Permit quotas

[idahohuntr]

wouldn't it be great if "in common with the citizens" meant under the same regulations, kind of like it means everyone has the same speed limit they have to follow?

”In common with” is part of the treaty that should be challenged in court by good expensive lawyers.  There is nothing in common with how the tribes operate and non tribal members.

But our corrupt state will not. 

You sure about that?

There was a recent SCOTUS decision involving the Yakama's who were sued by the State of Washington on a fuel tax issue where "in common with" language was at play.

Justice Gorsuch and others who decided in favor of the Yakama's weighed in on this exact language...'in common with' was not simply an anti-discrimination provision of the Treaty.  The language is interpreted as meaning joint use of a resource (e.g., elk or highways or fish) - not a restriction on Tribal members that is equivalent to restrictions placed on non-tribal members.  Numerous court rulings have affirmed this interpretation. 

So...I'll save you some expensive lawyer money...arguing 'in common with' means Tribes have to follow non tribal regulations regarding the harvest of elk, deer etc. is a dead end that has already been made clear in numerous Supreme Court rulings dating back over 100 years.     

[trophyhunt]

wouldn't it be great if "in common with the citizens" meant under the same regulations, kind of like it means everyone has the same speed limit they have to follow?

”In common with” is part of the treaty that should be challenged in court by good expensive lawyers.  There is nothing in common with how the tribes operate and non tribal members.

But our corrupt state will not. 

You sure about that?

There was a recent SCOTUS decision involving the Yakama's who were sued by the State of Washington on a fuel tax issue where "in common with" language was at play.

Justice Gorsuch and others who decided in favor of the Yakama's weighed in on this exact language...'in common with' was not simply an anti-discrimination provision of the Treaty.  The language is interpreted as meaning joint use of a resource (e.g., elk or highways or fish) - not a restriction on Tribal members that is equivalent to restrictions placed on non-tribal members.  Numerous court rulings have affirmed this interpretation. 

So...I'll save you some expensive lawyer money...arguing 'in common with' means Tribes have to follow non tribal regulations regarding the harvest of elk, deer etc. is a dead end that has already been made clear in numerous Supreme Court rulings dating back over 100 years.   

gee thanks for crushing my dream!!   

[idahohuntr]

wouldn't it be great if "in common with the citizens" meant under the same regulations, kind of like it means everyone has the same speed limit they have to follow?

”In common with” is part of the treaty that should be challenged in court by good expensive lawyers.  There is nothing in common with how the tribes operate and non tribal members.

But our corrupt state will not. 

You sure about that?

There was a recent SCOTUS decision involving the Yakama's who were sued by the State of Washington on a fuel tax issue where "in common with" language was at play.

Justice Gorsuch and others who decided in favor of the Yakama's weighed in on this exact language...'in common with' was not simply an anti-discrimination provision of the Treaty.  The language is interpreted as meaning joint use of a resource (e.g., elk or highways or fish) - not a restriction on Tribal members that is equivalent to restrictions placed on non-tribal members.  Numerous court rulings have affirmed this interpretation. 

So...I'll save you some expensive lawyer money...arguing 'in common with' means Tribes have to follow non tribal regulations regarding the harvest of elk, deer etc. is a dead end that has already been made clear in numerous Supreme Court rulings dating back over 100 years.   

gee thanks for crushing my dream!!

Dreams won't be officially crushed until June draw results! 

[trophyhunt]

Very true!

[westside Elkhunter]

Am I reading the proposal right. They are doing away with the Skokomish Rifle elk tag??

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[JimmyHoffa]

Am I reading the proposal right. They are doing away with the Skokomish Rifle elk tag??

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Looked like it was still there.  Did you go to the link in the proposed game regs thread?

[trophyhunt]

The link that bobcat put up on the proposed game regs thread is different than the link that triggermike put up on page 14 of this thread.  I guess we will see here shortly which is right.

[JimmyHoffa]

the updated link shows they added a permit to the one he is asking about, it falls at the bottom of the page and appears they cancelled the permits; but actually increased.

[Mr Mykiss]

the updated link shows they added a permit to the one he is asking about, it falls at the bottom of the page and appears they cancelled the permits; but actually increased.

On the bright side there’ll be a HUGE INCREASE in the number of dreams crushed this year...

[Skyvalhunter]

Is that any surprise coming from WDFW?

[Timberstalker]

Soon to be a distant memory.

[TriggerMike]

The link that bobcat put up on the proposed game regs thread is different than the link that triggermike put up on page 14 of this thread.  I guess we will see here shortly which is right.

I believe the link I shared was post commission meeting from this week. The pink numbers were the original proposed tag numbers for this year, pre-commission meeting, and the blue numbers next to some of those ones are the numbers they settled on at the commission meeting and I believe may be contingent on aerial surveys in the next month or so as well as when the 2018 harvest stats come out. So the blue numbers are a placeholder for now. They said this is the case for early antlerless archery in the Colockum as well, contingent on upcoming aerial surveys and harvest stats. My question is why don't they do aerial surveys on the winter range when all the animals are actually on the winter range...? Seems like if they do it in May that a lot of animals will have migrated from the Quilomene back up into the timber and mountains.

[Skyvalhunter]

 With the rega out the quotas are locked in

[Pegasus]

My question is why don't they do aerial surveys on the winter range when all the animals are actually on the winter range...? Seems like if they do it in May that a lot of animals will have migrated from the Quilomene back up into the timber and mountains.

Because that makes sense, would dramatically reduce operating costs and would be more accurate.

[Skyvalhunter]

With the regs out the quotas are locked in