Tribal Regs????

[grundy53]

Eatonville you are mistaken. Elk are marvel t Washington. There have always been Roosevelt. Elk in Western WA. Its in the Yakima and Kittitas County areas that elk were not native. A few elk wandered over the PCT but as far as a viable herd until 1919 the only elk herds that existed were in western Washington.

But yes it is ridicoulous that the Yakamas claim ancestoral rights t animals that didn't exist until e brought them here.

Doesn't matter though, more importantly MY CIVIL RIGHTS ARE BEING VIOLATED because since I have white skin I don't have the same hunting rights that a Guy with red skin has. THINK BIG PEOPLE EQUAL RIGHTS IS HOW WE WILL WIN NOT THE OTHER STUFF. FOCUS ON EQUAL RIGHTS!!!!!

Bullseye!

[pods8]

So who is imposing the unequal rights on the state hunter?  Is it the tribes?  or is it ourselves?  The fact that state and tribal regulations look different, does that make it unequal rights?  No. It is just different regulations.  The tribes set their regulations based on their needs and their population while the state sets our regs based on what the populations can sustain due to a large hunting populace.  Based on the unequal rights arguments I am hearing, would it be safe to say that our neighboring state hunters have unequal rights since they might be able to get doe tags over the counter and we cant?  I have to pay out of state fees to hunt Montana this year.  Isn't than an unequal right as a U.S. citizen?   

The fact there are different regulations for public land period means there are unequal rights.

Neighboring states having different rights is no different because we as US citizens can apply for those tags as well, what we can't do is get the same rights as tribal people.  No comparison.

Out of state fees... really?  Your struggling to make a reasonable argument here.  The game departments are state funded, if you don't pay taxes in that state I have no issue with that state wanting to try and recuperate some of their efforts for out of staters.  But since you opened up the "tag fees" can of worms, why the hell can tribal folks not only hunt more animals that their fellow US citizens in the same state but they have a different fee structure for those animals?

RACIST plain and simple. 

[nontypical176]

Not wanting to get involved in this little argument too much, but there is a couple things I have learned.  Got 2 cousins that are 1/4 quinalt indian, about 1/2 German and then a cocktail of other races.  They are adopted into the tribe and their children as well, they go to a couple drummings a year and get benefits of being tribal members.  Most of their benefits come in the form of fishing rights (especially comercial), but their hunting season is quite liberal and basicly extends from I-5 to the West. 

They are very respectful of non tribal hunters and our seasons, but do take advantage of their opportunities.  The only thing that I have issue with is 25% blood and less in some cases and you can be conscidered a member of the tribe.  For crying out loud they are 50% German.  Im 1/64 Cheyenne, wonder if I can join.

Here in SW Washington hardly ever see tribal members hunting...........But theres a whole lotta poaching going on.

[BobD]

It is easy to spot the tribal hunts.  They are the ones sitting on the side of the road waiting for the herd to get closer so they can shoot as much as possible and not have to drag.

[haugenna]

The Yaks regs were 2 pages.  Ours is well over 80.

[BobD]

80 pages is just the pamphlet not the regs.

[saylean]

I have a few friends who are indian...I checked out their hunting regs the other day...it was 4 pages.

They had to pay 5 bucks non refundable, and then 10 bucks, which could be reimbursed.

2 deer, 1 elk any bull (for the most part), any bear....1 MOUNTAIN GOAT a year....

All I can do is give him crap about it, since it helps me cope...he didnt realize it was a OIL tag for us US citizens...I told him, "Hey man, there screwing ya, only one per year?!" He laughs.

I cant say that I wouldnt take advantage of it if I had the chance to hunt like him for goat (probably not get one every year, but man, could you imagine!?). In his defense, he has been working his butt off for an elk and bear without success as of yet.
I wish him luck and have given him tips on some hunting, as we are friends. BUT in my humble opinion, the regs/treaty should be updated to suit our modern times.

Can they designate a hunter for themselves (are tags transferrable)?  For instance, if you were a 90 year old person, could you give your tag to someone to do all the shooting?  So, one guy with a bag full of tags from his parents and grandkids can go out and shoot a bunch of elk on behalf of other people?  I'm curious about how that works.  That might not be correct - I really don't know.

I was told yes, you could. But you have to be tribal.

[halflife65]

Ok, that makes sense. 

[Practical Approach]

So who is imposing the unequal rights on the state hunter?  Is it the tribes?  or is it ourselves?  The fact that state and tribal regulations look different, does that make it unequal rights?  No. It is just different regulations.  The tribes set their regulations based on their needs and their population while the state sets our regs based on what the populations can sustain due to a large hunting populace.  Based on the unequal rights arguments I am hearing, would it be safe to say that our neighboring state hunters have unequal rights since they might be able to get doe tags over the counter and we cant?  I have to pay out of state fees to hunt Montana this year.  Isn't than an unequal right as a U.S. citizen?   

The fact there are different regulations for public land period means there are unequal rights.

Neighboring states having different rights is no different because we as US citizens can apply for those tags as well, what we can't do is get the same rights as tribal people.  No comparison.

Out of state fees... really?  Your struggling to make a reasonable argument here.  The game departments are state funded, if you don't pay taxes in that state I have no issue with that state wanting to try and recuperate some of their efforts for out of staters.  But since you opened up the "tag fees" can of worms, why the hell can tribal folks not only hunt more animals that their fellow US citizens in the same state but they have a different fee structure for those animGraals?

RACIST plain and simple. 

Granted the opportunities are different than ours I still don't see it a racist.  Those tribes with treaty rights get t hunt on public lands.  I am gong to assume we are talking about private timberlands, cause most people aren't really searchingout forest service land due to lack of game and logging.  First of all, to address the different regs for public lands, tribes get to set their seasons and the state gets to set theirs.  If you have issues with inequality, then WDFW should possibly take part of the blame.  Do the tribal regs need to mirror state regs or vise versa???  Also why does it matter to any of us what tribes pay for tabs?   I am sure we would all like to pay less money for our tabs if we could.  Nothing like paying for huntingtags and having most of the money going to fisheries.

[pods8]

Granted the opportunities are different than ours I still don't see it a racist.  Those tribes with treaty rights get t hunt on public lands.  I am gong to assume we are talking about private timberlands, cause most people aren't really searchingout forest service land due to lack of game and logging.  First of all, to address the different regs for public lands, tribes get to set their seasons and the state gets to set theirs.  If you have issues with inequality, then WDFW should possibly take part of the blame.  Do the tribal regs need to mirror state regs or vise versa???  Also why does it matter to any of us what tribes pay for tabs?   I am sure we would all like to pay less money for our tabs if we could.  Nothing like paying for huntingtags and having most of the money going to fisheries.

Racism: "Discrimination or prejudice based on race".  They are allowed to do things the rest of US citizens can't based on their race... fits the definition 100%.

We are talking about public, private, or any land not on their reservation.  WDFW shouldn't take any blame that the wording of their regs are different than the tribal regs, there shouldn't be any separate tribal regs for the lands off reservation.  They should be held to the exact same WDFW regulations as every other person in this country.  100% equal rights when they step of their reservation land, absolutely no loop holes should be allowed.

You brought up the fees, I only pointed out again its a racist practice that someone pays a different fee structure based on the race they were born.

[runamuk]

Granted the opportunities are different than ours I still don't see it a racist.  Those tribes with treaty rights get t hunt on public lands.  I am gong to assume we are talking about private timberlands, cause most people aren't really searchingout forest service land due to lack of game and logging.  First of all, to address the different regs for public lands, tribes get to set their seasons and the state gets to set theirs.  If you have issues with inequality, then WDFW should possibly take part of the blame.  Do the tribal regs need to mirror state regs or vise versa???  Also why does it matter to any of us what tribes pay for tabs?   I am sure we would all like to pay less money for our tabs if we could.  Nothing like paying for huntingtags and having most of the money going to fisheries.

Racism: "Discrimination or prejudice based on race".  They are allowed to do things the rest of US citizens can't based on their race... fits the definition 100%.

We are talking about public, private, or any land not on their reservation.  WDFW shouldn't take any blame that the wording of their regs are different than the tribal regs, there shouldn't be any separate tribal regs for the lands off reservation.  They should be held to the exact same WDFW regulations as every other person in this country.  100% equal rights when they step of their reservation land, absolutely no loop holes should be allowed.

You brought up the fees, I only pointed out again its a racist practice that someone pays a different fee structure based on the race they were born.

exactly 

[Practical Approach]

Racism: "Discrimination or prejudice based on race".  They are allowed to do things the rest of US citizens can't based on their race... fits the definition 100%.



I know that it is hard to get past the color of the skin issue, however the discrimination that is mentioned is based on U.S. government given treaty rights. Therefore the tribes, even though they have a different color of skin, are their own sovereign governments that can make their own regulations for all hunting areas that the U.S. Government gave them rights to hunt.  I am sorry to disappoint most of you, but treaties aren't being revoked by the U.S. Government.  If anything, more work should be done to work with the tribes so that everyone is managing the wildlife populations properly. I have mentioned this before, if the tribes ever decide to pursue 50% of Washington's deer and elk then we all might be in a hurt of trouble.  They already won 50% of the shellfish and salmon harvest.  The precedence is there in the courts.  Just my 

[pods8]

Racism: "Discrimination or prejudice based on race".  They are allowed to do things the rest of US citizens can't based on their race... fits the definition 100%.



I know that it is hard to get past the color of the skin issue, however the discrimination that is mentioned is based on U.S. government given treaty rights. Therefore the tribes, even though they have a different color of skin, are their own sovereign governments that can make their own regulations for all hunting areas that the U.S. Government gave them rights to hunt.  I am sorry to disappoint most of you, but treaties aren't being revoked by the U.S. Government.  If anything, more work should be done to work with the tribes so that everyone is managing the wildlife populations properly. I have mentioned this before, if the tribes ever decide to pursue 50% of Washington's deer and elk then we all might be in a hurt of trouble.  They already won 50% of the shellfish and salmon harvest.  The precedence is there in the courts.  Just my 

Just because the US gov granted the rights doesn't change that its racist that one group of US citizens is granted privileges others aren't if they can trace back having a fraction of Indian ancestry. 

If they were truly their own sovereign governments then they should had to import/export everything that crosses their borders, shouldn't qualify as US citizens, shouldn't be granted any of the social services our citizens get, etc...  However they do not operate that way.  You can't have your cake and eat it too.  I'm fine with them operating their reservation as they see fit but they are us citizens in all other factions and shouldn't have any rights outside of their reservation that anyone else doesn't have.

If they took 50% of the harvest we wouldn't be arguing because they herds would be gone in a couple years... on the flip side perhaps folks would realize how screwed up this is and demand the US gov. fix the problem.  And yes the US gov. has the power to do that just as simply as when slavery was outlawed.  In reality that stripped "property" away from people with no compensation, but it was obviously the just thing to do so it was tough *censored* for them.  This century is no longer about hunting for a way of live & means of survival so we're not causing a great  injustice to Indians by requiring them to behave like all other US citizens.

[J Snow73]

Just because the US gov granted the rights doesn't change that its racist that one group of US citizens is granted privileges others aren't if they can trace back having a fraction of Indian ancestry.  

If they were truly their own sovereign governments then they should had to import/export everything that crosses their borders, shouldn't qualify as US citizens, shouldn't be granted any of the social services our citizens get, etc...  However they do not operate that way.  You can't have your cake and eat it too.  I'm fine with them operating their reservation as they see fit but they are us citizens in all other factions and shouldn't have any rights outside of their reservation that anyone else doesn't have.

If they took 50% of the harvest we wouldn't be arguing because they herds would be gone in a couple years... on the flip side perhaps folks would realize how screwed up this is and demand the US gov. fix the problem.  And yes the US gov. has the power to do that just as simply as when slavery was outlawed.  In reality that stripped "property" away from people with no compensation, but it was obviously the just thing to do so it was tough *censored* for them.  This century is no longer about hunting for a way of live & means of survival so we're not causing a great  injustice to Indians by requiring them to behave like all other US citizens.

I agree with this 100% it makes to much sense not to

[BobD]

I wouldn't mind all the special treaty rights if they were 100%   Don't just pick and choose what you want to use or develop.  Hold them true to the date they were written.   When the treaty's were written do the think they meant diesel powered gill net boats.  I thought canoe and cedar nets.   Whaling with 50 cal.  No !


Don't get mad at the tribes for casinos.  It was Gov. Greg that said the state did not want any money from gaming!