By the way, agreements CAN be modified. Of course, modifying the ceded territory agreement would necessitate a willingness on the part of BOTH parties to the agreement (the affected Indians and the U.S. Government).

On the other hand if an interested party on one side continually refers to the other side as "crooks, spiteful bistads, underserving lowlifes, rotten conspirators" and other distasteful terms, that other side might not EVER be inclined to sit down to negotiate a possible and "reasonable" change to the current, age-old ceded territory agreement. A modification that could possibly even result in a "win-win" change that could be beneficial for both sides.

Going to "war" by boycotting casinos and spewing forth vitriolic accusations is certainly NOT conducive to ever realizing a change to the status quo. I don't think that such mudslinging will cause the affected Indians to beg the Government to negotiate a change to the ceded territory agreement. If anything, it'll probaby stiffen their resolve to absolutely NEVER agree to any such change. As tough as it might be to do so, perhaps we should tone down the rhetoric a bit. It should be apparent that it's only counter-productive. I fully support the right of everyone to express their own opinion in their own way. But it might behoove us to examine the effect that such expressions might have on the situation. Is what we're about to say REALLy beneficial? Of is it just tossing another log onto the fire?

By the way, the fact that TFF wasn't here when the agreement was made is immaterial. After all, it must be remembered that none of the walleyes swimming around today were here back then, either. The agreement did NOT apply only to the waters or the fish that were in existence at that time. The agreement goes on ad infinitim. There is no "time limit" or expiration date.