Community > Advocacy, Agencies, Access

Colvilles Sue For Hunting Rights

<< < (5/5)

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:

--- Quote from: bearpaw on November 29, 2009, 09:01:01 PM ---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.

--- End quote ---

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. :bash: >:(

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page