Tribal hunting bills introduced

[huntnphool]

Make sure you get your spouses to send them as well.

[BOWHUNTER45]

Done ... but I seriously think we should add Polls to these type topics...Would be nice to know who is doing what 

[Harborhunter]

Just sent in a few responses.  Opposed to both.  It is time we are all on the same playing field. 

[ICEMAN]

Ya know one thing I have to say is why do some people post stuff on here saying they seen this and that in a back of a truck ...sorry but I have to say that is BS ! Why even go their when you have no idea who it was or any evidence of anyone committing a crime  Just peeses me off 

Pictures are not a requirement to post what someone has seen...

[lil_red_wagon]

Ya post them ! And e mail them... Heck send me a pic

[washelkhunter]

Im all for so-called first nations enjoying their so-called rights just like it was back in the good ole days. You can fish, hunt, trap, roam whatever. But you have to do so exactly as they were back in 1804. No modern contrivances whatsoever. No boats, no nylon nets, no 2x4's for platforms, no firearms, no motors, no trucks, no guns, no steel. Be the heritage. Show US the WAY.

A Solutrean. Live It!

[Time Immemorial]

I dont know why these bills even need to be brought up, maybe to help you all understand them better, can already do what they say without needing this

[Time Immemorial]

Im all for so-called first nations enjoying their so-called rights just like it was back in the good ole days. You can fish, hunt, trap, roam whatever. But you have to do so exactly as they were back in 1804. No modern contrivances whatsoever. No boats, no nylon nets, no 2x4's for platforms, no firearms, no motors, no trucks, no guns, no steel. Be the heritage. Show US the WAY.

A Solutrean. Live It!

When y'all go back to covered wagons an muskets

[lokidog]

I hope your not offended by my redux....



Subject:  Please oppose this special privelages bill

Please oppose this bill for the sake of wildlife and equity between all users of Washington's natural resources.

The Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and the DNR close their gates for specific reasons. It enables them protect wildlife from disturbances during times of the year which are stressful to wildlife.  These closures have been determined and are set by the State's own biologists.  They are based on scientific knowledge of the biology and behavior of the animals that they are charged with managing.

The native population in the State of Washington already have longer hunting seasons and less restrictions than the general population.  There is no scientific reason to allow them privileged access to DNR land that has been deemed detrimental by the very agency tasked to manage wildlife, the WDFW.

Please oppose this bill for the sake of wildlife and  to maintain equity between user groups.

 I thank you for taking your time to read this.

Sounds good, email away, EVERYONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[bobcat]

I dont know why these bills even need to be brought up, maybe to help you all understand them better, can already do what they say without needing this

I think it's obvious that the intent is to allow access behind locked gates, by motorized vehicle. No it doesn't specifically say that, but like you said, tribal members already have the right to hunt state land in their ceded area.

This new bill says the state cannot deny access. Which to me means the state cannot put up a gate, or if they do, the tribes will whine about it and demand to be given keys.

Is that not the way you understand it?

[huntnphool]

I dont know why these bills even need to be brought up, maybe to help you all understand them better, can already do what they say without needing this

Its quite simple TI, someone from the tribes brought it up. The reps in the government don't just arbitrarily come up with these things, someone in the tribes is working to fill in a hole in the treaties.

[lokidog]

I dont know why these bills even need to be brought up, maybe to help you all understand them better, can already do what they say without needing this

I think it's obvious that the intent is to allow access behind locked gates, by motorized vehicle. No it doesn't specifically say that, but like you said, tribal members already have the right to hunt state land in their ceded area.

This new bill says the state cannot deny access. Which to me means the state cannot put up a gate, or if they do, the tribes will whine about it and demand to be given keys.

Is that not the way you understand it?

Uh, yeah.....  You know what all you tribal punks that want to take advantage of the system (no offense meant to those of you that appear to be somewhat ethical), the law may allow you to hunt wherever, but walk your butts in there.     I try to be nice and sensitive and understanding and all that, but give me a friggin break, and the wildlife too.  All of you know this is not a good thing for the resource, many just don't seem to care.   

[JM]

I dont know why these bills even need to be brought up, maybe to help you all understand them better, can already do what they say without needing this

Why do you say things like this? I understand why it's important to get all sides on a debate or topic, but I am yet to hear an intelligent retort come from you. It's always negative and probing for another angry response?

[Green broke]

lokidog I'm not here to pick fights but seem to be finding them. You seem to care for our natural resources, I get that. Have you met with bios about concerns of herd management or forest practices? This tribal punk has on numerous occasions and have continued to do so for 20 plus years. Have you gone on to Dnr lands and done clean up? This tribal punk has. Have you volunteered on habitat enhancement? I have. Have you worked on herd augmentation and voluntarily given up right in the name of conservation? This punk/somewhat ethical tribal member has. I don't know you or your contributions to the great outdoors we are trying hard to save for future generations. As for the bills in question the gate keys matters very little to me personally, however I could build an arguement for allowing acess due to the huge difference in the two user groups. the 2nd bill doesn't change too many things as far as i can see. The state should still take precidence when its a saftey issue. The tribes already have jurisdiction of their own members within the ceded lands.

[Green broke]

I dont know why these bills even need to be brought up, maybe to help you all understand them better, can already do what they say without needing this

I think it's obvious that the intent is to allow access behind locked gates, by motorized vehicle. No it doesn't specifically say that, but like you said, tribal members already have the right to hunt state land in their ceded area.

This new bill says the state cannot deny access. Which to me means the state cannot put up a gate, or if they do, the tribes will whine about it and demand to be given keys.

Is that not the way you understand it?

Uh, yeah.....  You know what all you tribal punks that want to take advantage of the system (no offense meant to those of you that appear to be somewhat ethical), the law may allow you to hunt wherever, but walk your butts in there.     I try to be nice and sensitive and understanding and all that, but give me a friggin break, and the wildlife too.  All of you know this is not a good thing for the resource, many just don't seem to care.   

    By the way offense taken.....