Free: Contests & Raffles.
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.
Quote from: Sitka_Blacktail on January 02, 2018, 02:42:25 PMQuote from: cavemann on January 02, 2018, 12:39:48 PMDan-OI 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...
Quote from: cavemann on January 02, 2018, 12:39:48 PMDan-OI 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.
Dan-OI 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.
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 couldn’t do anything about it... so how are his hands tied?
The bashing never ends. So sad. You can’t 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 doesn’t mean it’s not fair. Get educated and stop the hate. Yes I’m 100% European decent. My family moved onto the Yakama Rez in 1917 on my mother’s 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. It’s 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 it’s a limited few who are rotten. SO SAD. NUFF SAID
Well its good to know that in his taking of 10 or so elk he is probably also killing a fair amount of pregnant cows. Kind of a warm, cozy feeling.
Tribal Hunting = one more predator and the only one able to help us control the others..... how can we encourage tribal hound hunting of bear, cougar and wolves?
What makes this a uniquely Washington problem? As I understand it many tribes across the west share the same hunting and fishing rights but I don't hear about how Wyoming wildlife is in shambles due to native harvest.