Yakama Nation Sheep Tags

[DOUBLELUNG]

I’ll be the one to disagree, if I’m reading dL’s post correctly. Us non natives are not being selfish at all when it comes to tribal issues, that’s BS.  How is it selfish when we just want equality??  Answer that please!  WE WANT EQUALILY, that’s it, simple. Your post was deep, but it says non natives are jealous and selfish, if I read it wrong, I apologize.

No apology needed TH.  I tried to separate facts from my own opinion.  The only recourse for what you want is through court interpretation of the treaties or voluntary restrictions implemented by treaty tribes on their members: neither of those is likely.  The only other recourse is through congressional action, which I also believe is unlikely.  I totally understand your position, and share it to some degree, but we have to face reality. 

Where overharvest occurs, regardless of who is doing it, under current legal constraints the answer is reducing vulnerability of the resource.  The state can only regulate state licensed hunters, but reducing vulnerability affects all hunters.   

[baker5150]

Watching this thread is killing me.

only 1 group in this thread has actual hunting and fishing rights... the Yakama Nation.

If you don't like it tough... hunters and fisherman have to build a bridge with natives because in the end, if we don't, non natives wont have hunting or fishing because of a lack of popular support and a shrinking demographic, meanwhile a native peoples will still be enjoying the outdoors because they have their rights in writing.

So complain about a different user group getting permits just realize native peoples will have permits forever and your grandkids or great grandkids wont have any prospective of what you are arguing about today because in your lifetime you worried about what someone else has instead of preserving our future.

We can argue conservation and equality of rights without hindering rights, it's a discussion, not a fight to the death.

To ignore issues and "just deal with it" is about the biggest mistake we can make, par for the course is good for nobody

Open dialogue is key to education and forward progress.

[jackelope]

They probably didnt until the decision was made. We dont have to ask nor are we required to ask.

Some on here remind me very much like what's going on right now in this country. Liberal, tree hugging bunny lover social justice warrior snowflakes telling another group that the rights on an old document from hundreds of years ago should be done with, it's not needed and therefore should not have that right anymore and heres the ones affected by it that support it saying yes we do, because it's our right as written and agreed upon.

What's the difference? If I cant have my rights as agreed upon by an old piece of paper by old guys not here anymore then why should you have yours?

Now, dont let that confuse you about me personally, I'm not a Democrat nor do I want to see my 2A rights taken away either.

I would have liked to see the tribe go to the state and say something to the effect of “hey, we’d like to have a sheep tag in the swakane.” And then hopefully or maybe the state would say “ok, you can have your tag and we’ll reduce ours to 1.” And then overharvest of a precious resource would be a non issue. But that didn’t happen. The state, who manages our wildlife(and yours) probably didn’t know anything about it. That sucks. And that’s my one and only argument. Work together to preserve the resource. Times are changing. We need compromise from both sides.

[huntnphool]

Poor taste to reference a lesson we all should learn from?

I probably shouldnt have singled you out, as there have been lots of remarks made by both sides that are unnecessary and dont contribute to the substance of this thread. This topic is extremely sensitive and full of landmines for both sides  but to me is an absolutely worthwhile and relevant topic for us all to be discussing and weighing in on. Theres been a lot of good insight thus far and we can keep the conversation going as long as we all remain civil and respectful to eachother. So my apologies for singling you out especially if no sarcasm was meant on your behalf.

 

[Rainier10]

They probably didnt until the decision was made. We dont have to ask nor are we required to ask.

Some on here remind me very much like what's going on right now in this country. Liberal, tree hugging bunny lover social justice warrior snowflakes telling another group that the rights on an old document from hundreds of years ago should be done with, it's not needed and therefore should not have that right anymore and heres the ones affected by it that support it saying yes we do, because it's our right as written and agreed upon.

What's the difference? If I cant have my rights as agreed upon by an old piece of paper by old guys not here anymore then why should you have yours?

Now, dont let that confuse you about me personally, I'm not a Democrat nor do I want to see my 2A rights taken away either.

I would have liked to see the tribe go to the state and say something to the effect of “hey, we’d like to have a sheep tag in the swakane.” And then hopefully or maybe the state would say “ok, you can have your tag and we’ll reduce ours to 1.” And then overharvest of a precious resource would be a non issue. But that didn’t happen. The state, who manages our wildlife(and yours) probably didn’t know anything about it. That sucks. And that’s my one and only argument. Work together to preserve the resource. Times are changing. We need compromise from both sides.

I would have hoped that a conversation like this would have happened as well.

[huntnphool]

They probably didnt until the decision was made. We dont have to ask nor are we required to ask.

Some on here remind me very much like what's going on right now in this country. Liberal, tree hugging bunny lover social justice warrior snowflakes telling another group that the rights on an old document from hundreds of years ago should be done with, it's not needed and therefore should not have that right anymore and heres the ones affected by it that support it saying yes we do, because it's our right as written and agreed upon.

What's the difference? If I cant have my rights as agreed upon by an old piece of paper by old guys not here anymore then why should you have yours?

Now, dont let that confuse you about me personally, I'm not a Democrat nor do I want to see my 2A rights taken away either.

I would have liked to see the tribe go to the state and say something to the effect of “hey, we’d like to have a sheep tag in the swakane.” And then hopefully or maybe the state would say “ok, you can have your tag and we’ll reduce ours to 1.” And then overharvest of a precious resource would be a non issue. But that didn’t happen. The state, who manages our wildlife(and yours) probably didn’t know anything about it. That sucks. And that’s my one and only argument. Work together to preserve the resource. Times are changing. We need compromise from both sides.

 

 WDFW should never have increased from the one tag IMO. I was hoping they would have gone back to one tag on Chelan Butte, after the ear tag hunts were finished. Adding one tag in Swakane for the tribe wouldn't have been a big deal then......eliminate the auction tag first!

[X-Force]

Watching this thread is killing me.

only 1 group in this thread has actual hunting and fishing rights... the Yakama Nation.

If you don't like it tough... hunters and fisherman have to build a bridge with natives because in the end, if we don't, non natives wont have hunting or fishing because of a lack of popular support and a shrinking demographic, meanwhile a native peoples will still be enjoying the outdoors because they have their rights in writing.

So complain about a different user group getting permits just realize native peoples will have permits forever and your grandkids or great grandkids wont have any prospective of what you are arguing about today because in your lifetime you worried about what someone else has instead of preserving our future.

We can argue conservation and equality of rights without hindering rights, it's a discussion, not a fight to the death.

To ignore issues and "just deal with it" is about the biggest mistake we can make, par for the course is good for nobody

Open dialogue is key to education and forward progress.

There are no non native rights to hunting... so equal rights is a non issue.
We can argue conservation, harvests etc. but complaining about treaty quotas that wont change without litigation and belittling people because of their birth, heritage or ethnicity is dumb.

This doesn't seem like a just deal with it issue. There is only an assumption that the herd cant handle the additional permits. If that is the case next year biologist will review the data and make that correction. I could be wrong but Sheep harvests are supposed to be limited to 4% of population. The last survey showed 155-165 animals if there 6 permits (2 OILS, 2 Native, 2 Raffle or other) used in the unit WDFW is still at harvest objectives.

Open Constructive dialogue is the key but in order to have constructive dialogue there needs to be a frame work, objectives, etc.
I'm trying to figure out the objective of this thread.

[shallowforks]

Hey atleast everyone seems to agree about ditching the auction tag. 

[jackelope]

And this discussion really shouldn’t be just about the swakane either. This same principle should be looked at statewide, especially for animals like bighorn sheep, moose and mountain goats. These animals are not a dime a dozen and shouldn’t be treated as such. 

[baker5150]

Watching this thread is killing me.

only 1 group in this thread has actual hunting and fishing rights... the Yakama Nation.

If you don't like it tough... hunters and fisherman have to build a bridge with natives because in the end, if we don't, non natives wont have hunting or fishing because of a lack of popular support and a shrinking demographic, meanwhile a native peoples will still be enjoying the outdoors because they have their rights in writing.

So complain about a different user group getting permits just realize native peoples will have permits forever and your grandkids or great grandkids wont have any prospective of what you are arguing about today because in your lifetime you worried about what someone else has instead of preserving our future.

We can argue conservation and equality of rights without hindering rights, it's a discussion, not a fight to the death.

To ignore issues and "just deal with it" is about the biggest mistake we can make, par for the course is good for nobody

Open dialogue is key to education and forward progress.

There are no non native rights to hunting... so equal rights is a non issue.
We can argue conservation, harvests etc. but complaining about treaty quotas that wont change without litigation and belittling people because of their birth, heritage or ethnicity is dumb.

This doesn't seem like a just deal with it issue. There is only an assumption that the herd cant handle the additional permits. If that is the case next year biologist will review the data and make that correction. I could be wrong but Sheep harvests are supposed to be limited to 4% of population. The last survey showed 155-165 animals if there 6 permits (2 OILS, 2 Native, 2 Raffle or other) used in the unit WDFW is still at harvest objectives.

Open Constructive dialogue is the key but in order to have constructive dialogue there needs to be a frame work, objectives, etc.
I'm trying to figure out the objective of this thread.

You have missed the point.

And there are no treaty quotas.  The treaty says nothing about quotas whatsoever.
In fact, it says nothing about Hunting rights either,

"The exclusive right of taking fish in all the streams, where running through or bordering said reservation, is further secured to said confederated tribes and bands of Indians, as also the right of taking fish at all usual and accustomed places, in common with the citizens of the Territory, and of erecting temporary buildings for curing them; together with the privilege of hunting, gathering roots and berries, and pasturing their horses and cattle upon open and unclaimed land"

The Wa Supreme Court decided that words don't matter, and interpreted it for us.

"The Washington State Supreme Court has ruled that there is no legal distinction between a tribal “right” or “privilege” regarding hunting."
https://nwifc.org/about-us/wildlife/treaty-hunting-rights-faq/


You see the issue?  Rights, Privilege, same, only if Native, and hunting.  Makes sense. 

[grundy53]

Watching this thread is killing me.

only 1 group in this thread has actual hunting and fishing rights... the Yakama Nation.

If you don't like it tough... hunters and fisherman have to build a bridge with natives because in the end, if we don't, non natives wont have hunting or fishing because of a lack of popular support and a shrinking demographic, meanwhile a native peoples will still be enjoying the outdoors because they have their rights in writing.

So complain about a different user group getting permits just realize native peoples will have permits forever and your grandkids or great grandkids wont have any prospective of what you are arguing about today because in your lifetime you worried about what someone else has instead of preserving our future.

We can argue conservation and equality of rights without hindering rights, it's a discussion, not a fight to the death.

To ignore issues and "just deal with it" is about the biggest mistake we can make, par for the course is good for nobody

Open dialogue is key to education and forward progress.

There are no non native rights to hunting... so equal rights is a non issue.
We can argue conservation, harvests etc. but complaining about treaty quotas that wont change without litigation and belittling people because of their birth, heritage or ethnicity is dumb.

This doesn't seem like a just deal with it issue. There is only an assumption that the herd cant handle the additional permits. If that is the case next year biologist will review the data and make that correction. I could be wrong but Sheep harvests are supposed to be limited to 4% of population. The last survey showed 155-165 animals if there 6 permits (2 OILS, 2 Native, 2 Raffle or other) used in the unit WDFW is still at harvest objectives.

Open Constructive dialogue is the key but in order to have constructive dialogue there needs to be a frame work, objectives, etc.
I'm trying to figure out the objective of this thread.

You have missed the point.

And there are no treaty quotas.  The treaty says nothing about quotas whatsoever.
In fact, it says nothing about Hunting rights either,

"The exclusive right of taking fish in all the streams, where running through or bordering said reservation, is further secured to said confederated tribes and bands of Indians, as also the right of taking fish at all usual and accustomed places, in common with the citizens of the Territory, and of erecting temporary buildings for curing them; together with the privilege of hunting, gathering roots and berries, and pasturing their horses and cattle upon open and unclaimed land"

The Wa Supreme Court decided that words don't matter, and interpreted it for us.

"The Washington State Supreme Court has ruled that there is no legal distinction between a tribal “right” or “privilege” regarding hunting."
https://nwifc.org/about-us/wildlife/treaty-hunting-rights-faq/


You see the issue?  Rights, Privilege, same, only if Native, and hunting.  Makes sense. 

Well, on the bright side. It looks like we have precedence if they (liberal Washington voters) ever try to outlaw hunting. We can say our hunting privileges are actually rights. Look at this case law...

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[trophyhunt]

“In common with”, love that part...... seems limits would go along with “In common with”!

[huntnfmly]

“In common with”, love that part...... seems limits would go along with “In common with”!

That's the part that always gets me  I would think that means what it says as in the same with limits

[X-Force]

Watching this thread is killing me.

only 1 group in this thread has actual hunting and fishing rights... the Yakama Nation.

If you don't like it tough... hunters and fisherman have to build a bridge with natives because in the end, if we don't, non natives wont have hunting or fishing because of a lack of popular support and a shrinking demographic, meanwhile a native peoples will still be enjoying the outdoors because they have their rights in writing.

So complain about a different user group getting permits just realize native peoples will have permits forever and your grandkids or great grandkids wont have any prospective of what you are arguing about today because in your lifetime you worried about what someone else has instead of preserving our future.

We can argue conservation and equality of rights without hindering rights, it's a discussion, not a fight to the death.

To ignore issues and "just deal with it" is about the biggest mistake we can make, par for the course is good for nobody

Open dialogue is key to education and forward progress.

There are no non native rights to hunting... so equal rights is a non issue.
We can argue conservation, harvests etc. but complaining about treaty quotas that wont change without litigation and belittling people because of their birth, heritage or ethnicity is dumb.

This doesn't seem like a just deal with it issue. There is only an assumption that the herd cant handle the additional permits. If that is the case next year biologist will review the data and make that correction. I could be wrong but Sheep harvests are supposed to be limited to 4% of population. The last survey showed 155-165 animals if there 6 permits (2 OILS, 2 Native, 2 Raffle or other) used in the unit WDFW is still at harvest objectives.

Open Constructive dialogue is the key but in order to have constructive dialogue there needs to be a frame work, objectives, etc.
I'm trying to figure out the objective of this thread.

You have missed the point.

And there are no treaty quotas.  The treaty says nothing about quotas whatsoever.
In fact, it says nothing about Hunting rights either,

"The exclusive right of taking fish in all the streams, where running through or bordering said reservation, is further secured to said confederated tribes and bands of Indians, as also the right of taking fish at all usual and accustomed places, in common with the citizens of the Territory, and of erecting temporary buildings for curing them; together with the privilege of hunting, gathering roots and berries, and pasturing their horses and cattle upon open and unclaimed land"

The Wa Supreme Court decided that words don't matter, and interpreted it for us.

"The Washington State Supreme Court has ruled that there is no legal distinction between a tribal “right” or “privilege” regarding hunting."
https://nwifc.org/about-us/wildlife/treaty-hunting-rights-faq/


You see the issue?  Rights, Privilege, same, only if Native, and hunting.  Makes sense. 

I am trying to understand how the interpretation of the treaty is Native's have hunting rights and the same court says they are allowed equal quantity of take but that doesn't equate to hunting rights or a quota?

[baker5150]

Watching this thread is killing me.

only 1 group in this thread has actual hunting and fishing rights... the Yakama Nation.

If you don't like it tough... hunters and fisherman have to build a bridge with natives because in the end, if we don't, non natives wont have hunting or fishing because of a lack of popular support and a shrinking demographic, meanwhile a native peoples will still be enjoying the outdoors because they have their rights in writing.

So complain about a different user group getting permits just realize native peoples will have permits forever and your grandkids or great grandkids wont have any prospective of what you are arguing about today because in your lifetime you worried about what someone else has instead of preserving our future.

We can argue conservation and equality of rights without hindering rights, it's a discussion, not a fight to the death.

To ignore issues and "just deal with it" is about the biggest mistake we can make, par for the course is good for nobody

Open dialogue is key to education and forward progress.

There are no non native rights to hunting... so equal rights is a non issue.
We can argue conservation, harvests etc. but complaining about treaty quotas that wont change without litigation and belittling people because of their birth, heritage or ethnicity is dumb.

This doesn't seem like a just deal with it issue. There is only an assumption that the herd cant handle the additional permits. If that is the case next year biologist will review the data and make that correction. I could be wrong but Sheep harvests are supposed to be limited to 4% of population. The last survey showed 155-165 animals if there 6 permits (2 OILS, 2 Native, 2 Raffle or other) used in the unit WDFW is still at harvest objectives.

Open Constructive dialogue is the key but in order to have constructive dialogue there needs to be a frame work, objectives, etc.
I'm trying to figure out the objective of this thread.

You have missed the point.

And there are no treaty quotas.  The treaty says nothing about quotas whatsoever.
In fact, it says nothing about Hunting rights either,

"The exclusive right of taking fish in all the streams, where running through or bordering said reservation, is further secured to said confederated tribes and bands of Indians, as also the right of taking fish at all usual and accustomed places, in common with the citizens of the Territory, and of erecting temporary buildings for curing them; together with the privilege of hunting, gathering roots and berries, and pasturing their horses and cattle upon open and unclaimed land"

The Wa Supreme Court decided that words don't matter, and interpreted it for us.

"The Washington State Supreme Court has ruled that there is no legal distinction between a tribal “right” or “privilege” regarding hunting."
https://nwifc.org/about-us/wildlife/treaty-hunting-rights-faq/


You see the issue?  Rights, Privilege, same, only if Native, and hunting.  Makes sense. 

I am trying to understand how the interpretation of the treaty is Native's have hunting rights and the same court says they are allowed equal quantity of take but that doesn't equate to hunting rights or a quota?

It wasn't the same court, but I see what you are asking.
The Boldt decision "interpreted" that "in common with" meant an equal share. But both the treaty, and Boldt only state that for Fishing, not hunting.  There was no allocation by the court for hunting.  Therefore no quota.  Yet here we are.