Free: Contests & Raffles.
Final Approach please clarify do you mean 2 deer tags per member and 1 elk tag per house hold?
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.
I don't necessarily think overturning the bolt decision is what we really need. I could kinda care less one way or the other in some ways. The WDFW has NOT been doing a stellar job of managing OUR recourse's either, and i think they use the tribe to point fingers at to a degree... Think outside the box with me on this for a moment and just ponder this without a knee jerk reaction.... The tribes suffer less from bureaucratic BS than our own hunters and state depts... Lets take predator control into the for front of the discussion... Animals that USED to be killed on a regular basis, sealions, wolves, cougar, bears, cormorants etc are either protected or made impossible to hunt because of BS regulations... Many of the protected species have come away from the brink of extinction and now flourish... The example that comes to my mind first is the Sealion... At one time it was near extinction and needed protection. Now there is no shortage and stupid extreme lengths are taken to humanely take care of those that gorge on fish near damn ladders... I think our fellow hunters that are less encumbered by BS (Tribesmen) have a unique opportunity to affect our natural resources of fish and game...For everyone benefit... I think our focus has been on a few individuals from an uncooperative tribe... I think because we are uneducated about the differences between tribes and how they are run and they manage their resources, well fall back to thinking they are all like X tribe... Running dogs, baiting, shooting magpies, cormorants, sealions are less hindering options for tribesmen than us white folks... Take the Makaw tribe. They were able to kill a Whale... If a tribe can break the ESA for cultural reason like that, then our hunting brothers should be encouraged to go back to their roots and kill other predators in vast numbers for "Cultural" reasons... You want to fight the federal government over BS rules? So do I. Indians have not surrendered so many of their rights in this area as we have... Do you want to march 100 miles or 1000 miles? I don not think all tribes would be interested or able to do this.The large number of tribes in the are so diverse in nature and historical practices would be able to attack this issue on differnet fronts.... Take this "challenge" of tribal abilities to hunt/ do what they want into an advantage not a disadvantage.... Just have a cold one and let that though seep into your mind.
The tribes in the past have taken heat from WDFW when the subject of cougar control via hounds is broached. WDFW is in the cat business.
Or, we could fight to have predator control rights returned to houndsman, trappers, and baiters.
Quote from: Practical Approach on November 02, 2010, 01:46:19 PMThe tribes in the past have taken heat from WDFW when the subject of cougar control via hounds is broached. WDFW is in the cat business. Huh? Really? Then why no heat for the indians wiping out elk and deer in certain locations?
So we should give up, just because the current liberal mind set thinks it is bad?
Quote from: tlbradford on November 02, 2010, 01:56:02 PMSo we should give up, just because the current liberal mind set thinks it is bad? Yes, it would be a waste of time and money. Instead, let's learn how to hunt cougars without dogs, and call them in!
Quote from: colockumelk on October 02, 2010, 10:01:29 AM 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.Actually it does. Tribal Members are subject to FEDERAL regulations and laws. If they hold a job they pay taxes. They have drivers license etc. If they are outside the reservation whether that's hunting driving or actually living there they are subject to ALL rules laws and regulations. Therefore if our US government decided that this decision was unconstitutional based on its discriminatory language it COULD enfore it. 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. Actually members from other countries must still abide by our laws. They can also get deported or extridited back to their country of origin. However our country can still enforce and regulate laws and force members from other countries to abide by our laws. This particular point is confusing and didn't make much sense. So if my particular defense on this point is weak its because it didnt make sense.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?Only an extremely liberal interpretation of "In Common With" would mean they get half of the harvest. A normal person would interpret it to mean we all abide by the same laws. We all hunt the same. If I can only shoot one animal then you can only shoot one animal. Again white guilt comes into play. But you are right ithe In common language is up to interpretation apparantly. But it is discriminatory thus it can be deemed unconstitutional.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). Yes they are the same. The Government is who restricts us and allows another group to live by a completely different set of laws and rules. Websters says Discrimination is defined as: treatment taken toward or against an individual of a certain group in consideration based solely on class or category. Discrimination is the actual behavior towards another group. It involves excluding or restricting members of one group from opportunities that are available to other groups. Oh and stop living in the passed. The discrimination that took place was in the past. We want to move forward and advance as a society not live in the past like you and many tribes do. 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.)
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.....
