Free: Contests & Raffles.
From the Penninsula News article"Anderson said he expects the agreement will result in 15-25 more hunters in the three game management units."So the questions are. How many of those hunters will be hunting for multiple families? How many of the harvested animals will be cows?2012 elk harvest totals for the 3 GMUs. Total for the units is 81 bulls. This is non native hunting. Would be interesting to know tribal harvest in the 3 GMUs in 2012. Then we could see if the resource can handle the added harvest. Would also be interesting to know what WDFW expected the 3 tribes to harvest.602 - DICKEY - PMU 66Archery 0 7 7 0 0 3 1 0 3 43 16.3% 191 27.3Modern Firearms 0 11 11 0 0 0 8 1 2 212 5.2% 866 78.7Multiple Weapons 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0% 6 0Muzzleloader 0 9 9 0 0 0 4 5 0 69 13% 288 32TOTALS 0 27 27 0 0 3 13 6 5 n/a n/a n/a n/a603 - PYSHT - PMU 66Archery 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 0% 223 0Modern Firearms 0 7 7 0 0 0 3 1 3 79 8.9% 299 42.7Multiple Weapons 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 100% 1 1Muzzleloader 0 6 6 0 0 0 3 3 0 27 22.2% 105 17.5TOTALS 0 14 14 0 0 0 6 5 3 n/a n/a n/a n/a607 - SOL DUC - PMU 65Archery 0 8 8 0 0 3 0 3 2 62 12.9% 345 43.1Modern Firearms 0 9 9 0 0 1 6 0 2 219 4.1% 922 102.4Multiple Weapons 0 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 4 50% 18 9Muzzleloader 0 21 21 0 0 3 5 11 2 127 16.5% 523 24.9TOTALS 0 40 40 0 0 7 12 14 7 n/a n/a n/a n/a
http://www.jamestowntribe.org/govdocs/gov_treaty.htm Now I see fishing specifically mentioned but where am I missing hunting?
Dear Director Anderson and Regional Director Culver,Can you please tell me if there's any truth to this report from the Quileute Nation's newspaper and if so, which tribes are involved in the expansion of tribal hunting rights and access on the peninsula. Read here: http://www.quileutenation.org/component/content/article/11-general/106-wdfw-front-pageI've read nothing about this in the flashes I receive from you guys and I've seen nothing legislatively that includes this. If the report is true, please cite the treaty or state legislation that required or authorized this expansion, or the reason that it was dictated by sound game management principles. Thanks very much for your help with this.John W.
Somebody call the waambulance !I am a firm believer that only a few "natives" abuse their privilege, but if we (non native) have no jurisdiction, or any control over "treaty rights" then why get upset about tribal issues.Maybe if a few of those offenders piss off the majority of non offenders, some laws will get passed that will have an effect on the ability to reduce the abuses in other areas of the state.When it begins to affect their own "privilege" QuoteThe Stevens Treaties say that the tribes have a “right” to fish and a “privilege” to hunt. While distinctions have often been made between rights and privileges in other legal contexts, both state and federal courts have determined that the two terms should be construed as equivalent in the context of Indian treaties. The Washington Supreme Court directly addressed this issue in State v. Miller in 1984, when the court held that there cannot be a distinction between the words “right” and “privilege” when interpreting treaties between Indians and the federal government. Maybe they will take into consideration the impact of off-reservation hunting rights in other areas of the state, and actually start policing their own...Again, I know it is only a minority that abuses, but with no fear of reprisal, it will not stop.QuoteThe courts have created a narrow exception to the general rule that state regulation of tribal treaty hunters is preempted by the treaties. This exception applies in situations where the state is regulating the fishing or hunting of a particular species in order to conserve that species. That rule in itself allows for restrictions, as according to the WDFW and the state- Conservation means "Wise use" and "controlled hunting" so according to their own verbage, STATE regulation would preempt tribal in game management units.I think they should just lock the gates, let them walk in if they are going to hunt.Access fees in Pysht, and the already low harvest in these units should keep most troubles located in areas of high visibility herds, usually located on and near private property.Washington Supreme Court stated that private property is not “open and unclaimed,” but a tribal hunter may not be convicted unless such private property has outward indications of private ownership observable by a reasonable person. I bet sales of "No Trespassing" signs go through the roof !
The Stevens Treaties say that the tribes have a “right” to fish and a “privilege” to hunt. While distinctions have often been made between rights and privileges in other legal contexts, both state and federal courts have determined that the two terms should be construed as equivalent in the context of Indian treaties. The Washington Supreme Court directly addressed this issue in State v. Miller in 1984, when the court held that there cannot be a distinction between the words “right” and “privilege” when interpreting treaties between Indians and the federal government.
The courts have created a narrow exception to the general rule that state regulation of tribal treaty hunters is preempted by the treaties. This exception applies in situations where the state is regulating the fishing or hunting of a particular species in order to conserve that species.
Remember folks the tribes set the rules. Our game department just agree's with them. At our exspens.
Quote from: STIKNSTRINGBOW on February 10, 2014, 10:26:55 AMSomebody call the waambulance !I am a firm believer that only a few "natives" abuse their privilege, but if we (non native) have no jurisdiction, or any control over "treaty rights" then why get upset about tribal issues.Maybe if a few of those offenders piss off the majority of non offenders, some laws will get passed that will have an effect on the ability to reduce the abuses in other areas of the state.When it begins to affect their own "privilege" QuoteThe Stevens Treaties say that the tribes have a “right” to fish and a “privilege” to hunt. While distinctions have often been made between rights and privileges in other legal contexts, both state and federal courts have determined that the two terms should be construed as equivalent in the context of Indian treaties. The Washington Supreme Court directly addressed this issue in State v. Miller in 1984, when the court held that there cannot be a distinction between the words “right” and “privilege” when interpreting treaties between Indians and the federal government. Maybe they will take into consideration the impact of off-reservation hunting rights in other areas of the state, and actually start policing their own...Again, I know it is only a minority that abuses, but with no fear of reprisal, it will not stop.QuoteThe courts have created a narrow exception to the general rule that state regulation of tribal treaty hunters is preempted by the treaties. This exception applies in situations where the state is regulating the fishing or hunting of a particular species in order to conserve that species. That rule in itself allows for restrictions, as according to the WDFW and the state- Conservation means "Wise use" and "controlled hunting" so according to their own verbage, STATE regulation would preempt tribal in game management units.I think they should just lock the gates, let them walk in if they are going to hunt.Access fees in Pysht, and the already low harvest in these units should keep most troubles located in areas of high visibility herds, usually located on and near private property.Washington Supreme Court stated that private property is not “open and unclaimed,” but a tribal hunter may not be convicted unless such private property has outward indications of private ownership observable by a reasonable person. I bet sales of "No Trespassing" signs go through the roof ! Anyone Who Shoots More Than One Animal A Year Is Abusing Their Rights, Except Of Course Damage Control Areas Where There Are Problems. I Doubt Any Of Those Areas Have problems
Now, he just promoted another buddy, from inside his own office, to the region 4 captain position; Alan Myers (who also has supervised a whopping one single officer in his career).
Quote from: sled on February 10, 2014, 04:35:31 PMQuote from: STIKNSTRINGBOW on February 10, 2014, 10:26:55 AMSomebody call the waambulance !I am a firm believer that only a few "natives" abuse their privilege, but if we (non native) have no jurisdiction, or any control over "treaty rights" then why get upset about tribal issues.Maybe if a few of those offenders piss off the majority of non offenders, some laws will get passed that will have an effect on the ability to reduce the abuses in other areas of the state.When it begins to affect their own "privilege" QuoteThe Stevens Treaties say that the tribes have a “right” to fish and a “privilege” to hunt. While distinctions have often been made between rights and privileges in other legal contexts, both state and federal courts have determined that the two terms should be construed as equivalent in the context of Indian treaties. The Washington Supreme Court directly addressed this issue in State v. Miller in 1984, when the court held that there cannot be a distinction between the words “right” and “privilege” when interpreting treaties between Indians and the federal government. Maybe they will take into consideration the impact of off-reservation hunting rights in other areas of the state, and actually start policing their own...Again, I know it is only a minority that abuses, but with no fear of reprisal, it will not stop.QuoteThe courts have created a narrow exception to the general rule that state regulation of tribal treaty hunters is preempted by the treaties. This exception applies in situations where the state is regulating the fishing or hunting of a particular species in order to conserve that species. That rule in itself allows for restrictions, as according to the WDFW and the state- Conservation means "Wise use" and "controlled hunting" so according to their own verbage, STATE regulation would preempt tribal in game management units.I think they should just lock the gates, let them walk in if they are going to hunt.Access fees in Pysht, and the already low harvest in these units should keep most troubles located in areas of high visibility herds, usually located on and near private property.Washington Supreme Court stated that private property is not “open and unclaimed,” but a tribal hunter may not be convicted unless such private property has outward indications of private ownership observable by a reasonable person. I bet sales of "No Trespassing" signs go through the roof ! Anyone Who Shoots More Than One Animal A Year Is Abusing Their Rights, Except Of Course Damage Control Areas Where There Are Problems. I Doubt Any Of Those Areas Have problems More than one of the same species I'm assuming you meant? Otherwise I see a lot of abuse on here.
