good day 4 the tribe

[brianb231]

I have been watching this thread for days and I find the points being made very interesting and very true fo rthe most part. But I ask myself, if Descrimination and lack of stewardship, violation of the constitution, etc are the issues that need to be addressed here, what would be a persons first steps into really making something happen here? I mean besides the obvious of voting in someone that is going to give a damn. And I am not saying that it is pointless. What is really the next step into really making something happen???

What would Uncle Ted do?

Just a thought.

[elkhuntindad]

It's only takes one D-Bag to ruin for all of the good hunters 

[Special T]

BB231 Well I would have to say if you were to take it to court all you need is someone with legal standing and LOTS of Ca$h to throw at a Very expensive lawsuit... A lawsuit of this magnitude would require all tribes jump in to protect their $$$ casinos etc. Can you imagine the Hundreds of millions of dollars that would be thrown at you over a "Hunting discrimination" case? Where would you find the money? I think most pockets that are deep enough currently do some kind of business with a tribe and get what they want anyway... I'm sure one of the lawyers here could speak more directly to this point but there are many things that are not right, but it is too hard to find the right case to fight it...

[TikkaT3-270Shortmag]

They look nice from the pic but its small.  How many did they Kill??

[ratherhunt]

I just read parts of this post the whole tribal thing really upsets me, my kids do not have the same  oppertunity that I had when I was there age fishing and hunting before the bolt decision but what if all the sportsman groups  (NWTF Rocky Mountain Elk, Ducks Unlimited, etc) got together and boycotted the casinos if you hurt them financially you might get the tribes to listen they care more about money than hunting or fishing. I think the bolt decision was about fishing but things sure have changed since. If the tribes had casinos in 1974 no one would of went to them, now we all complain about the tribes but we still spend our money with the tribes. The picture may or may not be tribal but there is a huge problem and its past time we do something about it.

[whiteeyes]

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.....

Wow wow wow there clockumelk pump the brakes. Indians did not create discrimination. The Indians didnt sit around the camp fire and write up this proposal and take it to the government and say please sign here. With that being said...........
Life as we know it is being taken more and more every day little by little a law for this a law for that, big brother is here to save us from our selves.  Every day we loose a little bit more of what used to be Land of the Free. And maybe , just maybe the Indians could read the writing`s on the wall many years ago and new that they had better accept what was being offered at that time. So we as a Nation better start coming together as the Tribes had to years ago to keep what little Freedom and Rights that we still have.
Yes there are a few bad apples with in the Tribes as there is in every Race. It just gets old to see the bad Indian apples always being thrown all over in this site making it sound like all Indians. Things will change and people will come together and it might not be over some hunting rights but will be over a means of survival if we dont start looking at the bigger picture.


Peace

[WSU]

 

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.....

I have no problem "stepping up" and debating you on this.  I think it is important to understand what the Constitutional application of discrimination protection is and the related legal foundation of what gives treaty tribes the status they currently hold.  

The first, and by far the most important thing, that you don't appear understand is that members of treaty tribes are not U.S. citizens in the sense that you and I are.  The whole "sovereign nation" thing comes into play here.  They are sovereign nations (like Mexico, France, Canada, etc.).  As such, they are not subject to the constraints of our Constitution to the same extent.  The waters are really muddied here, however, because treaty tribe members are often outside their reservations, and are subject to to our laws to different extents depending on where they are and who the other party is that is involved.  Suffice it to say, however, that the view that our consititution applies directly to tribal members, let alone treaties, does not work.

Second, the discriminatory effect is not looked at the same.  It is not a simple case of the U.S. government discriminating against its citizens.  It is two sovereign (read foreign) nations regulating the relationship between the different nations.  To be short, the U.S. is free to have policies with foreign nations that would not pass Constitutional muster if they were to apply the same policies against its own citizens.  Whether these policies are good or bad for the U.S. populous is more of a political than legal question.  Examples are wars, trade policies, etc.  

Third, the Boldt decision is a completely accurate, in my opinion, legal interpretation of the treaties as written.  The main thing that gets everyone up in arms is that the treaties were interpreted to give 50% of the harvest to the treaty tribes based on the "in common with" language.  Courts attempt to give words their ordinary meaning unless an obviously contrary intent can be found in the law.  This is applied all over (normal contracts, insurance contracts, statutes, etc., etc.).  In effect, the Boldt decision determined that "in common with" mean equal, especially when read in the context of the tribes who did not write the treaties or speak english.  Again, this policy is applied throughout the law.  Contracts are interpreted against the drafting party so that the drafting party cannot as easily use trickery in drafting the contract.  A prime example is insurance contracts, in which ambiguities are interpreted against insurance companies.  In short, "in common with" was basically interpreted to mean "equal," which in the case of harvest allocation is half, or 50%.  Perhaps you have a definition of "in common with" that is different and would allow the Boldt decision to be "EASILY overturned", or can point to a different reason?

Fourth, and related to the above, is that your analogies to Jim Crow laws and the like are completely inapplicable (legally speaking).  This is not the case of the government (remember that a government action is required for constitutional discrimination) doing something to U.S. citizens.  Jim Crow laws were the government purposefully discrminating against racial minorities.  That simply isn't the case with treaty law.  If anything, the only racial minority that has been targeted throughout history for discrimination under treaty laws is the Indians themselves, which would give them a cause of action against the government in the event these inapplicable constitutional principles were applied (which again, I don't think they do apply).

Fifth, the treaties can be changed, just not by the courts.  The courts are applying the laws as written, and the current system is what the laws say.  Under the Constitution, the Senate and the Executive branch have powers over treaties.  Article 6, the "Supremacy Clause," makes the Constitution, the laws of the U.S., and treaties the "law of the land."  The only body with the power to change treaties, and the current system of laws being interpreted by the courts, is Congress.  They have the power to abrogate the treaties and make the laws regarding Indians whatever they want.

Of course, all of the above is only my interpretation, and could be wrong.  It is worth exactly what you paid for it!  Debate away!  (Colockumelk - as you know, I enjoy these types of debates, and you and I have done so before.  I'm not trying to piss anyone off here, just offer a different perspective.)

[WSU]

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.

To be honest, I'm not sure to what extent the tribes are the problem and the extent to which they are not.  And, in my view, nobody else on here does either.  The posting of a picture of two dead bulls isn't proof to me that tribes are the problem.  Neither is a report of someone else who saw two dead bulls in a truck in the Blues, even assuming it was tribal.  For example, just the week before we had reports of multiple poached bulls in the Blues.  We are constantly hearing other reports of poaching, which is an activity that is hidden.  Tribal members don't appear to hide their harvest.  I think the amount of poaching is an unknown, as is perhaps tribal harvest.  Further, we know that what we harvest legally, which is a giant percentage of animals (take the harvest problems WE have in the Colockum as a prime example).  Often, I think it is just easier to point the finger "at the other guy." 

I do, however, recognize there are issues with tribal harvest.  In cases were it is a problem, I don't agree with it, legal or not.  To me, however, these are all distinct issues and questions. 

Also, thanks calling me a logical and reasonable guy.  Now convince my wife!

[Practical Approach]

Very informative.  Thanks for the explanation.

[colockumelk]

Good Stuff WSU,

Been waiting for a reply from somebody like that for about 6 months now.  Thankyou for that, that's the kind of stuff that keeps me coming back to this site for.  I don't have alot of time to write an appropriate response to that because I have a 0530 flight tomorrow morning.  So I will only touch on one point because it'll take only a few minutes.  Rather than trying to counter some of the other stuff you mentioned because it would take more time.

A treaty is basically an agreement, a contract if you will between two parties.  And treaties become null and void if one side breaches that contract.  In the particular treaty of 1855 ARTICLE 9 says basically Indians are not allowed to drink.  Obviously this Article is violated daily.  (Please no one read into that,  if you looked at any city in America someone in that town drank a beer that day) 

Whiteeyes you missed my point once again.  I know the history of both our people.  You circumnavigated my point.  I'm saying changes need to be made so everyone is treated equal.  At least outside of the reservation. 

I will enjoy debating this further but I have a 0330 wakeup.  Take Care

[WASHBCBOOK]

SCLAP THEM BS

[bigmonster]

The truck is from the yakima area its a grey toyota tacoma from bud clary of yakima plate number B13905 last number is unreadable this pick up has been seen multiple time in the clockum area!!!!

[Bob]

I was scouting the peaches ridge unit yesterday and ran into two (tribal members ) that started bragging how they have year round elk tags or any thing else they want to hunt. need less to say i took down the plate # called the warden and they weren't all that interested in it .  what can you do ?

[Antlerking]

The 1 to watch out for is the late 80's red toyota 4x4. He pretty much lives in the clochum and is a Wen. local. If someone finds him ask him if he wants his box of 30-06 shells and his film case of marijuana back. He dropped them out of his truck when he shot a bull from the road and in the reserve.

[bearhunter99]

I think people get the misconception that all white people hate Native Americans, which is not true.  I would be willing to bet that even the majority of guys on here who "say" they hate Native Americans do not hate the tribes as a whole.  Most are tired of seeing the abuse of the treaties. 

It has been said before I am sure but the main reason I and most others on here get steamed about the whole issue is that you see the same names in the record books and at the shows for these big bulls and bucks.  Technically speaking the argument could be made that these animals are ineligible for the record books and the award shows because the majority of them were NOT taken by the standards of FAIR CHASE!  I have seen first hand some of the abuse, and believe me it burns the blood.  There was a camp the year before last (after all the seasons were closed) very close to the reserve with at most four tribal members in it and there were eleven bulls hanging.  Not all were trophy quality but at least 7 were 340 or better.  Four gut piles IN the road, not even enough courtesy to shove them off the road, just left in the middle of the road for anyone out for a Sunday drive to see.  These are the images also that the antis see, and some of what the tribe does gives the rest of us a bad name because a bunny hugger sees it and doesn't know that it is not your everyday hunter doing this.  They don't know the seasons or regs, just what they can see with their own eyes.  A simple Ebay search in the winter months will show some very large antlers being sold from the Yakima area.  The rights are for sustenance and ritual, not for an additional profit center.  If I saw a truck with a bull and a couple of cows in it I would not be as steamed, but the cows are left alone. 

I also know a tribal warden in the Omak area who told me about alot of the abuse that goes on and he is not even able to do anything about it under tribal law.  He told me that he had caught tribal members shooting deer and if they ran over the ridge they just kept driving until they found one that would roll into the road.  He himself as a tribal warden was powerless to do anything about it and he was steamed!  The talk about the tribes governing their members needs to be addressed when even their own wardens are not able to stop the abuse on the reservation itself.

My