The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums:
Politics

Another example of violation of First Nation's rights.

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Pages: 1 2 3 4 · >>
shinobinoz On May 28, 2017
Stnd w Standing Rock





Wichita, Kansas
#1New Post! May 02, 2014 @ 02:39:46
"The Passamaquoddy Tribe’s battle with the State of Maine over Native fishing rights became an interstate issue recently when New York State authorities lodged multiple felony poaching charges against a Passamaquoddy fisheries official who is helping the Unkechaug Indian Nation implement its eel management plan."
Read more at https://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/05/01/new-york-state-charges-passamaquoddy-fisheries-official-elvers-poaching-154683?page=0%2C0
restoreone On January 30, 2022




, Ohio
#2New Post! May 02, 2014 @ 04:13:15
https://www.ohio.com/news/break-news/native-americans-pressing-nike-to-ax-chief-wahoo-1.484468
PORTLAND, Ore.: A Native American group is calling on Nike Inc. to stop producing and selling products that feature the Cleveland Indians’ mascot Chief Wahoo, which it calls a “grotesque caricature” of modern Indians

It will end when the name is changed!!!!!
someone_else_again On May 20, 2021
Really. Not a dude.





, Washington
#3New Post! May 02, 2014 @ 17:32:04
@shinobinoz Said

"The Passamaquoddy Tribe’s battle with the State of Maine over Native fishing rights became an interstate issue recently when New York State authorities lodged multiple felony poaching charges against a Passamaquoddy fisheries official who is helping the Unkechaug Indian Nation implement its eel management plan."
Read more at https://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/05/01/new-york-state-charges-passamaquoddy-fisheries-official-elvers-poaching-154683?page=0%2C0



So, if I'm understanding this correctly, the officials "caught" the Natives while they were in the process of moving the eels from one part of the river to another?

And, on another note, I wasn't aware that Passamaquoddy was real. I always thought it was made up for Pete's Dragon.
DorkySupergirl On November 02, 2017




, Canada
#4New Post! May 02, 2014 @ 18:24:46
@shinobinoz Said

"The Passamaquoddy Tribe’s battle with the State of Maine over Native fishing rights became an interstate issue recently when New York State authorities lodged multiple felony poaching charges against a Passamaquoddy fisheries official who is helping the Unkechaug Indian Nation implement its eel management plan."
Read more at https://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/05/01/new-york-state-charges-passamaquoddy-fisheries-official-elvers-poaching-154683?page=0%2C0



I find your position interesting, unless I am not understanding your position.

The one thing I have always held in high regard about Natives is that most will not sport hunt and most Natives are about the preservation of species of animals and fish as well which I applaud and wish other cultures would follow. However, even if your treaty allows one to keep unlimited number of fish, allows you to keep any size, allows you to keep young fish, etc, why would you want to as we both know this will hurt spawning and hurt the preservation of fish. Sometimes we might be legally allowed to do something but morally we should not even if morals are not in the law, it goes against your culture to harm animals this way and not work to preserve them even if it is the law. It is harming the preservation of fish to keep ones too young, take too many and keep ones of certain size which are the spawners which is why white people are not allowed to do it.

We cannot, as a people, over fish, over hunt as it harms all of us, no matter our color so perhaps we should look at what is morally the right thing to do and not what a treaty says we can do.
someone_else_again On May 20, 2021
Really. Not a dude.





, Washington
#5New Post! May 02, 2014 @ 18:51:21
@DorkySupergirl Said

I find your position interesting, unless I am not understanding your position.

The one thing I have always held in high regard about Natives is that most will not sport hunt and most Natives are about the preservation of species of animals and fish as well which I applaud and wish other cultures would follow. However, even if your treaty allows one to keep unlimited number of fish, allows you to keep any size, allows you to keep young fish, etc, why would you want to as we both know this will hurt spawning and hurt the preservation of fish. Sometimes we might be legally allowed to do something but morally we should not even if morals are not in the law, it goes against your culture to harm animals this way and not work to preserve them even if it is the law. It is harming the preservation of fish to keep ones too young, take too many and keep ones of certain size which are the spawners which is why white people are not allowed to do it.

We cannot, as a people, over fish, over hunt as it harms all of us, no matter our color so perhaps we should look at what is morally the right thing to do and not what a treaty says we can do.



While it pisses me off to no end to see Natives use their Treaty rights to over fish, I don't think that's what's going on in this case.

The article indicates (maybe...) that these men were simply relocating the smaller eels from one part of the river to another so they were above a man made barrier. In our area, we have a lot of dams and our fisheries department will relocate fish to an area above the dam to ensure their survival. I think that is what these men were doing with the eels.

I wonder though, why are they not working with the fisheries department? Why do they have a conservation effort that does not involve the "officials" in any way, shape or form? Even if it is just an agreement like "We're going to do this and you're going to let us."
DorkySupergirl On November 02, 2017




, Canada
#6New Post! May 02, 2014 @ 20:24:42
@someone_else_again Said

While it pisses me off to no end to see Natives use their Treaty rights to over fish, I don't think that's what's going on in this case.

The article indicates (maybe...) that these men were simply relocating the smaller eels from one part of the river to another so they were above a man made barrier. In our area, we have a lot of dams and our fisheries department will relocate fish to an area above the dam to ensure their survival. I think that is what these men were doing with the eels.

I wonder though, why are they not working with the fisheries department? Why do they have a conservation effort that does not involve the "officials" in any way, shape or form? Even if it is just an agreement like "We're going to do this and you're going to let us."


I must have misunderstood the article so I retract my comments. I thought they were caught with fish exceeding the daily limit for that species and fish either under or over the allowed size to keep, both of which would be illegal if I did it.

I do not want to misunderstand again but if they were moving species of fish to another area, that is illegal here, it's illegally stocking and/or introducing a species of fish to a new area. It can cause the introduction of new diseases, it can impact the numbers of fish in that lake because of what would be invasive in that area. It's highly illegal to move fish from lake a to lake b. It sounds to me this is what they were doing.
someone_else_again On May 20, 2021
Really. Not a dude.





, Washington
#7New Post! May 02, 2014 @ 20:40:34
@DorkySupergirl Said

I must have misunderstood the article so I retract my comments. I thought they were caught with fish exceeding the daily limit for that species and fish either under or over the allowed size to keep, both of which would be illegal if I did it.


Technically, yes. They were also using nets that have smaller holes than what is allowed. My understanding of it though was that they were not catching them to keep so of course all of those rules would be violated. That's the only way to do what they were doing.


@DorkySupergirl Said

I do not want to misunderstand again but if they were moving species of fish to another area, that is illegal here, it's illegally stocking and/or introducing a species of fish to a new area. It can cause the introduction of new diseases, it can impact the numbers of fish in that lake because of what would be invasive in that area. It's highly illegal to move fish from lake a to lake b. It sounds to me this is what they were doing.


Again, according to my understanding, they were only moving them past man made barriers - from one part of the river to another part of that same river. The idea is to undo the effects of humans and umm...what's the word...civilization? on the eel population.
DorkySupergirl On November 02, 2017




, Canada
#8New Post! May 02, 2014 @ 21:07:12
@someone_else_again Said

Technically, yes. They were also using nets that have smaller holes than what is allowed. My understanding of it though was that they were not catching them to keep so of course all of those rules would be violated. That's the only way to do what they were doing.




Again, according to my understanding, they were only moving them past man made barriers - from one part of the river to another part of that same river. The idea is to undo the effects of humans and umm...what's the word...civilization? on the eel population.


Maine takes their hunting and fishing very seriously, especially the introduction of species. My family fishes there all the time and in fact are going tomorrow. My passport is expired or I would go too. I know for a fact there is a lake that has an algae type thing call milfoil so of you fish in that lake, you better wash your boat off good because the conservation people at other lakes inspect boats going into those lakes to ensure there is no milfoil on it. It can and will destroy the other lakes.

If they were moving fish in the same lake, that's fine, even if a dam is separating the water as it's the same water but if sounds as though this was not being done properly.
someone_else_again On May 20, 2021
Really. Not a dude.





, Washington
#9New Post! May 02, 2014 @ 21:19:08
@DorkySupergirl Said

Maine takes their hunting and fishing very seriously, especially the introduction of species. My family fishes there all the time and in fact are going tomorrow. My passport is expired or I would go too. I know for a fact there is a lake that has an algae type thing call milfoil so of you fish in that lake, you better wash your boat off good because the conservation people at other lakes inspect boats going into those lakes to ensure there is no milfoil on it. It can and will destroy the other lakes.


Yeah...we have that same type of thing with our aquatic weeds. I don't know that there's a whole lot of inspection going on about it but there are signs everywhere and there are fees that you pay during the licensing of .... some things. Boat trailers probably.


@DorkySupergirl Said

If they were moving fish in the same lake, that's fine, even if a dam is separating the water as it's the same water but if sounds as though this was not being done properly.



That is what I'm wondering. I wouldn't think you'd be "allowed" to do any kind of conservation thing without the collaboration of the local authorities.

I don't think they deserve to be charged with felonies but they need to be on the same page before they start doing things.
restoreone On January 30, 2022




, Ohio
#10New Post! May 02, 2014 @ 21:32:30
A nation is a nation a state is a state. New York can not sign a treaty with the Soviet Union, If it violates federal law in any way. Yet the states feel oh so free to try and force their will on the NATIONS!!!!
someone_else_again On May 20, 2021
Really. Not a dude.





, Washington
#11New Post! May 02, 2014 @ 21:39:46
@restoreone Said

A nation is a nation a state is a state. New York can not sign a treaty with the Soviet Union, If it violates federal law in any way. Yet the states feel oh so free to try and force their will on the NATIONS!!!!



Umm...the state is enforcing the law within their state. We could view it as the nations trying to force their will on the STATES!!!!
restoreone On January 30, 2022




, Ohio
#12New Post! May 02, 2014 @ 21:55:37
@someone_else_again Said

Umm...the state is enforcing the law within their state. We could view it as the nations trying to force their will on the STATES!!!!



The lawsuit is supported by the Interior Department, which has entered the case as both intervener and plaintiff,
Tell it to the Feds they made a deal now each state wants to enforce their. Hell Ohio wants new water right laws and we can't just go up to Canada and make a deal it through the Feds not the states. Oh wait Canada a "real nation " see what I mean.
someone_else_again On May 20, 2021
Really. Not a dude.





, Washington
#13New Post! May 02, 2014 @ 22:08:05
@restoreone Said

The lawsuit is supported by the Interior Department, which has entered the case as both intervener and plaintiff,
Tell it to the Feds they made a deal now each state wants to enforce their. Hell Ohio wants new water right laws and we can't just go up to Canada and make a deal it through the Feds not the states. Oh wait Canada a "real nation " see what I mean.



No. I don't see what you mean.
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>
Pages: 1 2 3 4 · >>

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Politics Forum - Some Rudeness Allowed

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   Politics
Tue Apr 07, 2009 @ 07:09
65 2800
New posts   US Elections
Tue Dec 09, 2008 @ 23:54
23 2474
New posts   News & Current Events
Thu Dec 06, 2012 @ 18:08
23 3260
New posts   Politics
Fri Jan 27, 2012 @ 20:36
54 8991
New posts   Politics
Sun Nov 25, 2007 @ 05:00
0 862