Community > Advocacy, Agencies, Access
Letter Regarding Colockum Elk - The Reel News "The Tribes Killed Elk"
Sporting_Man:
Is this campaign still alive? Any new developments since last Christmas? I red this whole thread yesterday (took me 2 hours+)...
Made me think about 2009 salmon season, that was supposed to be historic. Yes, it was, but netting was of a historic proportions too. All in all, Feds seem to hold keys of this game, but State should be more honest and keep its face while dealing with tribes. That way, truth would be a good instrument of justice. The way it works now, sportsmen are entitled to :bash:, and that is not enough. I think that this fight has to be fought on two fronts: one is to press WA state for transparency and tougher policy (for whatever it is worth), and the other is straight forward to the Fed Courts to clear the language or do something about these treaties. Maybe to isolate the case to one area only (Colockum) and show what goes on there...
Brooks:
You can correct me if I am wrong but I do not believe so. The Rocky Mountain Elk were first introduced in Yakima County by landowners, sportsmans and the county officials in 1913. The only native elk we have in Washington are the Roosevelt elk on the west side and that is west of I-5 and the Olympics. The Yakima's were fisherman and gatherers and to some extent hunters of the native mule deer.
haus:
--- Quote from: slyrei on December 29, 2009, 11:58:03 AM ---I might be the only person standing up for the tribesman, and I'm sure this will get attacked, but maybe it will make you think. I really think you all are being a little quick to judge. How many of you would not hunt those same elk if given the opportunity? Plus, I'm certain that throughout the US there are far more White poachers than tribal poachers, or even tribal hunters. There was a LOT more wildlife before non-natives arrived and i'm sure if given the choice, Native Americans would love to have us gone. The reason wildlife populations decrease usually has more to do with habitat loss than hunting. I don't know the situation specifically for elk but the article also mentions salmon, and tribesmen are definitely not to blame for that! Commercial fishing aside, salmon habitat loss has devastated the population. Even if less were fished, they would have no where to go. We(non-natives) have done so much damage to both the wildlife and to the Native American way of life. Why not let them have a few privledges?! They probably wouldn't over-hunt them if there weren't white people buying elk products.
Wait... wait... I take it all back. Like Maverick said in the movie:
"I figure its their fault... for being on our land before we got here." ;)
--- End quote ---
The priviledge to what, kill *censored* and leave most of it? I'd expect the opposite wouldn't you? Nothin' says I killed it for the coin and a snack like some backstraps and antlers missing from a kill. If you want to know what a non-native market hunters mentality may have been like, you don't have to look far to find out.
I don't doubt that non-native poachers do more damage on average to game animal herds in this state though.
colockumelk:
--- Quote from: slyrei on December 29, 2009, 11:58:03 AM ---I might be the only person standing up for the tribesman, and I'm sure this will get attacked, but maybe it will make you think.Only that you havn't done your homework. I really think you all are being a little quick to judge. How many of you would not hunt those same elk if given the opportunity?We do hunt these elk. However we also pay for our licenses and we have rules and regulations that scientifically restricts the amount of harvest so we don't kill all of the elk off. The Indians don't have this. Plus, I'm certain that throughout the US there are far more White poachers than tribal poachers, or even tribal hunters.The difference is that as Americans we prosecute and punish those of us who are not ethical. Where for the Indians it's just another day at the office. There was a LOT more wildlife before non-natives arrived and i'm sure if given the choice, Native Americans would love to have us gone.This is FALSE. With the exeption of the bison there are more elk deer and turkey and waterfowl than there has ever been. The reason wildlife populations decrease usually has more to do with habitat loss than hunting.In the Colockum it has more to do with a low bull:cow ratio. I don't know the situation specifically for elk but the article also mentions salmon, and tribesmen are definitely not to blame for that!Really so while our state is trying it's hardest to bring the population back it's perfectly okay for the tribes to string their nets across the river and catch every last salmon they can? I'm sure this has little to no impact on the salmon numbers. Commercial fishing aside, salmon habitat loss has devastated the population. Even if less were fished, they would have no where to go. We(non-natives) have done so much damage to both the wildlife and to the Native American way of life. Why not let them have a few privledges?!The Romans destroyed the Germanic Tribes way of life and you don't see the German's or the French or the British etc demanding the Italians for reparations do you? They probably wouldn't over-hunt them if there weren't white people buying elk products. Or maybe they are not ethical hunters and unlike us Americans do not care about the wellfare of our wildlife. But your right it's all our fault that they over hunt the elk. Man now I really feal bad. I should have known it's always the white guys fault no matter what. Really You can't be that ignorant can you?
Wait... wait... I take it all back. Like Maverick said in the movie:
"I figure its their fault... for being on our land before we got here." ;)
--- End quote ---
This truly shows how little you know since you are quoting a COMMEDY!!!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version