Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was just reading in another thread about how certain "indigenous people" in Alaska are allowed to hunt polar bears. They're also allowed to kill other endangered species such as whales.
Why do we make exceptions for indigenous peoples? Does their culture matter more than the preservation of entire species? What if their cultural traditions included human sacrifice or forcing children to marry elders?
I think we need to get over this politically correct BS about preserving special rights for certain groups when those rights interfere with the rights of other creatures. There should be no exceptions to rules against hunting endangered species or highly intelligent beings such as cetaceans. The rest of us have had to live with new rules that are constantly being created in order to accommodate changes in the natural world and in our understanding of ethics, so why cannot all people, regardless of their heritage, adapt with the rest of us and stop acting like the calendar says 10,000 BC?
In a lot of cases, those "special" rights are guaranteed by treaty. According to the Constitution, treaties ratified by the Senate have the force of law and can't be simply discarded later if the situation or public opinion changes.
Another example is how the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not apply to certain native populations because of treaties.
Thanks for that info, I wasn't aware of the power of treaties to trump other laws.
But there certainly must be exceptions to treaties when necessitated by changing circumstances, no? If not, then can't the US gov't change the terms of a treaty using a super-majority or some other means? Or do treaties grant absolute sovereignty?
Thanks for that info, I wasn't aware of the power of treaties to trump other laws.
But there certainly must be exceptions to treaties when necessitated by changing circumstances, no? If not, then can't the US gov't change the terms of a treaty using a super-majority or some other means? Or do treaties grant absolute sovereignty?
A treaty is an agreement between parties.
One cannot unilaterally change it.
Thanks for that info, I wasn't aware of the power of treaties to trump other laws.
But there certainly must be exceptions to treaties when necessitated by changing circumstances, no? If not, then can't the US gov't change the terms of a treaty using a super-majority or some other means? Or do treaties grant absolute sovereignty?
No, there are no exceptions. A treaty is an agreed upon contract which is inviolable so long as both parties act in good faith.
Yes, the government could attempt re-open a treaty for further negotiation, but that would require the agreement of the other party, which is not likely in this case.
As an example, take a look at the treaties between certain Indian tribes who live along the Columbia River and the US Government. While no one else can catch Salmon by netting because of concerns about the Salmon population, those tribes continue to do so because they can, according to the terms of their treaties, because their culture requires it. Those cultural requirments are included in the treaties and neither the government nor enviornmentalist's can stop it.
I was just reading in another thread about how certain "indigenous people" in Alaska are allowed to hunt polar bears. They're also allowed to kill other endangered species such as whales.
Why do we make exceptions for indigenous peoples? Does their culture matter more than the preservation of entire species? What if their cultural traditions included human sacrifice or forcing children to marry elders?
I think we need to get over this politically correct BS about preserving special rights for certain groups when those rights interfere with the rights of other creatures. There should be no exceptions to rules against hunting endangered species or highly intelligent beings such as cetaceans. The rest of us have had to live with new rules that are constantly being created in order to accommodate changes in the natural world and in our understanding of ethics, so why cannot all people, regardless of their heritage, adapt with the rest of us and stop acting like the calendar says 10,000 BC?
Yea, why don't we make them replace their eons old culture and traditions with ours. After all, Mickey Mouse, SUVs, McLifestyles and TV are so much more fulfilling.
Their hunting of the bears poses no danger. Polar bears were listed as endangered on the basis of climate change "might" make them endangered in the future. That listing ignores some evidence of their adaptability in the past (moving inland, breeding with other bears, etc.). Canada has allowed anyone with the right license/tag (incl. non-Natives, unlike the U.S.) to hunt polar bears for years and it hasn't harmed the population there as of yet.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
