Skokomish Tribe is Suing the State

[bobcat]

I'm wondering if anyone might know more about this. Why are they doing it and what do they stand to gain?

I can't fathom how the state has been interfering with their right to hunt? Could this just be another way for them to get access to all gated state lands?

This is all the information that I have seen:

The Skokomish Tribe has initiated litigation against the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Governor, the Attorney General, and several county prosecutors.  This litigation alleges interference with tribal hunting and gathering rights.

[bigtex]

Could this just be another way for them to get access to all gated state lands?

This is all the information that I have seen:

The Skokomish Tribe has initiated litigation against the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Governor, the Attorney General, and several county prosecutors.  This litigation alleges interference with tribal hunting and gathering rights.

At the hearing for tribal access and enforcement the DNR rep could not comment on much of the bill because of this lawsuit.

[trophyhunt]

I have not heard about this, but I believe it. They will probably get what they want, our government bends over backwards for the tribes and they are scared to death to say NO to them. 

[bigtex]

They will probably get what they want, our government bends over backwards for the tribes and they are scared to death to say NO to them. 

You want to see a state that "gave up" look at Colorado. Just learned about the "Brunot" hunting deal. Basically the Ute Indian tribe in SW Colorado was going to sue Colorado for off-rez rights. Colorado said it would cost too much and made a deal, covering a huge area in SW CO. This year Colorado Parks and Wildlife modified the deal and expanded tribal rights to mountain goats, waterfowl, and fishing.

[bobcat]

I'm hoping there is a tribal member on here who would be willing to share what this is all about.

I'm getting to the point where I'm going to have to side with what many others on this site have been saying- it's time to get the heck out of this state.

[bobcat]

I have not heard about this, but I believe it. They will probably get what they want, our government bends over backwards for the tribes and they are scared to death to say NO to them. 

I agree.

[Gamblin Guy]

Here ya go bobcat....this is an older article but it is still relevant and give you a clue as to where the tribes want to go.....

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20061022/NEWS01/610220769/0/SEARCH

[bobcat]

It says the article is no longer available.   

[cougarbart]

i just read it bobcat! try again!

[Gamblin Guy]

Came up for me on a search, it's from the Everett Herald http://www.heraldnet.com/

Do a search for Tulalip Tribes and greater clout or "habitat claim" and it should come up for you.

Here's a part of the article....

To the treaty tribes - today's Tulalip, Stillaguamish, Lummi, Swinomish and others - the 1855 pact signed by Mukilteo's shore tells everyone what belongs to them forever.

People still debate the treaty's Indian fishing rights and fight over property lines. They argue with tribal police over their authority, and over whether non-Indians can build docks in Tulalip Bay.

The tribes are taking the next step.

Now, they say the 151-year-old treaty guarantees their world patent rights on native trees, flowers, shrubs and even weeds - the DNA of every plant that naturally grows here.

If that's true, the tribes could gain trademark control over all future use of native plants.

Tribal permission would be needed for pharmaceutical companies and other businesses to use the plants to make medicine, cosmetics or even herbal tea.

[Curly]

And some people were wondering why there are those of us that won't patronize a tribal establishment.  It is stuff like this that causes us to not want to set foot in a tribal casino, gas station, or amusement park.

[h2ofowlr]

This lawsuit is a joke.  Someone just needs to tell these guys no!

[Coastal_native]

Inevitable...

[bearpaw]

I heard it's for access into any unclaimed lands! 

[bobcat]

I heard it's for access into any unclaimed lands! 

What kind of access? The kind where they get keys to all the gates and get to drive in? If not that, then what is the point? They already have access just like we all do. Park at the gate and walk.

[snowpack]

Would that mean half of all timber harvest on open/unclaimed land?

[haus]

I'm wondering if anyone might know more about this. Why are they doing it and what do they stand to gain?

I can't fathom how the state has been interfering with their right to hunt? Could this just be another way for them to get access to all gated state lands?

It hasn't, and yes.

[bearpaw]

I think they want access through gates.

The tribes have their favorite legislators sponsoring legislation too.

I will have to ask around and see if this is the correct info.

[bearpaw]

http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,117085.msg1563812/topicseen.html#new

HOUSE BILL 1495
_____________________________________________
State of Washington 63rd Legislature 2013 Regular Session
By Representatives Sawyer, Liias, McCoy, Fey, Hunt, Riccelli,
Appleton, Santos, Dunshee, and Stanford
1 AN ACT Relating to access of tribal members to state lands; and
2 adding a new section to chapter 79.10 RCW.
3 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
4 NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. A new section is added to chapter 79.10 RCW
5 to read as follows:
6 The closure of any state lands, including any roads, maintained by
7 the department shall not restrict access by any member of a federally
8 recognized tribe to any open and unclaimed lands where the tribe has a
9 treaty right to hunt.

HOUSE BILL 1496
_____________________________________________
State of Washington 63rd Legislature 2013 Regular Session
By Representatives Sawyer, McCoy, Hunt, Appleton, Santos, Liias,
Riccelli, Dunshee, and Stanford
1 AN ACT Relating to hunting-related enforcement actions involving
2 tribal members; and adding a new section to chapter 77.15 RCW.
3 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
4 NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. A new section is added to chapter 77.15 RCW
5 to read as follows:
6 Upon presentation of a tribal identification card by a member of a
7 federally recognized tribe to a fish and wildlife officer or ex officio
8 fish and wildlife officer, the officer must immediately refer any
9 inspection, investigation, or other enforcement action related to the
10 hunting activity of the tribal member to the enforcement authority of
11 the tribe, if the activity occurred on any open and unclaimed lands
12 where the tribe has a treaty right to hunt.

[6x6in6]

I think bobcat was referencing litigation, not legislation Dale. 
But, close enough.   

[bobcat]

I think bobcat was referencing litigation, not legislation Dale. 
But, close enough.   

Yes that's correct. They are suing the state. But for what? That I don't know. But it has to do with access to state land.

[npaull]

Are they suing for motorized access to gated, non-tribal land? Because that would be beyond BS...

[Coastal_native]

I think bobcat was referencing litigation, not legislation Dale. 
But, close enough.   

Yes that's correct. They are suing the state. But for what? That I don't know. But it has to do with access to state land.

Why don't you just read the court documents? 

[bobcat]

I think bobcat was referencing litigation, not legislation Dale. 
But, close enough.   

Yes that's correct. They are suing the state. But for what? That I don't know. But it has to do with access to state land.

Why don't you just read the court documents?

I wouldn't know how or where to get a hold of that.

Do you?

[PolarBear]

As someone who grew up in Shelton and knew many of the Skoks, I can tell you that they are some of the biggest poachers of fish and wildlife of any tribe in Western WA!  I personally have caught members of the Skok tribe slaughtering numerous elk on several occasions, turned them in to the WDFW which turned the cases over to the Tribal Council which dropped the every single case!!!  They are notorious for killing thousands of salmon solely for the eggs and leaving the carcasses in piles in the bay or side roads on the rez.  As far as I am concerned the Skoks should lose all of their hunting and fishing "rights!

[Coastal_native]

I think bobcat was referencing litigation, not legislation Dale. 
But, close enough.   

Yes that's correct. They are suing the state. But for what? That I don't know. But it has to do with access to state land.

Why don't you just read the court documents?

I wouldn't know how or where to get a hold of that.

Do you?

How bad do you want to see them?

It's public record, I'm sure someone will breakdown and request them...and probably pay a fee.  The lawsuit is far more complex then vehicle access.  I don't think the word vehicle was even used once in the 41 page pleading, but I might've skimmed over it.

[bearpaw]

I think bobcat was referencing litigation, not legislation Dale. 
But, close enough.   

Yes that's correct. They are suing the state. But for what? That I don't know. But it has to do with access to state land.

Sorry, I meant to infer that I think they are working two angles, the courts and the legislature at the same time.

[Hunter4Life]

This is about hunting on state lands, but the right to hunt was given by treaty before Washington ever became a state and treaty rights supercede state law.  The state will capitulate beforfe this ever gets to court.  The tribes + court system = bad news for hunters.   

This will go to federal court since Section I, Article 8 gives the federal government the responsibility for dealing with tribal affairs:

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

The Skokomishs will claim the state is interfering with their treaty rights and it will go in front of a left-wing federal district judge whose appointment was suggested by Murray or Cantwell.  What chance do we have?  In this case capitulation is most likely the best answer.  Going through to a decision will make things worse.

[Curly]

I always wonder why there is so little contention and conflict between tribes and non-tribal people in other states?  I never hear about any issues in Oregon or New Mexico for example.......

[Practical Approach]

I always wonder why there is so little contention and conflict between tribes and non-tribal people in other states?  I never hear about any issues in Oregon or New Mexico for example.......

Pretty sure that in states where tribes can only hunt on their reservations, there is less contention.  Simply because tribal and non-tribal hunters are not competing for a resource.  In Washington, most tribes have off reservation hunting rights that put tribal and non-tribal hunters in competition for the same resource. 

[uplandhunter870]

I always wonder why there is so little contention and conflict between tribes and non-tribal people in other states?  I never hear about any issues in Oregon or New Mexico for example.......

Pretty sure that in states where tribes can only hunt on their reservations, there is less contention.  Simply because tribal and non-tribal hunters are not competing for a resource.  In Washington, most tribes have off reservation hunting rights that put tribal and non-tribal hunters in competition for the same resource.

im pretty sure here in Montana natives can only hunt via treaty rights on the reservation, once they step off its play by the state's rules, of course i may be wrong if so someone correct me.

if this suit is simply about access i dont see how the tribe has a leg to stand on. the state doesnt bar them access they simply gate the roads to keep vehicles out. now if those two tribal hunting bills passed that were brought up on here a little while back then i can see how some forked silked tongued politician can twist the definitions of words around to claim that the gates are an impedance of tribal access and hunting rights

[Curly]

That makes sense.  But then my question is why is this state different where the tribes have off reservation hunting rights?  Why did the Feds give the tribes in this state rights that other tribes didn't get?  Were the tribes in this state that much shrewder of negotiators? 

[uplandhunter870]

That makes sense.  But then my question is why is this state different where the tribes have off reservation hunting rights?  Why did the Feds give the tribes in this state rights that other tribes didn't get?  Were the tribes in this state that much shrewder of negotiators? 

not really, it all depends on how the treaty with the individual tribe reads. if you look at most of the washington tribal treaties they are all pretty much the same cookie cutter format with a few minor differences. but most if not all of the treaties in washington have a clause that essentially states (im paraphrasing) that the tribes retain the right to hunt and fish and retain the right to hunt and fish at tradition and accustomed locations. with that clause if the tribe can prove that location x was a historical hunting or fishing location they get to hunt or fish there. also during the time of the treaties the current states of washington oregon and idaho were i such a rush to get land acquired and get people moved in to meet the incorporation population requirements in order to pursue being granted statehood that many of the washington treaties were signed by multiple tribes like the treaty of point no point there were many tribes that signed that single treaty. there are very few if any tribe specific treaties in washington

im not 100% sure how non-washington tribal treaties read as the majority of treaties that ive read only pertain to washington tribes.

[blackdog]

The Skokomish lawsuit if successful with allow them to hunt anywhere in the State on open and unclaimed lands including southwest Washington Counties such as Pacific and Wahkiakum where no Stevens treaty rights currently are recognized.

[grundy53]

Hope they are not successful... don't want their hunting practices inflicted on pacific county...

[PolarBear]

If they do what they have done to parts of Mason County, you can kiss your elk herds goodbye!

[Hunter4Life]

That makes sense.  But then my question is why is this state different where the tribes have off reservation hunting rights?  Why did the Feds give the tribes in this state rights that other tribes didn't get?  Were the tribes in this state that much shrewder of negotiators? 

not really, it all depends on how the treaty with the individual tribe reads. if you look at most of the washington tribal treaties they are all pretty much the same cookie cutter format with a few minor differences. but most if not all of the treaties in washington have a clause that essentially states (im paraphrasing) that the tribes retain the right to hunt and fish and retain the right to hunt and fish at tradition and accustomed locations. with that clause if the tribe can prove that location x was a historical hunting or fishing location they get to hunt or fish there. also during the time of the treaties the current states of washington oregon and idaho were i such a rush to get land acquired and get people moved in to meet the incorporation population requirements in order to pursue being granted statehood that many of the washington treaties were signed by multiple tribes like the treaty of point no point there were many tribes that signed that single treaty. there are very few if any tribe specific treaties in washington

im not 100% sure how non-washington tribal treaties read as the majority of treaties that ive read only pertain to washington tribes.

Uplandhunter870, you are absolutely correct that almost all the treaties with Washington tribes are pretty much of the same cookie cutter variety.  Other states don't have these problems because Isaac Stevens didn't negotiate the treaties with their local tribes.   The problem with these cookie cutter treaties is they were often vague and then later were interpreted by the courts.  Not all treaties did give the tribes treaty hunting rights.  My fear if this goes to court we could have another Boldt Decision.  The treaty terms agrued in Boldt was the tribes could "fish in common with" and a left-wing judge interpreted that as a 50% allocation.  The Skokomish tribe do not have ceded rights on where they claim, but who knows what a bleeding heart federal judge whose appointment was suggested by Murray or Cantwell rule on this case?   

[bigbeamhunter]

They should only be Ble to use the tools they had at the time of the treaty canoes for fishing bows for hunting no guns no motorized vehicles  I don't know if this is in the treaty but was told that there is a line where it states something about if there are more than three natives together it would be consider a war party and could be dealt with in a certain way I don't want to write down 
I drive across the dalles bridge everyday a d look at the mess these people leave as far as lumber for there platforms and other garbage all over the bank
 But if I did it I'd be ticketed or jailed