- Oct 22, 2003
- 7,476
- 3
- 81
Originally posted by: dahunan
No special rights... Federal Prosecution.. PLUS Tribal Courts.. defendants should be stripped of all tribal rights for life
Originally posted by: Cdubneeddeal
Originally posted by: dahunan
No special rights... Federal Prosecution.. PLUS Tribal Courts.. defendants should be stripped of all tribal rights for life
Yeah. And that guy had no remorse for it. Apparently the rifle they used could kill anything from four miles away.
They then shot the whale with a gun powerful enough to fire a slug four miles.
Originally posted by: slsmnaz
Originally posted by: Cdubneeddeal
Originally posted by: dahunan
No special rights... Federal Prosecution.. PLUS Tribal Courts.. defendants should be stripped of all tribal rights for life
Yeah. And that guy had no remorse for it. Apparently the rifle they used could kill anything from four miles away.
While I agree it was senseless, your statement on the gun is just wrong. It said it could fire a bullet 4 miles not kill anything from that distance.
They then shot the whale with a gun powerful enough to fire a slug four miles.
Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
Originally posted by: slsmnaz
Originally posted by: Cdubneeddeal
Originally posted by: dahunan
No special rights... Federal Prosecution.. PLUS Tribal Courts.. defendants should be stripped of all tribal rights for life
Yeah. And that guy had no remorse for it. Apparently the rifle they used could kill anything from four miles away.
While I agree it was senseless, your statement on the gun is just wrong. It said it could fire a bullet 4 miles not kill anything from that distance.
They then shot the whale with a gun powerful enough to fire a slug four miles.
Yeah, a .22LR can fire for miles. BFD. FUD.
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
Originally posted by: slsmnaz
Originally posted by: Cdubneeddeal
Originally posted by: dahunan
No special rights... Federal Prosecution.. PLUS Tribal Courts.. defendants should be stripped of all tribal rights for life
Yeah. And that guy had no remorse for it. Apparently the rifle they used could kill anything from four miles away.
While I agree it was senseless, your statement on the gun is just wrong. It said it could fire a bullet 4 miles not kill anything from that distance.
They then shot the whale with a gun powerful enough to fire a slug four miles.
Yeah, a .22LR can fire for miles. BFD. FUD.
Dunno if this is the same story but earlier this week the one I heard about they had a .50cal which is a "tad" bigger than a .22.
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
Originally posted by: slsmnaz
Originally posted by: Cdubneeddeal
Originally posted by: dahunan
No special rights... Federal Prosecution.. PLUS Tribal Courts.. defendants should be stripped of all tribal rights for life
Yeah. And that guy had no remorse for it. Apparently the rifle they used could kill anything from four miles away.
While I agree it was senseless, your statement on the gun is just wrong. It said it could fire a bullet 4 miles not kill anything from that distance.
They then shot the whale with a gun powerful enough to fire a slug four miles.
Yeah, a .22LR can fire for miles. BFD. FUD.
Dunno if this is the same story but earlier this week the one I heard about they had a .50cal which is a "tad" bigger than a .22.
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I don't like what happened to the American Indians or other Indian populations. However, the "rules" for them seem pretty silly in light of what's actually going on in the world.
I went fishing in northern MN last month. For us there were limits to how many fish we could catch and for Walleye there are "slots" in which fish that are in the slot have to be thrown back (17-28").
These rules don't apply to the tribes, they get unlimited catch regardless of slot and get to do it in more or less any way they want.
I understand the need for slots, but when you catch a fish that is in the slot and see it's near dead, but still have to throw it back, while American Indians are catching them by the dozens, it seems a bit preposterous.
Originally posted by: rdubbz420
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I don't like what happened to the American Indians or other Indian populations. However, the "rules" for them seem pretty silly in light of what's actually going on in the world.
I went fishing in northern MN last month. For us there were limits to how many fish we could catch and for Walleye there are "slots" in which fish that are in the slot have to be thrown back (17-28").
These rules don't apply to the tribes, they get unlimited catch regardless of slot and get to do it in more or less any way they want.
I understand the need for slots, but when you catch a fish that is in the slot and see it's near dead, but still have to throw it back, while American Indians are catching them by the dozens, it seems a bit preposterous.
they're a sovereign nation. they shouldn't have to abide by our laws. now if this whale incident was a violation of international law, it's different.
Originally posted by: rdubbz420
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I don't like what happened to the American Indians or other Indian populations. However, the "rules" for them seem pretty silly in light of what's actually going on in the world.
I went fishing in northern MN last month. For us there were limits to how many fish we could catch and for Walleye there are "slots" in which fish that are in the slot have to be thrown back (17-28").
These rules don't apply to the tribes, they get unlimited catch regardless of slot and get to do it in more or less any way they want.
I understand the need for slots, but when you catch a fish that is in the slot and see it's near dead, but still have to throw it back, while American Indians are catching them by the dozens, it seems a bit preposterous.
they're a sovereign nation. they shouldn't have to abide by our laws. now if this whale incident was a violation of international law, it's different.
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: rdubbz420
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I don't like what happened to the American Indians or other Indian populations. However, the "rules" for them seem pretty silly in light of what's actually going on in the world.
I went fishing in northern MN last month. For us there were limits to how many fish we could catch and for Walleye there are "slots" in which fish that are in the slot have to be thrown back (17-28").
These rules don't apply to the tribes, they get unlimited catch regardless of slot and get to do it in more or less any way they want.
I understand the need for slots, but when you catch a fish that is in the slot and see it's near dead, but still have to throw it back, while American Indians are catching them by the dozens, it seems a bit preposterous.
they're a sovereign nation. they shouldn't have to abide by our laws. now if this whale incident was a violation of international law, it's different.
If that's the case then I guess we can stop subsidizing all the native tribes, right?
Originally posted by: rdubbz420
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I don't like what happened to the American Indians or other Indian populations. However, the "rules" for them seem pretty silly in light of what's actually going on in the world.
I went fishing in northern MN last month. For us there were limits to how many fish we could catch and for Walleye there are "slots" in which fish that are in the slot have to be thrown back (17-28").
These rules don't apply to the tribes, they get unlimited catch regardless of slot and get to do it in more or less any way they want.
I understand the need for slots, but when you catch a fish that is in the slot and see it's near dead, but still have to throw it back, while American Indians are catching them by the dozens, it seems a bit preposterous.
they're a sovereign nation. they shouldn't have to abide by our laws. now if this whale incident was a violation of international law, it's different.
Originally posted by: rdubbz420
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: rdubbz420
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I don't like what happened to the American Indians or other Indian populations. However, the "rules" for them seem pretty silly in light of what's actually going on in the world.
I went fishing in northern MN last month. For us there were limits to how many fish we could catch and for Walleye there are "slots" in which fish that are in the slot have to be thrown back (17-28").
These rules don't apply to the tribes, they get unlimited catch regardless of slot and get to do it in more or less any way they want.
I understand the need for slots, but when you catch a fish that is in the slot and see it's near dead, but still have to throw it back, while American Indians are catching them by the dozens, it seems a bit preposterous.
they're a sovereign nation. they shouldn't have to abide by our laws. now if this whale incident was a violation of international law, it's different.
If that's the case then I guess we can stop subsidizing all the native tribes, right?
they get money for the gas and oil the government takes from their land.
Originally posted by: rdubbz420
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I don't like what happened to the American Indians or other Indian populations. However, the "rules" for them seem pretty silly in light of what's actually going on in the world.
I went fishing in northern MN last month. For us there were limits to how many fish we could catch and for Walleye there are "slots" in which fish that are in the slot have to be thrown back (17-28").
These rules don't apply to the tribes, they get unlimited catch regardless of slot and get to do it in more or less any way they want.
I understand the need for slots, but when you catch a fish that is in the slot and see it's near dead, but still have to throw it back, while American Indians are catching them by the dozens, it seems a bit preposterous.
they're a sovereign nation. they shouldn't have to abide by our laws. now if this whale incident was a violation of international law, it's different.
Originally posted by: rdubbz420
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: rdubbz420
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I don't like what happened to the American Indians or other Indian populations. However, the "rules" for them seem pretty silly in light of what's actually going on in the world.
I went fishing in northern MN last month. For us there were limits to how many fish we could catch and for Walleye there are "slots" in which fish that are in the slot have to be thrown back (17-28").
These rules don't apply to the tribes, they get unlimited catch regardless of slot and get to do it in more or less any way they want.
I understand the need for slots, but when you catch a fish that is in the slot and see it's near dead, but still have to throw it back, while American Indians are catching them by the dozens, it seems a bit preposterous.
they're a sovereign nation. they shouldn't have to abide by our laws. now if this whale incident was a violation of international law, it's different.
If that's the case then I guess we can stop subsidizing all the native tribes, right?
they get money for the gas and oil the government takes from their land.
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: rdubbz420
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: rdubbz420
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I don't like what happened to the American Indians or other Indian populations. However, the "rules" for them seem pretty silly in light of what's actually going on in the world.
I went fishing in northern MN last month. For us there were limits to how many fish we could catch and for Walleye there are "slots" in which fish that are in the slot have to be thrown back (17-28").
These rules don't apply to the tribes, they get unlimited catch regardless of slot and get to do it in more or less any way they want.
I understand the need for slots, but when you catch a fish that is in the slot and see it's near dead, but still have to throw it back, while American Indians are catching them by the dozens, it seems a bit preposterous.
they're a sovereign nation. they shouldn't have to abide by our laws. now if this whale incident was a violation of international law, it's different.
If that's the case then I guess we can stop subsidizing all the native tribes, right?
they get money for the gas and oil the government takes from their land.
Most tribes get much more than that, not to mention the casino's.
Originally posted by: rdubbz420
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I don't like what happened to the American Indians or other Indian populations. However, the "rules" for them seem pretty silly in light of what's actually going on in the world.
I went fishing in northern MN last month. For us there were limits to how many fish we could catch and for Walleye there are "slots" in which fish that are in the slot have to be thrown back (17-28").
These rules don't apply to the tribes, they get unlimited catch regardless of slot and get to do it in more or less any way they want.
I understand the need for slots, but when you catch a fish that is in the slot and see it's near dead, but still have to throw it back, while American Indians are catching them by the dozens, it seems a bit preposterous.
they're a sovereign nation. they shouldn't have to abide by our laws. now if this whale incident was a violation of international law, it's different.