what does a ndn have to do???

[adam.WI]

Welcome to the site.

Now for my opinion. I have no issues with the tribes living in a traditional manner which requires hunting and fishing. That being said, back when the treaties were signed in order to preserve this way of life, I don't believe jet boats and semi-auto high caliber rifles were around.... maybe I'm wrong.

Technology has improved the ways, and effectiveness of our sports. If people chose to hunt with modern day equipment perhaps they should follow modern day laws.

[Alan K]

It's natives like Whitefoot who kill 6 branched bulls in a single year in a unit that takes non-natives several years to draw that pisses people off.

I don't think that people have much of a problem with you guys going out and taking a few cows a year for the meat. The problem comes from when you guys go out and knock down several trophy bulls in a single year, especially in trophy / draw units, like it's nothing. Of course you're going to catch flack for it.

I've got my own problems with the natives here on the west side.  Namely the Skok tribe.  It's sad that locals honk their horns if the elk take a step out into the fields in the daylight for fear that the indians will see them and shoot all the bulls.

Also, like someone said on another thread. . .  It's not so much a hate for the indians as a people, it's a hate for the indians that earn you guys this reputation.

It's legal for him to do it. You have no argument. You may be jealous but you can't argue with legal

KillBilly I never said anything about legal or illegal. I don't even see where I put forth an argument like you said. . . These guys seem to have no idea why people get all pissed off about tribal hunting.  I just said why.  

[huntnphool]

Technology has improved the ways, and effectiveness of our sports.

 Yeah, did they really pull wicker baskets, full of shrimp, up from 300', in hood canal by hand with hemp rope back when the treaties were signed? Uh..........NO!!!, yet they get half the harvest today.

[STIKNSTRINGBOW]

Shouldn't they be shooting them with recurves if it was about tradition?

  how about selfbows, flatbows and spears, recurves are "new" technology. Making a bow out of Vine Maple should be part of a ceremony. Actually I have no problem with most tribal hunters, It is the minority that hunt and the few that do so with respect to the animal are not going to make the news. It the ones that blatantly rape the resource that make the news and get our attention, just like any poachers. My main concern is the lack of consequence for offenders. Our WDFW and State police have no jurisdiction, and Tribal Police don't care. It is these same "Natives" that badmouth the white guys and talk about how they were wronged, and then take advantage of any government benefit or program available. Sorry I could go on forever. When I was little both of my granparents lived on a reservation and I used to spend summers there, most of the people I met and most of the kids I played with were just normal people. Racism come from EITHER side stating a difference. WE all live in America and should all have the same government, laws, rights, and privileges. According to the history books the white man won a long and bloody war, and the United States of America is occupied by a sovereign nation within its borders? I wonder who really won?

[rose-n-arrows]

As per the Lakosky's, you missed my point.

 Are you saying you would like to see a limit on how many animals you can take country wide as apposed to statewide?

???Where did you get that idea? 

[WAPITIHUNTER]

 I have no issues with the tribes living in a traditional manner which requires hunting and fishing.
Back when the treaties were signed all the white man had was .45-70 single shots and percussion guns. Maybe if the Indians have to use traditional tackle according to the time when the treaties were signed then maybe all the Modern hunters on here should also revert back to a single shot  .45-70 blackpowder cartridge. Seems only fair don't you think. You are assuming that the Indians were so stupid that their technology would have never evolved into anything else.

[furbearer365]

Does it make it any less traditional to buy a tag like everyone else and go into the field and kill one.  If the Indians don't overkill like most of you Indians claim, then why do you need to hunt using a treaty or on a rez.  Buy a tag, kill the one bull that you say you kill now, and do it in traditional ways and there you go.  It blows me away that you are so worried about tradition when it comes to killing elk but every other day you want to live the modern technical life of today's society.  QUIT USING THE "WELL IT IS LEGAL AINT IT" ARGUMENT BECAUSE IT IS LEGAL FOR ME TO SMOKE AND DRINK BUT I DON'T DO EITHER.  IF ANY OF YOU INDIANS GAVE A S**T ABOUT ELK AND THEIR EXISTENCE YOU WOULD BUY THE TAG AND KILL THE ONE THAT YOU ARE ALOUD PER YEAR AND MOVE ON.

[rose-n-arrows]

The state of Washington has a pathetic record for dealing with poaching.  If they can't get a handle on stuff OUTSIDE of a sovereign nation, where they're supposed to have some authority, how in the heck are they going to have any control anywhere?  Most punitive emphasis is placed on fishing related crimes, so the deer and elk poachers get away with all kinds of crud.  When they get caught, they might pay a fine.  Their hunting priveleges are revoked, and next thing you know, there they are again. One of the WDFW guys I talked to said it has to do with the judges that throw everything out of court.  I know the game wardens are trying-but it's like the cops arresting some drug dealer only to have him out on the streets in 24 hours.  The Lakosky's can kill all the big bucks they're legally permitted to kill.  My point was that they are harvesting as many as they're allowed.  People don't just hunt for meat.  Poaching, on the other hand, and flagrant wasting is another story.  

[huntnphool]

???Where did you get that idea?

About the Lakoski's you wrote;

In all of those areas where people have the opportunity to take lots of game, they do.

 Again, unlike the natives they take what the states they hunt allow them to take and nothing more. Since they follow the laws by each state, what other ways would you suggest they be limited? You said I missed your point, how about expaining it.

 

[huntnphool]

The Lakosky's can kill all the big bucks they're legally permitted to kill.  My point was that they are harvesting as many as they're allowed.

 Correct you are, the difference is they dont do it all in one state. Nobody would have a problem if Whitefoot applied in 50 states for tags and killed a animal in every state he drew a tag for, just like the Lakoski's. The issue is when a couple people take several animals out of a already declining heard and cant be held accountable for it.

 Lets not get it twisted, a comment comparing the Lakoski's taking multiple animals each year in individual states to the natives blatant overharvesting is ignorant, illiterate and uneducated.

[adam.WI]

 I have no issues with the tribes living in a traditional manner which requires hunting and fishing.
Back when the treaties were signed all the white man had was .45-70 single shots and percussion guns. Maybe if the Indians have to use traditional tackle according to the time when the treaties were signed then maybe all the Modern hunters on here should also revert back to a single shot  .45-70 blackpowder cartridge. Seems only fair don't you think. You are assuming that the Indians were so stupid that their technology would have never evolved into anything else.

Exactly, we all go back to the methods used back then and follow the same laws set up back then, perfect right...... NO that's right the population has dramatically increased and the technology has changed so logically the laws that govern the harvest of game change as well, right........ No, it changes for the majority, not the minority

I also never said that I thought the "indians"(are they from asia), or perhaps the native americans were stupid to the point that there technology wouldn't evolve. My point is if they want to hunt based on out dated treaties then they should use the methods that the treaties were based upon.

[rose-n-arrows]

 Lets not get it twisted, a comment comparing the Lakoski's taking multiple animals each year in individual states to the natives blatant overharvesting is ignorant, illiterate and uneducated.

[/quote]

That wasn't necessary.  Go kick a girlscout, it will probably make you feel better.

[huntnphool]

That wasn't necessary.[/quote]

 I'm quite sure Lee and Tiff would say the same about your comment.

[rose-n-arrows]

Look-you have your mind made up as to what I meant by what I said about Lee and Tiffany.  If I want to argue, I'll go to the Archery talk campfire PRM.  You had a specific issue in mind when I posted and any efforts on my part to convince you of what I meant by what I said are futile.  So be mad at me. Did you read anything else I posted or just the lines next to "Lakosky"?

[huntnphool]

My point was that they are harvesting as many as they're allowed.

 And at the same time comparing them to the natives overharvesting, ITS NOT THE SAME and should not have even been suggested.

So be mad at me.

 Rose, I am not mad at you, I just don't agree with your comment, and if I came across that way then I am sorry. When you make a comment like that its not only the Lakoski's that will take offense to it but everyone that hunts multiple states, that includes me. In no way should my multi state hunting be compared or associated with the natives taking multiple animals in one state or area.

 I did read everything you had to say and I don't waste energy being ticked off, but that doesn't mean I agree with or condone what they are doing, and will voice my opinion when I feel I should.