good day 4 the tribe

[boneaddict]

I read the article but miss your point I guess.  How today it all could be fixed by the court saying we "Are all created equal, thus have all the same rights."  Seems simple enough to me.  I'd still imagine that it will take another tradgedy to bring it to light.  Lawyers or not, the supreme decision can be made to dismiss these treaties as they are no longer relevant or they are destructive to our ways of life today..."in this climate of change" OR.....tribes can recognize that th eboiling point has been almost reached and that in order to continue with their way of live they need to quit thumbing their nose and adopt and legislate their own.  I still think that won't solve any problems.

[Viszla]

"Good Day 4 the tribe"

You must mean everyday.

[WSU]

Bone - The treaties can definitely be abrogated.  Congress, at the federal level, has the sole power under the Constitution to do so.

My point isn't so much that the current state of things is ideal; obviously it is far from ideal.  My point is that the simplistic idea "that we should all be equals, if your not a citizen then get it" completely ignores 300 years of relevant legal and factual history.  

Further, the equities of the situation aren't really on our side, are they?  We got ALL THE LAND.  They retained the right to hunt and fish, and little bit of money each year.  Are we really in the right to reneg on the deal now that it is inconvenient for us that treaty tribes have rights to hunt and fish?  You think it isn't inconvenient for them that we control all the land they once controlled, have decimimated fish runs to the point where we now bitch about them harvesting a few thousand fish when the used to harvest millions out the Columbia alone, etc., etc.?  (As a side note, that reminds me of a fact that is often ignored or unknown by many: the tribes used to harvest up to half the annual runs in the Columbia without harming the runs.  It wasn't until we turned the Columbia River into a series of lakes and filled it with hatcheries to fuel our own over-harvest that it could no longer sustain the harvest levels that once were possible).

[GoldTip]

WSU yes, I read the article written explicitly from a pro-native american/treaty stance without doubt, and the many points made come down to that treaties were made and they should/will/must be adhered to.  I don't disagree with that in any way shape or form.  What I don't agree with is that they haven't been  progressive with the change in shape and technology of this great nation.  What was not provided for/nor considered was the advacement in technologies to which the Native American would take full advantage of.  When these treaties were written, they did not then get in the car/truck and drive off to the reservation.  They didn't slide a bolt action Remington 700 in 300 win mag into a rope sling and slide it around their neck and and climb on their horse bareback and ride off to the reservation either.  They also didn't go to the store and buy their gill nets to net salmon and then pack them in coolers and slide them into the bed of their truck.  Their was never a future envisioned that there would be 350million people living on this soil, let alone the world at the time of these treaties.  Times have changed and the treaties must as well.

For the record WSU, in case you may think I am insensitive to Native Americans, my very best friend from college is one of those 2,000 native american lawyers, and I never, ever heard him identify himself as anything but an American.  He works for one of the tribes listed in your article, in fact he is the lead attorney for one of those tribes.  I have known him for 25 years, and he has never, ever in that time taken a game animal that he did not have state of Montana issued license for.

I have to append this after reading your post WSU, yes, the salmon runs have been damaged since we put the damns up, but have the Natives slowed their harvest of fish or have they simply not been able to take as many because their aren't as many present?  I also don't see them bitching about having electricity or turning it away, they only ciomplain that there aren't as many salmon, but give us the electricity.   You don't get the cake and get to eat it to, and I think that is what upsets most people on these forums.

[WSU]

WSU yes, I read the article written explicitly from a pro-native american/treaty stance without doubt, and the many points made come down to that treaties were made and they should/will/must be adhered to.  I don't disagree with that in any way shape or form.  What I don't agree with is that they haven't been  progressive with the change in shape and technology of this great nation.  What was not provided for/nor considered was the advacement in technologies to which the Native American would take full advantage of.  When these treaties were written, they did not then get in the car/truck and drive off to the reservation.  They didn't slide a bolt action Remington 700 in 300 win mag into a rope sling and slide it around their neck and and climb on their horse bareback and ride off to the reservation either.  They also didn't go to the store and buy their gill nets to net salmon and then pack them in coolers and slide them into the bed of their truck.  Their was never a future envisioned that there would be 350million people living on this soil, let alone the world at the time of these treaties.  Times have changed and the treaties must as well.

For the record WSU, in case you may think I am insensitive to Native Americans, my very best friend from college is one of those 2,000 native american lawyers, and I never, ever heard him identify himself as anything but an American.  He works for one of the tribes listed in your article, in fact he is the lead attorney for one of those tribes.  I have known him for 25 years, and he has never, ever in that time taken a game animal that he did not have state of Montana issued license for.

Valid points.  And I agree, times have changed (although not in all the ways we often think - example, tribes used gillnets, traps, and other nets prior to our arrival, harvested up to half the entire run of salmon in the Columbia as I state above, etc., etc.).  Part of what makes our Constitution and laws great, and even work at all, is the ability to apply them as times change.  The examples are endless: voting, slavery, on and on.  However, your points are more thought out and take history and laws into account much more than the average knee-jerk comment most on this thread gave.  As I indicated above, nobody is going to argue that the situation is ideal.

[GoldTip]

I agree, but I believe there has to be a give and take and that is why the Constitution and laws are a living document.   And although I don't disagree that they used gill nets 150 years ago, I don't remember the last time I saw a hand woven one along the Columbia,(and to be honest neither does any LIVING Native).  I think most anyone here on this forum would have no problem seeing the picture first posted on this thread, if it included a couple of hunting ponies and some tradition archery equipment.

[pods8]

I spend alot of time up in the Colockum and Nanem area and have yet to see the truck loads of elk being exported out of those areas. I know for a fact that the Advanced Hunter program in that area is taking way more elk out of the system than we as hunters can imagine.

The Master Hunter (previously AHE) are allowed to pursue antlerless elk that come down into the valley area, the current boundaries are below the power lines for the Colockum corner.  This is to discourage the elk from doing damage to the ranch land.  They are not allowed to go up into the prime heard areas and take elk antlerless or branch antlered at will.

Additionally their harvests are all recorded for wildlife management purposes and public record.  Its all about balancing animal location and private property damage.  If the animals don't come down they don't get shot at.  Additionally WDFW can change the rules as they see fit for the health of the heard and have full control of it.

None of that can be said for the tribal hunting going on there. 

[pods8]

Further, the equities of the situation aren't really on our side, are they?  We got ALL THE LAND.

Tribes fought for control of land historically as well, its the way of man (not just white man).  Whitey came in and was willing to play the game as well.  Nobody likes the messy past but land that wasn't claimed by modern practices of the new government of the land was going to get claimed.  One could argue how much land they should have gotten but in the end if it was unreasonable it was going to come down to who could win the fight.  They have their reservations in tact and can do as they please with them.  I don't have issue saying enough with off-reservation tribal hunting unless they are doing so as normal US citizens because in the long run the tribes weren't going to hang onto the land anyways as some other government entity to be blunt.  It was the conquering/land expansion era of man and the tribes on US soil were just one of many in the world that were overpowered.  Today the modern US government is the law of this land and no tribe is going to be able to change it.

[WSU]

Further, the equities of the situation aren't really on our side, are they?  We got ALL THE LAND.

Tribes fought for control of land historically as well, its the way of man (not just white man).  Whitey came in and was willing to play the game as well.  Nobody likes the messy past but land that wasn't claimed by modern practices of the new government of the land was going to get claimed.  One could argue how much land they should have gotten but in the end if it was unreasonable it was going to come down to who could win the fight.  They have their reservations in tact and can do as they please with them.  I don't have issue saying enough with off-reservation tribal hunting unless they are doing so as normal US citizens because in the long run the tribes weren't going to hang onto the land anyways as some other government entity to be blunt.  It was the conquering/land expansion era of man and the tribes on US soil were just one of many in the world that were overpowered.  Today the modern US government is the law of this land and no tribe is going to be able to change it.

This idea is simply wrong factually.  The government made a calculated decision to enter into treaties rather than prosecute a costly war that it didn't have the capability of prosecuting.  Some treaties are the result of the "conquering" you allude to, but many aren't.  At the time, it was more profitable and feasible to enter into deals rather than kill enough Indians to take everything by force.  What it may have come down to had we not entered into the treaties is largely, if not completely, irrelevant.  We could go round and round on every subject with "what ifs" or alternative things that could have happened.

[6x6rack]

WSU...

You sound like a logical and reasonable guy. The treaties are what they are and if I'm reading between the lines correctly no-one here feels the treaties need to be changed if the Tribes were willing to stop the abuses. At some point any government without laws and enforcement of those laws will fall into chaos. The stability of the collocum herd has reached such a point. A declining herd, a 5/100 bull to cow ratio (those are All bulls, not trophy bulls) and a less than 50% calving rate among fertile cows.

People are pissed because there is an ungoverned (and if they were white, black, asian or hispanic they would be labeled as poachers), group of individuals that only the Tribe can stop from abusing the resources... and nothing is done. Yes there are treaty rights that were established for all the reasons you and the article mention, but nowhere is there the right to decimate a resource through lack of internal control and stewardship. No one here will EVER be OK with that just because a treaty says you get special priveleges. Special priveleges in this day and age mean special responsibility to make sure those priveleges arent abused. We are sportsmen and LOVE the resource (in my opinion much more than the tribes, I say that because as times have evolved we have created laws to protect the resource), we will NEVER be OK with the abuse because a judge says its OK and the tribe doesn't care enough to govern it own. Some things I have seen with my own eyes...A tribe can take 1/2 the clams and oysters every year...but guess what, they don't reproduce to legal size by the next year so now our beach is raped. I have gone out and caught my 1 sockeye, only to see thousands and thousands of dead fish laying on the bottom of the lake after the Indians took the eggs and threw the rest back. I watched a tribal member shoot an elk and deceide it ran too far down the canyon to retrieve, so they left it to rot. Why can't I call and say hey tribal regulator, you have taken all the shellfish off my beach and there won't be any left if you do it again this year (I tried and was rewarded with them showing up the very next day to take more), hey I watched vehicle license # shoot an elk and leave it to rot. You bring up some very valid points, but in the end they mean absolutly nothing if the people with the special priveleges refuse to govern and manage the resources in an ethical and responsible fashion. The Tribes are a huge part of the problem, they just dont care enought about the "sacred" resources to do a damn thing to protect them when blatant disregard by their citizens takes place. I dont hate indians or anyone else, I hate that the tribes dont seem to give a crap enough about this issue to practice responsible management. I am sick of hearing about the treaty rights as a defense of stupidity.

[grundy53]

WSU...

You sound like a logical and reasonable guy. The treaties are what they are and if I'm reading between the lines correctly no-one here feels the treaties need to be changed if the Tribes were willing to stop the abuses. At some point any government without laws and enforcement of those laws will fall into chaos. The stability of the collocum herd has reached such a point. A declining herd, a 5/100 bull to cow ratio (those are All bulls, not trophy bulls) and a less than 50% calving rate among fertile cows.

People are pissed because there is an ungoverned (and if they were white, black, asian or hispanic they would be labeled as poachers), group of individuals that only the Tribe can stop from abusing the resources... and nothing is done. Yes there are treaty rights that were established for all the reasons you and the article mention, but nowhere is there the right to decimate a resource through lack of internal control and stewardship. No one here will EVER be OK with that just because a treaty says you get special priveleges. Special priveleges in this day and age mean special responsibility to make sure those priveleges arent abused. We are sportsmen and LOVE the resource (in my opinion much more than the tribes, I say that because as times have evolved we have created laws to protect the resource), we will NEVER be OK with the abuse because a judge says its OK and the tribe doesn't care enough to govern it own. Some things I have seen with my own eyes...A tribe can take 1/2 the clams and oysters every year...but guess what, they don't reproduce to legal size by the next year so now our beach is raped. I have gone out and caught my 1 sockeye, only to see thousands and thousands of dead fish laying on the bottom of the lake after the Indians took the eggs and threw the rest back. I watched a tribal member shoot an elk and deceide it ran too far down the canyon to retrieve, so they left it to rot. Why can't I call and say hey tribal regulator, you have taken all the shellfish off my beach and there won't be any left if you do it again this year (I tried and was rewarded with them showing up the very next day to take more), hey I watched vehicle license # shoot an elk and leave it to rot. You bring up some very valid points, but in the end they mean absolutly nothing if the people with the special priveleges refuse to govern and manage the resources in an ethical and responsible fashion. The Tribes are a huge part of the problem, they just dont care enought about the "sacred" resources to do a damn thing to protect them when blatant disregard by their citizens takes place. I dont hate indians or anyone else, I hate that the tribes dont seem to give a crap enough about this issue to practice responsible management. I am sick of hearing about the treaty rights as a defense of stupidity.

Very well put!

[ICEMAN]

6x6rack, very well said and great post!

[Elkaholic daWg]

x3....Great post!

[Special T]

I think many of us who are up set about the "Indians" killing too many elk, or not being treated equal need to step back and re examine this.... The "Nations" have more freedoms than most white people... We can argue weather they are using those freedoms responsibility or not, however we have very little ability to change things.... Or do we.... I think this topic is about how we VIEW the problem... We say the glass is half empty, they say its half full... Once upon a time we had similar rights to Indians... Over the last 100 years or so we have diluted our own rights through laws, rules, regulations and other entanglements of bureaucracy... Over the same 100 years Nations have not diluted their freedom like we have..... We MAY be doing a better job of temping our freedom with responsibility.... I say in many ways we(white people) have done this to ourselves... When we have been in negotiations with the tribes what have we done? Our Governor, along with the legislators gave the tribes the exclusive ability to run certain kinds of gaming with no revenue sharing.... Other state have  a sharing agreement. Our Governor and her ilk have made it illegal to Smoke in PRIVATE businesses... Funny how now the only place to have a pint,watch football, and enjoy a smoke is at a reservation bar or casino... I am sure we can come up with many other examples of  how we have limited ourselves, and the tribe has not...
    As for the hunting.... we should renegotiate with the tribes, but there is nothing to bring them to the table..... 1st not all tribes are created equal... The Yakimas are bigger and more powerful than most other tribes, and the tribes have the intelligence to bargain together. 2nd most tribes that are "in need" are more likely to be good Stuarts of the land. I'm my area the tribes have helped bring back the nooksack herd, and kicked in with $$ to do so...  So the question is how do we bring the tribe(s) back to the bargaining table?  In this case we are mostly talking about the Yakimas... We either 1 need to kill all/most of the elk so that hunting sucks for them as well as us, or we need to close hunting to everyone. I believe we can either do that as an emergency closure, to which the tribes must abide, or by reducing access so that it limits opportunity to the extremely dedicated... I think for us this is a lose/lose proposition... I wish we could find a better solution, but unfortunately i believe we have put ourselves in this position.. 
   Remember to vote for yourself in November... Vote for your freedom and any candidate that will work to give back to you.

[colockumelk]

Illegal immigration is not a new problem Native Americans used to call it white people.
The Indian haters on this web site are amazing, you have people moving here from our southern borders buy the truck loads people from the eastern country's buy the plane load living off our system buy the thousands and not contributing back.
The Tribes do more for conservation than most even have a clue about. But throw a picture or comment about a Tribe shooting a animal and all hell breaks loss.
I spend alot of time up in the Colockum and Nanem area and have yet to see the truck loads of elk being exported out of those areas. I know for a fact that the Advanced Hunter program in that area is taking way more elk out of the system than we as hunters can imagine. This country is becoming more separated buy the day and it wont be long till nothing will be as we see it today. But than again that will be the Indians fault as well.

Peace  

Whiteeyes maybe you will be the first one to step up to the plate and debate me.  However most likely you will back down like all the others on this website who have come before you.  That being said.....


The main problem I have with the situation is not so much the fact that some Indians choose to take advantage of the laws its this.  The treaty that was signed and the Boldt Decision if either of those two ever went to federal court would be deemed unconstitutional.  The reason being is that they are both EXTREMELY descriminatory.  You can not create nor enforce laws that create discrimination.  Look up the definition of DISCRIMINATION in the dictionary and you will find that Indian hunting rights compared to American's hunting rights fits that definition to a T.  You and other defenders of Indians like to talk about how nothing can change because of "The Treaty"  You are ALL mistaken.  Because you see it used to be legal to own slaves.  That law changed.  There used to be laws called the Jim Crow laws that allowed segregation and was highly discriminatory.  Those laws were deemed unconstitutional.   And rightly so.  Therefore do not think your treaty is so unchanable.  Also its not the treaty that gave you these unconstitutional rights, it was the Boldt Decision which can EASILY be overturned.  So my question to you is why do you feel that discrimination is okay.  Why you should get more rights and should get to play by different rules than I do. So please tell us.....