
     
  10. Alex MacDonald

    Alex MacDonald that's His Lordship, to you.....

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    Messages:
    5,313
    Likes Received:
    2,718
    Location:
    Haus Alpenrosa, Lederhosenland
    Thanks, SG; I ignored the dual citizenship issue since it doesn't mitigate my central point-you're a citizen, even with dual citizenship. And yes, it does get technical when the fishing question is raised. I could possibly see it there.

    My colleagues and I worked our asses off to recruit First Nations kids when I was a Senior Advisor for UC Davis. We regularly traveled to the rez, and were regularly ignored! There's a "tribal" college near Davis-and I use the term "college" here completely tongue-in-cheek! Deganawida-Quetzalcoatl "University" is a complete joke, with none of the tribes contributing anything whatsoever to it's non-existant budget. Doesn't make any sense to me, unless it's simply a case of not valuing education. There's a few kids who went on to University, but none of them were a product of that place. They certainly were capable of doing the work, but I'm suspecting it was peer pressure which kept most of them from succeeding. Can't speak to the experience here in Washington, since I have none from an educator's standpoint.

    I found your mention of the beatings they received at the hands of administrators at Tulalip strikes a sympathetic chord: it's not widely known that kids from the Outer Hebrides of Scotland received the very same treatment at the hands of the English until about 1955 at the schools they were shipped to!
     
  11. dflett68

    dflett68 Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2010
    Messages:
    663
    Likes Received:
    264
    Location:
    snohomish
    "conflict, conquer, and take" is a principle? a value to live by? that's rich. what's even richer is the opportunistic use of the thoreau quote, hdt would undoubtedly vomit if he knew you were pasting his words to the tail end of the position you are taking. people of conscience and conviction have always opposed the sort of things that we are discussing. the idea of taking what's not yours just because you are strong enough to do it, and/or murdering/raping/pillaging in the process, has always been viewed as immoral by those who care for what's right more than they care for money and power. henry himself spoke out VERY vocally in writing and in public speech against such things. if you ever read walden, from which your thoreau quote was taken, it almost certainly included the equally famous "on the duty of civil disobedience" tacked on the end. read that and see if you still want to be associated with henry's ideas. i know he would not want to be associated with yours.
     
  12. dflett68

    dflett68 Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2010
    Messages:
    663
    Likes Received:
    264
    Location:
    snohomish
    couldn't agree more, it should be stamped out. And where it is too late to stamp it out, make it as right as you can as a nation. we are the richest and most powerful nation in the history of the earth, we can spare some fucking fees for a microscopic segment of our population who we bent over a barrel and screwed without justification and can never repay for what it cost them and their children. earlier in the discussion i was also thinking of kuwait and our response to it. it would be silly to believe our government stepped in there simply on principle, but it would be equally silly to suggest that we could claim that principle as our rationale for the gulf war, and then say it doesn't apply to our own invasion of north america.
     
  13. Alex MacDonald

    Alex MacDonald that's His Lordship, to you.....

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    Messages:
    5,313
    Likes Received:
    2,718
    Location:
    Haus Alpenrosa, Lederhosenland
    I could agree-in principle-with your first thought here, but first let me deal with Kuwait and the second gulf war, as I still have some connections with the specops community; on the first one, we were asked by the Kuwaitis to step in, and we agreed to do so, but not as a singular force. Hence, the coalition. On the second one, it's a lot more complicated. Suffice it to say it was a pretense for going after the remainder of al-quida after we dealt with them in Afghanistan. My friends still in uniform tell me that in Iraq, almost all of the enemy they eliminated were not Iraqi. Saudis, Uzbeks, Khazaks, Pakistani, Indonesian, etc, but few Iraqi. So it's not always the "stated principle" that the suits claim-in my experience, it's usually NOT the "stated principle"!

    On to the primary question! Yes, no question, some tribes were shat upon; you get no argument from me. I don't know if there were bands which were dealt with fairly, though. What was Manhattan purchased for, for example? What, some twenty bucks worth of shiny beads-something like that? But here, everybody was pleased with the deal at the time, and going back to recalculate this would not be acceptable to me. So I guess the question is: which ones were satisfied with the results of their treaties negotiated at the time, and not with threat of force hanging over the negotiations. I don't know the answer here. If there were some who were not unhappy, they don't get the do-over, in my opinion.

    What it really boils down to for me is the realization that humans are apex predators, have been for eons. Denying that denies human nature. Possibly half a million years ago, we weren't the apex predators we evolved into, and maybe in another half-million years, we can evolve beyond that. Maybe...
     
  14. gt

    gt Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Messages:
    2,631
    Likes Received:
    14
    Location:
    sequim, WA
    and it is here that you have the story totally and completely incorrect and as a result your arguements go down the toilet.

    1. the NA elders never thought they 'owned' anything, not a concept they could get their arms around.
    2. the US government offered them property and guaranteed it was theirs, another foreign thought but one that obviously resonated while i am sure they laughed about getting something for nothing.
    3. the tribal elders signed on, no guns to their heads, saving their historic fishing rights, good move.
    4. if the tribes have an issue, they need to visit the graves of those elders and take them to task given what they know today, but hindsight is always 20/20 for all of us.

    there was nothing in these treaty deals that had a gun to the heads of any NA. what they could not grasp was ownership of property, not in their vocabulary nor the historic life style. now how do you deal with that? well i am sure there was a concerted attempt to explain these western civ concepts. did the NA understand? i don't know but that is water over the dam and here we are today.

    the tribes may choose to be 'soverign' nations and in that case the rest of the population of this country needs to treat them just as we do any foreign nation. think about that for a moment or two. or, the tribes, like every other population of people who inhabit this once great nation need to keep their traditions but assimilate into the majority society if they choose to make forward progress for their children and grandchildren, totally their choice to move forward or live in their own welfare state.

    now if we are talking about reperations, lets start by restoring all properties, lands and monies stollen from the japenese americans during WWII. this is a clear taking that was understood by all from the beginning. no need to translate into Chinook, it's just another minority that got totally taken to the cleaners. so, when do we restore their businesses, their farm lands, their bank accounts?
     
  15. dflett68

    dflett68 Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2010
    Messages:
    663
    Likes Received:
    264
    Location:
    snohomish
    i don't put getting swindled on par with getting massacred, or even getting held up at gunpoint. but if all we were discussing was lop-sided business deals, there'd be little to debate. we all know that the invaders would have done the ultimate, and in many cases they did, to get what they wanted. that was wrong. it was very wrong. it was utterly in conflict with our stated constitutional beliefs about the inherent rights of being human. splitting hairs over 2-3% of the population in a given state having to pay for the right to park in a government maintained dirt parking lot is just fucking ridiculous.