Now that it snowed they need to lock up Watt Canyon

[Tiger01]

Times have changed, it’s not 1855 anymore. Time for EVERYONE to play by the same rules and have the same goals in mind.  Eliminate the treaty.

[Oh Mah]

The treaties have the same meaning to tribal as the Constitution does for you and I.

I WILL NOT STAND BY AND LET THE LEFT TAKE MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

Are you sure you want them to take the treaty rights away? 

all of these same arguments in this thread against treaty rights are the same as the anti Constitution argument's,Think about that. 

[Platensek-po]

That was kind of my point about the rifle post. I am in no way against the constitution.

[ballpark]

That was kind of my point about the rifle post. I am in no way against the constitution.

Serious question - Do the treaties state hunt by whatever means possible, or more to - will not restrict the right to hunt?  My discussion has not been about restricting rights to hunt but about vehicle access to winter refuge areas and using firearms during archery season in a winter refuge area. 

[Tiger01]

I am not against the constitution, but if the US constitution stated that every member of the US could drive their pickups into winter range and shoot as many elk as they’d like, then yes, I’d vote for a change.  Just my opinion. 

[Platensek-po]

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.

http://www.yakamanation-nsn.gov/treaty.php

[CoryTDF]

The treaties have the same meaning to tribal as the Constitution does for you and I.

I WILL NOT STAND BY AND LET THE LEFT TAKE MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

Are you sure you want them to take the treaty rights away? 

all of these same arguments in this thread against treaty rights are the same as the anti Constitution argument's,Think about that. 

I see where you are coming from here. Lets look at the 2nd amendment for a second. For this one, as technology advanced, the government eventually had to step in and put a restriction to what can be owned and possessed under the 2nd amendment. The initial intent of the law had no way of seeing what the future would hold. I think we can all agree that it's not a great idea for a pawn shop to sell 240 Bravo's to the GP. 

How is it not fair to use that same logic when it comes to things like modern monofilament gill nets, quads, scoped rifles, powerboats, ext. when looking at the "rights" granted to natives in regards to harvesting game? There has to be a line. Additionally, as people preach about their historical and ancestral right to harvest game It seems funny that they have moved as far away from traditional methods as possible??? When I drew my 2013 Dayton archery tag I hunted the Rainwater area and there were natives up there rifle hunting for elk while I was chasing them with my bow. Myself and one of the natives I talked to had a good laugh at how backwards this was.

Point is, I feel like native and non native alike can agree that when the treaties were written nobody knew anything about modern machines, nets, optics, rangefinders, ext. I truly believe that if they had things would have been written differently. Lastly, we all want their to be healthy populations of animals for generations to come. Just because you can do something does not mean you should. I find it odd that so many people have lost sight of that.   

[Platensek-po]

Why is rights in quotations?? They have a right to hunt and to the fish and game. You and I do not.

[Oh Mah]

The treaties have the same meaning to tribal as the Constitution does for you and I.

I WILL NOT STAND BY AND LET THE LEFT TAKE MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

Are you sure you want them to take the treaty rights away? 

all of these same arguments in this thread against treaty rights are the same as the anti Constitution argument's,Think about that. 

I see where you are coming from here. Lets look at the 2nd amendment for a second. For this one, as technology advanced, the government eventually had to step in and put a restriction to what can be owned and possessed under the 2nd amendment. The initial intent of the law had no way of seeing what the future would hold. I think we can all agree that it's not a great idea for a pawn shop to sell 240 Bravo's to the GP. 

How is it not fair to use that same logic when it comes to things like modern monofilament gill nets, quads, scoped rifles, powerboats, ext. when looking at the "rights" granted to natives in regards to harvesting game? There has to be a line. Additionally, as people preach about their historical and ancestral right to harvest game It seems funny that they have moved as far away from traditional methods as possible??? When I drew my 2013 Dayton archery tag I hunted the Rainwater area and there were natives up there rifle hunting for elk while I was chasing them with my bow. Myself and one of the natives I talked to had a good laugh at how backwards this was.

Point is, I feel like native and non native alike can agree that when the treaties were written nobody knew anything about modern machines, nets, optics, rangefinders, ext. I truly believe that if they had things would have been written differently. Lastly, we all want their to be healthy populations of animals for generations to come. Just because you can do something does not mean you should. I find it odd that so many people have lost sight of that.

        Because we were foolish enough to let them!

the tribes have learned from our mistakes over the past century,If you were them would you let the gov. do to them what they have or are trying to do to us?

THE TRIBES ARE TIGHTER TOGETHER ON THESE ISSUES THAN WE ARE ON OURS.THAT IS OBVIOUS IN THE THREADS THAT KEEP BRINGING USER GROUP AGAINST USER GROUP.

[Oh Mah]

The tribes have the law of the land on their side and the tribes are undivided on these issues,We are split into several groups and are severely divided on all of these issues.

anti gun,
dem.
lib.
rep.
anti hunting

anti trapping

anti fishing

etc etc etc

[idahohuntr]

That was kind of my point about the rifle post. I am in no way against the constitution.

Serious question - Do the treaties state hunt by whatever means possible, or more to - will not restrict the right to hunt?  My discussion has not been about restricting rights to hunt but about vehicle access to winter refuge areas and using firearms during archery season in a winter refuge area.

Case law does impose limitations on treaty hunting/fishing rights - called a conservation necessity.  The bar is very high and regulation can not be disproportionate to the Tribes.  Basically, if elk are in danger of going extinct - the State could step in and put a stop to tribal hunting.  The closure would have to apply equally to non-tribal members and the bar for doing this would literally be extinction or something close. 

Vehicle access to winter range...I don't think anything about treaty rights guarantees vehicle access.  Tribes could not be prohibited from going into an area considered open and unclaimed (which most public lands are), but I don't think Tribes could make a case they have legal rights to vehicle access.  This is certainly one area land managers could enforce closures if they so choose.

Weapon type...it doesn't matter if is an archery season for the State...the Tribe does not have to follow state regs so it being state archery season has no bearing on treaty hunting.  The only way I could see a non-Tribal regulation applying would be for serious/legitimate safety issues.  Nothing about the treaty regulates methods or means of harvest...except if harvest is so high it results in a conservation issue as described above.

Also...very important detail...treaty hunting/fishing rights were not granted to Tribes by the US...they were specifically reserved (and always held) by Tribes.  Its incorrect to think of them as some gift from the US...

[BeerBugler]

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.

http://www.yakamanation-nsn.gov/treaty.php

“In common with the citizens of the territory” we shouldn’t even be having this discussion, plain as day, do what you want on the reservation, when hunting/fishing on ceded lands follow the rules in common with the citizens of the territory.

[Platensek-po]

I believe that only applies to fishing.

[Whitefoot]

Where is Watt Canyon??

[idahohuntr]

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.

http://www.yakamanation-nsn.gov/treaty.php

“In common with the citizens of the territory” we shouldn’t even be having this discussion, plain as day, do what you want on the reservation, when hunting/fishing on ceded lands follow the rules in common with the citizens of the territory.

SCOTUS has made clear in multiple decisions that "In common with" is not interpreted as what you describe...if it was, the treaties would have little value to Tribes.