Tribal fishing

[trophyhunt]

"Tribes have the right to fish. Non tribal is a privilege."


That comment is about the most racist comment I've seen on this thread.

There’s absolutely nothing racist about that statement. It’s a fact of life. The tribes that signed the Stevens Treaty in 1855 acquired the right to fish, it’s the law. On the other hand Washington license holders buy a privilege to fish. That is why big brother Jay could shut down fishing a couple of Marches ago but we could still boat.  I may not agree with it, which is a moot point, since it will never be changed.

I do get a kick out of the “racist” comment, which is completely irrelevant. 

one group of people who get rights over others because of race has nothing to do with race? Oh, ok.

[trophyhunt]

"Tribes have the right to fish. Non tribal is a privilege."


That comment is about the most racist comment I've seen on this thread.

thanks for checking in Jerky man! How’s your hunting season going??

[Platensek-po]

"Tribes have the right to fish. Non tribal is a privilege."


That comment is about the most racist comment I've seen on this thread.

There’s absolutely nothing racist about that statement. It’s a fact of life. The tribes that signed the Stevens Treaty in 1855 acquired the right to fish, it’s the law. On the other hand Washington license holders buy a privilege to fish. That is why big brother Jay could shut down fishing a couple of Marches ago but we could still boat.  I may not agree with it, which is a moot point, since it will never be changed.

I do get a kick out of the “racist” comment, which is completely irrelevant. 

one group of people who get rights over others because of race has nothing to do with race? Oh, ok.

Woooow. Amazing. Somebody needs to a history lesson before spouting dumb stuff like that

[Whitefoot]

 Normally threads get locked before I comment on them. Hade to do my daily check in on you Trophyhunt.

"Tribes have the right to fish. Non tribal is a privilege."


That comment is about the most racist comment I've seen on this thread.

thanks for checking in Jerky man! How’s your hunting season going??

[Special T]

Hoh Indian Tribe v. Baldrige, 522 F. Supp.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This case involves the treaty fishing rights of three separate Washington coastal Indian tribes as they are affected by the regulations of the defendant Secretary of Commerce governing fishing for salmon in the waters of the Fishery Conservation Zone off California, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska and regulations of the intervenor-defendant State of Washington in state waters of northwestern Washington.

Just a cut in paste, if you want to dig further in to it go for it.

We can debate the verbiage I used all day, especially in a legal context. We could consider “granted” a court ruling.

I really don’t have a stance on the subject, Im just providing an opinion on the interpretation of the laws, which is subjective. I’ve been reading these court rulings and case laws (which there a close to a 100) for the last thirty years.

This comment or question isnt just for you but you stated that youve been reading this stuff for 30 years...

If a good book exists  on the issue of Tribal hunting/fishing rights and how we have arrived at the present day inwould love to know the name.


If one does not exist i belive it is in the best intrest of all that something akin to it were pursued. I belive that sportsmen like me would like to know more but aside from a lifetime of research a well rounded starting point doesnt exist.  I enjoy the Legal discussions of Viva and Barnes on You tube in large part because they are instructive of the issues.  I belive the same kind of discussions where the issue is explained and the different positions are as well would do a lot to educate the general population. It is possible to do so with out attacking either position  and letting folks decide for themselves.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Wetwoodshunter]

Hoh Indian Tribe v. Baldrige, 522 F. Supp.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This case involves the treaty fishing rights of three separate Washington coastal Indian tribes as they are affected by the regulations of the defendant Secretary of Commerce governing fishing for salmon in the waters of the Fishery Conservation Zone off California, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska and regulations of the intervenor-defendant State of Washington in state waters of northwestern Washington.

Just a cut in paste, if you want to dig further in to it go for it.

We can debate the verbiage I used all day, especially in a legal context. We could consider “granted” a court ruling.

I really don’t have a stance on the subject, Im just providing an opinion on the interpretation of the laws, which is subjective. I’ve been reading these court rulings and case laws (which there a close to a 100) for the last thirty years.

This comment or question isnt just for you but you stated that youve been reading this stuff for 30 years...

If a good book exists  on the issue of Tribal hunting/fishing rights and how we have arrived at the present day inwould love to know the name.


If one does not exist i belive it is in the best intrest of all that something akin to it were pursued. I belive that sportsmen like me would like to know more but aside from a lifetime of research a well rounded starting point doesnt exist.  I enjoy the Legal discussions of Viva and Barnes on You tube in large part because they are instructive of the issues.  I belive the same kind of discussions where the issue is explained and the different positions are as well would do a lot to educate the general population. It is possible to do so with out attacking either position  and letting folks decide for themselves.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Tell the Truth : The Collected Columns of Billy Frank Jr
by Billy Frank Jr. and Kari Neumeyer

Here is a good place to start.

[Igor]

Uneven Ground: American Indian Sovereignty and Federal Law

I have not read this book, but here are some quotes from it:

"Tribes do not exercise rights because Congress granted them rights. Tribes exercise rights based on their original and indigenous sovereignty."

These "reserved" rights, meaning never having been transferred to the United States or any other sovereign, include property rights, which include the rights to fish, hunt and gather, and political rights. Political rights reserved to the Indian nations include the power to regulate domestic relations, tax, administer justice, or exercise civil and criminal jurisdiction.

What I infer from this, is that at one time everyone in this country had these same rights, however treaties "reserved" these rights to the tribes, while everyone else (non-indigenous) essentially "transferred" our rights to the United States government.

It's not a perfect example, but I feel that we are, slowly but surely, "transferring" our 2nd Amendment rights to the government, too.

[nwwanderer]

And so much more, free speech for one

[OutHouse]

"Tribes have the right to fish. Non tribal is a privilege."


That comment is about the most racist comment I've seen on this thread.

It's not a racist statement. It's legally spot on. You may not like it, but it's reality. I've probably said this on this forum before, but most Europeans never had a "right" to hunt and fish. The King owned the forest and the rivers. Had to have permission or a license to hunt or fish (after all the animals were the king's property). This goes back to medieval times. Tribes retained their rights by negotiating treaties. They did a very good job at that. The joke is sort of on us. With few exceptions, we've allowed hunting and fishing to remain a privilege.

[OutHouse]

Treaties. Read the Stevens Treaty succeeded by the bolt decision.

So, according to you, government can grant a "right", like fishing, to one subset of US citizens, but not to other citizens ?  And, if government can indeed grant that "right", then does it not have the power to take away that right, or any right, or all rights ?
I have a feeling that you probably flunked Civics 101 in high school.

The government can grant rights and taketh away (felons lose rights). In this scenario, they are called treaty rights. Under our constitution, treaties are considered the "supreme law of the land". Court's, governments, what have you, have to abide by them. There is probably a supreme court case that leaves open the possibility of revoking treaties but I don't see it happening.

[Igor]

The government can grant rights and taketh away (felons lose rights). In this scenario, they are called treaty rights. Under our constitution, treaties are considered the "supreme law of the land". Court's, governments, what have you, have to abide by them. There is probably a supreme court case that leaves open the possibility of revoking treaties but I don't see it happening.

You are just flat WRONG.  The government did not "grant rights" via treaty.  Read this:

Dr. David E. Wilkins writes in Uneven Ground: American Indian Sovereignty and Federal Law, "Tribes do not exercise rights because Congress granted them rights. Tribes exercise rights based on their original and indigenous sovereignty." These "reserved" rights, meaning never having been transferred to the United States or any other sovereign, include property rights, which include the rights to fish, hunt and gather, and political rights. Political rights reserved to the Indian nations include the power to regulate domestic relations, tax, administer justice, or exercise civil and criminal jurisdiction.[12]

Hopefully, that clears it up a little for you.

[OutHouse]

The government can grant rights and taketh away (felons lose rights). In this scenario, they are called treaty rights. Under our constitution, treaties are considered the "supreme law of the land". Court's, governments, what have you, have to abide by them. There is probably a supreme court case that leaves open the possibility of revoking treaties but I don't see it happening.

You are just flat WRONG.  The government did not "grant rights" via treaty.  Read this:

Dr. David E. Wilkins writes in Uneven Ground: American Indian Sovereignty and Federal Law, "Tribes do not exercise rights because Congress granted them rights. Tribes exercise rights based on their original and indigenous sovereignty." These "reserved" rights, meaning never having been transferred to the United States or any other sovereign, include property rights, which include the rights to fish, hunt and gather, and political rights. Political rights reserved to the Indian nations include the power to regulate domestic relations, tax, administer justice, or exercise civil and criminal jurisdiction.[12]

Hopefully, that clears it up a little for you.

You are correct but see my first comment: "Tribes retained their rights by negotiating treaties". I slipped up in the second comment!

A simpler way of viewing it is that westerners had to bow to the king and maybe receive privileges or permission. The tribes very clearly negotiated that they need permission from no one.  Again, the joke is on us who don't have the rights. We've allowed a permissive/licensed based system. Probably should have fought harder on that during the last 1000 years. I suppose the bottom line is the tribes did a much better job of preserving their rights (some here say we have a god given right to hunt).

[Igor]

 We've allowed a permissive/licensed based system. Probably should have fought harder on that during the last 1000 years. I suppose the bottom line is the tribes did a much better job of preserving their rights (some here say we have a god given right to hunt).

I would agree with you 100%.

[OutHouse]

 We've allowed a permissive/licensed based system. Probably should have fought harder on that during the last 1000 years. I suppose the bottom line is the tribes did a much better job of preserving their rights (some here say we have a god given right to hunt).

I would agree with you 100%.

I suppose ownership has something to do with it as well but don't know the legal background to that. I could be wrong but my perception is that the Tribes may have some type of ownership or quasi-ownership right in the fish and wildlife.

Perhaps Tbar, Whitefoot or Plat could enlighten us on that.

[GWP]

 We've allowed a permissive/licensed based system. Probably should have fought harder on that during the last 1000 years. I suppose the bottom line is the tribes did a much better job of preserving their rights (some here say we have a god given right to hunt).

I would agree with you 100%.

I would guess if there were no 'rules' there would be no game left. At all. Humans in general will not control themselves. Some just want to kill for the thrill.