More blood and guts

[cavemann]

The last go around of secret mediated meetings to sidestep the public for fishing rights and complete refusal to report harvest numbers has destroyed any credibility the tribes have.  As I've stated before WDFW gets lit up like a Christmas tree here because of there lack of credibility not prejudice..  The same goes for the tribes for me now.  If we want to continue to respect original land rights and use lets do it.  Let the Muks, Yaks, Skoks and all of them fight it out like they used to.  Why force them to work together, lets the best tribe win.  The double standard of them unifying for their benefit and screwing us over is ludicrous.

[vandeman17]

So much to say but not worth the time.

What's the definition of insanity...? 

[Dan-o]

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. 

[Sitka_Blacktail]

shooting a lots of does and fawns up in the Wenas and numbers are way down

so much for worshipping nature in a toyota tacoma  with a lift kit, a bed full of empty beer cans shooting from the road

are you guys talking about natives? Seriously, if this is about native hunting, then just say it!

I couldn’t tell you who did it.  Not sure I know anyone ballsey enough to pull it off other than someone who can legally do it.

Though I can’t believe anyone is that worthless to shoot an animal at a feeding station

Not much different than baiting. Just on a larger scale.

[Skyvalhunter]

Or like shooting the neighborhood deer, sporting. Then cut the horns off and walk away.

[vandeman17]

shooting a lots of does and fawns up in the Wenas and numbers are way down

so much for worshipping nature in a toyota tacoma  with a lift kit, a bed full of empty beer cans shooting from the road

are you guys talking about natives? Seriously, if this is about native hunting, then just say it!

I couldn’t tell you who did it.  Not sure I know anyone ballsey enough to pull it off other than someone who can legally do it.

Though I can’t believe anyone is that worthless to shoot an animal at a feeding station

Not much different than baiting. Just on a larger scale.

Comparing this to baiting, give me a break.

[MarkTrail]

Jm, I absolutely agree with your assessment in regards to 368. The state does a poor job of maintaining the elk fence in some areas. The south end of the yakima herd and the north end(ellensburg) got pounded last winter by depredation tags. The state lead us to believe it was winter kill.

[B4noon]

The hardest pill to swallow in the great debate weather you agree with the treaty rights or not personally I would rather see more oversight and have co-management to prevent over harvest the sour stomach gets you when you live in the area and have first hand knowledge that its not for subsistence the majority of it is for profit which I don't believe their ancestors negotiated a treaty on the basis of profit more so on the basis of subsistence.  There is great money being made by selling trophy antlers they aren't stacking them in the garage or putting them on the wall rather selling for profit.  The excess meat is a bi product and for years it's been no secret in yakima where to go to buy an elk carcass for $100.  It's not as much a practice of taking what we need from the environment to survive it has morphed into dollars running around in the woods and paychecks to cash which in turn desimates populations like anything else there is certainly a few bad apples giving them a black eye when you have 1 or 2 individuals taking over 100 trophy animals a year that's where the tribe needs to step in for their own sake and have some regulation on the raping of the land

[cavemann]

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.

[Dan-o]

Cavemann,

I think we agree.

As I said, I think the US gov't should use EVERY available lever to renegotiate the treaties.   

And I certainly don't think that having a few people harvest wayyyyyyy more than what they need is an OK plan. 

But, a deal is a deal. So let's use the leverage we have to renegotiate......   because we can't just walk away from the treaty. 

[trophyhunt]

The hardest pill to swallow in the great debate weather you agree with the treaty rights or not personally I would rather see more oversight and have co-management to prevent over harvest the sour stomach gets you when you live in the area and have first hand knowledge that its not for subsistence the majority of it is for profit which I don't believe their ancestors negotiated a treaty on the basis of profit more so on the basis of subsistence.  There is great money being made by selling trophy antlers they aren't stacking them in the garage or putting them on the wall rather selling for profit.  The excess meat is a bi product and for years it's been no secret in yakima where to go to buy an elk carcass for $100.  It's not as much a practice of taking what we need from the environment to survive it has morphed into dollars running around in the woods and paychecks to cash which in turn desimates populations like anything else there is certainly a few bad apples giving them a black eye when you have 1 or 2 individuals taking over 100 trophy animals a year that's where the tribe needs to step in for their own sake and have some regulation on the raping of the land

If I knew for 100% I’d say the names of those bad apples, and if you can go buy an elk for $100, there should be an undercover investigation!  I completely agree with what your saying!

[trophyhunt]

Cavemann,

I think we agree.

As I said, I think the US gov't should use EVERY available lever to renegotiate the treaties.   

And I certainly don't think that having a few people harvest wayyyyyyy more than what they need is an OK plan. 

But, a deal is a deal. So let's use the leverage we have to renegotiate......   because we can't just walk away from the treaty.

Id be willing to support a pay off, give each member 100,000 to follow state rules off the reservation, including all waters.

[B4noon]

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.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

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.

[trophyhunt]

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!