Skokomish Tribe is Suing the State

[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