Community > Advocacy, Agencies, Access

Colvilles Sue For Hunting Rights

<< < (4/5) > >>

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. :twocents:

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. :twocents:

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. :twocents:

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 :pee:

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:

--- Quote from: duckmen1 on December 03, 2009, 07:50:22 PM ---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 :pee:

--- End quote ---

 :chuckle:

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page