Skokomish Tribe is Suing the State

[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.