Vehicle Passes

[lucky420]

Mmmmmm yeah, No the Tribe does not have the power to shut down/regulate the highway.

[digital]

Mmmmmm yeah, No the Tribe does not have the power to shut down/regulate the highway.

They can, however, refuse to sell you tacos.... Something almost as tragic as shutting down the highway.

[BBadger]

Really, why would anyone expect Native American tribe "sovereignty", as defined by Uncle Sam, to be anything other than all of the responsibilities but without any of the benefits?

[trilobyte]

No, the tribe does not get a piece of the administrative fee on Vehicle Passes, just as they don't get a piece of the administrative fees on event tickets. Speaking personally, that makes perfect sense since the tribe has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with administering the sale of either ticket.

If you've got a question about or issue with the fees or particulars of the ticket process, please visit the link in my signature and contact the ticket team with your issue.

[unjonharley]

Is a "vehicle pass" so kind of an enema or laxative?

[FIGJAM]

Only to those who love them.

[ygmir]

Really, why would anyone expect Native American tribe "sovereignty", as defined by Uncle Sam, to be anything other than all of the responsibilities but without any of the benefits?

you think the tribe gets no federal benefits?......huh?.


and no, the event is not on tribal land.
access is across open highway right of way.
yup, they can give speeding and other tickets.
they also get a lot of "stuff" directly from the ORG. in the form of donations and black rock solar and other things.

I'd say the event benefits them, far over and above any "harm" or "inconvenience" that lasts a month or maybe two, at it's height"

This is not a statement/commentary relating to Europeans taking over North America and winning "the war" and any mistreatment and such having taken place, across the board, socially or otherwise.

[DrScott626]

READ: BLM Permit Stipulations
http://www.burningman.com/media/doc/pdf ... ations.pdf
Page 8
Part 39/40

[DrScott626]

SR 447 is under PLPT control and "right of way" rules. 25 CFR § 169.
PLPT is a Sovereign Nation

[gaminwench]

You are telling this to the wrong people.
We do not organize or administrate the event.
We are participants, not the bureaucracy.
Please contact the BMorg with your concerns.

[TT120]

^^^^^^^ AGREED!

[FossaFerox]

That road is absolutely not under tribal control. It was built with state and federal money and an easement exists in perpetuity.

The section in the BM permit says that they'll promote your recycling and trash collecting services and raise awareness about road safety, leave no trace, etc. The tribe does not have the power to close the road or impose a toll and does not have the power to stop the event from taking place. Also, we're not the ones to talk to if you have a problem with any of that, but at the end of the day facts are facts.

[theCryptofishist]

That was last year's permit, so it was already the case, and no one seems to have been inconvenienced by it. I would not be surprised if clauses like that had been in earlier permits as well.
If the concern is the dignity of the tribal members taking the garbage, I hope that those who are involved with that exchange monitor their own levels of feeling exploited. My guess is that there is a range of opinions on this within the tribal population, and that many like the economic benefits. I know that reservations are places of poverty, and I don't agree that this is just and right, but I also expect that just like people elsewhere in the country (and world), whatever the particular economic conditions, the Paiutes make their own decisions on these matters. I am not certain why you have chosen to speak on their behalf, and I would like to know what your credentials are to do this.

[General Disorder]

Sounds like DrScott needs to spend some wigwam or sweatlodge time with his tribal elders, then contact the U.S. Government Bureau of Indian Affairs to understand what 25 CFR 169 means, along with the original 1864 treaty document that set aside land for the current residents.

[theCryptofishist]

And I expect that it's the county's road, not Pyramid Lake's.

[GreyCoyote]

First of all, while the Tribe may view itself as a "sovereign nation", it does not actually own its lands. All indian lands, and individually-held lands on a reservation, are held in trust for the tribe by the federal government. See 25CFR169.1(b) and 25CFR169.1(d). So forget the idea the Tribe gets to do what it wants with "its" land. The tribe can do somewhat what it wants, as long as it stays within it's own boundaries, and to a limited extent "governs" only its own people (who have to sign-up for it), but that right is very fickle in the courts and it doesn't impact the rest of us. In other words, the Tribe gets exactly as much leash as the Feds want to give them, and that isnt much. The Indians, like the rest of us, are stuck with this. First, last, and always, they are denizens on US soil, pinned under the red, white and blue boot-heel of Uncle Sam.

Next, 25CFR169 deals with exactly what it says it deals with: "RIGHTS-OF-WAY OVER INDIAN LANDS". A right-of-way is a legal mechanism used to convey use of "tribal" lands for purposes not originally intended or foreseeable by the landholder. The right-of-way we are discussing here (SH447) has ALREADY BEEN CONVEYED. Control has already been transferred to the state Gov'ment and away from the Tribe. The tribe agreed to this when they agreed to grant the right-of-way. No Indian-giving, either, Kids. Once it's done, you can't just "take it back" because you had a bad hair day at the roadside recycling center. So the possibility of the Tribe shutting-down this road to John Q. Burner are exactly nil. There are only two ways for them to get control back: 1). The state and/or feds can abandon the road for a period of 2 years, and thereafter the Tribe can apply to take it back for their private use, or, 2). The state/feds can decide the tribe isn't holding-up their end of whatever bargain they made and, with 30 days notice, the Gov't can throw the whole thing back at them and say "we quit".

Remember that whole "sovereign nation" thingie"? We have learned that the indian's don't really own their own land, and the owner-in-fact (Uncle Sam) is free to give it away to whomever it wants. Ouch.

But lets for the sake of argument say the Tribe does manage to "take it back" because they got pissed at some 'Burners. What can Uncle Sam do? Everything. There are two huge loopholes.

The first loophole is 169(3)(c)(5) which reads: [If] the owners of interests in the land are so numerous that the Secretary finds it would be impracticable to obtain their consent, and also finds that the grant will cause no substantial injury to the land or any owner thereof. All of these "numerous interests" rather nicely define a "tribe", and this provision has been used time and again to regain legal control of a disputed resource.

The second loophole is found in 25CFR169.15, "Action on application" which reads: Upon satisfactory compliance with the regulations in this part, the Secretary is authorized to grant the right-of-way by issuance of a conveyance instrument in the form approved by the Secretary. The practical effect of this is to remind the Tribe they are little more than guests upon the land, and they don't really own or control "their" land. If the Secretary of the Interior wants to do something with "their" land, then it happens. And this has happened many of times.

Perhaps this will serve to remind the misinformed Dr. that the rules pertaining to Indian "sovereignty" are very heavily slanted in favor of Uncle Sam, just same as the rules for everyone else are slanted in favor of Uncle Sam. Translated for clarity: Just because you're an Indian doesn't mean you get much in the way of special treatment. Stand in the way of "progress" (or corporate greed, or political agendas) and you're toast, just like everyone else.

The astute will notice that I never stepped-foot outside of 25CFR169. Dr. Scott seems to cite this section as providing indian "rights". Nothing could be further from the truth. This section of the law isn't about expanding Indian rights. On the contrary, it's a deliberate effort to limit Indian rights. If you want some real zingers about how fickle that precious Indian "sovereignty" is, and how fast they will strip you of it when you don't play nice, a quick trip down case law lane will show you who really wins when Uncle Sam gets pissy. Example: the Dept of the Interior took-over the Timbisha Shoshone tribal govt and threw-out their tribal constitution. Yes, really. Then they installed their own leadership and claimed the right to determine who was a clansman and how the tribe would be governed internally. Google it.

Closing a State Highway just ain't gonna happen. At least, not for long...

[trilobyte]

Dr. Scott - as I advised via private message, the place to address your concerns would be with your/your spouse's tribal leaders, who have a long-term, on-going, and healthy relationship with Burning Man. Talk to them, perhaps they can provide you and your spouse with information and education about any agreements or arrangements, and properly address any concerns that you and your spouse may have.

That said, I'm closing this thread. The initial topic of Vehicle Passes has long since been beaten to death, and this new drift (of tribe members wanting a piece of vehicle pass revenues) has also been taken as far as it can go on this board. No amount of repeating yourself or citing documents from previous years' events on this board will change the existing, current, and future agreements. Continuing to beat it to death here will only serve to reinforce negative stereotypes and animosity on both sides of the agreement, and I don't think that will help anyone's cause.

Take your issue up with the tribe's leadership, and they can work with Burning Man, NVDOT, and the BLM as necessary - as they've done for many years.