collapse
Double U Hunting Supply Order Jason Phelps Calls Here

Author Topic: More blood and guts  (Read 7735 times)

Offline Sitka_Blacktail

  • Virtual Campfire
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sourdough
  • *
  • Join Date: Dec 2011
  • Posts: 2345
  • Location: Hoquiam, WA
Re: More blood and guts
« Reply #75 on: January 02, 2018, 02:42:25 PM »
Dan-O
I can meet you half way in that I agree it is not poaching..  But it also is not being done in good faith any longer either.  The problem is we are dealing with a treaty vs law and one that is long over due for re-negotiation.  I'm sorry, but the way treaties work is based off of leverage.  The US has the leverage but no one wants to use it; and I'd hate for it to come to that.  There in lies the frustration.  The tribes refused to cooperate in good faith while being given decades of lattitude on several fronts (not just hunting/fishing).  I have no issues with the treaty and respecting it but that is a two way street.  Refusing to report harvest, refusing to self regulate and refusing to negotiate in public forum vs secret meetings leaves very few legs to stand on.  It is a perception issue, the treaty is not changing.  If they want to change perception, change the practices...  They have executed every loop hole possible and taken several matters well beyond anyone's reasonable expectation, but hey it's legal...  There is also nothing illegal with the perception and expressing the frustration as well; that is the sad part.

You think treaties were negotiated and respected in good faith in the past? Any time the US wanted something the natives had, they broke the treaty.  Most treaties were negotiated at the point of a gun. How's that for leverage? How about fishing treaties? The State of Washington used such good faith in respecting the treaties they billy clubbed native fishermen at Frank's Landing. The Feds flooded traditional fishing spots like Celilo Falls. I don't think they asked the natives their opinion on that or if they wanted to give up fishing there.

Right now, the shoe is on the other foot and you don't like it.  Think of the frustration the Natives had when they were being overrun with European settlers.  I don't think "leverage" or force is gonna generate good will with the tribes. They've had enough of that and are now savvy enough to get good enough lawyers to fight it.  What needs to be done if you want to change things is offer them something of equal or better value to give up some of their treaty rights. Otherwise, you can just cuss your ancestors for not seeing into the future and writing a better treaty for you when they had all the leverage in the original treaty negotiations.
A man who fears suffering is already suffering from what he fears. ~ Michel de Montaigne

Offline trophyhunt

  • Site Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • Old Salt
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2008
  • Posts: 9501
  • Location: Wetside
Re: More blood and guts
« Reply #76 on: January 02, 2018, 02:56:18 PM »
The names of the few are pretty well known, and undercover buys have been done multiple times by our enforcement only to hit the upper levels of enforcement with a directive not to prosicute for fear of creating more costly court orders in other areas brought on by the tribe.  The few successful stings have only resulted in non-tribal purchasers getting prosicuted.  Not all tribes are unregulated and the colvilles wold not stand for their members abusing their rights in this way.
wow!
ďIn common withĒ..... not so much!!

Offline Blacktail Sniper

  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2009
  • Posts: 4539
  • Location: Rochester, Washington
  • Kill'em all...let the gravy sort'em out!!!
Re: More blood and guts
« Reply #77 on: January 02, 2018, 03:04:22 PM »
Dan-O
I can meet you half way in that I agree it is not poaching..  But it also is not being done in good faith any longer either.  The problem is we are dealing with a treaty vs law and one that is long over due for re-negotiation.  I'm sorry, but the way treaties work is based off of leverage.  The US has the leverage but no one wants to use it; and I'd hate for it to come to that.  There in lies the frustration.  The tribes refused to cooperate in good faith while being given decades of lattitude on several fronts (not just hunting/fishing).  I have no issues with the treaty and respecting it but that is a two way street.  Refusing to report harvest, refusing to self regulate and refusing to negotiate in public forum vs secret meetings leaves very few legs to stand on.  It is a perception issue, the treaty is not changing.  If they want to change perception, change the practices...  They have executed every loop hole possible and taken several matters well beyond anyone's reasonable expectation, but hey it's legal...  There is also nothing illegal with the perception and expressing the frustration as well; that is the sad part.

You think treaties were negotiated and respected in good faith in the past? Any time the US wanted something the natives had, they broke the treaty.  Most treaties were negotiated at the point of a gun. How's that for leverage? How about fishing treaties? The State of Washington used such good faith in respecting the treaties they billy clubbed native fishermen at Frank's Landing. The Feds flooded traditional fishing spots like Celilo Falls. I don't think they asked the natives their opinion on that or if they wanted to give up fishing there.

Right now, the shoe is on the other foot and you don't like it.  Think of the frustration the Natives had when they were being overrun with European settlers.  I don't think "leverage" or force is gonna generate good will with the tribes. They've had enough of that and are now savvy enough to get good enough lawyers to fight it.  What needs to be done if you want to change things is offer them something of equal or better value to give up some of their treaty rights. Otherwise, you can just cuss your ancestors for not seeing into the future and writing a better treaty for you when they had all the leverage in the original treaty negotiations.


Serious question, not meant in any way to be confrontational, but what could possibly be out there to offer beyond (more?) money from the government, ability to make money from things like casinos, and hunting & fishing rights?

Sorry, but really can't come up with anything that could possibly get them to give anything they currently have up...
It is better to be consistently incorrect than inconsistently correct...

Sarcasm: The ability to insult stupid people without them realizing it. 

My level of sarcasm depends on your level of stupidity...

Sarcasm makes smart people laugh and stupid people mad.

Offline WSU

  • Off-Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Frontiersman
  • *
  • Join Date: Mar 2009
  • Posts: 3478
Re: More blood and guts
« Reply #78 on: January 02, 2018, 03:11:41 PM »
How about all the land back?

Offline bobcat

  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+6)
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2007
  • Posts: 34148
  • Location: Rochester
    • robert68
More blood and guts
« Reply #79 on: January 02, 2018, 03:32:13 PM »
Did they own all the land to begin with?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline trophyhunt

  • Site Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • Old Salt
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2008
  • Posts: 9501
  • Location: Wetside
Re: More blood and guts
« Reply #80 on: January 02, 2018, 03:46:39 PM »
Did they own all the land to begin with?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
nope, they took it from somebody.
ďIn common withĒ..... not so much!!

Offline goldenhtr

  • Virtual Campfire
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hunter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2007
  • Posts: 138
Re: More blood and guts
« Reply #81 on: January 02, 2018, 03:59:15 PM »
I think non-Tribal casinos should be legal. Hit them in the pocket book. See how long it takes them to see the light.

How's it go (What's good for the goose is good for the gander)
Founders for militia definition: ..[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.Ē The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788. No founder is on record arguing with this definition - many support it. Then there's Patrick Henry: "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most

Online Gringo31

  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Old Salt
  • *
  • Join Date: May 2009
  • Posts: 5150
Re: More blood and guts
« Reply #82 on: January 02, 2018, 04:04:45 PM »
I suppose "tis the season"....



Frankly, I think it does good for people to actually listen to and make their points.  It makes them think a little more than just sitting around a campfire with only those who agree with them.   :twocents:
We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.
-Ronald Reagan

Offline trophyhunt

  • Site Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • Old Salt
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2008
  • Posts: 9501
  • Location: Wetside
Re: More blood and guts
« Reply #83 on: January 02, 2018, 04:12:01 PM »
Dan-O
I can meet you half way in that I agree it is not poaching..  But it also is not being done in good faith any longer either.  The problem is we are dealing with a treaty vs law and one that is long over due for re-negotiation.  I'm sorry, but the way treaties work is based off of leverage.  The US has the leverage but no one wants to use it; and I'd hate for it to come to that.  There in lies the frustration.  The tribes refused to cooperate in good faith while being given decades of lattitude on several fronts (not just hunting/fishing).  I have no issues with the treaty and respecting it but that is a two way street.  Refusing to report harvest, refusing to self regulate and refusing to negotiate in public forum vs secret meetings leaves very few legs to stand on.  It is a perception issue, the treaty is not changing.  If they want to change perception, change the practices...  They have executed every loop hole possible and taken several matters well beyond anyone's reasonable expectation, but hey it's legal...  There is also nothing illegal with the perception and expressing the frustration as well; that is the sad part.

You think treaties were negotiated and respected in good faith in the past? Any time the US wanted something the natives had, they broke the treaty.  Most treaties were negotiated at the point of a gun. How's that for leverage? How about fishing treaties? The State of Washington used such good faith in respecting the treaties they billy clubbed native fishermen at Frank's Landing. The Feds flooded traditional fishing spots like Celilo Falls. I don't think they asked the natives their opinion on that or if they wanted to give up fishing there.

Right now, the shoe is on the other foot and you don't like it.  Think of the frustration the Natives had when they were being overrun with European settlers.  I don't think "leverage" or force is gonna generate good will with the tribes. They've had enough of that and are now savvy enough to get good enough lawyers to fight it.  What needs to be done if you want to change things is offer them something of equal or better value to give up some of their treaty rights. Otherwise, you can just cuss your ancestors for not seeing into the future and writing a better treaty for you when they had all the leverage in the original treaty negotiations.


Serious question, not meant in any way to be confrontational, but what could possibly be out there to offer beyond (more?) money from the government, ability to make money from things like casinos, and hunting & fishing rights?

Sorry, but really can't come up with anything that could possibly get them to give anything they currently have up...
we lost a great opportunity back when tribes started putting in casinos, they probably would have given up somethingís for complete freedom of them, no restriction on certain games.  I personally think we could still bargain with them if the natives didnít have the democrats in their pocket!  We should let non natives open casinos with no gaming restrictions, that would piss off the natives and possible bring them to the bargening table?
ďIn common withĒ..... not so much!!

Offline meatwhack

  • Virtual Campfire
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hunter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2011
  • Posts: 200
Re: More blood and guts
« Reply #84 on: January 02, 2018, 04:22:33 PM »
1 issue I have is when these treaties were signed the definition of Indian was 100% Indian. Now the amount needed for hunting rights have been reduced to a small percentage. If they were held to the 100% Indian standard they would have pretty much bred themselves extinct by now.

Offline KFhunter

  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Posts: 13489
  • Location: The Wedge
  • My posts do not reflect an official opinion of HW
Re: More blood and guts
« Reply #85 on: January 02, 2018, 04:24:45 PM »
And no - my comparison was not a joke. 

 "our" government made a deal with "their" government.

Now most of us don't like the terms.    I don't either, by the way.

But our government made a treaty.   The Yakama's are hunting legally. That is not poaching.   It is not close. And most of us that hunt have tried to use weather to our advantage when possible. I've shot some mighty difficult elk, and some mighty easy ones over the years.   An easy hunt doesn't make it poaching, either. 

For the record:   I would LOVE for the treaty to be renegotiated, but I am not in favor of unilaterally breaking an agreement. Not with the Yakama's.  I believe in the rule of law...... and you can't really have that if you walk away from agreements when they no longer favor you. 

What I think would be constructive:    the US gov't doing anything and everything legally possible to compell the tribes to renegotiate. And I mean everything. Including discretionary Federal funds. 

I'd love to see a level playing field; but I won't fault the Yakama's for the fact that their ancestors made a treaty with the US that is now working well for them in some regards.

Be well.

I think the tribes are not in compliance with the 50% take rulings or the treaty, can you prove me wrong? 

Nor could I prove you wrong, thus we need to investigate this and take it back to court and force some kind of inventory and tracking to see what 50% is and if they're taking too much.
I should be out hunting lions, thanks WDFW

Offline KFhunter

  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Posts: 13489
  • Location: The Wedge
  • My posts do not reflect an official opinion of HW
Re: More blood and guts
« Reply #86 on: January 02, 2018, 04:28:51 PM »
1 issue I have is when these treaties were signed the definition of Indian was 100% Indian. Now the amount needed for hunting rights have been reduced to a small percentage. If they were held to the 100% Indian standard they would have pretty much bred themselves extinct by now.


Kind of like our old 1 drop rule huh?
I should be out hunting lions, thanks WDFW

Online JimmyHoffa

  • Virtual Campfire
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Old Salt
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2010
  • Posts: 9824
  • Location: 150 Years Too Late
Re: More blood and guts
« Reply #87 on: January 02, 2018, 04:40:40 PM »
1 issue I have is when these treaties were signed the definition of Indian was 100% Indian. Now the amount needed for hunting rights have been reduced to a small percentage. If they were held to the 100% Indian standard they would have pretty much bred themselves extinct by now.


Kind of like our old 1 drop rule huh?

I'd guess that when the treaties were written, they didn't expect a bunch of 3/4 or 7/8 white folk being considered tribal members.
Should Elizabeth Warren have gotten preference for college admissions by identifying as a Cherokee?  Should some 3/4 white guy that looks really white get special bids for federal contracts?  Extra fishing/hunting?

Offline KFhunter

  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Posts: 13489
  • Location: The Wedge
  • My posts do not reflect an official opinion of HW
Re: More blood and guts
« Reply #88 on: January 02, 2018, 04:47:47 PM »
I can't answer that question, what if some mostly white guy was raised on the reservation and that was the only life they knew, embraced the heritage and identified fully as Indian? 

on the other hand

Is it fair to have mostly white people running around with special birth rights and privileges when our country is so antithetical to birth right privileges?  I mean, how very British..


Tough question, and I don't know where to draw the line.
I should be out hunting lions, thanks WDFW

Online JimmyHoffa

  • Virtual Campfire
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Old Salt
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2010
  • Posts: 9824
  • Location: 150 Years Too Late
Re: More blood and guts
« Reply #89 on: January 02, 2018, 04:51:32 PM »
yeah, it is a tough one.  Kind of a "so, you want to inherit from 1/4 of ancestors what the other 3/4 of ancestors were trying to kill and take?"

Offline Tbar

  • Virtual Campfire
  • Trade Count: (+6)
  • Sourdough
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2011
  • Posts: 1573
  • Location: Whatcom county
  • That Boy Ain't Right
Re: More blood and guts
« Reply #90 on: January 02, 2018, 07:02:42 PM »
The legislative mandate in the Colockum herd will probably exceed  total tribal harvest in the region. This is and will be in excess of current damage framework.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2018, 07:24:15 PM by Tbar »

Offline Duckslayer89

  • Off-Topics
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Frontiersman
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2014
  • Posts: 2707
  • Location: Orting
Re: More blood and guts
« Reply #91 on: January 02, 2018, 07:06:44 PM »
1 issue I have is when these treaties were signed the definition of Indian was 100% Indian. Now the amount needed for hunting rights have been reduced to a small percentage. If they were held to the 100% Indian standard they would have pretty much bred themselves extinct by now.

 :yeah: none of the Indians alive at the treaty signing are alive today. It's over. Done

Offline Dan-o

  • Site Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (+5)
  • Old Salt
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jul 2010
  • Posts: 8436
Re: More blood and guts
« Reply #92 on: January 02, 2018, 07:27:58 PM »
1 issue I have is when these treaties were signed the definition of Indian was 100% Indian. Now the amount needed for hunting rights have been reduced to a small percentage. If they were held to the 100% Indian standard they would have pretty much bred themselves extinct by now.

 :yeah: none of the Indians alive at the treaty signing are alive today. It's over. Done

So if your grandfather left you a birthrght and then died.....    It's over.   Done.???

Really?
Member:   Yakstrakgutp (or whatever we are)
I love the BFRO!!!
I wonder how many people will touch their nose to their screen trying to read this...

Offline Dan-o

  • Site Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (+5)
  • Old Salt
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jul 2010
  • Posts: 8436
Re: More blood and guts
« Reply #93 on: January 02, 2018, 07:29:21 PM »
1 issue I have is when these treaties were signed the definition of Indian was 100% Indian. Now the amount needed for hunting rights have been reduced to a small percentage. If they were held to the 100% Indian standard they would have pretty much bred themselves extinct by now.

Interesting.

I don't know if the treaties address this or not.
Member:   Yakstrakgutp (or whatever we are)
I love the BFRO!!!
I wonder how many people will touch their nose to their screen trying to read this...

Offline Dan-o

  • Site Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (+5)
  • Old Salt
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jul 2010
  • Posts: 8436
Re: More blood and guts
« Reply #94 on: January 02, 2018, 07:35:42 PM »
Dan-O
I can meet you half way in that I agree it is not poaching..  But it also is not being done in good faith any longer either.  The problem is we are dealing with a treaty vs law and one that is long over due for re-negotiation.  I'm sorry, but the way treaties work is based off of leverage.  The US has the leverage but no one wants to use it; and I'd hate for it to come to that.  There in lies the frustration.  The tribes refused to cooperate in good faith while being given decades of lattitude on several fronts (not just hunting/fishing).  I have no issues with the treaty and respecting it but that is a two way street.  Refusing to report harvest, refusing to self regulate and refusing to negotiate in public forum vs secret meetings leaves very few legs to stand on.  It is a perception issue, the treaty is not changing.  If they want to change perception, change the practices...  They have executed every loop hole possible and taken several matters well beyond anyone's reasonable expectation, but hey it's legal...  There is also nothing illegal with the perception and expressing the frustration as well; that is the sad part.

You think treaties were negotiated and respected in good faith in the past? Any time the US wanted something the natives had, they broke the treaty.  Most treaties were negotiated at the point of a gun. How's that for leverage? How about fishing treaties? The State of Washington used such good faith in respecting the treaties they billy clubbed native fishermen at Frank's Landing. The Feds flooded traditional fishing spots like Celilo Falls. I don't think they asked the natives their opinion on that or if they wanted to give up fishing there.

Right now, the shoe is on the other foot and you don't like it.  Think of the frustration the Natives had when they were being overrun with European settlers.  I don't think "leverage" or force is gonna generate good will with the tribes. They've had enough of that and are now savvy enough to get good enough lawyers to fight it.  What needs to be done if you want to change things is offer them something of equal or better value to give up some of their treaty rights. Otherwise, you can just cuss your ancestors for not seeing into the future and writing a better treaty for you when they had all the leverage in the original treaty negotiations.


Serious question, not meant in any way to be confrontational, but what could possibly be out there to offer beyond (more?) money from the government, ability to make money from things like casinos, and hunting & fishing rights?

Sorry, but really can't come up with anything that could possibly get them to give anything they currently have up...

Great question......   I do not know the answer.

I don't know what kind of discretionary federal funds flow to the tribes (if any), I don't know about federal road projects, or other commerce-enabling things.   

Casinos..... seems like some tribes make a ton of money on casino's.   I don't know the logic behind not letting non-Natives compete in that arena.....  but I'm sure it's decided politically.   Seems like one more lever in negotiating.

In the end, I think there are only two possible outcomes:
  *  Continue on with the treaties as-is.
  *  Renegotiate (which implies both sides negotiate).

I don't see the US Gov't just walking away from the treaty, so why spend time and energy on that thought?
Member:   Yakstrakgutp (or whatever we are)
I love the BFRO!!!
I wonder how many people will touch their nose to their screen trying to read this...

Offline dvolmer

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Scout
  • ****
  • Join Date: Mar 2012
  • Posts: 441
  • Location: Eastern Washington, West Richland
Re: More blood and guts
« Reply #95 on: January 02, 2018, 08:16:35 PM »
This pretty well sums it all up!  Even with all of the free stuff and super-hero rights, they are still in most cases miserable and unhappy.  Nothing will ever change.  It will always be the same.  They will go out and shoot it all up with there guns and trucks that have been bought with the tax payer money.  Sure there are exceptions.  Some who want to do whats right.  But that is few and far between.  When you try to change things to make it right, they will show up to court dancing in there furs, feathers, and moccasins.  Every liberal court in our state will side with them.  Just go for a drive through any of the reservations in our state and the facts above are easily verified.  But nothing and i mean nothing will ever change.  When the liberals finally win and take the hunting and gun rights away from Sportsman, the Indian will still be allowed to do as they please.  Go back over the last 300 to 500 years and there is nobody alive in this country that has ancestry that hasn't been conquered and treated unfairly.  We all should be getting a free ride because we all have been mistreated somewhere or at some time.  My question is, When is it all going to be done and everyone treated fairly???  Wow, I'm sounding like a liberal!!!!! ha ha (I wish it was really funny but its really not!!)
« Last Edit: January 02, 2018, 08:28:44 PM by dvolmer »
Zonk Volmer

Offline farmin4u_98948

  • Off-Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Longhunter
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2007
  • Posts: 994
  • Location: Cliffdell
Re: More blood and guts
« Reply #96 on: January 02, 2018, 09:03:09 PM »
The bashing never ends.   So sad.  You canít pick your parents, when or where you are born. Some are born to privilege some to poverty.   Some are working and never getting ahead, some have no worries or wants. Just because it is not fair to you doesnít mean itís not fair. Get educated and stop the hate. Yes Iím 100% European decent. My family moved onto the Yakama Rez in 1917 on my motherís side. 1931 on my fathers side. I am the 4 th generation of Satus area farmers. I have no more rights on the Rez than someone living in Seattle . I have seen the good and bad in Native and non Native. Itís easy to point fingures at the Natives cause they do hunt in the daytime within their treaty rights . There is way more damage done at night by non natives. I shake my head at how fast members of this forum throw out the whole box when itís a limited few who are rotten.   SO SAD. NUFF SAID
Just because you believe something is true doesn't mean that it is true!

Offline jnordwell

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Pilgrim
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2012
  • Posts: 30
  • Location: Camas Washington
Re: More blood and guts
« Reply #97 on: January 02, 2018, 09:31:53 PM »
So how come no one has said this...
Legally as it maybe out of glen wood and trout lake the yaks are getting 75$ for a deer and 150+$ for elk.. non tribesman are paying them for this. Growing up around some of the Indians if they make money at it they will do it. So is that legal? I asked a game warden about it.. he said he couldnít do anything about it... so how are his hands tied?

Offline Duckslayer89

  • Off-Topics
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Frontiersman
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2014
  • Posts: 2707
  • Location: Orting
Re: More blood and guts
« Reply #98 on: January 02, 2018, 10:22:46 PM »
So how come no one has said this...
Legally as it maybe out of glen wood and trout lake the yaks are getting 75$ for a deer and 150+$ for elk.. non tribesman are paying them for this. Growing up around some of the Indians if they make money at it they will do it. So is that legal? I asked a game warden about it.. he said he couldnít do anything about it... so how are his hands tied?

Just let them do it, who cares anymore. Kill everything off and eventually we won't buy tags. We can just go camping for a week at a time. Then WDFW won't have any money.

Offline swordtine

  • Off-Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Pilgrim
  • *
  • Join Date: Dec 2010
  • Posts: 47
Re: More blood and guts
« Reply #99 on: January 02, 2018, 10:44:22 PM »
So how come no one has said this...
Legally as it maybe out of glen wood and trout lake the yaks are getting 75$ for a deer and 150+$ for elk.. non tribesman are paying them for this. Growing up around some of the Indians if they make money at it they will do it. So is that legal? I asked a game warden about it.. he said he couldnít do anything about it... so how are his hands tied?

This is an interesting point...the other day I spoke with an enrolled member down here on the yakama res who told me he asked someone on the council whether he could sell the meat from elk he shoots and was told if he is selling it to feed his family it is just another way he is providing a living....which I guess in principle I do agree with but the problem I have with it is the extremely finite nature of the resource he is utilizing. Wild game can be so easily overharvested, and cannot be propagated to match harvest in the same ways domesticated livestock can...

I asked the fellow how hard it would be for him to harvest say, 10 elk in a year,  and he kind of just chuckled and said 10? That's easy.

In all fairness I do believe this man is providing meat for several families not just his own, however, he had a medium sized cow elk in his truck bed and told me he shot a 6x7 bull as well as another bull at the same time way up oak creek somewhere the week before. And had already bagged multiple cows before these... But he only had until the 1st to take cows so he was going back up..........

I say all of this not to incite jealousy or hatred, but simply to state the obvious: if there are even only one or two dozen members of every tribe "playing by the rules" which this man is, doing this and harvesting upwards of a dozen elk every year or more, how can we hope to see and enjoy a thriving population of these animals for generations to come?
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose."

 

ElkNut Outdoor Productions

* Recent Topics

Keegan Wilder fundraiser auction #18 Black River Taxidermy shoulder mount!!! by jackelope
[Today at 02:34:25 PM]


SOLD by 7mmlong
[Today at 02:33:47 PM]


Spring Bear 2018 by Salmonstalker
[Today at 02:33:12 PM]


Whats everyone tinkering with these days? by JimmyHoffa
[Today at 02:25:51 PM]


Firsr Lite Beanie - Pine Color by johns8168
[Today at 02:22:35 PM]


FS: Kokanee tackle, rods, reels by cavemann
[Today at 02:19:18 PM]


For Sale- Protech toolbox by adrenalinepursuit
[Today at 02:15:33 PM]


300 WSM vs 300 Win mag by Hot Lunch
[Today at 02:15:26 PM]


Warne Scope Rings customer service top notch. by Biggerhammer
[Today at 02:13:17 PM]


Any report on Roosevelt? by rasbo
[Today at 01:49:22 PM]


WTS/WTT Custom 6.5x47 Lapua, XLR, Krieger by slm9s
[Today at 01:47:37 PM]


For Sale- 2 Sitka packs by mikeybuck
[Today at 01:38:08 PM]


FS: New RCBS FL Die Set for 270 Win Short Mag - Updated Price by goosehunter12
[Today at 01:27:13 PM]


50 cal round ball by pawpaw1934
[Today at 01:05:25 PM]


Fs: bowtech BT-x 31 by Sneaky
[Today at 12:40:41 PM]


Do you Kombucha? by Southpole
[Today at 12:39:08 PM]


FS: Sitka traverse Zip T shirts by Sneaky
[Today at 12:38:10 PM]


For Sale Thermarest Sleeping pad prolite 4 by Sneaky
[Today at 12:37:47 PM]


FS: Sitka Gradient Jacket size 3xl by Sneaky
[Today at 12:36:04 PM]


Old female by Sitka_Blacktail
[Today at 12:33:25 PM]