Free: Contests & Raffles.
Quote from: Rainier10 on August 22, 2018, 04:58:10 PMJust going to post this for all to see as a reminder.You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, name calling, belittling, threatening, unproven accusations, trashes topics or other members, trashes the forum, intentionally instigates trouble, obscene, profanity or intended profanity, sexually oriented, adult material, invasive of a person's privacy, or in violation of any International, State, or United States Federal law.Geez where was these laws when I got a death threat?
Just going to post this for all to see as a reminder.You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, name calling, belittling, threatening, unproven accusations, trashes topics or other members, trashes the forum, intentionally instigates trouble, obscene, profanity or intended profanity, sexually oriented, adult material, invasive of a person's privacy, or in violation of any International, State, or United States Federal law.
On the discussion of what legal limits there are to Tribal harvest, I am only aware of two:First, while the State owns the wildlife within their borders, the only substantive measure or control the state has over harvest of wildlife in off reservation treaty hunting areas is if there is a "conservation concern". This gets a little murky, but if there is genuine concern about the species, possibly the state could limit harvest in a non-discriminatory manner (meaning they don't just target tribal harvest, but shut it down for everyone). The bar for "conservation concern" is high...it can't be "we want a world class ram hunt"...it has to be that continued hunting will cause an extinction or great harm to the species. For example, if the Yakamas issued 300 sheep tags - and the plan was to slaughter bighorns to the point the species would be imperiled, the State could probably step in and restrain such harvest. If the Yakamas issue 6 or 8 tags for Swakane each year - changing the age class of rams, but not harming the overall existence of the species...that state has no power to step in. Most Tribes have an interest in conserving species so it is unlikely they would ever sanction such unregulated harvest. However, the Tribe harvesting several rams or a bunch of trophy bucks and bulls that reduces the age class and frustrates trophy hunters is not a conservation concern as defined by the court rulings I'm aware of. The more indirect control the state has IMO is to fight fire with fire...if the State is managing an area for trophies at the request of its citizens - and this makes it an attractive area for Tribal harvest...I don't see why the state doesn't stand up and say, "look - if you don't limit Tribal harvest to x tags, were just going to make this a general season hunt and there will be 5,000 hunters here hammering the woods all season". Again, whatever the state proposed would still have to be in accordance with conserving the species, but frankly we could kill off a ton of elk and deer and while hunting would be absolutely dismal - the species would not be threatened with extinction. The second limit...The United States is also a sovereign nation. Congress can abrogate treaty rights or modify treaties at any time. If Tribal hunting became such an issue that there was overwhelming public outcry...treaties could be modified...but I would argue that is extremely unlikely to happen...however, it is a bit of a check on completely unrestrained harvest by Tribes. This is why in my view many Tribes do closely monitor and regulate harvest where there is substantial public interest (e.g., Yellowstone bison hunts).
California bighorn sheep were native to the Columbia River drainage from at least the Okanogan River to the Columbia Gorge. They were extirpated by the 1930s due to primarily overhunting and disease introduced along with domestic sheep and goats. By the 1960s they had been successfully reintroduced. Pre-European archaeology sites document that Indians/Native Americans hunted and consumed bighorns, elk, deer, bison and pronghorn in this area. These aren't opinions, they are facts. My opinions on tribal hunting don't matter. As noted it is the law of the land. I used to tell people when I worked for WDFW that I was happy to listen to them about tribal hunting, but they would be equally productive going to WA DOT or any other state agency to voice those concerns, as WDFW had no more ability to regulate treaty tribal hunting than any other state agency, the state legislature, or the governor. That's also truth, not opinion. Lots of things kill sheep and other big game besides tribal and nontribal hunters. Poachers, bumpers, predators, disease, winter stress, starvation. Some can be regulated and some cannot. Where big game are overexploited by humans, and it is my opinion that definitely occurs in some locations, I am a big advocate for further limiting motorized access. It is the best conservation tool by far, and makes big game really robust to poaching, tribal and nontribal hunting. Some nontribal hunters and nonhunters support motorized closures to protect big game, but enough of us are selfish that most of our wildlife areas are open year round to motorized access, despite the illegal and legal kill levels that result. Same goes for most federal lands, which is why most of the deer and sheep winter ranges in Swakane, Entiat, Yakima, Colockum, Methow, Okanogan, etc. etc. on Forest Service continues to be high density open roads for wheeled vehicles and snowmobiles in winter. If it's really about the resource, hunters would support seasonal motorized closures everywhere deer, elk, sheep, etc. are vulnerable; and not hunting them under those conditions either. As a group we do not. Whether it's a coveted permit, late season during the rut or on wintering grounds, we don't want to be limited; our actions show our hypocrisy, we only want the other guy limited to have an advantage ourselves. It's not really about the resource, we are selfish and just want the better opportunity for ourself. It's not just tribal hunting, it's pimping out auction tags to benefit the wealthy; special hunt points to screw the young hunters to benefit us older guys at their expense; and resource allocation to pit archery, muzzleloader, and modern tag holders against each other for more and better opportunities, and multiseason tags that allow those of us willing to fork out a ridiculous additional amount of money to have more than most. Not to mention nonresident hunting license fees to allow those of us in the "middle elite" more and better opportunities out of state. It ALL comes down selfishness and greed and wanting more than the next guy can afford. Many of us only care about the resource to the extent we personally benefit from it.
I hear ya. But dont forget to walk a mile. It probably gets old for them too. Anyways this has been a good thread all in all. I know Ive learned a lot. Thanks to those who have contributed good info and those who have shared their frustrations respectfully.
