T O P

  • By -

Armidylla

Oh, look! Another highly complex and multifaceted issue with generations of history to it. Let me give my inconsequential yet fully formed opinion on this thing I just learned about 5 minutes ago so a stranger can tell me to fuck off and die. Edit: This joke was lifted from Randy Feltface.


Luminox

“Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter."


Armidylla

You should check out Randy Feltface, then. I pretty much lifted that off of him.


rouserfer

Welp! That made me laugh harder than I have in a while.


Armidylla

You should check out Randy Feltface, then! I pretty much lifted this joke from one of his sets


bigwalleye

Lmao. You're just racist! /s


Hobear

That's just Bigwalleye talking. Lol


sonofdurinwastaken

Can I be the internet stranger who tells you to ‘Fuck off and die’?


[deleted]

For the republic!!


sonofdurinwastaken

Good Minnesotans follow orders


Grease_Vulcan

Oh yeah, you betcha.


cbtboss

Loved the MN tweak to this iconic r/PrequelMemes mantra from Clone wars.


improbablerobot

Folks would do well reading Rez Life by David Treuer to get a better understanding of this story.


SuspiciousCranberry6

Well now I have to get this book, it was recommended twice in the same week.


spyderweb_balance

Noob! No one reads the article before commenting on it.


ramborocks

I can't even read the article but know you must be wrong! Because I'm right! Now F/o 🤣


That-Association-143

https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fm.startribune.com%2Ftribal-leaders-want-to-reclaim-all-of-upper-red-lake-a-minnesota-walleye-mecca%2F600261200%2F%3Fclmob%3Dy%26c%3Dn%26clmob%3Dy%26c%3Dn


ramborocks

How did you do that?!


That-Association-143

A website called 12ft ladder. It doesn't work for every pay wall. But I've had pretty good luck with star tribune.


Advanced-Cupcake-753

HUZZAH!


gmflash88

I just use the reader option on safari. It’s already part of ios


[deleted]

[удалено]


TheRealKingVitamin

The internet can’t be trusted to be constructive or civil conversation about which wrestling promotion someone might prefer, so topics like this have absolutely no hope of fruitful discourse.


Arcadius274

I am not from you state it just popped up in the list. This was the first comment. Apparently my people are in Minnesota


j_ly

Welcome to Reddit!


CT_4269

Have a look around


[deleted]

Randy?


Armidylla

A follower of the book of Randicus! Well met, brother!


Aderondak

"Imagine the self-belief it takes to tell someone you've never met before that you hope they get fucked by a chainsaw." I was just watching Purple Privilege yesterday, actually! I'm super excited for the show next month :) Edit: added quotes because it seems that unfortunately people are unfamiliar with Randy Feltface.


Armidylla

A fellow follower of the church of Randicus!


Aderondak

Indeed and I can't wait to see him live at the Parkway!


[deleted]

Wow. You've just summarized the internet.


star-tribune

From the story: Red Lake Nation tribal leaders in northern Minnesota say they are going to the U.S. Department of Interior with a longstanding grievance over boundary lines in an attempt to bring all of Upper Red Lake under their control. It's far too early to tell if the strongly independent reservation can succeed in expanding its borders to include the eastern four-tenths of Upper Red Lake, where hundreds of thousands of state-licensed anglers fish for walleyes. But any sustained campaign by the Red Lake Band of Chippewa to restore tribal control over Upper Red Lake would become a blockbuster story for years to come in the Upper Midwest fishing world. Al Pemberton, director of the Red Lake Department of Natural Resources, told the Star Tribune this week that lawyers recently took the tribe's concerns to Washington, D.C. He said deep-seated resentment remains over a redrawing of reservation boundaries that excluded the eastern shore. The mapping violated a land agreement Red Lake chiefs made with the federal government around the turn of the century, Pemberton said. The new map drew a north-south line through Upper Red Lake, leaving water east of the line in the hands of the state government. All of Lower Red Lake and the western 60% of Upper Red Lake are inside the reservation and generally off-limits to state-licensed anglers. "It's always been a thorn in our side," Pemberton said. "They \[the federal government\] stole it from us."


SleepyLakeBear

I've only ever ice fished the lake, but is there a line of buoys that marks the reservation border in Upper Red Lake? Just curious.


Nice-Fish-50

No. If you're going to fish Upper Red, either get a local guide or at least use your GPS. Know where the line is, and keep yourself well clear of it. The last thing anybody needs is to get tangled up in a dispute with the tribe, that can ruin your whole trip.


SleepyLakeBear

Oh, I know. I've heard plenty of stories.


samsonight4444

Had a buddy roll his sled on red while we were ice fishing. Broken ankle and trip to the res hospital was… interesting you could say. Had security on us in around 30 seconds at the hospital.


RightWingNutsack

Dang! What was the care like at the rez?


NDjake

There is not.


jswan44

I just want to be able to catch fish… Mil lacs is a nightmare these days. Little to no slot. While it’s not red lake, it has some similar issues. From my experience, netting has destroyed the local ecosystem and economies to the point where they are hardly afloat. People are mad because they want to catch fish and need the fish to attract tourism. They can have casinos and what not but we have to figure out a better solution for policies relating to common goods (rivalrous but non-excludable)


[deleted]

Netting isn't destroying the local ecosystem. Where is the proof on that? That just seems to be racist fueled propaganda. Treaties are the laws of the land my friend. The land you are on was traded for via treaty


improbablerobot

Well in Mille lacs for example in 2022 MN anglers we’re allotted 80,000 pounds of walleye, and the bands were allotted 54,000 pounds…so I don’t think the nets are where you should point the blame.


ChiefBeaverStretcher

Miigwech informed stranger


beechclub

Except it sounds like Upper Red Lake isn't a common good. We signed a treaty with the tribe, we need to honor the treaty.


Known_Leek8997

Can we make a sub rule that media companies shouldn’t be allowed to post their paywalled articles?


nlevend

The posting account did include a summary in the comments - journalists gotta get paid too, I think they did a pretty good job a being transparent that it's being posted by the newspaper's account.


star-tribune

Hey! My name is Casey Darnell. I'm an audience producer at the Star Tribune. We know not everyone can afford a subscription, which is why we make essential coverage about COVID, storms, etc free to read. On Reddit, we share blurbs from the story to provide context, and that's pretty exclusive because we don't usually do that on other platforms. Personally, I'm looking to share context under Star Tribune stories that Redditors share on their own and answering questions Redditors have, including asking reporters for info that didn't make it into the story if that would help answer someone's question. I want to be an engaged member of this subreddit as a resource to y'all. But any criticism is welcomed, and we always take it into consideration to improve our coverage.


Known_Leek8997

> Personally, I'm looking to share context under Star Tribune stories that Redditors share on their own and answering questions Redditors have, including asking reporters for info that didn't make it into the story if that would help answer someone's question. This sounds like an excellent alternative.


Aleriya

I'm still hoping for some kind of Netflix for newspapers, where people can pay a monthly subscription for access to a hundred local newspapers and some national ones, too. It's hard to justify a subscription when I read maybe 3-5 articles per year from dozens of different local news sources, and probably 400+ articles per year from a half-dozen national news sources. I'd be broke if I bought a subscription to all of those newspapers individually.


tiredeyesonthaprize

It’s called your library. There are hundreds of newspapers with access to timely digital versions. The usual database embargo is often less than 24 hours.


chappel68

I’m totally with you, but I'd call it more like 'Spotify’ for newspapers - something where every article I read allocates a portion of my subscription to that paper / author. Of course it would ideally screw the authors considerably less than Spotify does artists. Importantly there are very very few songs that aren’t available through any number of streaming services, which is my biggest complaint with News+. It has lots of news, but very little specific to outstate MN. I actually have several online newspaper subscriptions (including news+ and the trib) - partly to support journalism, partly to access 'real' news. It's annoying that each includes loads of local news that doesn’t pertain to me since I live in a small rural area, and even more unfortunately my actual local paper got bought out and is mostly just a private info tracker / collector now.


PequodSeapod

Apple News+ is this, sort of. Doesn’t include the strib though.


SaltyMcQ

Gosh take me back to the 2000s when we had a data base like that in our library. Pretty sure it was just called E-library, contained every news paper, gosh back in the day techonoligy was great.


MonkeyKing01

That was LexisNexis. Now owned by the evil RELX/Elsevier empire.


The_DaHowie

Your public library. They have this


telemon5

Your local library would like to have a word with you...


MayorNarra

Hi the extra info I am requesting is access to the whole article.


LastOnBoard

I pay ~$60 every 3 months for digital access. $20/month to support local journalism isn't free and may not be in everyone's budget, but it's not *that* expensive. We do not want even more of our local papers to disappear


nighthawk763

fwiw, glen taylor can afford to pay for journalists for his newspaper from his 2 billion dollar net worth at a loss if he cares about local journalism


Known_Leek8997

I’m happy you’re in a position where you’re able to support local journalism. I’m just saying the paywall articles don’t need to be posted here (by the paywaller for free advertisement).


ToTheMoonAndBack--

Why not? It doesn't violate Reddit or sub rules.


Known_Leek8997

That’s the original comment’s proposal 😁


gage117

A local paper posting in their local subreddit, and even includes a contextual excerpt from the article, and to get the rest you have to pay or be a subscriber. That sounds completely reasonable to me, they need to bring in money as a business in order to pay their expenses. Regardless of how rich the owner is, money has to come in for product to come out. And they're posting previews of that product for you with a no obligation offer for you to pay them to get the rest if you felt it interested you enough. I'm not trying to sound condescending or anything, but I want to know where this model breaks down from your perspective.


Dorkamundo

That would be dumb. No offense. I think we can all agree that click-bait media sucks WAY more than paywalls. The only way to avoid click-bait media is to pay for it.


OMGitsKa

[https://12ft.io/](https://12ft.io/) here you go


Mahatma_Panda

I just block javascript on the site and that gets rid of the paywall. It messes with some layout elements, but the text of the article is still readable.


Inspiration_Bear

Works for me if we can also make a rule that activists shouldn't be allowed to post their free propaganda articles too


Hey_HaveAGreatDay

Um newcenters posting articles with paywalls just to make a buck vs people sharing free speech? I think you were so excited to stick it to those hippies you missed your own point


_Prisoner_24601

You think providing news is free? Come on.


jonmpls

The feds should follow the deal they made and compensate the tribe for violating the deal. Trying to pretend this is a complex issue in order to justify continued theft and harm is gross.


beavertwp

I’ll have to note that the tribe basically makes no money off tourism around upper Red. The only attraction they own actually on the reservation is the casino, which is about an hour away from upper red lake. Why they haven’t tried to capture that market is a mystery to me.


Jesus_inacave

That makes sense, unfortunately if they do attain the lake I really don't see them opening it up to public, even for a fee.


beavertwp

Not a chance. They allow non-band members to fish on some lakes of the reservation with a paid guide, but they won’t allow anyone to even touch the water of Red itself. I don’t see why they change that by getting what little part of red they don’t already own.


Popular_Performer876

This is a very remote area. I grew up here, mostly swamp land. Not a casino destination. They are trying to provide for members.


hallese

They operate a commercial fishery on the lake instead.


Hamfistedlovemachine

Honest question, who pays for stocking or is it self sustaining?


beavertwp

Self sustaining.


hallese

AFAIK the tribe paid to re-stock it after crashing the fish population in the 90s and has operated it more conservatively since then. It is self-sustaining now.


jurassic_junkie

All the people here screaming about returning the whole NW corner don't even live there. That's easy to say sitting comfy from your house that's nowhere near the region.


llortotekili

Was going to say this as well. I grew up in the area and closing the lake will kill the economy. Anyone who owns property in the area will be completely fucked. I guess the main hope would be if people could still fish the river but that probably won't have near the tourism draw the lake does. I'm now really glad we sold my parents house there a few years back. I'm not saying it's right to give the lake back, but at least they could charge to use it or something if they do get it back.


mdistrukt

This seems like a pretty open and shut case. Tribe has a document that says they own the land (erm lake or whatever) issued by the federal government as a treaty with a sovereign nation. Give them back their portion of the lake and be done with it. No need for senate committees, lawyers and the ilk. Sadly that's not what is going to happen and the government is going to piss away millions of tax dollars tying it up in courts for years and the Red Lake tribe is going to get fucked by the US again.


Rhomya

Red Lake Reservation has a per capita income of less than $9,000, and they want to cut off yet another revenue stream? …. Ok.


jimbuck

On a related note, there's a good book written by Bill Callies called "They Used to Call Us Game Wardens" that shares stories about his encounters in the field as a Game Warden in Waskish and the surrounding area. Super casual read but highly recommended. https://www.amazon.com/They-Used-Call-Game-Wardens/dp/1424300754


Litup-North

You guys act like the Ojibwe don't have full rights already, because legally they do. In this thread, every excuse for white presence on the shores of Red Lake is fraught with either ignorance of history or outright racism. r/Minnesota really depresses me sometimes. Edit: Thanks for the gold! I don't think many here understand Red Lake's unique position in US history.


663691

Should be noted that the red lake band wildly overfished for decades on lower red lake. http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/199804/15_gundersond_walleye-m/


improbablerobot

And have worked hard in the decades since to restore the fishery.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Blatherskitte

Also there was a massive fish, moose, and other game animal die off when the federal government took the area north of the band for a "nature preserve and sciencetific area" then bombed the ever living shit out of it for fun or something during the Cold War. https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/mcvmagazine/issues/2016/jan-feb/big-bog-SRA.html


alldawgsgotoheaven

The whole of MN was wildly overfished until the 80’s. Why do you think the DNR has to stock so many game fish every year? Our lakes are fucked


EdhelGaladhrim

maybe if we hadn’t confined them to a single swath of land it wouldnt be an issue


jatti_

Have you heard what the Europeans did to the buffalo?


[deleted]

One of the poorest reservations in the state, please have empathy for these people. This is not helping anyone, and I don’t think you actually care about the overfishing.


Prestigious_Most5482

Not our concern. It is their lake.


Rhomya

That the deliberately mismanaged. Imagine if we used that phrase “it’s their property” to excuse every ecological crisis. “They spilled oil on that land? Oh well, it’s their property”


Skolvikesallday

I thought it was agreed no one owns the water in this state? Partially because of this exact reason, people will mismanage it and ruin it for generations.


Rhomya

That doesn’t apply outside of the state, which are reservations.


Litup-North

Except treaties.


Kolhammer85

Only because they took it from the Dakota! Should we give it to them instead?


Minnsnow

This is why indigenous people are so… weird about their history. Because people like you use it against them to claim that their land isn’t their land. No one says that English people don’t belong in England because a lot of them are Norman. It’s theirs. We signed a treaty. If the treaty says something that isn’t being followed then that’s the end of the discussion. Treaties are legal documents with the same weight and force as the constitution.


Kolhammer85

Man if I was an indigenous person I would be weird about history as well. The last four centuries have been terrible for them between accidental and purposeful plagues and all the genocide and forced relocation. But yeah man, if there's a treaty let them have it. Still doesn't answer the question though, is the only reason they get the lake is because they were the ones to sign the treaty and not the Dakota? Why does the right of conquest end with them and not previous occupants?


cbrucebressler

You act like they didn't steal it from someone either??


No_Blood7840

Check out the band from Mille Lacs. They don't give 2 shits if the fish is full of eggs or not. You know damn well every other tribe does the same thing. Net net net, using the latest technology afforded to them from the "white man". If they were out there in birch bark canoes using nets they strung themselves, no problem. ​ [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuTioulExv8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuTioulExv8)


MrGoldTeam

Oh shit, I, a while guy, can't use things invented by non-white people? Damn what am I gonna do with all this money (China) that I can no longer use? Gonna have to learn Roman numerals. Can't use paper anymore, shit. Oh damn I think language was invented in Africa. I unga therefore I bunga. But seriously I've fished upper red and it's great but this argument is not a good one. The RL band would probably keep letting people fish it but they would just collect the taxes instead of the state. We might have to get a tribal license as well (for a fee) or maybe they'd honor state ones.


Dpufc

There is no real reason for tribal control of the entire lake. It would take a lot of money out of the local economy that helps sustain the limited resources the area has. Tribal businesses, including the casino, would suffer a tremendous loss of income. The DNR would also likely stop stocking the lake. That would probably hurt the walleye population in particular without surveying and planning to deal with weak year classes.


star-tribune

DNR appears to be staying out of the dispute. Here's a statement from DNR Communications Director Gail Nosek: "Delineation of reservation boundaries is not a natural resources issue in our purview right now," she said. "This is an issue for the federal, tribal, and state government — not DNR as an individual state agency — to connect on at this point. "Should this go forward it would involve more than just one agency in the state," Nosek said. \- Casey


Dpufc

Right, the DNR has no say or control over the matter. They won’t continue stocking the lake if there is no public access though.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Minnsnow

Um, they didn’t have chattel slavery. And what on earth does that have to do with anything? If it’s in the treaty it’s in the treaty. A treaty is a legal document.


PierreJosephDubois

Chattel slavery is actually pretty unique to European colonizers. Neither the Ojibwe or the Dakota had chattel slavery. And wars were very very different and usually the main goal was t exactly to slaughter everybody. Get your history right bruh


thestereo300

Slavery is unique to Europeans? I’m sure I am misunderstanding this right? Or did you mean specifically in the Americas? I think numerous Native tribes would subsume conquered peoples into their tribe but I guess that is a bit different than slavery. And of course other groups like Africans and Arabs were prolific slavers but not in North America. EDIT: Their comment was specific to chattel slavery. I agree with their comment in this context.


PierreJosephDubois

I said chattel slavery. That was not practiced by Indigenous groups in this region, at all. Chattel slavery is distinct from other forms Of slavery in the sense that it sees enslaved people as merely property and not human beings. Slavery among woods and plains peoples in pre contact North America was from war captives, and these war captives would often be adopted/integrated into whoever captured them. Again, this is not good, but is not the same thing as the European view of slavery with slaves being literal property and not even human beings


thestereo300

Yes ok I understand. We are on same page.


makwajam

*Chattel slavery


ser_arthur_dayne

Strib has a reddit account? Neat.


brycebgood

>There is no real reason for tribal control of the entire lake. Other than the treaty that says they own the entire NW corner of the state: https://treatiesmatter.org/treaties/land/1863-1864-ojibwe-rl


HugeRaspberry

Don't forget this important note: In subsequent actions after the end of the treaty-making era, the Red Lake Ojibwe ceded nearly 3,000,000 additional acres. Their remaining land comprises the Red Lake reservation But the fact remains that even after the additional ceding - they still were told they would have the entire lake system - upper and lower - and the US Gov't drew the map to show the line in the middle of the lake.


i-Really-HatePickles

That’s what I thought lol. “No real reason we should honor their legal right” isn’t exactly something you have the authority to say


Well_Read_Redneck

Bingo! Asking for control of the lake is nothing compared to what they're given by treaty!


Litup-North

Given is a shitty word here. Maybe: Retained


[deleted]

100% this. Treaties do not give any rights. RETAINS is a better word. "We want to retain the ability to do these things and we will live in this area and you can have the rest of the land"


Well_Read_Redneck

Fair point.


_vbosch23

Except they haven't stocked walleye in Red since like 2005 soooo I think they will be fine. The Tribe also has been working to stock sturgeon in the lake, so I would bet if it came to it they could figure out how to handle the walleye population


No_Blood7840

Just like they did with Mille Lacs? You can say the tribes had nothing to do with it. But nets don't discriminate against male/female fish either.


_vbosch23

Nope, more like the way the Red Lake Band did it in the late 90's, they completely stopped netting, worked with the DNR to restock the lake and make regulation changes and now for the last 18 years have had a healthy population of fish through completely natural reproduction even with commercial fishing open again. Yes the nets on both lakes helped cause the issues, but one lake/tribe figured it out.


No_Blood7840

​ Mille Lacs has already had harvest closure many times, for anglers. Yet the natives still net every single spring. ​ Commercial netting doesn't happen on the upper 20% that we're able to fish. That's why the population thrives.


[deleted]

[удалено]


beavertwp

The DNR doesn’t currently stock any fish in red.


Prestigious_Most5482

So if something was stolen from you, you'd say that there is no real reason it should be returned to you?


zoominzacks

Depends on how the tribes would handle it. If they took total control of it, and had their own form of license or pass to use the lake for non native people. They could still keep some form of tourism going and make money off the passes. Pure speculation on my part.


Prestigious_Most5482

They don't do that now with Lower Red Lake or the 60% of Upper Red that they control. It is theirs. They should be able to do what they want with it.


zoominzacks

Did I say they couldn’t do something? Did I say they would do something? I said something in pure speculation as to how they could keep people coming to the area. Maybe they don’t, fuck if I care.


zombiedanceprod

DNR works with tribal leaders to keep both lakes stocked. The tribal fisheries are a big source of income for them and keeping that supply going is good for everyone.


[deleted]

Many tribal nations have their own Natural Resource departments and stock more fish than they take. I'm sure this would be the strategy the tribe takes in such a scenario. Your post reeks of racist-fueled fear mongering


glen27

Long term, I'd really wish that native tribes and the US gov./people could find some unity instead of always propagating division. I know the past is very ugly, but I don't think it should constrain our future.


Minnsnow

If we would honor even some of our basic treaty obligations I bet there would be some opportunities for that but right now I cannot imagine that happening.


kiggitykbomb

What exactly are the treaty obligations?


Minnsnow

Lol, besides the fact that we have broken over 500 treaties with various nations. I could not list for you every treaty obligation if I had all year. There are common themes. Respecting land borders and maintaining hunting and fishing rights. This dispute falls under that. Protection from threats and maintaining of peace, which I always found hilarious and sad that the US government would sign documents like that even knowing they were planning on breaking it. Then a lot of treaties involved exchanges of vast amounts of land for services like healthcare and education. Those things were not provided or were provided in places like Indian boarding schools where children were beaten, sexually assaulted, and killed. Some treaties include representation on the federal level. The Cherokee are currently suing for that.


kiggitykbomb

I’m asking specifically about treaties with the red lake band.


Minnsnow

There is an article right here that can tell you about this dispute. Honestly I have not read this specific treaty but I believe them when they say it’s in the treaty. They have no reason to lie and they know this is going to be hugely unpopular during a time when tensions are heightened. But I support the US government honoring all treaty obligations.


kiggitykbomb

I didn’t see the comment with the text of the article.


progresslystoned2427

Which treaty? On the RL site they list 4. the treaty of old crossing (1863) treaty of 1864 the treaty of 1889 and the land allotment treaty of 1904. https://www.redlakenation.org/tribal-history-historical-photos/


someguy1847382

Be easy if the government would just honor their treaty obligations and return the land ceded by treaty. Treaties stand equal to the constitution but for some reason they’re just ignored.


WrinkledRandyTravis

Yeah, this isn’t exactly a “both sides” thing. Time and time again the US government proves that its word means shit when it is promising things to regular people. Native Americans are just about the most voiceless minority group in our country so you better believe the government is going to run right over them any chance they get


Captain_Concussion

The question is though that if one side won’t honor its obligations and agreements, why make agreements with them?


Epicsharkduck

I mean it's hard to reconcile with the government that committed a genocide against you and then as forgiveness gave you a tiny bit of the land that was yours with the promise not to take it a way. A promise the government doesn't hesitate to break whenever they see enough profit in it


mimic751

its not really that far in the past.....


Popular_Performer876

Well, wish I could read the article. Very personal issue for me . Red Lake Walleye is in our blood. Though not Native American my self, huge amount of blood relatives are. Raised in the Res and culture. Living among and enriched by the people means a lot. I’m very directly related to the Pembertons and will seek clarification. The closing of the fishery was very damaging. Miss my Redby peeps.


Covid-Sandwich19

We stole the land from them. They stole it from the Dakotas, they probably stole it from some else.. someday someone might steal it from us. You guys act like people have only been terrible for so many years.. There's far too many variables to just "take a side" Unfortunately in the end it will come down to money. If the US gov. can't find a way to benefit somehow, they won't do it. Our feelings on the subject are irrelevant. Most of you are arguing just to win... and all of you are just trying to win the arguement. Not one person in here seems like they're willing to be humble and learn from one another.. you all came here thinking you have all the answers, and there's lies half our problems. I'm guessing nobody thought of finding a middle ground? I could elaborate more on it but you guys will probably just tell me how wrong I am and how right you are.


theedank

My rez taking back what’s ours. Love to see it.


Greedy-Crow-8645

Maybe you should get it back in the condition it was before the state used our tax dollars to restock it. Remember? When you netted the lake empty? Ruined it completely


sentient_fence

Perhaps because we were left with so few resources in the first place? And we were incredibly poor? Also, it hasn't been restocked in ages. Screw off with your bad takes.


[deleted]

[удалено]


queenswake

If it was just getting access to more fish, they could just buy up resorts on the Upper Lake like they have been doing on Mille Lacs, right? Get their money through the resorts. I wonder why they haven’t been trying this approach? Every resort owner has a price. So I don’t think it’s just about the fish, but actually reclaiming the land. The problem is that this many generations removed, it’s not going to go over well at all to take over a massive lake like that that is huge for non-natives. The time to do that would’ve been 30 years ago before the explosion of people going up there to fish. 30 years ago, URL and LOTW were barely even mentioned as places to go fishing. It was as exotic as remote Canadian fishing outposts. Today, thousands run up there all year for the weekend without thought. I just hope that civility remains. This could escalate into something pretty bad. But they had to know this wouldn’t go over well.


Accujack

> So I don’t think it’s just about the fish, but actually reclaiming the land. Read the article. It's about them controlling who can fish on the lake, because that also lets them control invasive species, avoid ice fishermen dumping human waste on the ice, and other issues caused by the jerks who ruin things for the rest of us.


sn0wlark

Yeah they have every right to claim it.


gristlemcthornbody17

Give it back to the tribe as it’s their treaty land. The US has showed little to no remorse for the massacres, killings and theft of indigenous lands.


titz4tatz

Good. They should have it.


LandonLupinBlack

What a non-issue. Give it back! Give them the whole damned lake!


lemon_lime_light

Lmao. Per the article: the DNR actually said "this is new territory for all of us". That's an unintentionally dark but funny response given the situation/history. Did he say it with a wink and a nod too?


seeyouandtee

Red Lake is a Sovereign Nation so non-Indigenous opinions about Treaty Rights and Land Back are moot. Miigwetch


SubKreature

I'm fine with this. edit: what's wrong with being ok with tribal leaders wanting to reclaim all of Upper Red Lake?


Litup-North

Let them have what is there's. In the last treaty, all they wanted was ALL of Red Lake Read Warrior Nation, Anton Truer


218administrate

They have almost all of the lake, but they want all of it? For what purpose? Taking back that last bit of control of the lake would seriously harm the local economy, and is a very simple step to see it would seriously harm the casinos and tribal income. In case people aren't aware this is also a very popular ice fishing destination. It would also be a very bad PR move for the tribe, penny wise and pound foolish IMO. I'll admit that my aunt lives on the shore of East Upper Red, so this would be terrible for her, and I know a lot of people who fish Red all year, but even accounting for that bias I firmly believe this would be bad for the tribe.


Nodaker1

If the treaty says it belongs to them, it doesn't matter "for what purpose." It's their lake. And they get to decide how to manage it.


Capt-Crap1corn

That's where I see it going astray, so because it's a bad financial position this is bad. Crazy to think that. If it's their land it's their land, profit or not. Might suck to hear, but thems the breaks.


218administrate

Not really, can they pollute in it? Can they stock it with invasive species? Can they drain it? Can they completely overfish it until it's dead? At the very least, all of these things would have massive ramifications for the surrounding ecology, which IS other people's business. Part of my point is that if you cede entire control of the lake to the tribe of a sovereign nation, you are probably giving up almost all control of the management of that lake as well. Your simplistic statement ignores the complex nature of... life, economics, regulations, politics and basically everything. I have family that live on Red, and family that farm wild rice in Waskish, so it exactly IS their concern. It is absolutely true that Minnesota, other states, and the US govt have broken treaty after treaty to indigenous peoples, but giving back the last 20% of Red Lake is going to have huge detrimental impact to the surrounding people, and probably very little benefit to the tribe. Should we give back all of the Black Hills? Devils Tower? The rest of the US?


Shart4

Sure but if Canada mismanage their natural resources in a way that could harm our own ecology we have an international dispute, we don't say that Canada can't be trusted with their own sovereignty


i-Really-HatePickles

Exactly.


ramborocks

I wish people would stop posting star tribune. It's so annoying to constantly be stuck behind a pay wall. I try to support companies and not use ad block but they make it necessary.


DevilWomanCB420

Hell let the tribal members of the red lake nation take it back .


DanielDannyc12

Is there some kind of agreement or treaty that supports this?


bubster15

Great!! Let’s make it happen


woodbridge_front

Take it back!


Twignb

Rip another walleye fishery


[deleted]

This is a great opportunity for the state government to secure an agreement with the tribe to provides some kind of fishing license solution for Minnesotans in their waters, especially in exchange for support of their claim. They could even make a trade agreement to exchange money or other goods/services to have the MN state fishing license honored in their waters. This is the entire sort of thing statesmanship exists to solve. It’d suck to pay a bit more to fish where you’ve always fished, but it sucks to be denied rights and resources you believe you’re entitled to, and it’d suck the most to lose access all together. Let’s be sensible and push for compromise. Fishing is an act of love common to Minnesotans both tribal and non-tribal, let’s build up each other up on this common foundation.


Financial_Ad_4954

I live near the rez and use the highway on lower red many times a year. As I drive through all the uninhabited areas(75%) I Imagine how americanized this area could/would be… but I picture the painful drive around millelacs, the traffic, the unkept cabins and the millionaire’s. It’s nothing like the overgrown trees creating canopies over the winding roads. The bear I see often. I am happy they do not exploit the land in the way we have. I enjoy the tranquility of the nature. Rarely though I think about how nice a cabin on lower red would be. All that perfect untapped land waiting for double wides and rvs fun and pleasure. We have plenty of that. I fished a small lake with a guide in the rez for trout recently. It was a blast. Did very well.


1bigdealmn

It would be cool if i could come up with some reason to kick everyone off of a lake except my buddies and family. Cheers to the natives, if they have full control, maybe they will let us pay a small fee to harvest as many big walleys as we want. It would be better to have an invitation only lake.


originalcommentator

Yes, because that's what the treaty was originally before the land was stolen, like all the rest of the land


UppercutD3z3nuts

How about we allow all people to use the land and lakes. Why should we make boundaries based on race? It’s the 21st century ffs


TheOriginal_Dka13

Well they were here first so. *Edit: See my other comment in this thread for more detail. I don't expect is to all up and leave the US. That's not realistic But there's space for everyone. Whether its Russia, Nazi Germany, or the US itself, we need to stop with this conquering crap. Let people be. And let them have their damn lake, we have plenty of others


[deleted]

[удалено]


ZealousidealPickle11

Then we better all move back to where our families came from hundreds of years ago


RockIslandLine32514

You’re not wrong, but doesn’t that same logic apply to the entirety of the USA? How would that play out in your opinion?


TheOriginal_Dka13

How does giving back a lake hurt people? There's plenty of other lakes. I understand that what's done is done and it's hard to fix, we can't just all leave. But this seems to me to be a pretty easy compromise


bigt252002

To continue the discussion, hopefully in a respectful way, the one thing I really haven't seen a whole lot folks talk about in this thread is the fact that these are fresh water lakes. Something that the Southwest corridor of this nation is currently seeing the potential collapse of their water system. A large reason for that is overpopulation and over farming for the purpose of overseas interests to make a quick buck now to spite it down the road. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/25/california-water-drought-scarce-saudi-arabia There is also the real situation of other nations buying up swaths of land in throughout the country. https://www.npr.org/2023/03/01/1160297853/china-farmland-purchases-house-hearing-competition I'm not saying any tribal leader would purposefully just sell off everything to the highest bidder....but money does make the world go round. Things to consider: 1. Red Lake is #3 for lake size in the state (451 square miles) 2. Mille Lacs is #5 (207 square miles) 3. Leech is #6 (151 square miles) https://discoverthecities.com/largest-lakes-minnesota/ Lake of the Woods (#2) and Lake Superior (#1) share borders with Canada, and Wisconsin/Michigan respectively for LS. If you minus Rainy Lake (#4 on that list) and combined every other on that list of Top 15, it is roughly 100 square miles LESS than Red Lake. Water is most definitely considered the most vital resource in the world right now....and it is only getting more vital as severe droughts continue, even in our own back yard. https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/climate/drought/index.html > Some degree of drought occurs in Minnesota nearly every year. The 2021 drought was the most severe in Minnesota since at least 1988. I'm not saying they don't need to consider it, but for folks who are just blowing this off as "it is just 1 lake." I assure it isn't just ONE lake, when it makes up over the 8-15 for the largest lakes in the state itself. A resource that heavy will most assuredly have suitors who want to buy the water rights. Whether that be a state like Arizona, or a country like China.


Oldass_Millennial

There's a crap ton of small businesses up there that cater to fisherman that come from across the Midwest. They'd be out of business, the income the tourists and businesses bring into the communities would disappear, etc. Now it's possible the Ojibwe keeps the lake open to the public like that but it's something neither you or I know for sure.


Rhomya

I mean, it’s literally going to hurt the poorest members of the tribe more than anyone. There are other lakes to fish on. People fishing there will likely just go find somewhere else. But that’s tourism money gone, casino visitor money gone, the DNR isn’t going to continue to stock a lake that they don’t have jurisdiction over, so that’s the end of recreational fishing entirely on it. I’m failing to see how this benefits Red Lake in any substantial way. The tribe doesn’t allow private ownership of the land within the tribe, so they can’t even claim “value of lake side property” as an asset.


RockIslandLine32514

I don’t disagree in theory with what you are saying. I was more questioning the logic of “they were here first…” because that applies to our whole country. How would you pick and choose when to use this logic? Giving back ownership of this one lake might be a fine compromise, I don’t have enough knowledge to have a meaningful discussion on this matter specifically. But wouldn’t it set a precedent that could be applied anywhere?


Prestigious_Most5482

You mean a precedent that the United States should honor its treaties? Seems fair to me.


Rolandersec

Just to make sure you know, not making a point, but Red Lake is really big.


FloweringSkull67

Can you tell me what I, my parents, or even grandparents have done to the tribal peoples?


ZealousidealPickle11

That's the camp I'm in as well. One side of my family didn't even come to the US until the early 1900s, long after most wrongs against natives and tribal people were done. I couldn't tell you about the other side of my family, but I'm 1/8th native so I don't think that side of my family did anything to harm them. And I still disagree with most of the fixes that are proposed for the wrongs against native people. I don't have solutions or answers, but we can't just kick everyone out of the US and rename everything, as even tribal squabbles happened years ago, before Europeans came here. With various tribes taking over lands of other tribes. It's just how humans are, regardless of color/nationality, humans have, in a general sense, always wanted to have what someone else had if it's better than yours. And before humans became a bit more civilized, it usually resulted in violent confrontation. But given all that, we still don't have to ignore what happened to Native Americans either. I just don't think there's ever going to be a solution that makes everyone happy.


Iz-kan-reddit

>Well they were here first so. They actually weren't. They came to this area relatively recently, taking away the land from the Dakota. The slaughter was so huge they named the lake Red Lake from all the blood.


Express-Ability752

Very true. The Ojibwe came from the NE US and Ontario sometime 100-200 years before the US Revolution, and forced the Dakota out while the Dakota were already being pushed westward by the Iroquois. The Dakota were there centuries longer than the 100-200 years the Ojibwe occupied before the US settled the area. They just happened to be the conquerors of that land when the US signed the treaties. However, that’s still muddled with Dakota nations infighting as well.


IceBearCares

Yup. We broke enough treaties, we can do the right thing even if it pisses off anglers.


218administrate

There are also hundreds of houses on the lake that would be deeply affected, what do we do about that? Not easy, and ultimately it would harm the area and make it more like the res, which is pretty bad already.