Deer hunting on private property in Indian reservation

[Scheindogg]

So I have a friend who's relative has 40 acres near republic wa. I just found it it's on reservation land.
So I find out in the WDFW website saying if it's private property owned by non tribal member (which it is if you didn't get that) that hunting on that land would be st the land owners discretion under whatever general season rules apply for that GMU.

So then I call the reservation and they say no. There's no way. They didn't bother looking anything up they just went ahead and said no.

Then I called WDFW and talked to an enforcement officer. She said what the website said, if it's private property owned by non tribal members, I can hunt it if I have permission. She also told me to go by what WDFW says definitely not what the reservation says, since it's private property.

Because of that call that makes me feel like it should work but what would you guys do? Respect the reservations wishes it would you go with what WDFW says because it's private property?

Hopefully I don't start too much of an argument here 

[headshot5]

If he is paying taxes on it, I'd think he has a better case of ownership than the Rez.     


Edit to add, this is just my opinion, with zero research.

[Stein]

Does he actually own the land or does the tribe?  I would go with the actual landowner.

[steeleywhopper]

Get the name of the WDFW employee you talked to and hunt it. The dude that shot the bull in a unopened area got off Scott free by asking WDFW.

[bobcat]

What you saw on the WDFW website makes no sense in this scenario. How can you follow the general season rules for the GMU, when there is no GMU? There are no GMU's within the Colville reservation.

[Bob33]

If it is on tribal land, I believe they can enforce whatever restrictions they wish to.  It's likely your relative doesn't actually own the land, but in fact leases it.

I wouldn't hunt it without permission from the tribe.

[Blacktail Sniper]

If it is on tribal land, I believe they can enforce whatever restrictions they wish to.  It's likely your relative doesn't actually own the land, but in fact leases it.

I wouldn't hunt it without permission from the tribe.

I would find out beyond any doubt about this part before I went any further. 

[bobcat]

Since it would not be in a GMU that's listed in the hunting regulations, I'd say there's zero chance you could legally hunt deer on that property.

[Scheindogg]

This is the WDFW piece I'm speaking of.
I will definitely make sure he owns it before taking any further steps

[pd]

This is an interesting topic.

Please cite the WDFW website link.

My understanding is a bit different from what the WDFW spokesperson told you.  That is, within the boundaries of a federally recognized reservation, there are generally two types of land.  The first type is those lands held in trust by the federal government ("owned by the tribe"), and those lands that were at one time sold by either the tribe or a tribal member.  This second category is what is called fee-simple property, and those lands will appear on the local (county) tax registry.  This is important: The fee-simple lands are still within the reservation, but are now considered private property.

It should not matter whether the owner of that property is an enrolled tribal member or a non-tribal person, it is still private property, and the tribe itself would have no jurisdiction over the property.  An exception to this would be if the tribe itself owns the private property, but the land in question had not yet been re-entered into the federal land trust program (in this case, as the property owner the tribe would of course have the right to prohibit hunting on its property).

My gut says the tribal spokesperson was ill-informed, or trying to bluff you.  If indeed a private landowner has the right to allow/deny hunting on fee-simple lands, then the tribe has no authority to overrule this decision.

I would love to hear from somebody better informed than I on this topic.   

[Southpole]

There's a lot of non tribal residents on reservations that have a long term leases. They have built houses, barns, shops, developed crop fields, etc. but ultimately the tribe still owns the property and their rules and laws still apply... I believe.

[Scheindogg]

Since it would not be in a GMU that's listed in the hunting regulations, I'd say there's zero chance you could legally hunt deer on that property.

Then how come when I talked to an ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, and they specifically said to go by what they said not the reservation (if indeed it is OWNED property) and that the general rules would apply. I wonder if it somehow would be linked with one of the surrounding gmus. I will do more research

[Stein]

Since it would not be in a GMU that's listed in the hunting regulations, I'd say there's zero chance you could legally hunt deer on that property.

Then how come when I talked to an ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, and they specifically said to go by what they said not the reservation (if indeed it is OWNED property) and that the general rules would apply. I wonder if it somehow would be linked with one of the surrounding gmus. I will do more research

You could both be right, WDFW says follow the rules when on private property.  If it is not in a GMU, then you can't hunt it as there is no season in the regulations.

[Bob33]

Even if you find that you can legally hunt there, the tribal officers may not agree when means you're likely to end up in a cold cell with lots of issues to address.

[bobcat]

Since it would not be in a GMU that's listed in the hunting regulations, I'd say there's zero chance you could legally hunt deer on that property.

Then how come when I talked to an ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, and they specifically said to go by what they said not the reservation (if indeed it is OWNED property) and that the general rules would apply. I wonder if it somehow would be linked with one of the surrounding gmus. I will do more research

If it's not a GMU listed as being open to deer hunting then there's no open season.