Colvilles Sue For Hunting Rights

[yelp]

Colvilles sue over
“North Half” hunting rights
Published: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 10:28 AM PST


The  Colville Confederated Tribes Thursday filed suit in federal court to defend tribal hunting rights in its “North Half” territory, the chairman of the Tribes announced.

“This case defends our members’ right to hunt on the North Half, free of illegal state regulation,” CBC Chairman Michael Finley said. “Tribal members hunting there should not be prosecuted under Washington’s firearms law for engaging in conduct that is both safe and allowed by Tribal law.”

The Tribes’ filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. It concerns a citation issued to a tribal hunter in the “North Half,” a part of the Colville Reservation as it was established in1872, when it extended to the Canadian border.

The Tribes ceded the North Half to the United States in an 1891 agreement, but members retained their rights to hunt and fish there, on public lands, free of state conservation laws.

“We don’t dispute the state’s authority to regulate tribal hunting on the North Half, when necessary to protect public safety,” Finley said.  “But this is not the case here. A tribal hunter was cited by the state even though he posed no safety risk and was fully compliant with Tribal law.”

Finley said the tribal hunter had a bullet in his gun’s magazine, but not in the chamber, as allowed by tribal regulations. He said the Colville Tribes’ hunting regulations are at least as strict, or stricter, than many other states’ firearms laws.

State law does not allow a hunter’s rifle in a vehicle to be loaded at all.

“The enforcement of this Washington firearms law against Colville Tribal members is unnecessary and contrary to federal court decisions on these matters,” Finley said.

He said that the courts have limited state authority to regulate tribal hunting outside reservations to situations where tribal regulations are inadequate to provide for conservation of game resources or to protect public safety.

The Colville Tribe has attempted to negotiate a solution to this issue, but the state was unwilling to resolve it, the tribes stated in a press release.

“We were hoping we could convince the state that it cannot, and need not, attempt to assert its jurisdiction in this matter,” Finley said.  “But in the end, we’ve been forced to take this matter to federal court to protect our rights.”

[boneaddict]

GAG me.  If I have to waste tax dollars, I'd love to have it wasted here to fight them.  I hope their coffers are as deep as ours.Maybe in the long run they'll get a judge with some balls and they'll end up losing all rights on the north half becasue they were greedy.

[yelp]

Exactly how I felt when I read it.

[bobcat]

I don't know. I don't agree with the law that says you can't have the magazine loaded. It's supposed to be a safety issue, but if the chamber isn't loaded the gun is safe. Just seems like a very minor infraction to take to federal court.  

[DOUBLELUNG]

I think this one is a loser for the Colvilles.  I see the state prevailing ...

[PolarBear]

How much more freaking land do they need?  They already have sole control over the best hunting area (for deer) in the state and spend a good part of their hunting on National Forrest land as it is.  I have property in the "North Half" and if I catch any of those *censored*s shooting on my land it will be all over but the scalping!  F-those greedy sons of bitches!

[PolarBear]

I think this one is a loser for the Colvilles.  I see the state prevailing ...

Unfortunately or moron State Legislature and Governor has been bought off by the tribes.  It would not surprise me if they just hand it over to them along with more stimulus money just to ease the pain of all the years that they had to suffer without this land.

[boneaddict]

Their coffers are starting to suffer.  They are getting greedy with their logging.  They hands down had the best forest management over the state or feds, but the power of cash is ruining that.  THey are starting to overharvest dramatically.   Too bad.

[yelp]

This reminds me of other regulations in favor of tribes on the north half that the tribal hunters can run dogs on Lions on the north half from Nov 1 - March 30  Whiteman can't.....Our State laws seem to take a back seat to Federal regulations.  I think it is BS. If they caught tribal member on private land with loaded gun he maybe screwed.

[LongTatLaw]

IMO

Hunting and fishing rights shouldnt allow what basically every state in the nation has deemed unsafe...

-high powered rifles at night
-loaded gun in a car
-shooting from a road

ect

They break these laws a lot and they are not HUNTING REGULATIONS they are safety restriction...

Ya dont have to be hunting nor have a hunting license to get in trouble for one of these laws...

hard to say a semi-auto rifle loaded in a pickup truck was "nromal & acceptable" hunting practice before 1900

If we hammered them for all thses type violations to the point that they stopped doing them...many people would be more likely to no hate them for the hunting they do..

 

[WARHORSE]

they say they have game agents patrolling it!! these guys are idiots!! i got stoped while crossing the rez on the way back from coyote hunting not hunting the rez crossing it! yes i was speeding but that was not the topic of our conversation once they saw that i and my passenger had guns. they tryed to nail me for not having a coyote tag!! hunting with a gun that held more then 3 shells!! and cuffed my partner who was 17 at the time for being a minor in possession of a firearm!! wtf?? it was about a 3 hour roadside ordeal with 3 additional tribal law enforcement officers showing up. luckily i held my cool till the end when they let us go without any kind of ticket and asked us "kids if we had learned anything  i said yea dont speed on the rez enit! and we left  what a joke!! i could not believe it they knew nothing about rules and regs tribal or whiteman.

[Grizzly95]

As far as I am concerned any weapon with a full magazine or loaded chamber is loaded and should be treated as such. Reservations reside in the state which is in this country which should follow all laws. If I move to another state does that give me the right to only abide by the laws of my previous home? Another point is that the name states "confederated tribes" which by the explanation given to me by tribal police means that they are a band of several tribes that may and may not include tribes that did not originate there. My uncle in puyallap indian but belongs to the yakima tribe  Anyway, state law says no loaded firearms, which includes an attatched magazine. At least the way I understand it. And besides that it becomes a safety concern for responders in the case of an accident.

[sako223]

Hunting and fishing rights shouldnt allow what basically every state in the nation has deemed unsafe...

-high powered rifles at night
-loaded gun in a car
-shooting from a road

Although part of this is illegal here, I am quite sure there are several states that allow all or part of these during hunting season.

[shawnrdavies]

If thats how they hunted in the 1800's, then the animals should hunted with the exact same weapons they used back then. NO MODERN WEAPONS!

[Birdguy]

  X100 

And the same goes for fishing

[tazz]

yea what he said plus get back on horse back and bow and arrow also, if they want it like there ancestors then have at it.

[bearpaw]

Washington is one of the few western states that does not allow catridges in the magazine. Many western states allow catridges in the magazine in the vehicle. I know for a fact that it's perfectly legal in Idaho, Montana, and Utah. The law that the tribe has, is right in line with many other states.

There are two sides to every story. While no one likes seeing deer hunted 6 months of the year, the fact remains that legally the tribe has hunting rights on the north half and can manage their hunting rights under tribal law.

I would like to here Pope's take on this, but I think the state will lose. I think it was a big mistake for the state to challenge the tribe on this, seems pretty cut and dried to me.

Playing Devil's Advocate:
If I was a tribal member I would take this to the supreme court if needed. The tribe has hunting rights on the north half in writing and their law says they can have catriges in the magazine. If they do not challenge this, they could be faced with many other challenges to their tribal laws. That's the way I would look at it if I was a tribal member.

Like I said, I don't like seeing the deer hunted for 6 months, but a deal is a deal, and the tribe really does have rights on the north half. The north half was all reservation at one time. The tribe ceded it back to the state but retained their hunting rights and that was the deal.

I know most people have strong feelings about this and I am sorry I don't agree with all of you, but honestly they have written rights to hunt the north half. I think the state is playing the wrong card on this one and will almost certainly lose.

Another thought I have about the tribe hunting the north half is that they may hunt wolves much sooner than the state will and that could actually be a plus for everyone.

I'm really sorry I have to disagree on this one.....but I think the tribe will prevail.

[duckmen1]

i can give a simple solution to all the problems
everyone stop being afraid to affend them and maybe we can regulate better laws against them
indians

[Brooks]

Yes, they have certain hunting rights on the north half but only on public land.  The rights do not transfer to private land.  I realized there is a court ruling that gave them back their hunting rights on the north half.  I believe it had to do with a spotlighting  case involving a colville tribal member.  Somebody may correct me if I am wrong but I do not believe a treaty was every signed by the Colville Confederate tribes.  The reservation was given them by then President Grant and later the north have was taken back.   So,  I kind of wonder if somebody can clarify where their hunting rights are spelled out in a treaty except by  U.S. district Court and I believe it did go to the Court of Appeals and I may be wrong on that.  So, from I can remember the court decided they still had hunting rights on the north half but lost all other rights.   Maybe this loaded magazine issue will clarify all of that.  Who knows. 

[carpsniperg2]

i can give a simple solution to all the problems
everyone stop being afraid to affend them and maybe we can regulate better laws against them
indians

 

[flintlocker]

The state will lose on this, IMO.

You do know that the tribes will get 50 percent of the game in this state if we push them to seek it, don't you?

The WDFW made this mistake with fish, after the tribes had already offered to settle for a much smaller percentage of the fish, and look what happened.

[mountainman1]

Yes, I agree with bearpaw, this guy has some tact about how to talk to everyone out here. He knows the laws of the Colville Native Americans. The Colville's have there laws for the Rez and for the North Half of the Rez. The Colville's will win this one in court!!!! As for you guys that say piss on the Indians, you don't understand the Native Americans and what they have been through the last 200 years and the rights they have had to fight for.
  You that have that bad feeling should get to know the Native American tribes around where you live before you start with the bad attitude towards them. Some of them could be your ancestors. I have seen hunter and tourists alike come to the mountains and leave fires burning and there garbage strewn about the forest, that hurts me a whole lot more than the Hunting and Fishing Rights of our Friends the Native Americans !!!!!!!!

[bonkellekter]

Washington is one of the few western states that does not allow catridges in the magazine. Many western states allow catridges in the magazine in the vehicle. I know for a fact that it's perfectly legal in Idaho, Montana, and Utah. The law that the tribe has, is right in line with many other states.

There are two sides to every story. While no one likes seeing deer hunted 6 months of the year, the fact remains that legally the tribe has hunting rights on the north half and can manage their hunting rights under tribal law.

I would like to here Pope's take on this, but I think the state will lose. I think it was a big mistake for the state to challenge the tribe on this, seems pretty cut and dried to me.

Playing Devil's Advocate:
If I was a tribal member I would take this to the supreme court if needed. The tribe has hunting rights on the north half in writing and their law says they can have catriges in the magazine. If they do not challenge this, they could be faced with many other challenges to their tribal laws. That's the way I would look at it if I was a tribal member.

Like I said, I don't like seeing the deer hunted for 6 months, but a deal is a deal, and the tribe really does have rights on the north half. The north half was all reservation at one time. The tribe ceded it back to the state but retained their hunting rights and that was the deal.

I know most people have strong feelings about this and I am sorry I don't agree with all of you, but honestly they have written rights to hunt the north half. I think the state is playing the wrong card on this one and will almost certainly lose.

Another thought I have about the tribe hunting the north half is that they may hunt wolves much sooner than the state will and that could actually be a plus for everyone.

I'm really sorry I have to disagree on this one.....but I think the tribe will prevail.

Well bearpaw not sure you are right either - I am all for equal rights but not special rights. If it is allowed in Montana, Idaho and Utah than tribes in those states should be allowed the same rights. However that is not the law in WA and should not be allowed for WA tribes IMO. But like you say as far as what the current law says the state will likely lose - It is just a bunch of B.S.