Valley Journal
Valley Journal

This Week’s e-Edition

Current Events

Latest Headlines

What's New?

Send us your news items.

NOTE: All submissions are subject to our Submission Guidelines.

Announcement Forms

Use these forms to send us announcements.

Birth Announcement
Obituary

Honor treaty, respect land

Hey savvy news reader! Thanks for choosing local. You are now reading
1 of 3 free articles.



Subscribe now to stay in the know!

Already a subscriber? Login now

Editor, 

Due to past successes in court, a recent writer complained, folks are being encouraged to allow the tribes to take whatever will “satisfy their corporate lust” for control of “former” reservation lands. Corporate lust? Really? 

Past successes in court have some relevance. Three quick examples: 

• State v. Stasso (1977). In 1972, a tribal member killed a deer off reservation and out-of-season. Appealing to the state Supreme Court, his conviction was overturned. Since Article III of the treaty included fishing and hunting in “usual and accustomed places,” the court reasoned this meant aboriginal land off, as well as on, reservation; the state had no jurisdiction. This was no trivial issue. Treaties are the Law of the Land.

• In 1973, Polson residents built several structures beyond the high-water mark of the lake to operate a marina. The tribes sued claiming they were trespassing on tribal lands (the lake, bed and banks). Polson joined in the suit claiming the reservation had been terminated by the Flathead Act (allotment) of 1904. In the tribes’ favor, the 9th Circuit decided there was no clear intent of Congress to terminate; lake ownership was clearly defined by treaty; and the tribes have regulatory control (CS&KT v. Namen, 1982).

• In 1997, an anti-tribal activist killed a deer on private land within the reservation. She proclaimed the state-tribal compact prohibiting non-Indian harvesting of indigenous animals invalid. Failing in lower courts, she finally appealed to the federal Supreme Court (Shook v. Montana, 2003) but was denied a hearing.

Those choosing to live on any reservation shouldn’t presume white power and privilege will provide in the accustomed fashion. Honor the treaty and respect that land within the boundaries of the reservation is not Montana; It is considered Indian Country regardless of ownership (18 USC § 1151). And, expect treaty rights to be exercised. They come with the territory. 

Bill Bennington
Polson

Sponsored by: