Sarah Bagley
Discussion of Boldt Decision
April 16, 2008
1. Is the idea that the rights to hunt, fish, and gather on ceded land, even if it was not specifically talked about in the treaties, a fair idea for both the Indians and the United States?
Robert - It’s certainly hard for people to take now, but if you think about how many other benefits non-Indians are still getting from these treaties… We didn’t buy those rights from the Indians and the treaty situation is still a good deal for the non-Indians – in the end they’re still getting a better deal. Brittney – There are a lot less Indians than there are general citizens, so it doesn’t seem quite fair that the resources are split 50-50. Margaret – It’s fair because the US didn’t specify in the treaties, so it’s their own fault. Robert – The US could always start making treaties with Indians again. 2. Do you think that the example that Boldt gives of the elk is a good example of why or why not the United States should allow the Indians more control over what they do with the wildlife off of reservation lands?
Matt – the state had minimal actual jurisdiction over the reservation, but the two groups did have common interests. IT depends on the relationship between the government and the leaders of the tribe and the amount of room for negotiation available to achieve a common goal.
3. Does it matter what time of the year you hunt or fish? No, it doesn’t. There is a dead fish either way, regardless of whether there is a spear fisher doing it or a recreational fisherman. At the same time, fisheries have to be well-regulated and Indian jurisdiction over their hunting/fishing doesn’t interfere with the overall fishery or hunting area.
The views and opinions expressed in this page are
strictly those of the page author.
The contents of this page have not
been reviewed
or approved by the
University
of Minnesota
Date created: January 10, 2000
Last modified:
Copyright © 2008, George
R. Spangler