HB 2107 Free State Hunting Licenses to Tribal Members

[ducks4days]

They should have to go through the same systems we do.

Why?  Enlighten me!

Their hunting rights were enshrined by treaty to close out wars and settle land disputes. They outline places they have the rights, and anywhere not covered in that treaty is not covered by that right.

A seattle cop can run a red light when responding to a call, they have that exception carved out. That doesnt give them an exception to run red lights in Miami because they are about to miss a plane coming back from vacation. That would be absurd.

Tribal members who have a right to hunt and fish in specific areas should not be limited to hunting and fishing ONLY in those areas. But they do so without the right to, and therefore, should do so through the same system everybody without a right to do it does.

[Bullkllr]

I read an opinion piece that commented that this was to help out the tribes that do not have established treaty rights. That seems more noble I guess, but there's nothing in the official bill language that hints at that.

[hunter399]

How about OIL tags.   Does this mean they can put in for or double dip?

They already can do that I believe.
They just won't have to pay for license now.
Most likely have to pay for permits.
But yes I think the cost of the licence has always kinda deterred them from double dipping. But I believe they always have had the ability to double dip if they wanted to buy a license and permit.
I've actually encouraged a few friends before,but don't believe they ever did.
Just like anybody,nobody wants to give money to the state, unless necessary. Free license,will most likely mean double dipping.
Moose draws from the tribe,our moose draws as well.
Which they always have had the ability. Just a lot easier if this goes through.

[elkslayer069]

Might as well give them free drivers licenses/renewals as well.

[luvmystang67]

I read an opinion piece that commented that this was to help out the tribes that do not have established treaty rights. That seems more noble I guess, but there's nothing in the official bill language that hints at that.

Here's the thing.  I'm a member of a tribe without treaty rights.  Without treaty rights, you don't have the ability to hunt off-reservation, except for as a standard citizen.

This text in the bill An enrolled member of a federally recognized Indian tribe with off-reservation hunting rights in Washington would indicate that non-treaty tribes would NOT be included in this, because non-treaty tribes (at least most/mine) do not have any off-reservation hunting rights.

I am not suggesting that anybody "deserves" anything, but it have always found it surprising that this state was so willing to acknowledge treaty tribes, while keeping non-treaty tribes in a pretty tight box.  Providing free licenses to non-treaty tribes is one thing the state could do to help level the playing field a little... It isn't like the non-treaty tribes were treated better somehow. Their land was still taken, they just don't have a treaty to fall back on.

[Bullkllr]

I read an opinion piece that commented that this was to help out the tribes that do not have established treaty rights. That seems more noble I guess, but there's nothing in the official bill language that hints at that.

Here's the thing.  I'm a member of a tribe without treaty rights.  Without treaty rights, you don't have the ability to hunt off-reservation, except for as a standard citizen.

This text in the bill An enrolled member of a federally recognized Indian tribe with off-reservation hunting rights in Washington would indicate that non-treaty tribes would NOT be included in this, because non-treaty tribes (at least most/mine) do not have any off-reservation hunting rights.

I am not suggesting that anybody "deserves" anything, but it have always found it surprising that this state was so willing to acknowledge treaty tribes, while keeping non-treaty tribes in a pretty tight box.  Providing free licenses to non-treaty tribes is one thing the state could do to help level the playing field a little... It isn't like the non-treaty tribes were treated better somehow. Their land was still taken, they just don't have a treaty to fall back on.

Thanks for this. I thought something was amiss when I read the text in the bill as far as the bill supporting non-treaty tribes. I sent an email to see if I can get any clarification , but what you are saying seems to make sense.

[bigtex]

My thought is, would this potentially open them up to enforcement actions? If this goes thru will WDFW now be able to stop and “check” licenses? If not then whats the point of giving a free license.

If a tribal member hunts outside of their ceded area they are already subject to WDFW jurisdiction/enforcement.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[Bullkllr]

I read an opinion piece that commented that this was to help out the tribes that do not have established treaty rights. That seems more noble I guess, but there's nothing in the official bill language that hints at that.

Here's the thing.  I'm a member of a tribe without treaty rights.  Without treaty rights, you don't have the ability to hunt off-reservation, except for as a standard citizen.

This text in the bill An enrolled member of a federally recognized Indian tribe with off-reservation hunting rights in Washington would indicate that non-treaty tribes would NOT be included in this, because non-treaty tribes (at least most/mine) do not have any off-reservation hunting rights.

I am not suggesting that anybody "deserves" anything, but it have always found it surprising that this state was so willing to acknowledge treaty tribes, while keeping non-treaty tribes in a pretty tight box.  Providing free licenses to non-treaty tribes is one thing the state could do to help level the playing field a little... It isn't like the non-treaty tribes were treated better somehow. Their land was still taken, they just don't have a treaty to fall back on.

Here are some insights from a reply I received from a "legislative insider" that provide info about the motivation and progress of this bill:


"Some tribes contacted Maycumber with some concerns about the bill language, and that the bill got pulled from today's hearing, I'm guessing that this bill will be abandoned and that Maycumber will drop an improved bill to cover the concerns. There were others who thought the bill allowed tribes to hunt on private property, which was just a misunderstanding of the bill language. However this type of input helps to improve and refine laws... it's part of the process.

The Colvilles have hunting rights both on and off the reservation in Ferry County, and we are VERY grateful that they do. We have a horrible wolf problem, and the ranchers cannot protect their stock. However, the Colville tribal members can and do help their neighbors.  It's good for them, they get to preserve their hunting culture and pass on skills, and they get to support their non-tribal friends and neighbors.

The tribes are good allies in the struggle with the state to preserve hunting rights.
The Ds don't even want to allow the tribes to hunt, and the governor's natural resource board is poised to ban all hunting of predators.

If we can preserve hunting for the tribes NOW, later we can preserve hunting culture for everyone. "


I'll make an effort to get further clarification from Maycumber. If they clean up the language and coverage of tribes without off-res rights it makes more sense to me at least.
 

[luvmystang67]

I read an opinion piece that commented that this was to help out the tribes that do not have established treaty rights. That seems more noble I guess, but there's nothing in the official bill language that hints at that.

Here's the thing.  I'm a member of a tribe without treaty rights.  Without treaty rights, you don't have the ability to hunt off-reservation, except for as a standard citizen.

This text in the bill An enrolled member of a federally recognized Indian tribe with off-reservation hunting rights in Washington would indicate that non-treaty tribes would NOT be included in this, because non-treaty tribes (at least most/mine) do not have any off-reservation hunting rights.

I am not suggesting that anybody "deserves" anything, but it have always found it surprising that this state was so willing to acknowledge treaty tribes, while keeping non-treaty tribes in a pretty tight box.  Providing free licenses to non-treaty tribes is one thing the state could do to help level the playing field a little... It isn't like the non-treaty tribes were treated better somehow. Their land was still taken, they just don't have a treaty to fall back on.

Here are some insights from a reply I received from a "legislative insider" that provide info about the motivation and progress of this bill:


"Some tribes contacted Maycumber with some concerns about the bill language, and that the bill got pulled from today's hearing, I'm guessing that this bill will be abandoned and that Maycumber will drop an improved bill to cover the concerns. There were others who thought the bill allowed tribes to hunt on private property, which was just a misunderstanding of the bill language. However this type of input helps to improve and refine laws... it's part of the process.

The Colvilles have hunting rights both on and off the reservation in Ferry County, and we are VERY grateful that they do. We have a horrible wolf problem, and the ranchers cannot protect their stock. However, the Colville tribal members can and do help their neighbors.  It's good for them, they get to preserve their hunting culture and pass on skills, and they get to support their non-tribal friends and neighbors.

The tribes are good allies in the struggle with the state to preserve hunting rights.
The Ds don't even want to allow the tribes to hunt, and the governor's natural resource board is poised to ban all hunting of predators.

If we can preserve hunting for the tribes NOW, later we can preserve hunting culture for everyone. "


I'll make an effort to get further clarification from Maycumber. If they clean up the language and coverage of tribes without off-res rights it makes more sense to me at least.
 

Not that this will make you feel better, but selfishly it'd help out a guy like me.  Appreciate the update.

[bigtex]

I read an opinion piece that commented that this was to help out the tribes that do not have established treaty rights. That seems more noble I guess, but there's nothing in the official bill language that hints at that.

Here's the thing.  I'm a member of a tribe without treaty rights.  Without treaty rights, you don't have the ability to hunt off-reservation, except for as a standard citizen.

This text in the bill An enrolled member of a federally recognized Indian tribe with off-reservation hunting rights in Washington would indicate that non-treaty tribes would NOT be included in this, because non-treaty tribes (at least most/mine) do not have any off-reservation hunting rights.

I am not suggesting that anybody "deserves" anything, but it have always found it surprising that this state was so willing to acknowledge treaty tribes, while keeping non-treaty tribes in a pretty tight box.  Providing free licenses to non-treaty tribes is one thing the state could do to help level the playing field a little... It isn't like the non-treaty tribes were treated better somehow. Their land was still taken, they just don't have a treaty to fall back on.

Here are some insights from a reply I received from a "legislative insider" that provide info about the motivation and progress of this bill:


"Some tribes contacted Maycumber with some concerns about the bill language, and that the bill got pulled from today's hearing, I'm guessing that this bill will be abandoned and that Maycumber will drop an improved bill to cover the concerns. There were others who thought the bill allowed tribes to hunt on private property, which was just a misunderstanding of the bill language. However this type of input helps to improve and refine laws... it's part of the process.

The Colvilles have hunting rights both on and off the reservation in Ferry County, and we are VERY grateful that they do. We have a horrible wolf problem, and the ranchers cannot protect their stock. However, the Colville tribal members can and do help their neighbors.  It's good for them, they get to preserve their hunting culture and pass on skills, and they get to support their non-tribal friends and neighbors.

The tribes are good allies in the struggle with the state to preserve hunting rights.
The Ds don't even want to allow the tribes to hunt, and the governor's natural resource board is poised to ban all hunting of predators.

If we can preserve hunting for the tribes NOW, later we can preserve hunting culture for everyone. "


I'll make an effort to get further clarification from Maycumber. If they clean up the language and coverage of tribes without off-res rights it makes more sense to me at least.

So essentially because the Colville's help with the wolf problem in a small part of WA now all tribal members with off-reservation hunting rights will get free state licenses for anywhere in the state?

Sorry all this sounds like is just giving freebies to constituents. If a guy volunteers 1,000 hours at a fish hatchery should he get a free fishing license??

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[vandeman17]

 I see ZERO reason to give them free licenses other than for political gain. This feels very similar to the student loan bs and makes no logical sense.

[GOcougsHunter]

Just for clarification's sake, the proposed language makes no mention if the tribal member resides or doesn't reside inside the state of Washington.  Would this free license apply to an enrolled member of a tribe who lives in Florida or Oregon or Idaho or Alaska?  I have no insight on how big this would be or how many local enrolled tribal members live out of state, but, it would be interesting to understand if this would be something that was brought into consideration.

Also, does the proposed language also include all big game species (OIL)?

Will follow along this thread

[Pegasus]

Why would it be for free...

[Bullkllr]

Why would it be for free...

That's my biggest question.

[WWC]

After consulting wiith Hunters Heritage Council's President, Represenative Maycumber  will be killing her own bill. She mistakenly thought this would help hunters.

Sportsmen no longer need to flood her phones on this issue.