Yakama Nation Sheep Tags

[Time Immemorial 1855]

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.

Exactly, you guys refer to yourselves as SPORTSMEN, as us we are hunter and gatherers, you all take all the hate out on a few that come here to defend ourselves, when I first joined the bashing was terrible, you want to help with the ones over harvesting take pictures of them, call Tribal wardens, help us help you, just remember we define ourselves as HUNTERS AN GATHERERS NOT SPORTSMEN, we dont do it for sport, we do it to PROVIDE

Time, all the pictures in the world won’t make a difference on over harvest, there isn’t an over harvest for the yakama’s.  Your elders know about a tribal member who sells elk jerky and they don’t care that it’s against your laws.  Really there is nothing we can do about a guy killing 24+ bulls a year because the tribe lets him, all we can do is get frustrated when our permits go down and the management isn’t there.  This will never change, same old crap, pass me the bottle!

This just proves you do not fully understand our laws, an what's up with the bottle comment?

[meatwhack]

Question. Is hunting better on Yakama Reservation Land or off of it?  I’m not talking ceded land I’m talking reservation.

[trophyhunt]

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.

Exactly, you guys refer to yourselves as SPORTSMEN, as us we are hunter and gatherers, you all take all the hate out on a few that come here to defend ourselves, when I first joined the bashing was terrible, you want to help with the ones over harvesting take pictures of them, call Tribal wardens, help us help you, just remember we define ourselves as HUNTERS AN GATHERERS NOT SPORTSMEN, we dont do it for sport, we do it to PROVIDE

Time, all the pictures in the world won’t make a difference on over harvest, there isn’t an over harvest for the yakama’s.  Your elders know about a tribal member who sells elk jerky and they don’t care that it’s against your laws.  Really there is nothing we can do about a guy killing 24+ bulls a year because the tribe lets him, all we can do is get frustrated when our permits go down and the management isn’t there.  This will never change, same old crap, pass me the bottle!

This just proves you do not fully understand our laws, an what's up with the bottle comment?

I don’t know all your laws, I admit that.  If we were sitting around a camp fire having this discussion, I was saying, pass the bottle, I’m thirsty! But as far as tribal members killing multiple bulls to sell jerky, are you saying that doesn’t happen? We both know the answer to that, and isn’t that against your own laws? Again, I don’t know or keep up w changing laws with your tribe.

[jackelope]

Whitefoot, you’re tiptoeing on the edge of being banned from this forum again. Keep going. Consider this a final warning. The curse words, pseudo curse words, fake curse words are not permitted.

[Vine Maples and Cottonwoo]

There was no allocation by the court for hunting.  Therefore no quota.  Yet here we are.

We are here because the WDFW gave the tribes the hunting rights they have, rather than go to court over this. It was to avoid court cost/save money. As I recall, it was in the early/mid 80's.
Based on what I was told by a former WDFW Enforcement Agent, now retired: If, at anytime, the State determines that the Tribes are abusing their "Rights" to the detriment of the Wildlife Resource, specifically, that the Tribes are harming the resource, the State has the legal authority to step in and close down tribal use of the resource. The tribes would forfeit their use of the resource. As it was explained to me, both sides know about this. It was also explained to me that this would never come to pass, that it is a political hot potato, that no one wants to touch.
I think the reality is that fish and game are merely a bribe. Its the other "rights" that are more contentious and valuable.

[Special T]

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. 

Probably the most pointed discussion on the disagreement


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[grundy53]

Enough

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[baker5150]

There was no allocation by the court for hunting.  Therefore no quota.  Yet here we are.

We are here because the WDFW gave the tribes the hunting rights they have, rather than go to court over this. It was to avoid court cost/save money. As I recall, it was in the early/mid 80's.
Based on what I was told by a former WDFW Enforcement Agent, now retired: If, at anytime, the State determines that the Tribes are abusing their "Rights" to the detriment of the Wildlife Resource, specifically, that the Tribes are harming the resource, the State has the legal authority to step in and close down tribal use of the resource. The tribes would forfeit their use of the resource. As it was explained to me, both sides know about this. It was also explained to me that this would never come to pass, that it is a political hot potato, that no one wants to touch.
I think the reality is that fish and game are merely a bribe. Its the other "rights" that are more contentious and valuable.

The WDFW did not give any rights to anyone, they don't have that authority.  I fact, the WDFW resisted the court order.

The abuse of rights issue is only listed for Fishing (there is no wording at all about hunting) and has to come from a conservation stand point, it also limits non-tribal hunting first. 

"Furthermore, the court also held the state could regulate the Indians' exercise of their treaty rights, but only to ensure the "perpetuation of a run or of a species of fish". To regulate the Indians, the state must be able to show that conservation could not be achieved by regulating only the non-Indians, must not discriminate against the Indians, and must use appropriate due process."

[trophyhunt]

There was no allocation by the court for hunting.  Therefore no quota.  Yet here we are.

We are here because the WDFW gave the tribes the hunting rights they have, rather than go to court over this. It was to avoid court cost/save money. As I recall, it was in the early/mid 80's.
Based on what I was told by a former WDFW Enforcement Agent, now retired: If, at anytime, the State determines that the Tribes are abusing their "Rights" to the detriment of the Wildlife Resource, specifically, that the Tribes are harming the resource, the State has the legal authority to step in and close down tribal use of the resource. The tribes would forfeit their use of the resource. As it was explained to me, both sides know about this. It was also explained to me that this would never come to pass, that it is a political hot potato, that no one wants to touch.
I think the reality is that fish and game are merely a bribe. Its the other "rights" that are more contentious and valuable.

The WDFW did not give any rights to anyone, they don't have that authority.  I fact, the WDFW resisted the court order.

The abuse of rights issue is only listed for Fishing (there is no wording at all about hunting) and has to come from a conservation stand point, it also limits non-tribal hunting first. 

"Furthermore, the court also held the state could regulate the Indians' exercise of their treaty rights, but only to ensure the "perpetuation of a run or of a species of fish". To regulate the Indians, the state must be able to show that conservation could not be achieved by regulating only the non-Indians, must not discriminate against the Indians, and must use appropriate due process."

sounds like we are just a couple good lawyers away from a law suit to force the Wdfw to enforce harvest numbers allowed?  I’m NOT talking about taking away any treaty rights at all, all I’m saying is force the tribes to be on the same page as Wdfw when it comes to management of fish and game.  I will also say this, some tribes are doing a good job already, I just wish other tribes would follow good examples.  I truly believe most people on this site are good people, it’s completly wrong to label each other as haters or racist just because we want some changes.

[tlbradford]

So you're saying 1 right should be held to a higher standard then another? Oh okay. That sounds about right.

My right that's outdated is not as important as everyone else's on a much older document. Yeah I get it. Guys dont like the abuse but when you're calling for rights to be taken away and done with because they're old and nobody was here when they were agreed upon is not any different then the 2A argument.

Some want to take my rights just like the libs want to take theirs.........

A couple of pages has passed but I had work obligations, so I apologize for the delay.  I am not saying to take away your rights at all.  I am not applying a scale on what rights are more important than others.  I am speaking to the moral and scientific responsibility to managing our wildlife resources.  Acting selfishly (and that is what this is by putting your "rights" over the best practices of managing a healthy population of game in cooperation with WDFW) goes against logic and my belief system.  Speaking for myself, I put the well being of others before my own.  Those are the rose-colored glasses I look through on a daily basis.  I don't want to take rights away, but I do want cooperation to manage our game animals.

[trophyhunt]

So you're saying 1 right should be held to a higher standard then another? Oh okay. That sounds about right.

My right that's outdated is not as important as everyone else's on a much older document. Yeah I get it. Guys dont like the abuse but when you're calling for rights to be taken away and done with because they're old and nobody was here when they were agreed upon is not any different then the 2A argument.

Some want to take my rights just like the libs want to take theirs.........

A couple of pages has passed but I had work obligations, so I apologize for the delay.  I am not saying to take away your rights at all.  I am not applying a scale on what rights are more important than others.  I am speaking to the moral and scientific responsibility to managing our wildlife resources.  Acting selfishly (and that is what this is by putting your "rights" over the best practices of managing a healthy population of game in cooperation with WDFW) goes against logic and my belief system.  Speaking for myself, I put the well being of others before my own.  Those are the rose-colored glasses I look through on a daily basis.  I don't want to take rights away, but I do want cooperation to manage our game animals.

very well put.

[huntnfmly]

So you're saying 1 right should be held to a higher standard then another? Oh okay. That sounds about right.

My right that's outdated is not as important as everyone else's on a much older document. Yeah I get it. Guys dont like the abuse but when you're calling for rights to be taken away and done with because they're old and nobody was here when they were agreed upon is not any different then the 2A argument.

Some want to take my rights just like the libs want to take theirs.........

A couple of pages has passed but I had work obligations, so I apologize for the delay.  I am not saying to take away your rights at all.  I am not applying a scale on what rights are more important than others.  I am speaking to the moral and scientific responsibility to managing our wildlife resources.  Acting selfishly (and that is what this is by putting your "rights" over the best practices of managing a healthy population of game in cooperation with WDFW) goes against logic and my belief system.  Speaking for myself, I put the well being of others before my own.  Those are the rose-colored glasses I look through on a daily basis.  I don't want to take rights away, but I do want cooperation to manage our game animals.

very well put.

X2

[shallowforks]

A couple of pages has passed but I had work obligations, so I apologize for the delay.  I am not saying to take away your rights at all.  I am not applying a scale on what rights are more important than others.  I am speaking to the moral and scientific responsibility to managing our wildlife resources.  Acting selfishly (and that is what this is by putting your "rights" over the best practices of managing a healthy population of game in cooperation with WDFW) goes against logic and my belief system.  Speaking for myself, I put the well being of others before my own.  Those are the rose-colored glasses I look through on a daily basis.  I don't want to take rights away, but I do want cooperation to manage our game animals.

Cooperation, yes!

[Gringo31]

My suggestion is for folks to work with the channels that they have.  Hearing the complaining about the way it is gets real old.  I appreciate folks who are NDN's (still cracks me up) openly answering questions to those asking honest questions.

Complaining on a forum doesn't chance much..... 

[trophyhunt]

Gringo, so should we just forget about it? You and I know it’s not as simple as calling our senator or the news. Even if I was a rich guy and devoted my life to investigating guys who kills multiple elk to sell as jerky or guys who kill deer to bait eagles to kill to sell the feathers, you honestly think it will make a difference?  You are sick of us complaining?, how do you think we feel about more important stuff than complaining? Like over harvest for compensation rather than substance or ceremony.  Yeah I agree this topic gets real old, it’s the definition of beating a dead horse. But if you come up with a solution we are all ears, until then, all we can do is bitch to each other about our frustrations.