Local Indians carrying rifles during bow season and hunting deer

[fishunt247]

Shannon,
No problem singling me out, I don't mind. And I said on "some rivers" the Indians do quite a bit. I have seen horrible pictures of nets stretched across the mouths of entire river systems on the westside. I have seen some of the sturgeon caught in Columbia River nets wasted as well. That really sucks, bad. I had rivers like the Klickitat and Yakima in mind. On the Klickitat, one of the few places they practice traditional dipnetting still, the Indians help tag/study the fish, help with the hatchery plants, etc. On the Yakima they are largely responsible for the spring chinook runs, and are helping the WDFW try to restore the steelhead run. And just this summer they fixed the dam to Cle Elum Lake to allow fish passage and planted some 300,000 sockeye smolts there. Don't get me wrong, I know exactly where you are coming from and talking about, but I guess I just think we shouldn't ignore the good things they do too. All people do *censored*ty things no matter what race.

[bobcat]

Well, the indians DO force our government to NOT allow the destruction of samon/steelhead habitat in many cases, and to restore habitat that has been destroyed in the past. They do have that leverage provided by the treaties and sometimes they use it in beneficial ways, that is true. I wish they would take care of the wolf and sea lion problem.

[fishunt247]

I cannot agree more about the wolves and sea lions. The Columbia River tribes were in with the WDFW and others on the legislation to allow the sea lions to be "removed." They should let the Indians hunt them or something, I'm sure they eat them or would have back in the day.

[ElkTipper]

For a little bit of history and a general knowledge base of how the State interprets Tribal Hunting Rights the following is a fairly descent read.  http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/tribal/treaty_history.html

It makes for great press (in the Indians favor ?) when they place their nets across the front of the fish ladder entry way at the Locks here in Seattle.  Posted approximately 20 yards away were the tribal police making sure that their "tribal rights" were not infringed upon.  The emotions were running pretty high amongst all the locals who detested their "tribal right" to not leave any means for the fish to make it up the fish ladder and into the underwater public viewing and fish counting area.  I was absolutely dumbfounded at their level of stupidity.  OK, I will take a breath.....  On the other hand if that is their "legal" right then my hands are tied and the only legal recourse I have is to protest, complain and support proponents who desire to change the status to something more in align with my belief structure.  One of the things that really ticks me off is that the Indians are allowed to "subsistence hunt" multiple animals to support their families/tribe.  I have "heard" in reality they sell the meat for profit.  I would love to find proof of this.  I really struggle with Indian rights!!!  After living in Glasgow AFB adjacent to the reservation and going to school with many cool and generous Indian friends (one who froze to death during a Friday night drunken spree with my friends), witnessing firsthand the racism and hatred held against them, the lack of personal incentive and goals to be productive in their lives, etc., etc. etc.  Living in Rapid City South Dakota growing up with and interfacing with the Sioux Indians was also a real interesting experience.  I have some really mixed emotions about this whole issue.

Here is another positive issue occurring concerning the Bolt Decision here in Washington.  I know this one takes us a little off the "Hunting" focus of this forum but it is a real interesting read on how the tribes are fighting amongst themselves and in the long run may benefit all of us if we can get a new decision concerning the validity of the original Bolt Decision.  http://www.flyfishingforum.com/flytalk4/showthread.php?t=8816   Wasn't Bolt suffering from Dementia or Alzheimer's in the final stages of that ruling?  I heard they tried to shuffle that under the rug?

Ok I am off my horse and out of my saddle ready for whatever comes my way.  Keep in mind God loves us all whether Black, White, Purple or any other skin color or specific race for that matter.  Part of our purpose for this existence it to learn how to coexist and get along with each other in as positive and mutually supportive way as possible.

[STIKNSTRINGBOW]

Once again it is the minority setting the example we see. "Native Americans" as a whole are usually no less deserving of respect than you or I. I grew up with them, I have attended Pow-wows, I Grass Danced. we used to joke about me being a "Mountain Man" I have had friends from many different nations,  I personally believe that now that they have the casinos most don't need "subsistence hunting/fishing". However, not all receive the benefit from these casinos and do need someway to support their families. It is the abuse of these privileges that irritate me. If you remember a couple years ago the wanton waste of numerous game animals and the pictures sent to the press made it look like a state-wide problem that when they caught the ones responsible it was 8 guys from a tribe north of Seattle that has a large casino. I don't believe it is all "Natives" Just the few that don't respect their heritage by treating the game with respect. And they would be the first to cry about how they were wronged by "the white man" if we tried to take their so called "rights" away

[DeerHarvester]

I work for the Kalispel Indian Tribe and It is my understanding that natives even with treaty hunting rights can still only hunt land that are unclaimed aka national forest,state land and some state parks if in their treaty. it is ILLEGAL for them to hunt Private lands out of season!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 I was told, at least by Okanogan and Ferry County officials that the tribe's can hunt private land within the treaty sessions area, if they notify the landowner first before entering.

That is BS  they can not hunt private land. PERIOD, unless you own land on the Rez. that is anouther story and you basicly don't own the land on the rez. 

[Palmer]

I'm satisfied with the tribes efforts towards preserving our salmon runs but would like to see better management of game within their traditional hunting boundaries.  I do understand that among several tribes, their hunting jurisdiction is larger than their reservation boundaries.

I hear a lot of blaming on both sides of the fence but what we do to each other we do to ourselves. 

The federal government made Indians "Wards of the State".  It seems with all the social programs going into affect over the years, we are all going to be "Wards of the State."  If you think socialized medical care is a good deal, go ask Indians about the quality of health care they've received from our government.  I've heard stories of the wrong teeth being pulled and other problems.

[Dmanmastertracker]

I work for the Kalispel Indian Tribe and It is my understanding that natives even with treaty hunting rights can still only hunt land that are unclaimed aka national forest,state land and some state parks if in their treaty. it is ILLEGAL for them to hunt Private lands out of season!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 I was told, at least by Okanogan and Ferry County officials that the tribe's can hunt private land within the treaty sessions area, if they notify the landowner first before entering.

That is BS  they can not hunt private land. PERIOD, unless you own land on the Rez. that is anouther story and you basicly don't own the land on the rez. 

  I assume you are referring to me? I have a tribal sessions map, given to me by the State Indian Affairs Officer which shows the Colville's as having hunting rights up to within approximately 30 miles of the Canadian border, OFF reservation lands. Show me different?

[Dmanmastertracker]

 Also, there have been NUMEROUS parcels for sale on the reservation itself, if a tribal member wants to sell, they have every right to do so, but they still hold certain rights on that land forever. I have made more trips than I can count over there meeting with people to buy land and those have been issue's that I have personally found, with rights off reservation and rights to parcels within the reservation. Before you come on here and tell people they are full of it, you need to get your fact's in order.

[Dmanmastertracker]

 See bottom section on Colville hunting off reservation, unique to that tribe in the "Northern Half" area. I know several people who have personally seen hunting activity on private lands in the "Northern Half".

 http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/tribal/treaty_history.html


 All that being said on this tangent, back to the issue on this topic. I never been put off by the tribe's rights guaranteed in the treaties, but rather that the State's own citizen's do not have equal rights off reservation lands.

[fishunt247]

If we had the same rights (hunting elk in January with rifles, shooting multiple animals, etc) we may not have any game left to chase. We (as in the state) manage our fish and game the best we can. Maybe someday we will find a harmonious balance between us and them, between conservation/preservation and ancestral rights.

[sss5358]

I think we need Tim Eyeman to get an initiative on the ballot to make the state and Indians do a study of how Indian hunting is affecting the game populations. Then post the results for the public to read.  Ought to stir up some activists some how. Maybe point the hunting activists at them instead of us (normal hunters).  Just a thought or perhaps a dream anyway.

[Dmanmastertracker]

 Anyone but Eyeman and I'm in.....

[ElkTipper]

I think there may be a basis for a law suite in the following paragraph which is a statement on the WDFW website defining Tribal Treaties.  It basically says that the Tribes have rights off the reservation "Except" "where state regulation is necessary for conservation purposes".  Isn't that what hunting regulations are all about?  Conservation/protection of the populations to maintain a healthy population?  Do we have any lawyers on this forum?  How do the Tribes get around this?

"Treaties are formal contracts between sovereign nations and in the United States are sources of federal law. As federal law, treaties preempt inconsistent state law under the Supremacy Clause of the Federal Constitution. The courts have ruled that state regulation of tribal exercise of off-reservation hunting rights on open and unclaimed land is preempted by the Stevens Treaties, except where state regulation is necessary for conservation purposes. "

[fishunt247]

Interesting. But like anything, the tribe would probably find a way around it, as seems to be the case with everything that gets contested. A lawyers explanation would be great.