collapse
Double U Hunting Supply Sound like the real thing!

Author Topic: More blood and guts  (Read 19224 times)

Offline Blacktail Sniper

  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2009
  • Posts: 4809
  • Location: Rochester, Washington
  • Kill'em all...let the gravy sort'em out!!!
Re: More blood and guts
« Reply #75 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

  • Political Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Frontiersman
  • *
  • Join Date: Mar 2009
  • Posts: 3781
Re: More blood and guts
« Reply #76 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: 34979
  • Location: Rochester
    • robert68
More blood and guts
« Reply #77 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)
  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2008
  • Posts: 10372
  • Location: Wetside
Re: More blood and guts
« Reply #78 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.
“In common with”..... not so much!!

Offline goldenhtr

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hunter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2007
  • Posts: 151
Re: More blood and guts
« Reply #79 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)
Gen:27:3

Offline Gringo31

  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Old Salt
  • *
  • Join Date: May 2009
  • Posts: 5350
Re: More blood and guts
« Reply #80 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)
  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2008
  • Posts: 10372
  • Location: Wetside
Re: More blood and guts
« Reply #81 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 something’s for complete freedom of them, no restriction on certain games.  I personally think we could still bargain with them if the natives didn’t 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?
“In common with”..... not so much!!

Offline meatwhack

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Scout
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2011
  • Posts: 303
Re: More blood and guts
« Reply #82 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: 16072
  • Location: The Wedge
  • My posts do not reflect an official opinion of HW
Re: More blood and guts
« Reply #83 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.
SCI

Offline KFhunter

  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Posts: 16072
  • Location: The Wedge
  • My posts do not reflect an official opinion of HW
Re: More blood and guts
« Reply #84 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?
SCI

Online JimmyHoffa

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Explorer
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2010
  • Posts: 10236
  • Location: 150 Years Too Late
Re: More blood and guts
« Reply #85 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: 16072
  • Location: The Wedge
  • My posts do not reflect an official opinion of HW
Re: More blood and guts
« Reply #86 on: January 02, 2018, 04:47:47 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.
SCI

Online JimmyHoffa

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Explorer
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2010
  • Posts: 10236
  • Location: 150 Years Too Late
Re: More blood and guts
« Reply #87 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 Duckslayer89

  • Political Topics
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Frontiersman
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2014
  • Posts: 2887
  • Location: Orting
Re: More blood and guts
« Reply #88 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: 8943
Re: More blood and guts
« Reply #89 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...

 

* Recent Topics