Grand Portage National Monument AND/OR COMMON
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Minnesota Statutes 2020, Chapter 85
1 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2020 85.011 CHAPTER 85 DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION STATE PARKS, RECREATION AREAS, AND WAYSIDES 85.06 SCHOOLHOUSES IN CERTAIN STATE PARKS. 85.011 CONFIRMATION OF CREATION AND 85.20 VIOLATIONS OF RULES; LITTERING; PENALTIES. ESTABLISHMENT OF STATE PARKS, STATE 85.205 RECEPTACLES FOR RECYCLING. RECREATION AREAS, AND WAYSIDES. 85.21 STATE OPERATION OF PARK, MONUMENT, 85.0115 NOTICE OF ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. RECREATION AREA AND WAYSIDE FACILITIES; 85.012 STATE PARKS. LICENSE NOT REQUIRED. 85.013 STATE RECREATION AREAS AND WAYSIDES. 85.22 STATE PARKS WORKING CAPITAL ACCOUNT. 85.014 PRIOR LAWS NOT ALTERED; REVISOR'S DUTIES. 85.23 COOPERATIVE LEASES OF AGRICULTURAL 85.0145 ACQUIRING LAND FOR FACILITIES. LANDS. 85.0146 CUYUNA COUNTRY STATE RECREATION AREA; 85.32 STATE WATER TRAILS. CITIZENS ADVISORY COUNCIL. 85.33 ST. CROIX WILD RIVER AREA; LIMITATIONS ON STATE TRAILS POWER BOATING. 85.015 STATE TRAILS. 85.34 FORT SNELLING LEASE. 85.0155 LAKE SUPERIOR WATER TRAIL. TRAIL PASSES 85.0156 MISSISSIPPI WHITEWATER TRAIL. 85.40 DEFINITIONS. 85.016 BICYCLE TRAIL PROGRAM. 85.41 CROSS-COUNTRY-SKI PASSES. 85.017 TRAIL REGISTRY. 85.42 USER FEE; VALIDITY. 85.018 TRAIL USE; VEHICLES REGULATED, RESTRICTED. 85.43 DISPOSITION OF RECEIPTS; PURPOSE. ADMINISTRATION 85.44 CROSS-COUNTRY-SKI TRAIL GRANT-IN-AID 85.019 LOCAL RECREATION GRANTS. PROGRAM. 85.021 ACQUIRING LAND; MINNESOTA VALLEY TRAIL. 85.45 PENALTIES. 85.04 ENFORCEMENT DIVISION EMPLOYEES. 85.46 HORSE -
Fighting the Lone Wolf Mentality: Twenty-First Century Reflections on the Paradoxical State of American Indian Law
Tulsa Law Review Volume 38 Issue 1 Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock: One Hundred Years Later Fall 2002 Fighting the Lone Wolf Mentality: Twenty-First Century Reflections on the Paradoxical State of American Indian Law Bryan H. Wildenthal Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Bryan H. Wildenthal, Fighting the Lone Wolf Mentality: Twenty-First Century Reflections on the arP adoxical State of American Indian Law, 38 Tulsa L. Rev. 113 (2013). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr/vol38/iss1/22 This Native American Symposia Articles is brought to you for free and open access by TU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Tulsa Law Review by an authorized editor of TU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Wildenthal: Fighting the Lone Wolf Mentality: Twenty-First Century Reflection FIGHTING THE LONE WOLF MENTALITY: TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY REFLECTIONS ON THE PARADOXICAL STATE OF AMERICAN INDIAN LAW@ Bryan H. Wildenthal* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. 1999: THREE CASES, THREE COURTS, THREE SOVEREIGNS ............. 113 II. THE LONE W OLF M ENTALITY .............................................................. 118 III. THE H UNTING OF LONE W OLF ............................................................. 123 IV. THE LONE WOLF MENTALITY RISES AGAIN: THE REHNOUIST ERA OF AMERICAN INDIAN LAW ........................... 124 V. 2001: Two CASES, ONE COURT, NO JUSTICE ...................................... 135 VI. WHERE Do WE GO FROM HERE? ........................ ........................... .. .. 144 I. 1999: THREE CASES, THREE COURTS, THREE SOVEREIGNS In 1999, as the turn of the twenty-first century loomed, I planned to write a reflective essay on the state of American Indian law, a field in which I have been privileged to teach (but mostly, learn) since 1996.' I thought I would use as my © 2002 Bryan H. -
Official Guide to Native American Communities in Wisconsin
Official Guide to Native American Communities in Wisconsin www.NativeWisconsin.com Shekoli (Hello), elcome to Native Wisconsin! We are pleased to once again provide you with our much anticipated NATIVE WISCONSIN MAGAZINE! WAs always, you will find key information regarding the 11 sovereign tribes in the great State of Wisconsin. From history and culture to current events and new amenities, Native Wisconsin is the unique experience visitors are always looking for. As our tribal communities across WI continue to expand and improve, we want to keep you informed on what’s going on and what’s in store for the future. With a new vision in place, we plan to assist each and every beautiful reservation to both improve what is there, and to create new ideas to work toward. Beyond their current amenities, which continue to expand, we must diversify tribal tourism and provide new things to see, smell, touch, taste, and hear. Festivals, culinary arts, song and dance, storytelling, Lacrosse, new tribal visitor centers, even a true hands on Native Wisconsin experience! These are just a few of the elements we want to provide to not only give current visitors what they’ve been waiting for, but to entice new visitors to come see us. We are always looking to our visitors for input, so please let us know how you would like to experience NATIVE WISCONSIN in the future, and we will make it happen for you. We are looking forward to 2015 and beyond. With the return of this magazine, a new website, our annual conference in Mole Lake, and a new online TV show in development, things are getting exciting for all of us. -
REVISOR Xx:KJ/KJ 06-5420
01119/06 REVISOR xx:KJ/KJ 06-5420 Senator Ruud introduced- S.F. No. 2377: Referred to the Committee on Taxes. 1.1 A bill for an act relating to taxation; authorizing the town of Sylvan in Cass County to impose 1.3 a gravel tax under certain circumstances; amending Minnesota Statutes 2004, 1.4 section 298. 75, by adding a subdivision. 1.5 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: 1.6 Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2004, section 298.75, is amended.by adding a 1, 1.7 subdivision to read: 1.8 . Subd. 10. Tax may be imposed; Cass County. (a) If Cass1County does not im~e v "-V'.tll 4'..-lf~ -.,.p~ve~ f!M..pe>Si-h<n'\ b-ift -fk.e ~ tMA.tl&Y - s S'l.A..bJlY\s~ 1.9 a tax under this section, the town of Sylvan in Cass County may ~pose the aggregate 1.10 materials tax under this section. 1.11 (b) For purposes of exercising the powers contained in this section,. the "town" is 2 deemed to be the "county." 1.13 ( c) All provisions in this section apply to the town of Sylvan, except that, in lieu 1.14 of the distribution of the tax proceeds under subdivision 7, all proceeds of the tax .must 1.15 be retained by the town. 1.16 ( d) If Cass County imposes an aggregate materials tax under this section, the tax 1.17 imposed by the town of Sylvan under this subdivision is repealed on the effective date 1.18 of the Cass County tax. -
Chequamegon Bay and Its Communities I Ashland Bayfield La Pointe a Brief History 1659-1883
Chequamegon Bay And Its Communities I Ashland Bayfield LaPointe A Brief Hi story 1659-1883 Chequamegon Bay And Its Communities I Ashland Bayfield La Pointe A Brief History 1659-1883 Lars Larson PhD Emeriti Faculty University of Wisconsin-Whitewater CHEQUAMEGON BAY Chequamegon, sweet lovely bay, Upon thy bosom softly sway. In gentle swells and azure bright. Reflections of the coming night; Thy wooded shores of spruce and pine. Forever hold thee close entwine. Thy lovely isles and babbling rills. Whose music soft my soul enthrills; What wondrous power and mystic hands. Hath wrought thy beach of golden sands. What artist's eye mid painter's brush. Hath caught thy waters as they rush. And stilled them all and then unfurled. The grandest picture of the world— So fair, so sweet to look upon. Thy beauteous bay, Chequamegon. Whitewater Wisconsin 2005 Table of Contents Acknowledgements 3 The Chequamegon Bay Historians 4 Odes to Chequamegon Bay 7 Introduction 13 Chapter 1—An Overview of Wisconsin History to 1850 26 Chapter 2—Chequamegon Bay and La Pointe 1659-1855 44 Chapter 3—The Second Era of Resource Exploitation 82 Chapter 4—Superior 1853-1860 92 Chapter 5—Ashland 1854-1860 112 Chapter 6—Bayfield 1856-1860 133 Chapter 7—Bayfield 1870-1883 151 Chapter 8—Ashland 1870-1883 186 Chapter 9—The Raikoad Land Grants: Were The Benefits Worth The Cost? 218 Bibliographies 229 Introduction 230 Wisconsin History 23 4 Chequamegon Bay and La Pointe 241 Second Era of Resource Exploitation 257 Superior 264 Ashland 272 Bayfield 293 Introduction 1860-1870 301 Railroad Land Grants 304 Acknowledgements I am deeply indebted to the staffs of the Andersen Library of the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, and the Library of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin, mid to the Register of Deeds of Bayfield County, for their indispensable assistance mid support in the preparation of this study. -
Outline of United States Federal Indian Law and Policy
Outline of United States federal Indian law and policy The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to United States federal Indian law and policy: Federal Indian policy – establishes the relationship between the United States Government and the Indian Tribes within its borders. The Constitution gives the federal government primary responsibility for dealing with tribes. Law and U.S. public policy related to Native Americans have evolved continuously since the founding of the United States. David R. Wrone argues that the failure of the treaty system was because of the inability of an individualistic, democratic society to recognize group rights or the value of an organic, corporatist culture represented by the tribes.[1] U.S. Supreme Court cases List of United States Supreme Court cases involving Indian tribes Citizenship Adoption Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (1989) Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 530 U.S. _ (2013) Tribal Ex parte Joins, 191 U.S. 93 (1903) Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (1978) Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (1989) South Dakota v. Bourland, 508 U.S. 679 (1993) Civil rights Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978) United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313 (1978) Congressional authority Ex parte Joins, 191 U.S. 93 (1903) White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136 (1980) California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202 (1987) South Dakota v. Bourland, 508 U.S. 679 (1993) United States v. -
They Would Not Be Moved : the Chippewa Treaty of 1854 / Edmund
N AUGUST, 1854, Commissioner of Indian Affairs George W. Manypenny directed Agent Henry C. Gil bert of Detroit to arrange a treaty council with the Chippewa Indians to extinguish their titles to certain lands at the head of Lake Superior. The agent was also to establish reservations as future homes for the Lake Superior bands living along the shores of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. ^ THEY Gilbert, head of the Mackinac Agency which embraced afi the Indians in Michigan as wefi as the Lake Superior Chippewa, dispatched a special messenger by way of Chicago and St. Paul WOULD to his Minnesota counterpart, Agent David B. Herriman, at Crow Wing. Gilbert asked Herriman to bring to the council ground a delegation of Mississippi River Chippewa chiefs and headmen who also claimed ownership of the lands in question. The Mack NOT inac agent left Detroit on August 26 and arrived at La Pointe, Wisconsin, on September 1. Herriman joined him about two weeks later.- BE The tiny vifiage of La Pointe on Madeline Island, offshore from Bayfield, Wisconsin, was an appropriate setting for treaty talks. La Pointe had been a focal point for white settlement on Lake Superior since the zestful days of French fur traders and MOVED missionaries. Thirteen miles long and averaging three miles wide, Madeline is the largest of the Apostle Island chain. Set against clear blue waters and skies, its rugged beauty com «e?> mands admiration. Red and brown sandstone shores loom wild and bold, while pleasant hills and stately elms, pines, and cedars exude cool serenity. Before the founding of Superior, Wisconsin, and Duluth in 1853 and 1854, bustling little La Pointe, located on Madeline's southwestern tip, had been the only port of call The Chippewa on western Lake Superior. -
Report 66 ‐ Mountains2montreal – July 26, 2011
Report 66 ‐ mountains2montreal – July 26, 2011 Canoe trip of 4,500 km from Saskatchewan River Crossing Alberta to Montreal – 130 days estimated duration. After Day 86 – July 2, 2011 • Last reported SPOT location ‐ July 24 @ 17.09 PDT (48.10331/90.4449) – camped on the Canadian side of La Verendrye Provincial Park on South Lake. • Estimated distance traveled since their last report July 16 ‐ 27 km. • Distance traveled since start May 1 – 3,281km (estimated). • Distance to Montreal ‐ 1,219 km (estimated). Notes 1. Big day yesterday that m2m crossed the “Height of Land” Portage moving from the Nelson Watershed (Hudson Bay) and started the move doWnhill into the St. LaWrence River basin. 2. M2M group continued Working their Way along the Ontario/Minnesota border yesterday. 3. Weather – good yesterday – generally good ahead With a chance of thunderstorms on Wednesday. 4. I spoke With Katie Rosenberg yesterday neWly returned from m2m creW change last Friday – she reports everything is fine – the guys are in good spirits and Working Well as a team – sloW progress thru Quetico Park – lots of Wind falls required advance clearing many of the portages prior to passage – some days 6 to 7 portages ranging from short to 900 m – very rough terrain required the guys to carry the 225 pound canoe most of the time on their shoulders – a fuller report Will folloW later this Week. 5. Next planned re‐supply/communications location is Thunder Bay With a projected arrival August 1 or 2 ‐ estimated distance – 250 km. 6. No or minimal communication expected until Thunder Bay. -
Minnesota State Parks.Pdf
Table of Contents 1. Afton State Park 4 2. Banning State Park 6 3. Bear Head Lake State Park 8 4. Beaver Creek Valley State Park 10 5. Big Bog State Park 12 6. Big Stone Lake State Park 14 7. Blue Mounds State Park 16 8. Buffalo River State Park 18 9. Camden State Park 20 10. Carley State Park 22 11. Cascade River State Park 24 12. Charles A. Lindbergh State Park 26 13. Crow Wing State Park 28 14. Cuyuna Country State Park 30 15. Father Hennepin State Park 32 16. Flandrau State Park 34 17. Forestville/Mystery Cave State Park 36 18. Fort Ridgely State Park 38 19. Fort Snelling State Park 40 20. Franz Jevne State Park 42 21. Frontenac State Park 44 22. George H. Crosby Manitou State Park 46 23. Glacial Lakes State Park 48 24. Glendalough State Park 50 25. Gooseberry Falls State Park 52 26. Grand Portage State Park 54 27. Great River Bluffs State Park 56 28. Hayes Lake State Park 58 29. Hill Annex Mine State Park 60 30. Interstate State Park 62 31. Itasca State Park 64 32. Jay Cooke State Park 66 33. John A. Latsch State Park 68 34. Judge C.R. Magney State Park 70 1 35. Kilen Woods State Park 72 36. Lac qui Parle State Park 74 37. Lake Bemidji State Park 76 38. Lake Bronson State Park 78 39. Lake Carlos State Park 80 40. Lake Louise State Park 82 41. Lake Maria State Park 84 42. Lake Shetek State Park 86 43. -
A Description of Northern Minnesota, by a Fur-Trader in 1807
NOTES AND DOCUMENTS A DESCRIPTION OF NORTHERN MINNESOTA BY A FUR-TRADER IN 1807 Contemporary descriptions of northern Minnesota before 1810 — even published accounts—are so rare that they may be counted on one's fingers. Therefore, when the document printed below was found among the Masson Papers in the library of McGill University, its value was immediately appar ent. Though portions of it have been quoted in two well- known studies of the Northwest, the manuscript as a whole has remained in obscurity.1 From its century of oblivion it is now recalled and given the publicity it deserves as an unusually detailed picture of northern Minnesota under the regime of the Northwest Company. ' The account was written at the request of Roderic McKen- zie, a prominent bourgeois, or partner, of the Northwest Com pany, who contemplated writing a history of the company. To secure the requisite data, in 1806 he sent printed circulars to many of the wintering partners and clerks, requesting them to collect and send him, in the form of letters or journals, such information as they could obtain on the regions and natives with which they were most intimately connected. 2 To George Henry Monk, Jr., McKenzie sent one of these circulars. The letter printed below is the reply. Whether the description of the region was sent with the letter or a little later does not appear, though the two could not have been widely separated in point of time. Our information concern ing Monk is scanty enough. At the time of the writing of this 1 Gordon C. -
Tettegouche State Park Visitor Center and Mndot Class 1 Safety Rest Area
Tettegouche State Park Visitor Center and MnDOT Class 1 Safety Rest Area Highlights The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the Minnesota Department of Transportation are pleased to present the new Tettegouche State Park Visitor Center and Class 1 Safety Rest Area. The shared facility includes a new building, parking facilities and site amenities to complement the natural setting of the landscape. The new site design improves pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular circulation. Building and Grounds: • 11,000-square-foot, fully accessible space (similar in size to the Interpretive Center at Gooseberry Falls State Park) and meets current safety standards. • Expanded restroom facilities open 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. • 750-square-foot exhibit space with interpretive panels to help visitors learn about the historical and cultural significance of the area. • Amphitheater. • Gift shop, open area picnic shelter, lakeside patio, and enclosed front porch. • Meeting spaces and multi-purpose room for interpretive programming, as well as community meetings and functions. • Rain garden and storm water management improvements. Energy and Landscape Features: • 24.3 KW photovoltaic array (which is expected to generate 36% of the building’s energy needs). • Energy efficient building design made with sustainable forest products, high efficiency windows, and structural insulated panel (SIP) walls and roof. LED lighting and high-efficiency fixtures are employed throughout the building, parking lots and entrance drive. Safety and Usage: • In 1986, Tettegouche became the first combined state park and safety rest area in the state. It was followed by a partnership at Gooseberry Falls State Park in 1996, and then a similar facility at Grand Portage State Park in 2010. -
Petition to List US Populations of Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser Fulvescens)
Petition to List U.S. Populations of Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) as Endangered or Threatened under the Endangered Species Act May 14, 2018 NOTICE OF PETITION Submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on May 14, 2018: Gary Frazer, USFWS Assistant Director, [email protected] Charles Traxler, Assistant Regional Director, Region 3, [email protected] Georgia Parham, Endangered Species, Region 3, [email protected] Mike Oetker, Deputy Regional Director, Region 4, [email protected] Allan Brown, Assistant Regional Director, Region 4, [email protected] Wendi Weber, Regional Director, Region 5, [email protected] Deborah Rocque, Deputy Regional Director, Region 5, [email protected] Noreen Walsh, Regional Director, Region 6, [email protected] Matt Hogan, Deputy Regional Director, Region 6, [email protected] Petitioner Center for Biological Diversity formally requests that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”) list the lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) in the United States as a threatened species under the federal Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C. §§1531-1544. Alternatively, the Center requests that the USFWS define and list distinct population segments of lake sturgeon in the U.S. as threatened or endangered. Lake sturgeon populations in Minnesota, Lake Superior, Missouri River, Ohio River, Arkansas-White River and lower Mississippi River may warrant endangered status. Lake sturgeon populations in Lake Michigan and the upper Mississippi River basin may warrant threatened status. Lake sturgeon in the central and eastern Great Lakes (Lake Huron, Lake Erie, Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River basin) seem to be part of a larger population that is more widespread.