# Take Another Look at SB 2041!



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

*Tribe aims to get back the land it lost to dam *

By LAUREN DONOVAN, Bismarck Tribune 
The Three Affiliated Tribes could get back some 36,000 acres of reservation land that was taken 50 years ago for construction of Garrison Dam. 
The land was taken by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which has specific authority to return tribal land no longer needed to maintain or operate the dam project. 
The tribe made its request late this fall. 
The acres are on both sides of Lake Sakakawea on the reservation, excluding land on the upper Van Hook peninsula. 
Corps spokesman Jerry Alexander said the corps wants to establish transfer authority this year, then action could be imminent. He said the corps has yet to determine which of the acres could be returned. 
Among properties that could be transferred is the McKenzie Bay recreation area, with $2.5 million in a ramp and facilities. The Watford City Park Board and the McKenzie Marine Association jointly operate the site. 
McKenzie County developer Gene Veeder said the recreation lease is an asset to the county's quality of life, well developed with mature trees, a ramp and 50 trailer sites. 
He said any change in ownership would be a concern. 
Besides McKenzie Bay, the only other non-tribal corps' lease involved in the transfer would be a 1,000-acre wildlife management area leased by the North Dakota Game and Fish Department at Deepwater Bay. 
A tribal press release said Three Affiliated Tribes is continuing a lengthy quest to regain land that belongs to them. 
"The tribes have always sought, and will continue to seek, the transfer of these lands until they are rightfully transferred back to the tribes," the release said. 
Tim Kolke, Corps' Lake Sakakawea real estate manager, said the transfer could include language that would protect existing leases. 
The corps would not be required to hold public meetings on the issue. 
Alexander said arrangements could be made if a strong desire for public input was expressed. 
This is the same land that nearly transferred along with a $143 million federal trust fund settlement in the early '90s, to make reparation for the 140,000 tribal acres lost to the lake. 
Three Affiliated Tribes can spend the trust interest on health, education and development. 
About 5,000 fringe acres furthest from the lake did go back, but the transfer of acres closer to the lake that's on the table now failed in negotiations then. 
An old lawsuit filed by the tribe relating to the '90s transfer was dismissed this summer, opening the way for the latest request. 
Most of the acres are used for grazing. 
Cabin sites at Red Butte Bay are privately owned, but they would be inside the reservation if the transfer takes place. 
Parshall Bay, Van Hook and New Town recreation areas would be excluded from the proposed transfer. 
The tribes have corps leases for all remaining recreation areas on the reservation, such as Skunk Bay, Charging Eagle and Pouch Point. 
Kolke said the land involved is a continuous strip along the lake, but varies in width. 
The corps would keep land and shoreline below 1,854 feet elevation -- the maximum lake pool level, reached only once in the lake's history, in the great flood year of 1997. 
Alexander said the corps also would retain the right to flood land above 1,854 feet, which seems unimaginable given the lake's record low level of 1,810 feet now. 
The transfer authority is set out in the federal Fort Berthold Mineral Restoration Act and is specific to the reservation. 
The corps has similar land around the lake, but for now doesn't have authority to return it to other public entities. 
Action on the Three Affiliated Tribes' request would require a land transfer from the secretary of the Army to the secretary of the interior, and then to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The BIA would hold the land in trust for the reservation, like it does other tribal trust lands, Kolke said. 
(Reach reporter Lauren Donovan at 888-303-5511 or [email protected].)

http://www.state.nd.us/lr/assembly/59-2 ... AR0400.pdf
Please Read the bill. the link is listed above. This bill has far reaching consequences,when it comes to accessable public land around Sakakawea.

SB 2041 will be a crossover bill to watch.

Stay tuned!!

Bob


----------



## curty (Sep 18, 2003)

OK I'm going to ask ..What good would this land transfer do anyone?I am probably nieve and uninformed on this issue but I do not understand tribal issues. 
What I'm not usderstanding is this Indian or tribal issue goes back hundreds of years...It's now 2005,its time to get with the rest of the world,pay the same taxes like everyone else if your using the worlds resourses.
I understand this was once their land but like I said its 2005,the days of the teepee and buffalo are over.Can someone enlighten me on this issue??

No offfence to any tribal members out there,I'm just uninformed!!fill me in!


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Curty...I'm not defending the tribes here....but these actions happened 50 years ago,not hundreds.....

This is the important information in this article....

"The Three Affiliated Tribes could get back some 36,000 acres of reservation land that was taken 50 years ago for construction of Garrison Dam. 
The land was taken by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which has specific authority to return tribal land no longer needed to maintain or operate the dam project." 

If it was originally theirs and now is not needed by the Corp,with the understanding that they would get it back....then the Corps should give it back shouldn't they?Even if we don't like it.


----------



## curty (Sep 18, 2003)

I was under the impression they were traded land acre for acre??..Ohhh also you are right Ken it was 50 not hundreds.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

Curty one issue is the land taken was virgin land. It now is developed and hold considerable higher value financially. The tribe if they get it will invoke their "Soviergn Nature" (sp) right to it and thus demand tribal licenses to use it. And other bothersome things.

This land was taken for the dam project but the tribe was given land to replace it and was paid for it. We won't have any say in the outcome anyway. Because it's the Corp and the Tribes.


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

If the corp gives them "back" this land then the state should get back the land that was given to them. If this land transfer happens, how much do yuou think you guys that fish the big lake will have to PAY for access to the boat landings that the STATE OF ND paid for in the first place.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

I promised you more information. This opened my eyes!!!!!

Office of
McLean County State's
Attorney

McLean County
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

712 5th Avenue
P.O. Box 1108
Washburn, ND 58577-1108
(701) 462-8541
Fax (701) 462-8212

February 22, 2005

Major General Don T. Riley
Director of Civil Works
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington D.C., 20314-1000

Dear Sir:

The Garrison Dam and the Lake Sakakawea reservoir it creates are in part found in McLean County, North Dakota. Recently an article appeared in The Bismarck Tribune asserting that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is considering transferring some public lands, boat ramps, and facilities along the lake to the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Ft. Berthold Indian Reservation.

The article specifically stated that: 1. 36,000 acres of public land is under consideration for transfer; 2. That the corps is attempting to establish transfer authority, after which the transfer would be imminent; 3. That among the properties are the McKenzie Bay recreation area and its $2.5 million dollar boat ramp and facilities; the Deepwater Bay Game Management Area (which is in McLean County and the site of another public boat ramp and facilities); and lands near Red Butte Bay, Skunk Bay, Pouch Point, and Charging Eagle were some of the areas that were listed in the article as subject to this transfer; 4. That the corps would transfer lands along the lake above elevation 1854 that would represent a continuous strip of varying width along the lake; 5. That the corps were not required to hold public hearings on this issue and would only do so if a "strong public desire for hearings was expressed." Donovan, "Tribe aims to get land back lost to Garrison Dam," The Bismarck Tribune, 1/5/05.

In following up on this information, I was provided a copy of an e-mail from the corps Omaha District office which states: 1. The corps believes it may have authority to transfer these lands under section 206(b) of the Fort Berthold Mineral Restoration Act; 2. That the corps was presently reviewing its authority and any criteria to make a transfer along with possible ramifications of this transfer; 3. That tribal officials are indicating they would honor existing easements or leases by other entities currently on the lands; 4. The corps initial analysis, after conversations with the tribe, is that the transfer would have a minimal effect on the public. (Email from Col Bedey to Chip Smith et. al., 1/14/05.)

I believe that there is a "strong desire" from the effected public in North Dakota for involvement in this process. This issue was the subject of protracted litigation in the past; impacted counties currently receive thousands of tax dollars each yea

r from the corps and the state Game and Fish Department for its leases on some of these lands and counties in trade do maintenance of the roads, ramp parking lots, and facilities on these lands; the Game and Fish leases are for twenty-five year terms and are set to expire in October 2005. Some of the lands the tribe seeks were not purchased from the tribe but from non-enrolled farmers and ranchers who may have strong opinions about their former lands being donated to the tribe after being taken from them. These boat ramps, facilities, and lands are part of an estimated $23 million dollar recreation industry on and around the lake that has been promised to all North Dakotans after the loss of nearly 550,000 acres of farmland by the creation of the lake. The public needs the exact details of this proposed action and a full opportunity to be involved in this process.

From the information I have been provided it is not clear whether a complete legal review of all the applicable laws is being conducted by the corps. The Flood Control Act of 1944; Fort Berthold Mineral Restoration Act; "Indian lands" law; and state law all have relevance to this issue. For example, the original statutory directive upon the corps for the construction, maintenance, and operation of the Garrison Dam project included provisions under 16 U.S.C.A. § 460(d ). This statute granted the authority to purchase recreational areas as an attempt to offset some of the adverse impact of storing water in the upper Missouri River Basin for the benefit of flood control and navigation downstream. While the recreational value of these areas has been diminished by low water levels in recent years, that does not translate to these areas not continuing to be important to the Garrison Dam projects purpose of providing public recreation areas in North Dakota. The Fort Berthold Mineral Act only permits the corps to transfer project lands to the tribe if those lands are no longer needed for construction, maintenance, or operation of the Garrison Dam project. P.L. 98-602, 98 Stat.3149, §206(b). In other words, only public lands, boat ramps, and facilities, that the corps could demonstrate no longer held recreational value, (or another Garrison Dam project purpose), would be subject to transfer under the Fort Berthold Mineral Restoration Act.

The Oahe and Garrison Dam projects were both created by the same federal acts making South Dakota v. Bourland, 508 U.S. 679 (1993) controlling when analyzing Garrison Dam project land issues:

"The Flood Control Act authorized the construction, management, and operation of public recreational facilities on lands taken for the Oahe Reservoir.....16 U.S.C.A. § 460(d )... [T]he Act provides that "all such projects shall be open to the public use generally" for various "recreational purposes.....ready access to and exit from water areas...for general public use. Thus, the clear effect of the Flood Control Act is to open the lands taken for the Oahe Dam and Reservoir project for the general recreational use of the public." Bourland at 689-690.

The initial corps statements regarding this proposed land transfer asserts that there would be no or minimal change in the public's rights to recreate on these areas. That conclusion is refuted by an analysis of the law of "Indian lands."
Once the corps transfers these areas they would become "tribal trust" lands. Just as Bourland held that the rights of the public could not be infringed by the tribe on the project lands in that case, on tribal trust lands the public will have no "right" to use these lands, boat ramps, and facilities after the current term-limited leases expire. On tribal trust lands, the tribe may prohibit use(s) by non-tribal members, or condition the use by charging access fees and establishing bag and creel limits. Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544, 557 (1981). In other words, members of the public currently have a federal legal "right" to free access to these lands under 16 U.S.C.A. § 460(d ). If they become tribal trust lands the public would only have access under the "permit" conditions the tribe from time to time would establish, and those permit conditions could change when the tribal administration officials and policies change. This creates a direct conflict with operation and maintenance of the Garrison Dam project and, standing alone, may leave the corps without authority to make this transfer.

Finally, the practicalities of the proposal to establish this land transfer at an elevation, as reported in this case elevation 1854, "that would represent a continuous strip of varying width along the lake" is concerning when considering the issue of public hunting. If this transfer were to occur as reported, the State will have jurisdiction to regulate hunting by non-tribal members below elevation 1854, because those lands will remain in their current public ownership status. However, if a non-tribal member hunter was above elevation 1854 he or she would have to follow tribal game and fish rules and licensing in addition to state law. To address this problem the land subject to this transfer is going to have to be surveyed and fenced so there is a clear boundary on the land established at elevation 1854 as that elevation worms and weaves along the lake. The corps should be considering the expense of doing this because there are not survey pins to guide the fencers as they traverse up and down the terrain. Failure to survey and fence this area will have a major adverse impact on the public not only in the use of the new tribal trust lands but in the thousands of acres of corps land below elevation 1854 along these transfer areas. Some of these lands are heavily hunted, and hunters are going to have to know where the property line is or face the possibility of criminal charges in state, tribal, or federal court depending on the enrollment status of the hunter.

In light of the public hunting use of these lands, and the confusion of the elevation and tribal jurisdiction issues regarding hunting on tribal trust lands verus corps lands create, I believe the corps must review the applicable state and tribal hunting regulations before concluding there is "no or minimal" impact to the public by the transfer.

I respectfully request the corps to expand both its legal review of this proposed transfer and the public's involvement. It appears that, to date, the corps and the tribe have engaged to two-way talks when in reality the State, effected counties, and general public all have an equal interest in this issue.

Thank you for considering my concerns.

Sincerely,

Ladd R. Erickson
McLean County State's Attorney

glb
cc:	Governor John Hoeven
Senator Byron Dorgan
Senator Kent Conrad
Attorney General Stenehjem
Chairman Tex Hall, Three Affiliated Tribes
Director Dean Hildebrand, NDGF
William Mulligan, USACOE Omaha District
Wade Enget, Mountrail County State's Attorney
Dennis Johnson, McKenzie County State's Attorney
Ross Sundeen, Dunn County State's Attorney
Jim Johnson, Mercer County State's Attorney


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

State's attorney: Public needs a say on lake land
By LAUREN DONOVAN, Bismarck Tribune 
The McLean County state's attorney says there should be public involvement before the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers transfers land on Lake Sakakawea to the Three Affiliated Tribes.

Ladd Erickson said everything from public fishing to hunting would be severely compromised if some 36,000 acres around the lake bordering the reservation go to the tribes.

The corps is looking at whether it has authority to transfer land on both sides of the lake under the Fort Berthold Mineral Restoration Act. The corps plans to make the determination possibly this year.

The corps said in an agency-to-agency transfer, in this case to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, it doesn't have to involve the public.

Land that would be transferred includes the McKenzie Bay Recreation Area, with $2.5 million in public and private improvements, as well as the Deepwater Bay Wildlife Management Area in McLean County.

The tribe has indicated it will honor existing leases, like the one the McKenzie recreation group has with the corps and State Game and Fish Department has for the wildlife management area.

Erickson said once transferred, the land would be tribal trust land and the public would have no right to use boat ramps and other facilities when leases expire.

Erickson said giving lake land to the tribe would "change access to a significant portion of the lake. I think there are a lot of concerns."

The tribe said the request to get the land back is part of its longtime quest to restore lands taken for construction and flooding of Garrison Dam.

Erickson said that's not entirely the case.

"Some of the lands the tribe seeks were not purchased from the tribe, but from non-enrolled farmers and ranchers who may have strong opinions about their former lands being donated to the tribe after being taken from them," Erickson said in a letter to the corps in Washington, D.C., which was copied to state and congressional leaders.

Corps spokesman Jerry Alexander said Erickson's letter would add pressure to letting the public have a say, but corps staff was already headed in that direction on the matter.

"It's (public input) most likely to happen," Alexander said. He said he didn't know when, however.

Other areas that would be affected by the transfer are at Red Butte Bay, Skunk Bay, Pouch Point and Charging Eagle Bay.

The corps would transfer land it no longer needs to operate the dam above the 1,854-foot elevation it needs for high pool, reached back in 1997.

The 36,000 acres are inside a more or less continuous strip of varying width around the lake.

Erickson said unless it's fenced, people out hunting wouldn't know if they were on corps or tribal land and could face criminal charges.

Tribal spokeswoman Glenda Embry did not return a call seeking comment.

(Reach reporter Lauren Donovan at 888-303-5511, or [email protected].)


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

This information listed above is critical to the importance of SB 2041
Here are some cuts from SB 2041

Code is created and enacted as follows:

"Indian land" means land within the exterior boundaries of an Indian reservation held in trust by the federal government for the benefit of an Indian tribe or an Indian and land within the exterior boundaries of an Indian reservation owned infee by an Indian tribe or an Indian.

*General game license not required for hunting on Indian land. *
An individual hunting on Indian land pursuant to a tribal hunting license is not required to possess a state license to hunt on such land.

A person may not possess, control,ship, transport, or store, can, or otherwise preserve, more than the number authorized in the
governor's proclamation of any species of game bird mentioned in this chapter. However, properly tagged game birds legally taken out of state or taken on Indian land may be possessed, transported, or shipped in state.

Basically what this bill is all about is the tribes want to sell Hunt and Casino packages (hunt during the day Texas hold-um at night) 12 months out of the year with out having to comply with North Dakota Game and Fish Laws. The Army Corps of Engineers land transfer will add to the land available for the tribes to benefit from at the expense of the Public land all Hunters are now able to use, and they would control access to Sakakawea in areas that are now public. Complex!

2041 needs to be amended to set up a system where the tribes and the NDGF work together on all in-state hunting issues.

The reasoning for the Army Corps of Engineers land transfer as being a big negative is detailed above. Bottom line this would be a big loss of Prime land that is now available for the public to use.

Bob


----------



## rap (Mar 26, 2002)

horrible bill!! will take away alot of public hunting land and access to the lake


----------



## rap (Mar 26, 2002)

this will restrict access to these areas. the tribe is already sending agents to boat ramps around the lake demanding that they must buy a tribal license to access the lake, at public boat ramps that they didn't pay a cent into. they usually get alot of people on the 4th, but i won't buy one. this bill and land return are both bad ideas.


----------



## rowdie (Jan 19, 2005)

First of all, the tribes all ready sell out of staters tags and liscences. The court battles have all ready been won in SD by the tribes. ND is just catching up with their laws. The fact is ND can't controll what happens on tribal lands. They are in trust with the Federal Gov't., and no one is paying ND property tax on them!

Fishing on Sak. and Oahe however are not Tribal waters. You do not need tribal Lic. to fish them.

The tribes have seasons that are longer, but they make more sense than the run & chase'em three weekends the state puts on. They won't be hunting all year round.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Lake land: worth at least some discussion
By Frederic Smith for the Tribune 
Good for McLean County State's Attorney Ladd Erickson for speaking out on the possible transfer of 36,000 acres bordering Lake Sakakawea from the U.S. Army to the Three Affiliated Tribes.

The acres contain significant public and private improvements -- a campground, boat ramps, private cabins. Even more important, they amount to a noose around the most important part of Lake Sakakawea and its $90 million recreation industry.

Say only that the potential for general unhappiness, if not mischief, is great.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers claims it has the authority to make the transfer without public hearings. If that is so, it is by the technicality that the official transfer would be to the Bureau of Indian Affairs -- agency to agency -- in the name of the tribe.

Erickson surely has the right of it when he says the public must be involved by dint of public and private investments in the land and because not all of the acreage represents land lost by the tribe to Garrison Dam.

Some of it, says Erickson, belonged to "nonenrolled farmers and ranchers who may have strong opinions about their former lands being donated to the tribe after being taken from them."

In any case, the corps now says it had already decided to hold hearings. Whatever. We'll thank Erickson anyway for sticking his head up.

Granted that the Three Affiliated Tribes was dealt a terrible injustice when its best 152,000 acres -- and one-quarter of its land base -- were condemned for Garrison in the 1940s. At the time, this was the most prosperous tribe in the state, largely because it was living in the lush river valley that was its traditional home.

That deal would never go down today. But this was 60 years ago, and non-Indians, too, had little bargaining power with the dam-builders. (See Lake Sakakawea, in a wet cycle, stretching west from the Fort Berthold Reservation all the way to Williston.) At least, the Three Affiliated Tribes has gotten paid three times for "the Taking."

In the mid-1940s, it got $5.1 million to start -- a sum so low that Congress was embarrassed into adding another $7.5 million before the decade was out. Forty years later, U.S. Sen. Kent Conrad rounded up another $149 million for a permanent trust fund for the tribe -- again, as compensation for loss of its prime real estate.

It is worth at least a public discussion whether the tribe is owed more -- and, if so, whether a stranglehold on the economy of Lake Sakakawea is the proper recompense.

If we were conspiracists, we would suspect payback by the corps for all the grief North Dakota has given it over low water on the lake. ("You don't like us? See how you like Tex Hall.") But the idea actually seems to have originated, at least, with the tribe.

Fair enough -- people can propose anything. But it's a big enough subject to involve the public and, if it comes to that, the public's lawyers. Let the hearings begin.


----------



## Jay Sandstrom (Jan 27, 2005)

rowdy, you don't have a clue what you are talking about so please just read the letters that have been provided and try and learn something. Especially study the letter written by the McLean County States attorney. Fantastic letter both in structure and content!
Most of you guys on this forum are so blinded by your bias that you aren't seeing the "rest of the story". The tribes are not just after the hunting and fishing, matter of fact, they don't really give a rip about management as much as your money and jurisdiction and water rights and taxing rights. You guys need to start paying attention except that it's about too late. We have been asking for your help since 1970 but you have turned your backs on us and now it is about at it's end.
There are so many issues far more important than your pheasants and deer on these lands yet that is all you can think about. Just remember people, the WATER that runs thru the Sakakawea lake system is 90 percent of the fresh water for all of Northdakota and it is valuable. While you sleep, you are being sold out via the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act and the sad thing about it, you don't seem to care unless we could tie an outfitter and a guide to it! Wake up People and start looking at everything because everything is RELATIVE and I'm not talking about your cousins!


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

South shore casino back in the mix
By LAUREN DONOVAN, Bismarck Tribune 
A casino on the south shore of Lake Sakakawea at Beaver Bay near Zap appears to be back on the drawing board.

A Bismarck-based engineering firm hired by Three Affiliated Tribes was at the bay this week, apparently establishing the boundary between tribal trust land and land owned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

A south shore casino has been talked about for a half-dozen years, but had come to nothing.

Corps spokeswoman Linda Phelps said tribal representatives recently notified the corps that Three Affiliated Tribes is spearheading the proposal. Dale Little Soldier, of Golden Valley, had spearheaded previous development efforts.

Three Affiliated Tribes operates the 4 Bears Casino and Lodge on the north shore of the lake at New Town. It plans to build the Beaver Bay casino on tribal trust land.

Paul Danks, the tribes' natural resource manager, was not available for comment.

Phelps said the project also may include a marina and ramp and the tribes will have to acquire a corps' lease for any water-based operations there.

"They can construct their casino on their land, but if they need corps land for infrastructure, then we said they need to get those plans together," Phelps said.

The trust land where the casino would be located is bordered on two sides by corps land that could be transferred to the tribes under a request being studied now.

The tribes asked the corps to transfer 36,000 acres of land on both sides of the lake and reservation that the corps no longer needs to maintain and operate Garrison Dam.

The Mercer County Commission had gotten involved in earlier plans for a casino at Beaver Bay.

The county maintains the public road into the bay and there were some concerns about reimbursing the county if the road was damaged during casino construction.

Recreational use of Beaver Bay will probably be slow this summer. The corps' low-water ramp was useable part of last summer, but won't be this year as the water continues to drop in the lake, Phelps said.

(Reach reporter Lauren Donovan at 888-303-5511 or [email protected].)

Now we are starting to see some of the reasons why this bill is being pushed so hard!!

Interesting stuff!!!

Later
Bob


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

The Turtle Mt. Tribe wants to build one just south of GF.....if we are going to have casinos all over....the state needs to step in and get some of the profits like MInn. is looking at doing.


----------



## Old Hunter (Mar 8, 2002)

Ken is correct about Minn going for a slice of the pie. How about North Dakota getting a piece of the action on the gambling money ? What would you use the money for?


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Property Tax Relief


----------



## rap (Mar 26, 2002)

bump!
do not pass


----------



## tbercier (Mar 4, 2005)

i work for a tribal game and fish department as a wildlife officer so i think i can shed some light on a few misconceptions i've read so far. nobody is proposing having hunts during the day and "hold-um at night". what we (tribes) are seeking is a joint effort with the state that would allow an INCREASE in fish and wildlife management. currently no non-members can take,possess or, transport game taken on indian lands. therefore to break it down, nobody but a member of a specific tribe can hunt on that tribes land. for instance a standing rock tribal member cannot hunt on turtle mountain tribal land any more than a non-indian. whats tribes are seeking is to manage their land instead of the state and allow hunting and fishing on it. i cannot understand what is so hard for others to comprehend about this bill. nobody is trying to take away hunting rights from non-members. in fact, without this, unless your a tribal member, you can't hunt on indian land. the mescalero apache tribe brought this exact same issue to the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT and WON! so basically what north dakota is telling tribes is that they do not recognize a united states supreme court decision. i can assure you we have a comprehensive game and fish code in place and nobody will be "hunting 12 months" out of the year. in fact our game and fish code nearly mimics the state of north dakotas. nobody seems to have a problem with land-owners posting their land or at the very least people respect it. why is it so hard to do with indian tribes? currently i can hunt on any of my tribes land in north dakota with only my tribal license, i don't need any sort of license from the state. what we are trying to do is to open the doors and let everyone enjoy those lands. i really thought this would have had more support but i guess that there will always be a line drawn in the sand in this state.


----------



## curty (Sep 18, 2003)

At what price are we going to be able to hunt and fish on tribal lands??


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

I am white and I used to hunt with the Fredricks down at Twin Buttes all the time, a really cool old native named Melvin Star also let us hunt his land. If I remember right we had to have written permission or be with the person who owned the land. Man that was fun, most white people steer clear of the Reservations so there was no competition. 8)


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

tbercier.

First I would like to point out that no one is objecting to the tribes having their own license structure. the latest amendment to 2041 has the state compromising on that point and i agree that it would be a good thing for the tribes.

There is no controversy with the transport language at all.

The Mescalero Apache case does not apply it is a closed rerservation that consists of 466,000 acres of tribal land and 200+/- acres of private land within the external boundarys of the reservation.

Tribal external boundarys within North Dakota are made up of a combination of Tribal Trust Land, Fee Land, ACOE Land, State Land and private land. 
The approximate percentages of tribal land and public/private (other) land within the external boundarys is

Standing Rock 70% public/private............. 30% Tribal trust see map link below
http://gameandfish.standingrock.org/aboutus/map.pdf

Fort Berthold 45% public/private.................65% tribal trust

Spirit Lake Dakota Nation 80% public/private.........20% tribal trust

The boundarys of the land within the exterior boundarys is not clear all of the Reservations have land that is all mixed together (see the standing rock map all reservations are made up of this confusing mix structure) it is impossible to enforce the game laws simply because of the mixed land use.

the issue is that the tribes always open their season a week earlier than the state. it is confusing because you can not tell if you are on tribal trust or fee land. I know of people that have been arrested by tribal authorities because they did not have a tribal license, they purchased a tribal license the next year and were cited by the state because they were hunting before the season opened on land within the external boundarys that was state land. I am sure that you are aware of the Confusion surrounding Deep Water Recreation area.

Why do the tribal authorities not want to put in writing that they will have the exact same game laws as the state?

If you dispute any of these facts please let me know we can discuss them.

Bob


----------



## tbercier (Mar 4, 2005)

i didn't say the tribes had "the exact same" game laws as the state. i said our game code "nearly mimics" the states (ND) and our game code is open to whomever wishes to recieve a copy of it, so nobody is refusing to put it in writing. also if there is no objection to tribes having their own licensing structure, then where does the problem lie? as for people you know being arrested by tribal authorities and also by state authorities i believe there may be more to the story than what you stated. first of all, tribal authorities have no arresting jurisdiction over non-indians(at least it is like that here)unless the crime is a felony. state wardens have no jurisdiction to operate ANYWHERE within the exterior boundries of the reservation, without working in conjunction with tribal authorities and even then, the state wardens assistance is to be requested. i know this because its my job to work with our local wardens.also mescalaro DOES apply to this because the issue was about tribes being able to regulate their own hunting and fishing laws, seperate from the state. as for not being able to tell what type of land your hunting on, maybe that is something that could be put out by tribes in a PLOTS guide format. either way, it is the responsibility of the hunter to know where he is and to check all applicable laws. i wouldn't go and hunt in canada and just start shooting and tell the authorities, "i didn't know where i was at, your game laws are to confusing". irregardless, this bill will pass. maybe not this session, but the tribes are fighting it enough that it won't sit dormant forever. as for the earlier posts regarding casino's popping up everywhere, i love how north dakota should come and get a piece of the pie, but in the same breath, the tribes need to take a back seat with their hunting jurisdiction struggle. ignorance is bliss i suppose.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

tbercier
You tell me where does the problem lie?

Mescalero case says they wants to manage the game on *their tribal trust land* they own it all except a small parcel, how do you propose to manage the game on land where Tribal trust owns a quarter and the next quarter is public land do you propose that the state give up jurisdiction to the tribal authorities on public land?

With the above information taken into account why does the tribe not want to Exactly mimic the state code instead of nearly mimic to avoid confusion?

The incident at Deep Water was a citation not an arrest my mistake.

As far as your statements about enforcement within the exterior boundarys we both know that better.


----------



## tbercier (Mar 4, 2005)

we don't want to mimic the states because our management goals on tribal lands may be different than the states. the states census and index of various game species does not include the exterior boundries of reservations (again, at least not here they don't, that is done by my office). an example would be a moose permit, my tribe would, in theory, be able to issue XX amount of moose tags because our fish and wildlife department has deemed a substantial moose population exists. so therefore we can't possibly mimic the state because we may have two different opinions of a substantial population, if you will. as far as turning over jurisdiction, if a person is hunting on a dotted landscape, again that falls on the individual to know where they are hunting. if a person hunts near the minnesota border and accidently shoots game in minnesota, of course it does not fall to north dakota. same principle. as confusing as it may be, i'm afriad that it will soon become a reality that we will ALL have to deal with. trust me when i say, that this will not make things any easier for tribal game and fish authorities and in fact will make everything more complex to say the least. but not all things in life are supposed to be easy i guess. as for my opinion of where the problem lies, i really don't see any problems other than requiring sportsmen to have proper licenses and to know their location when hunting, which is something that is supposed to be done irregardless of where or what they are hunting. just because something becomes an inconvienience does not make it wrong. maybe i'm looking at this in to simple of a light or maybe i have a simple mind (i've been accused of that by my wife) but i take it like this.......right now you can't hunt on tribal land, if it passes, you can. i would almost go far enough to say that it is a win-win situation for everyone involved provided we can all work together.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

tbercier

I am all for working together. I have never stated anything but trying to find a way to work together.

Is the tribal authority and the state going to give out GPS maps of the land within the exterior boundarys? I have seen the map of your reservation and I have hunted near it. there is absolutly no way that you can tell where you are on most parcels without a GPS map. That is the only way you would be able to tell where you were at. throwing this mess back on the sportsmen is not justified. the state has spent the money to clearly mark PLOTS land. How hard would it be for you to do the same with tribal land?


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

tbercier

Your example doesn't take into account the reality of the situation.


> we don't want to mimic the states because our management goals on tribal lands may be different than the states. the states census and index of various game species does not include the exterior boundries of reservations (again, at least not here they don't, that is done by my office). an example would be a moose permit, my tribe would, in theory, be able to issue XX amount of moose tags because our fish and wildlife department has deemed a substantial moose population exists. so therefore we can't possibly mimic the state because we may have two different opinions of a substantial population, if you will.


The moose population you want to manage and the moose population the state wants to manage are not two separate populations. They are the same one! They are also located in a hodge podge of tribal and state lands. How can you have two different and non-communitating agencies properly manage one wildlife population on a mixture of land that each has only partial jurisdiction on? It can not be done! If the tribes agree to common seasons, limits, etc. and allow joint jurisdiction, then whant you want can be a reality. What about this concept don't you like?


----------



## tbercier (Mar 4, 2005)

i totally agree that there are two different agencies providing management options but who is right and who is wrong? 6 of one and 1/2 dozen of the other. i agree that there is only one total population of a certain species BUT how we and the state choose to manage that population while it occupies each others land respectively is where differences arise. i'm not for giving up jurisdictional rights because that could creat a whole heap of problems that would be a whole lot bigger than hunting and fishing issues. i'm not saying that this should be thrown back onto the sportsman, but it will be something that the sportsmen need to be aware of. i think it would be a good idea for tribes to put up signs much like the PLOTS signs. i'm an avid outdoorsman and many of my friends and colleagues are non-members who would like access to some of the lands and opportunities that tribes can offer. i should ask you, what is it that is so hard for you to understand about this? the tribes own the land, therefore they should be able to regulate it as they see fit. end of story in my opinion. i don't see how there can be any other justification. and no its not the same thing as individual ownership like farmer joe down the road. because tribes have their own government and constitutions much like any other country. i think what it boils down to is oppression. non-indians have hunted the land for years so why should they have to start paying to hunt it now that tribes are finally being heard? same old song and dance. we can sit and talk about proper management and jurisdictional rights but what it boils down to is that the average joe is going to have to fork over more money and that bugs people. and rightfully so, BUT should tribes have to take the blunt of it because they are self determined? i'm afraid this is not going to end until the bill is passed and there is nothing left to do but move forward.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

tbercier,



> i think what it boils down to is oppression. non-indians have hunted the land for years so why should they have to start paying to hunt it now that tribes are finally being heard? same old song and dance. we can sit and talk about proper management and jurisdictional rights but what it boils down to is that the average joe is going to have to fork over more money and that bugs people. and rightfully so, BUT should tribes have to take the blunt of it because they are self determined? i'm afraid this is not going to end until the bill is passed and there is nothing left to do but move forward.


Unfortunately, this is how the tribes are going to spin this issue. You will use the old "race issue" trump card. You are the one that wants to make it into a race issue. We don't, we want it to be a coordinated wildlife management issue. Which issue do you wish to discuss here - wildlife management or race?


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

tbercier

I have no problem what so ever with Tribal authority having jurisdiction over tribal members on tribal trust land!! that is the way it is supposed to be. I support that 100%

A question arises though.

What happens if a non tribal member commits a serious crime on tribal trust land that is not a game violation. say someone on the tribe land is seriously assulted by a non tribal member. the state exercises jurisdiction right? why should it be any different for game violations? Like the previous post said the critters are technically part of the herd, flock, gagle, etc. that is within the exterior boundrays of the state correct?

I am not trying to opress anyone! I am just trying to point out the inconsistancies of the laws as they exist.

You seem determined to see this go to a court challenge. Do we need to spend all of the money that will be required and create more hard feeling between us for more generations??. we are pretty close to agreement on may aspects of this bill.

Bob


----------



## tbercier (Mar 4, 2005)

i agree, save the taxpayers money and let it pass already.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

tbercier

If it passes will the Tribal authorities support it or will they use it to create a court challenge. you do not seem to be 100% on board and I know other tribal authorities are not either.

It is a wonderful opportunity for the residents of the state, Tribal Authorities and nonresidents as well. there are some great areas to hunt within the Reservation structures of North Dakota. I would be very excited about being able to hunt some of these areas but until the enforcement is agreed upon by all involved parties, I am not going to get my hopes up. Years of litigation will just delay the process even longer.

You Take Care
If you ever get to Fargo, Look me up PM or email me and we can have lunch and shoot the breeze.

Bob


----------



## tbercier (Mar 4, 2005)

bob, 
you are right i'm not sure that i am 100% on board. i do believe that this is only going to lead to more anamosity and confusion, but like i said yesterday everyone will just have to work together to create an enjoyable experience. you take care also. (if it passes and you want to ever do some moose or elk hunting, give a shout up this way! lol)


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

tbercier
I get up in your area quite often. I duck hunt in the Rock Lake, Rolla area early in the season, access is getting a little tougher all the time. Beautiful country up there. Keep in touch and I forgot to say Welcome to the site. I hope you stick around we are always interested in and welcome different viewpoints. :beer:

Bob


----------



## tbercier (Mar 4, 2005)

bob-
sounds great! i do have a few honey holes that i've sorta kept to myself (one of the perks of the job i suppose) but i'm always looking to hunt with new folks or at least show them some dandy spots. might even be able to squeeze in some good goose hunting this spring. keep me posted as to when you want would want to come up and i'll make sure we have a good time. by the way my name is travis and thanks for the welcome greeting.


----------

