Community > Advocacy, Agencies, Access
Makah's do it again!!!
addicted:
just saw on the news that the makah poachers plead not guilty. :dunno: they still have more trials to go through. the punishment they talked about was time in the tribal prison
wastickslinger:
My 2 cents on the tribal hunting of elk off the reservation:
I grew up in Omak right on the reservation and have many friends that are Indian. I know that many of them feel the same way I do about the hunting of elk by Indians in the Clockum, Yakima feeding stations, Blues, ect. I do not claim to know it all but I do have a few thoughts about this. Many of my friends know they could go right off the reservation and kill mule deer if they want and the state could not touch them. But they abide by the regulations you and I have to when they leave their reservation. Why can't all tribal members grasp this?
Indians claim that they have the right to hunt the seeded ground off the reservation because it was a tradition. From what I understand and have researched, elk were planted in those areas in the early 1900's (1913, to be exact in Yakima) by our government. So if the elk were not native how can the Indians call it tradition to hunt them now. Our dollars(tax payers) that go to feeding, growing and managing the elk heards have taken the elk numbers from hundreds to tens of thousands. What has the tribe contributed to this that makes them think they have the right to fill a truck with heard bulls every year?
So if I feed my cattle, raise them, over the years establish a nice cattle heard on seeded ground; does a tribal member have the right to come on my property and kill them. It is tradition to hunt on the seeded ground, what exactly do they have the right to hunt? Planted elk by our Game Department? I don't think so.
Very frustrating topic always for me. :bash:
I could be way off here but I would like to hear more thoughts along this line.
ICEMAN:
--- Quote from: wastickslinger on December 12, 2007, 10:19:54 PM ---So if I feed my cattle, raise them, over the years establish a nice cattle heard on seeded ground; does a tribal member have the right to come on my property and kill them. It is tradition to hunt on the seeded ground, what exactly do they have the right to hunt? :bash:
--- End quote ---
Go ask the oyster farmers who developed oyster and clam beds where they never were before. The get screwed by tribal members raping their beaches of their livelihood.
I do not think you are "way off track". The problem is this; We live in Washington State. This is about the most liberal state filled with White Guilt there ever has been, and ever will be. Until Indians come jumping peoples fences, kicking doors in and raping their daughters, the idiots in this state will never change. The facts of life are, differing peoples have warred since the beginning of time. Happened then, happens today. I take your land, you take mine. Indians did it too. Our forefathers made the grave mistake of signing treaties that were later "interpreted" differently than the framers had intended. No one ever intended to give the indians anything of value. Never. Would not have even come to mind. This is not how people thought at that time. Even the indians know this.
Every one of you guys who hates these issues, and then turns around and enters a Casino or Venue sponsored by the tribes, is helping to pay the way for more Indian litigation, more lawyers, more lawsuits.
I will never ever step foot in an indian casino or indian event.
Crap, now I am all pissed off and I am not even at work yet!!! CRAP! >:( >:( >:(
quacker whacker:
Agree with everyhing said. I also dont support the tribe with any sort of money (casinos, events, Non-Member hunting/fishing licenses). Treaties are very dated, how can they claim to want all there historic hunting rights/privilages, but they drive down modern highways(state funded highways) in their modern trucks, down modern dirt roads then step out of their truck in their modern camo clothing and shoot their modern rifle at the game their hunting? Theres nothing historic about the way they hunt either. If anything, (still against any special privilages) they should be required to hunt the way they did when the treaties were written. No vehicles, bow and arrow, etc., etc.
Edit: There's probably more white hunters who bow hunt than indians who bow hunt.
EMPyre:
Here's some stuff I've been thinking about... Just read the news articles about Judge Redden in Oregon and the fight over the Salmon management on the Snake and Columbia Rivers. The fight concerns the dams and a suitable plan to mitigate further damage to the ESA listed salmon species. So...
Instead of focusing efforts to negate the treaties, why not focus efforts to have them again 're-interpreted'? Could it be possible to argue in court that the current interpretation (which as far as I know) doesn't take into consideration the ESA listing of wild salmon. If so wouldn't that force a new management plan that (as it appears Redden will do to BPA, Or, Wa, Id, and the Fed) force the state and tribes to develop a plan that actually prevents further damage to the salmon?
From there it seems a simple argument to make that netting on the rivers, and 50% take on runs that cannot support themselves even with hatcheries is not a viable management effort. This of course doesn't help in the case of game, but it would seem to level the playing field in the fisheries.
Maybe Pope will chime in here and give us a legal interpretation of my thought process, and the potential implications of what Redden is doing. I know its a bit different than criminal law, but you certainly know more than I on this topic.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version