Now that it snowed they need to lock up Watt Canyon

[birdshooter1189]

"In my opinion there are two problems here that are fueling a lot of frustration among us.
1. There are not enough animals (game and fish) to meet the desires of us humans.
2. We have different groups of humans following different rules based on skin color.  This is especially problematic when combined with the first problem."

birdshooter1189, On what data do you base your statement in #1? If you're talking about salmon and steelhead runs, for example, a very compelling argument could be made that the greatest detriment to salmonids has been the construction of dams by white people and the pollution of our water with the use of pesticides. As far as our ungulate herds are concerned, it may be successfully argued that loss of habitat, disease, and predation are the leading factors affecting populations. In statement #2, the first part is inaccurate and, assuming you have no data to support statement #1, the second part of #2 doesn't make any sense. Different people follow different rules not because of "their skin color", but because the US Congress passed those treaties and the President signed them into law. We do this with many sovereign nations when we need to make a deal which benefits both parties in some way. Apparently, we can also back out of those if the agreement no longer benefits us. But, I think it'd be a long row to hoe getting Congress or the President to change the treaties based on your emotional assessment, as opposed to scientific hypotheses based on empirical data. Just because you don't like it that Indians have rights that you don't does not a convincing argument make. Collecting data and presenting a scientific approach would possibly carry some weight.

My statement for #1 is just simply that there isn't as much fish and game as we (sportsmen) would like.  I wasn't trying to place blame on why there is a shortage.  Just acknowledging that a shortage exists.  I agree with you about all the contributing factors you listed, and I'm sure we could add many more contributors to that list.

For statement #2, I appologize if I mis-spoke by identifying tribal members as people of a different skin color.  Perhaps I should have said:
2. We have different groups of humans following different rules based on membership to a tribe (sovereign nation).  This is especially problematic when combined with the first problem."

The main point I was trying to get across is that it is my opinion that:
1. We have a limited resource.
2. Different groups of people who are competing for the same limited resource are following different rules.

And this is a perfect recipe for tension and agitation between the different groups that are competing for the resource.

I understand that it is a long shot and will probably never happen, but in my opinion we would eliminate nearly all of the tension between tribal sportsmen and non-tribal sportsmen if we all were following the same set of hunting and fishing rules.

[NOCK NOCK]

Honest question.
If/When a WDFW agent makes contact with a Yakama Hunter, Do they ask to see verification of their tribal membership??

[boneaddict]

"D i p l o m a t i c   immunity"

[NOCK NOCK]

  you know where I was headed with this don’t ya

[dvolmer]

I was going to try and not say any more but I have a big mouth so here it goes.

Yes Natives have treaty rights on hunting and fishing.  Here's my problem, What is a native and what is not?  We have to honor their rights and treaties but they get to determine who has these rights.  Stay with me here.  After a little research I found that to be a member of the Yakima tribe you have to be 25% native.  Muckelshoot tribe is 10%.  In the past, your % had to be higher.  They get to make these rules and they are fluid in that they can change the percentage as they choose.  So when a Muckelshoot with 10% native blood gets to hunt, what is the other 90% of him or her doing?  Poaching???

100% natives should be able to keep their treaty rights.  Anything less is a wicked evil American like the rest of us!  If this rule was followed the problem would be solved.

Like Obama, supposed to be are first black president.  Nonsense!  He was half white!  So I guess people in this country get to choose and pick what % nationality they get to be determining on what special interest or benefit it will get them.  Hogwash!  This is Racism at its finest.  But we are called racist by talking about it and or challenging the validity of it all.

As a sovereign the Tribe determines their membership requirements. If the Yakamas say 25% or the muckelshoots say 10%...their prerogative.

.         

I agree and disagree. Inside of the reservations they can do as they please as a sovereign nation. But when it affects us outside of their reservations there needs to be some kind of by off and agreement by the rest of the people involved and impacted by the decision.                                                                                                                                             

[Platensek-po]

I was going to try and not say any more but I have a big mouth so here it goes.

Yes Natives have treaty rights on hunting and fishing.  Here's my problem, What is a native and what is not?  We have to honor their rights and treaties but they get to determine who has these rights.  Stay with me here.  After a little research I found that to be a member of the Yakima tribe you have to be 25% native.  Muckelshoot tribe is 10%.  In the past, your % had to be higher.  They get to make these rules and they are fluid in that they can change the percentage as they choose.  So when a Muckelshoot with 10% native blood gets to hunt, what is the other 90% of him or her doing?  Poaching???

100% natives should be able to keep their treaty rights.  Anything less is a wicked evil American like the rest of us!  If this rule was followed the problem would be solved.

Like Obama, supposed to be are first black president.  Nonsense!  He was half white!  So I guess people in this country get to choose and pick what % nationality they get to be determining on what special interest or benefit it will get them.  Hogwash!  This is Racism at its finest.  But we are called racist by talking about it and or challenging the validity of it all.

As a sovereign the Tribe determines their membership requirements. If the Yakamas say 25% or the muckelshoots say 10%...their prerogative.

.         

I agree and disagree. Inside of the reservations they can do as they please as a sovereign nation. But when it affects us outside of their reservations there needs to be some kind of by off and agreement by the rest of the people involved and impacted by the decision.                                                                                                                                             

There is an agreement. That’s what a treaty is...

[pianoman9701]

"In my opinion there are two problems here that are fueling a lot of frustration among us.
1. There are not enough animals (game and fish) to meet the desires of us humans.
2. We have different groups of humans following different rules based on skin color.  This is especially problematic when combined with the first problem."

birdshooter1189, On what data do you base your statement in #1? If you're talking about salmon and steelhead runs, for example, a very compelling argument could be made that the greatest detriment to salmonids has been the construction of dams by white people and the pollution of our water with the use of pesticides. As far as our ungulate herds are concerned, it may be successfully argued that loss of habitat, disease, and predation are the leading factors affecting populations. In statement #2, the first part is inaccurate and, assuming you have no data to support statement #1, the second part of #2 doesn't make any sense. Different people follow different rules not because of "their skin color", but because the US Congress passed those treaties and the President signed them into law. We do this with many sovereign nations when we need to make a deal which benefits both parties in some way. Apparently, we can also back out of those if the agreement no longer benefits us. But, I think it'd be a long row to hoe getting Congress or the President to change the treaties based on your emotional assessment, as opposed to scientific hypotheses based on empirical data. Just because you don't like it that Indians have rights that you don't does not a convincing argument make. Collecting data and presenting a scientific approach would possibly carry some weight.

My statement for #1 is just simply that there isn't as much fish and game as we (sportsmen) would like.  I wasn't trying to place blame on why there is a shortage.  Just acknowledging that a shortage exists.  I agree with you about all the contributing factors you listed, and I'm sure we could add many more contributors to that list.

For statement #2, I appologize if I mis-spoke by identifying tribal members as people of a different skin color.  Perhaps I should have said:
2. We have different groups of humans following different rules based on membership to a tribe (sovereign nation).  This is especially problematic when combined with the first problem."

The main point I was trying to get across is that it is my opinion that:
1. We have a limited resource.
2. Different groups of people who are competing for the same limited resource are following different rules.

And this is a perfect recipe for tension and agitation between the different groups that are competing for the resource.

I understand that it is a long shot and will probably never happen, but in my opinion we would eliminate nearly all of the tension between tribal sportsmen and non-tribal sportsmen if we all were following the same set of hunting and fishing rules.

So you believe that if you take away the treaty rights from the Indians that's going to relieve tension? Yeah, it won't. It'll just make you happier. I also don't see evidence from you that taking away their hunting and fishing rights will cure the ills of our fish and game. You perceive their rights as unfair and think we have wildlife shortages to do with that. Sorry, I just don't see the proof. I believe it's an emotional response based on jealousy and nothing scientific. Show me some numbers - harvest numbers, herd numbers, etc. - and show me the connection between those numbers and tribal rights. Then maybe we'll find common ground. Until then, I remain unconvinced that the tribes are the reason for our wildlife woes, if any.

[ballpark]

Don’t feed the troll

i am not a troll,i am being honest.all this hate for something that is heard from other haters.give facts and quit bashing other groups is all i have to say.i will not sit by while people bash for no reason that can be proven.jackelope dont go,you posted what i was looking for give me a min. to reply to your request.

I'll bite - Why are some people allowed to use rifles to shoot game in a winter refuge area during archery season?   Why not have "all hunters" use the same weapon during prescribed seasons?  Out of season these units can be controlled by locking the gates, this would have a positive impact on game that migrate to these winter refuge.  This would not prevent some people from hunting during the season

You should read up on how treaties work. It would clear up all of the questions for you.

Help me out Pianoman- Your saying the treaties state specific use of a rifle?   I'm not discussing restricting ability to hunt, just use the same method during prescribed hunts.  Use whatever you want during other times and F&G can control vehicle access to winter refuge areas.  That would help - in my opinion.

[elkrack]

There’s no doubt the WDFW has played a major role in our current game numbers with their crazy number of cow permits they issued a few years back! But if you think the tribe hasn’t played a role your mistaken. Remember they have no reporting tool so your guess is as good as mine as to the number of elk they are harvesting in the wintering grounds. For the record I’m not tribe bashing just really can’t comprehend they don’t have to report kills. I believe it would actually help relieve tensions if there was some transparency on the tribes part. Maybe that’s just me

[idahohuntr]

I was going to try and not say any more but I have a big mouth so here it goes.

Yes Natives have treaty rights on hunting and fishing.  Here's my problem, What is a native and what is not?  We have to honor their rights and treaties but they get to determine who has these rights.  Stay with me here.  After a little research I found that to be a member of the Yakima tribe you have to be 25% native.  Muckelshoot tribe is 10%.  In the past, your % had to be higher.  They get to make these rules and they are fluid in that they can change the percentage as they choose.  So when a Muckelshoot with 10% native blood gets to hunt, what is the other 90% of him or her doing?  Poaching???

100% natives should be able to keep their treaty rights.  Anything less is a wicked evil American like the rest of us!  If this rule was followed the problem would be solved.

Like Obama, supposed to be are first black president.  Nonsense!  He was half white!  So I guess people in this country get to choose and pick what % nationality they get to be determining on what special interest or benefit it will get them.  Hogwash!  This is Racism at its finest.  But we are called racist by talking about it and or challenging the validity of it all.

As a sovereign the Tribe determines their membership requirements. If the Yakamas say 25% or the muckelshoots say 10%...their prerogative.

.         

I agree and disagree. Inside of the reservations they can do as they please as a sovereign nation. But when it affects us outside of their reservations there needs to be some kind of by off and agreement by the rest of the people involved and impacted by the decision.                                                                                                                                             

There is an agreement. That’s what a treaty is...

Exactly.  The agreement has been in place since ~1855 

[B4noon]

Have to have good optics to see the proof from vancouver its certainly not the only factor buts its a pretty huge one watching from my backyard

[Platensek-po]

Don’t feed the troll

i am not a troll,i am being honest.all this hate for something that is heard from other haters.give facts and quit bashing other groups is all i have to say.i will not sit by while people bash for no reason that can be proven.jackelope dont go,you posted what i was looking for give me a min. to reply to your request.

I'll bite - Why are some people allowed to use rifles to shoot game in a winter refuge area during archery season?   Why not have "all hunters" use the same weapon during prescribed seasons?  Out of season these units can be controlled by locking the gates, this would have a positive impact on game that migrate to these winter refuge.  This would not prevent some people from hunting during the season

You should read up on how treaties work. It would clear up all of the questions for you.

Help me out Pianoman- Your saying the treaties state specific use of a rifle?   I'm not discussing restricting ability to hunt, just use the same method during prescribed hunts.  Use whatever you want during other times and F&G can control vehicle access to winter refuge areas.  That would help - in my opinion.

Where does it specifically say semi automatic rifle in the second amendment

[pianoman9701]

Don’t feed the troll

i am not a troll,i am being honest.all this hate for something that is heard from other haters.give facts and quit bashing other groups is all i have to say.i will not sit by while people bash for no reason that can be proven.jackelope dont go,you posted what i was looking for give me a min. to reply to your request.

I'll bite - Why are some people allowed to use rifles to shoot game in a winter refuge area during archery season?   Why not have "all hunters" use the same weapon during prescribed seasons?  Out of season these units can be controlled by locking the gates, this would have a positive impact on game that migrate to these winter refuge.  This would not prevent some people from hunting during the season

You should read up on how treaties work. It would clear up all of the questions for you.

Help me out Pianoman- Your saying the treaties state specific use of a rifle?   I'm not discussing restricting ability to hunt, just use the same method during prescribed hunts.  Use whatever you want during other times and F&G can control vehicle access to winter refuge areas.  That would help - in my opinion.

I think you know I'm not saying that. I am saying that the tribes are granted certain rights by treaty that have nothing to do with the hunting privileges that you and I enjoy.

[ballpark]

Don’t feed the troll

i am not a troll,i am being honest.all this hate for something that is heard from other haters.give facts and quit bashing other groups is all i have to say.i will not sit by while people bash for no reason that can be proven.jackelope dont go,you posted what i was looking for give me a min. to reply to your request.

I'll bite - Why are some people allowed to use rifles to shoot game in a winter refuge area during archery season?   Why not have "all hunters" use the same weapon during prescribed seasons?  Out of season these units can be controlled by locking the gates, this would have a positive impact on game that migrate to these winter refuge.  This would not prevent some people from hunting during the season

You should read up on how treaties work. It would clear up all of the questions for you.

Help me out Pianoman- Your saying the treaties state specific use of a rifle?   I'm not discussing restricting ability to hunt, just use the same method during prescribed hunts.  Use whatever you want during other times and F&G can control vehicle access to winter refuge areas.  That would help - in my opinion.

Where does it specifically say semi automatic rifle in the second amendment

Well Platensek-po I don't think it applies to the topic of locking up winter refuge access gates, but here is your answer.
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

[Oh Mah]

The heart of the 2nd amendment is clear.


THE PEOPLE SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO BARE ARMS

THIS MEANS (MILITIA) TO BE EQUAL TO ANY GOV. THAT MAY RISE UP AGAINST THE PEOPLE.

In short if any gov. has it then the people according to the law of the land also have the right to.

i realize that that's not whats going on but to be clear that is in fact what the founders meant 100%.