good day 4 the tribe

[6x6rack]

WSU,

I am no legal mind, but there has to be something to resources that are being paid for with public funds being subject to rules that everyone using those public resource abides by. IE no discriminatory practices being allowed in the administration of public funds and resources. The Colocum herd is managed and funded by dollars raised through the State, primarily WDFW. In this case we have allowed a group, under the pretence of an archaic treaty, to openly decimate public resources. Treaty rights give special privledges, but nowhere does it allow the ABUSE of those privledges to the extent we are condoning discriminatory and destructive practices on Government owned or public land being managed with taxpayer dollars and government funds.  IE Tax dollars are being spent to maintain the feeding stations to protect wintering elk, yet because you are a different RACE you can go in and kill the elk we are spending public dollars on public property to protect? Makes no sence, or do Indians also have the right to blow up public dams or tear up public roads that affect their treaty rights? Of course not, because there are laws that govern behavior of citizens as a whole, and sometimes those laws supercede class laws in application because they apply to EVERY citizen equally and the application and enforcement of those laws are publicy funded. Our wildlife resources are no different. So Indians have a longer season by treaty and can take animals any time without paying for tags...fine, they take 3 bulls per every 100 cows on public land just like the rest of us, report it just like the rest of us, get one just like the rest of us, and have severe penalties in place for violaters just like the rest of us. Something like this allows their treaty rights to be honored, but off the reservation they are held to the same accountability we all have when on publicly owned and funded property dealing with publicy owned and funded resources. Possibly an inniative that reads something like "Should Congress enact an amendment that requires State law be applied equally to all classes and races when on public property, or when participating in an event that is funded or managed by the State" It just sounds so stupid to say something like that in this day and age but it would give WDFW a reason to arrest and judges some teeth to force the tribes to be part of the solution.

[Curly]

Possibly an initiative that reads something like "Should Congress enact an amendment that requires State law be applied equally to all classes and races when on public property, or when participating in an event that is funded or managed by the State" It just sounds so stupid to say something like that in this day and age but it would give WDFW a reason to arrest and judges some teeth to force the tribes to be part of the solution.

Great idea.  I like it.

[Practical Approach]

I don't think a state initiative will do squat to supersede a federal treaty.....Or will it?

[vandeman17]

I don't think a state initiative will do squat to supersede a federal treaty.....Or will it?

I was just going to say the same thing. I think it would have to go to the Federal level in the end for it to have any staying power. 

[Practical Approach]

if they closed Colockum completely for a few years, unfortunately the bulls there currently would grow enormously and when it reopened anyone unable to hunt the reserve would be hosed and life as usual would be the norm still.
Tribals would go in and slaughter the bulls on the reserve BEFORE they made it back out to where we the Hunters could bag one.

was thinking about this last night, whatever improvements the closure of colockum did would be lost in a few short weeks by Tribal members and their 7 tags EACH per year. (muckleshoot indians each get 7 tags per year per tribal member)

Sorry Phishisgroovin but your are wrong regarding Muckleshoot.  Your 7 tags per tribal member is fairly vague regarding species,so I will clarify it for you a bit.  Muckleshoot tribal members only get 2 deer tags per year and only 1 elk tag per household.  They have one of the most highly regulated and restrictive seasons out there.  I doubt anyone on this forum would be willing to go to one elk per household. 

[6x6rack]

Last time I checked aren't there several hundred "legal" Pot grows in the state and stores selling "legal" Marijuana from here to California, which is a Federal Crime. Anyway, they would have a hard time defeating a law that forbids racial or class discrimination.

[whacker1]

if they closed Colockum completely for a few years, unfortunately the bulls there currently would grow enormously and when it reopened anyone unable to hunt the reserve would be hosed and life as usual would be the norm still.
Tribals would go in and slaughter the bulls on the reserve BEFORE they made it back out to where we the Hunters could bag one.

was thinking about this last night, whatever improvements the closure of colockum did would be lost in a few short weeks by Tribal members and their 7 tags EACH per year. (muckleshoot indians each get 7 tags per year per tribal member)

Sorry Phishisgroovin but your are wrong regarding Muckleshoot.  Your 7 tags per tribal member is fairly vague regarding species,so I will clarify it for you a bit.  Muckleshoot tribal members only get 2 deer tags per year and only 1 elk tag per household.  They have one of the most highly regulated and restrictive seasons out there.  I doubt anyone on this forum would be willing to go to one elk per household. 

Does this include "off" reservation hunting as well for the Muckleshoots?  or just the "on" reservation hunting?  I don't know, which is why I ask.  Every tribe seems to operate very differently from the next tribe.

[Practical Approach]

if they closed Colockum completely for a few years, unfortunately the bulls there currently would grow enormously and when it reopened anyone unable to hunt the reserve would be hosed and life as usual would be the norm still.
Tribals would go in and slaughter the bulls on the reserve BEFORE they made it back out to where we the Hunters could bag one.

was thinking about this last night, whatever improvements the closure of colockum did would be lost in a few short weeks by Tribal members and their 7 tags EACH per year. (muckleshoot indians each get 7 tags per year per tribal member)

Sorry Phishisgroovin but your are wrong regarding Muckleshoot.  Your 7 tags per tribal member is fairly vague regarding species,so I will clarify it for you a bit.  Muckleshoot tribal members only get 2 deer tags per year and only 1 elk tag per household.  They have one of the most highly regulated and restrictive seasons out there.  I doubt anyone on this forum would be willing to go to one elk per household. 

Does this include "off" reservation hunting as well for the Muckleshoots?  or just the "on" reservation hunting?  I don't know, which is why I ask.  Every tribe seems to operate very differently from the next tribe.

That includes both on and off reservation. 

[6x6rack]

HA...
Just got a funny PM and no, I dont smoke pot or have feelings one way or another about those that do The point was that just because you know you aren't going to win the war in a single battle, it doesn't mean it's not worth fighting. You get something like this going in every State with the tribal problem...they will hear sick and tired pissed off sportsmen roar and yes, it would give us the opportunity to have this heard Federaly and it has to start somewhere, every special interest group in the world finds a way to get it done...any sportsmen tired of being pissed on???. I'd like to see the Judge who finds that it is OK to discriminate in the case of Indians because their Treaty says so...open the door to play Cowboys and Indians again every time they step off the reservation in this day and age...I dont think so. The key is to keep the Treaty rights intact while forcing equality on State, Federal or public property or anything being funded or managed by the State. I don't know how to write something like that but I sure as hell would sign it and volenteer endless hours to get it signed by every other red blooded sportsman in this State.

[tlbradford]

I think the best bet would be to try to overturn the Boldt Decision which ruled that the number of fish and game animals should be split 50/50 between Indians and non-Indians.  It is my belief the treaty was interpreted incorrectly. Here is the treaty language:

The right of taking fish, at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations, is further secured to
said Indians in common with all citizens of the Territory, and of erecting temporary houses for the
purpose of curing, together with the privilege of hunting, gathering roots and berries, and
pasturing their horses on open and unclaimed lands....

1. The right of taking fish, at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations. This statement refers to physical locations only. It does not denote a time-frame, and it does not denote a harvest amount.

2. is further secured to said Indians in common with all citizens of the Territory.  This denotes a shared opportunity in common with non-Indian citizens.  Meaning that all laws of the land should apply equally to Indians and non-Indians.  Since this is an equal opportunity to harvest fish only, the ruling that the fish numbers are shared equally is wrong.  No numbers are stated in the language of the treaty.

The treaty interpretation can be overturned in federal courts.  The treaty itself can only be altered by the President of the United States.  However, as mentioned earlier, the state wields a large hammer when it comes to public funds being given to tribal agencies and members.  Access to these funds could be leveraged very easily to insure cooperation of the tribes to the overall well-being of the Fish and Wildlife of our state.

[WSU]

HA...
Just got a funny PM and no, I dont smoke pot or have feelings one way or another about those that do The point was that just because you know you aren't going to win the war in a single battle, it doesn't mean it's not worth fighting. You get something like this going in every State with the tribal problem...they will hear sick and tired pissed off sportsmen roar and yes, it would give us the opportunity to have this heard Federaly and it has to start somewhere, every special interest group in the world finds a way to get it done...any sportsmen tired of being pissed on???. I'd like to see the Judge who finds that it is OK to discriminate in the case of Indians because their Treaty says so...open the door to play Cowboys and Indians again every time they step off the reservation in this day and age...I dont think so. The key is to keep the Treaty rights intact while forcing equality on State, Federal or public property or anything being funded or managed by the State. I don't know how to write something like that but I sure as hell would sign it and volenteer endless hours to get it signed by every other red blooded sportsman in this State.

The states have tried over and over to do exactly what you all are asking, and have lost over and over.  The Boldt decision, which is a prime example pointed to by most, was the result of the state's attempt to curtail tribal harvest.  The fact is that federal treaties supercede any laws passed by the states.  Period.  End of story.  Tribes win, states lose every time if the state law conflicts with treaty rights.  

You all are right that it can be changed.  Congress, at the federal level, can change it.  The state can't.  Initiatives can't.  WDFW can't.  

6x6 had an interesting thought: "....., or do Indians also have the right to blow up public dams or tear up public roads that affect their treaty rights? Of course not, because there are laws that govern behavior of citizens as a whole, and sometimes those laws supercede class laws in application because they apply to EVERY citizen equally and the application and enforcement of those laws are publicy funded. Our wildlife resources are no different."

The answer may be yes.  Some of you may be familiar with the "culverts case" that recently occurred.  In it, the tribes successfully sued the Washington DOT over culverts under state roads that were cutting off salmon habitat.  The argument was that the tribes reserved the right to fish and to maintain their way of life, but the state was badly hampering that right by cutting off thousands (yes, thousands) of miles of salmon habitat.  The result: the DOT replaced the culverts, at the cost of millions and millions of dollars, in order to repair salmon habitat it had blocked as ordered by the court.  They forced the state it its own expense to tear up public roads and fix them.  

Now imagine how that precedence could be applied.  Insert the thing of your choosing that the state is doing to screw up salmon habitat.  Dams?  Scientifically proven on the Columbia to kill up to 90% of out-migrating smolts per year.  Seems to fit the bill.  So the answer, 6X6, maybe yes?

[runamuk]

Last time I checked aren't there several hundred "legal" Pot grows in the state and stores selling "legal" Marijuana from here to California, which is a Federal Crime. Anyway, they would have a hard time defeating a law that forbids racial or class discrimination.

comes down to the concept of states rights.....sort of like the issue of wolves and the idaho government saying they wont enforce the federal law...they aren't technically violating it just refusing to enforce.....or Nevada for a long long time was known to put up speed limits and then not enforce them....this way they received federal road monies but didn't actually set speed limitations....
In this case it is all about equality and discrimination with regards to public lands.....I see it being a legitimate complaint....in this day and age it is ridiculous ..

gonna pose a question that just occurred to me being election day......how many tribal members are also voters?  how can they be sovereign and citizens and not be held to the same standards?  it does not make sense no matter what the treaties say or what Boldt legislated (which is also against the foundations of this country)

If you do not live by the same rules as the rest of the citizenry why even have any rules at all?

I also will keep picking at this until somehow something changes.....or I die...which is more likely than a change...

[colockumelk]

First of all I didn't cop out. I forgot about it. I'm currently in flight school and am in charge of my flight class. 14 hours a day is devoted to this. So if a post gets rolled passed the first page I forget about it. Sorry. Go get a degree in one year and you'll get an idea of my workload.

[tlbradford]

The answer may be yes.  Some of you may be familiar with the "culverts case" that recently occurred.  In it, the tribes successfully sued the Washington DOT over culverts under state roads that were cutting off salmon habitat.  The argument was that the tribes reserved the right to fish and to maintain their way of life, but the state was badly hampering that right by cutting off thousands (yes, thousands) of miles of salmon habitat.  The result: the DOT replaced the culverts, at the cost of millions and millions of dollars, in order to repair salmon habitat it had blocked as ordered by the court.  They forced the state it its own expense to tear up public roads and fix them. 

If this was the language of the ruling than this is incorrect too.  Nowhere in any of the treaties does it state that Indians get to "maintain their way of life".  They have a right to the opportunity to harvest fish and game in the ceded lands.  If there are no fish and game on those lands, tough *censored*, the non-indians have no obligation to maintain them for the use of Indians. 

The whole "maintain their way of life" has been improperly inserted into the treaty language, much like the "seperation of church and state" has been inserted into the Constitution.  That language does not exist in the original documents.

[meathunter]

Final Approach please clarify do you mean 2 deer tags per member and 1 elk tag per house hold?