good day 4 the tribe

[6x6rack]

 

Colockumelk you are welcome at my campfire any time

[WSU]

6x6 has said it better than I can.  Excellant posts and welcome aboard.  The Boldt Decision can be overturned.  And yes there are actions the state can take and that the WDFW can take monetary wise that the tribes can't do anything about.  That would not break any federal laws.  The tribes would be SOL.  But we have a liberal state government and WDFW and they have refused to do it.  To be honest stuff like this probably hasnt occured to the average politician in this state. Such as the Boldt Decision left the state and WDFW with the ability to control and limit Tribal Harvest in the name of conservation.  They could easily do this and there is nothing the Tribes or the Federal Government could do about it.   

ARTICLE 9.
The said confederated tribes and bands of Indians desire to exclude from their reservation the use of ardent spirits, and to prevent their people from drinking the same, and, therefore, it is provided that any Indian belonging to said confederated tribes and bands of Indians, who is guilty of bringing liquor into said reservation, or who drinks liquor, may have his or her annuities withheld from him or her for such time as the President may determine.

Such as the state could decide to start enforcing this law.  They could put pressure on the tribes simply by enforcing a current part of this treaty.  The point is if our state had a spine and our WDFW would do what is right by hunters and by the game its supposed to manage then it could make things better and more fair.  But they don't. 

Why exactly do you think the Boldt decision can be overturned?  Explain to me why "in common with" means one per person rather than half for the tribe and half for the U.S. citizens.  The dictionary defines "common" to mean "belonging equally to, or shared alike by, two or more or all in question."  See here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/in+common.  Since the two sides were divying things up between the tribe and the non-tribe, how is it belonging equally to each entity not meaning each side gets half?  This simple analysis does not seem clearly wrong to me.  Keep in mind, the court's job is to interpret what was written, and not to interpret what should be written.  You need to talk to your congressman if you want the laws rewritten. 

And this gets us to the problem: the law, as written, gives tribes half.  We all bitch about tribal harvest in the Colockum, but you yourself said that the tribes don't harvest as many as us.  So, as you point out, we have to curtail our own harvest.  Then we get into the "foregone opportunity" analysis.  The tribes can harvest more than half if we are choosing not harvest our half.  This idea grows out of our own management policies of requiring maximum harvest, even at the expense of the runs/herds.  Our own WDFW tries like hell to maximize harvest due to legislative mandates and the way our laws are written.  Again, we bitch about WDFW.  Fact is, at least in some arenas, WDFW is directed by statute to maximize harvest. 

In short, I agree things are screwed up, but I don't believe what you say is going to provide any solution.  The WDFW tried like hell in the 1970's and 80's to do what you suggest, and we ended up with the Boldt decision and what we have now.  The tribes have not always held such power, but clearly have it now. 

[tlbradford]

Why exactly do you think the Boldt decision can be overturned?  Explain to me why "in common with" means one per person rather than half for the tribe and half for the U.S. citizens.

WSU - See my above posts, regarding why the Boldt decision should be overturned.  I think it is pretty clear.

[colockumelk]

Each city gets an "equal" amount of tax dollars from the state and federal government.  So with your definition of "In common with" this would mean that Ellensburg, WA should receive as much tax funds as Seattle, WA does, even though Seattle is like 50 times larger.  There is alot more of us than them.  And if you must know the Yakama's harvest far more branch bulls than we do.  Shoot one member alone kills more than all of us combined every year.

Things need to change in the Colockum.  Your right like I've said before the LARGEST problem is spike recruitment.  But I've also said its not the ONLY problem.  Tribal harvest of mature bulls has a VERY large impact as well.  So it would be pointless to put the Colockum into permit only if the Yakamas are not willing to also start regulating their members.  

Also where does one tribal member killing 4-6 big bulls a year in the Colockum when us American's on average only kill a "True Spike" once every 7 years.  There is nothing "In Common" with the regulations that the Yakama's have and what us American's have.  The "In Common" you speak of is an extremely liberal white guilt interpretation of that meaning.  Like I said its extremely discriminatory which goes against our US Constitution.  If a Supreme Court is shown to be un-constitutional it is struck down.  You an be a hater all you want but the simple fact is if the ball gets rolling and we have non-liberal white guilt self-hating members of congress etc in our state this thing is gone.  Thatll be the biggest challenge is turning this state around and getting the socialists out of our government.  

[bobcat]

The phrase "in common with," could be interpreted to mean each "side" gets the same share of the resource. As in, each person, whether tribal member or "non-native" American has the opportunity to take one deer and one elk each year. In areas in which there is no general season and hunting is by permit only, everyone including tribal members should be required to draw a permit in order to hunt that unit. I know, it just makes too much sense.

[6x6rack]

WSU, you keep making good points on the wrong side of the discussion. "Shared Equally By" Do you honestly believe that is happening. If the general public gets 25 mature bulls, the indians get 25 mature bulls. They are taking WAY more than that. You can't interpret that because there are 272 bulls in the herd the tribe gets 136 of them every year. Again, a resource that takes 4-5 years to cycle to maturity needs to be managed that way. taking roughly 50 total between the parties is good management. hunters taking 25 and Indians taking 70 is moronic, even by the most liberal interpretation of Boldts decision.

The discussion has been defining laws that everyone must adhere to EQUALLY. As you say, the resource must be "shared Equally" meaning total harvest numbers by gender and antler size which is clearly defined in our Game Regs. Right now there is blatant discrimination applied to a publicly funded resource on public lands...which is against the law. I agree, "shared equally" which means you can't seperate harvest numbers from the laws regulating that harvest. NO ONE looking at this can say the current system is "shared equally" because the Indians have no accountability. This is not only illegal according to Boldt, but allows racial discrimination in a publicy funded and managed activity . Why the total lack of accountability by the Tribes? Because it gives them a loophole to rape the system and fall back on the total BS, wag the dog, just plain stupid response.."you can't prove its us" comeback. Laws need to be in place so we can prove, definatively, what the problem is so we can fix it. Why won't the Yakimas do that...because they like their meat POACHED.

[Lowedog]

6x6, I like the way you talk.  (in my best Sling Blade impersonation)

[Coastal_native]

6x6rack,

Obviously you are very firm on your position against tribal treaty hunting, but I'm curious if your negative experiences with tribes are only in your area or across the entire state?  I'm only familiar with what goes on in my own areas.  Also, I would suggest that if you're going to be a spokespearson on this forum for anti-treaty hunting that you refrain from using sarcastic comments and name calling.  I think you probably have good thoughts and ideas but they get lost in all that other stuff. 

Hopefully you don't think that I'm trying to get a rise out of you, I just think using phrases like "wreckless indian idiots" is counterproductive.  It kind of makes it sound more like you hate indians rather than you care about wildlife...I doubt thats the case.  I did appreciate the lesson on population dynamics (or at least I think that was you, I've lost track at who's who now because you've gained so many supporters).  As a wildlife manager myself, I've seen that tribes now have plenty of money (not necessarily casino money, but the ability to get federal grants) to conduct population surveys and big game research in the areas they hunt...even using radio telemetry to get a measure of non-reporting (good stuff, I think). at least where I'm from they are starting to align the bag limits with what the population data shows...while also considering state harvest.  It seems to be getting better.  Anybody who cares about deer on the westside should look into the Blacktail deer study that is being conducted by the Makah tribe (with assistance by WDFW,other tribes,volunteers,etc..).  Even WDFW officials consider it to be some of the best blacktail research...I think the emphasis is on fawn survival.  By the way, the one thing that I agree seems to be lagging behind is tribal enforcment...hopefully that'll improve.

Is it your intent to find a way to get rid of treaty hunting or would you be satisified if tribes were cooperatively managing game with the state in a way that would not lead to a decline in wildlife populations or trophy quality animals?   

[Special T]

Coastal-Native i Believe confrontations  like the one with the Yakimas bring forth the problem... It would seem there is no cooperation in management... Where can we find the info regarding the study of black tail with the Makah?  I personally think they are the hardest species to hunt because much less is known about them, and the terrain they inhabit...

[Coastal_native]

http://access.nwifc.org/wildlife/documents/makah-fawn-report-final.pdf

I'm not sure if its finalized yet, but here is a link to a progress report I remember seeing.  It is more about fawn survival and/or recruitment to the adult breading population.  There are rumors that both tribes and WDFW will use this research to justify curtailing antlerless harvest on the westside (sounds good to me). 

It' not the kind of research that will help you become a better blacktail hunter, but if you find any, let me know...I've lived on the coast my whole life and I would consider myself a novice blacktail hunter at best.  I refuse to shoot young bucks, coincidently I don't harvest very many mature ones either.  I love blacktail hunting, but I come home crying almost every time.

[6x6rack]

Coastal,

First I am not a spokesman for anyone on this forum, my opinions are what they are...mine unless anyone wants to pipe in with a "yea that". This is one discussion I wont back down from though. I want my kids to grow and respect nature, I heard that was once the Indian way so I guess we have something in common 

I have personally seen the Quinault, Skokomish, Puyallup, Mucks and Yakima indians do things any White person would have been thrown in jail for.

I dont hate Indians. If I was born 150 years ago as an Indian I would rant just as loudly about pale-face raping the land. But hey, it's 150 years later it's the indians decimating wildlife. I will be as loud as necessary until someone on your side deceides to put a stop to Tribal poaching er uh "treaty hunting"... how convenient. Call it what you want but the Yakima Indians are poaching mature bulls and decimating the Colockum herd.

Give them a call and personally thank THEM for the growing reputation and resentment. And as a side note I hope this isn't Tater, the Quinault game manager who took us fishing a couple years ago. It was real special pulling into town and seeing dogs chewing on an elk quarter in the street at 5am, Tater's reason..."We shot a couple and they rotted so we fed them to the dogs."

To be fair, nice work on the Blacktail project, a friend of mine was there helping and he said it was great, just hoped the collars were'nt going to be used to track down bucks and poach them. He was wondering out loud how so many big bulls are being found by the tribe just standing on the side of the road...how "lucky" they can even often load them whole.

[Coastal_native]

Thanks for the reply 6x6rack,

I'm not expecting you to back down or change your opinion, just trying to convince you to get your point across without being so abrasive. Nope I'm not Tater...I know him though, he's a good friend and a good guy.  I've not personally witnessed him wasting, but I'd be pretty disgusted if I saw what you saw.  Wasting is a serious issue and it's something we're proactively addressing.  In our hunters meetings we've made it clear that its unacceptable and we want our enforcement staff taking care of it.  We convinced our policy folks to purchase a community walk in cooler and food bank freezer...it gets monitored to make sure people aren't abusing the privilege. 

If you ever want to come back for a walk in fishing trip, I'd love to take you.  I'm not much of an angler...I just know how to do it.  I'm not a licensed guide either so I can't and wouldn't charge you...just need to know a little in advance.

I wish there were enough resources available that everyone could hunt with similar regulations as tribes.  Especially the designated hunter program...it is an amazing experience to be selected by an elderly person to harvest an animal for them...to take your time, money, and effort... to do something you love...to care for and process the meat...and to deliver it to that elderly person or family in need. 

I totally agree with what everyone says about cooperative management, especially in those areas where the state is trying to create a trophy hunting opportunity.  It doesn't quite work unless both parties are taking similar management approaches.  We don't really have that conflict on the westside.  Actually, WDFW uses the upper Quinault as a trophy hunting area but the Quinaults choose not to open it to there members in an attempt to avoid private land owner disputes...I'd like it if we had a draw system too though...I wouldn't mind the opportunity to hunt up there.

By the way, I go to my fish and game office every year and pick up my tags and regs...I legally harvest animals following my regs...and I don't waste meat.  I also support organizations like RMEF and NRA.  I do this all under the hunting jurisdiction of my tribe (with oversight by the federal government of course). 

In your opinion...am I welcome on this forum?

[WSU]

Each city gets an "equal" amount of tax dollars from the state and federal government.  So with your definition of "In common with" this would mean that Ellensburg, WA should receive as much tax funds as Seattle, WA does, even though Seattle is like 50 times larger.  There is alot more of us than them.  And if you must know the Yakama's harvest far more branch bulls than we do.  Shoot one member alone kills more than all of us combined every year.

Things need to change in the Colockum.  Your right like I've said before the LARGEST problem is spike recruitment.  But I've also said its not the ONLY problem.  Tribal harvest of mature bulls has a VERY large impact as well.  So it would be pointless to put the Colockum into permit only if the Yakamas are not willing to also start regulating their members.  

Also where does one tribal member killing 4-6 big bulls a year in the Colockum when us American's on average only kill a "True Spike" once every 7 years.  There is nothing "In Common" with the regulations that the Yakama's have and what us American's have.  The "In Common" you speak of is an extremely liberal white guilt interpretation of that meaning.  Like I said its extremely discriminatory which goes against our US Constitution.  If a Supreme Court is shown to be un-constitutional it is struck down.  You an be a hater all you want but the simple fact is if the ball gets rolling and we have non-liberal white guilt self-hating members of congress etc in our state this thing is gone.  Thatll be the biggest challenge is turning this state around and getting the socialists out of our government.  

It gets old every time someone makes a point and cites something, such as a definition from a dictionary, for you to say over and over that any opposing view point must be due to "white guilt" or because the poster is "extremely liberal."  As if it would make a difference to you, you should know that I am neither liberal nor having "white guilt," whatever that means.  I would venture a guess that you and I vote nearly the same on most issues and candidates.  I explained to you why "In common with" as interpreted fits the dictionary definition.  I've explained why the Courts are stuck interpreting the laws as written.  I explained why your discrimination idea is not going to hold water.  I have cited facts, definitions, court cases, etc.  I don't, however, feel the need to win any debates by claiming that you are a right-wing wacko racist who has no understanding of the law, constitution, or anything more than arm-chair biology. I don't claim that while you claim to be smarter than the biologists at WDFW, your paper and research were based largely, if not almost entirely, on information you obtained from WDFW and an interview you did with a WDFW biologist.  I don't claim to be too busy to post when someone makes a point, and then tell you that perhaps you should go get an education and you will see how busy I am.  I don't say that we have to get rid of all these right-wing, gun-toten redneck hillbillies who don't share my viewpoint, and that our country is worse-off since everyone doesn't agree with me.  Why must you resort to such tactics over and over?

In any event, the reason the "in common with" "white guilt" definition has been interpreted to mean 50/50 is because the treaties are interpreted in a way that attempts to give them the meaning the parties to them intended at the time they were written.  Are we sure the interpretation is right?  No.  Is the best we can do when interpreting what two parties meant several hundred years ago, based on the facts and evidence we have now?  Yes.  The fact is, courts are attempting to give meaning to the words that the parties agreed on.  Bear in mind, one side didn't speak English, and it was all done through interpreters.  Also bear in mind that, at the time, neither side thought there would be an issue like we have today. The U.S., who drafted the treaties, did not foresee that our population would grow to the point where we would occupy most of the land, take up most of the wintering habitat, greatly diminish all of the fish runs, and have far more people than animals.  We didn't foresee that there would not be enough to go around when we drafted the treaties.  Keeping all this in mind, the Court has interpreted the treaties to mean that each side has as many rights as the other.  Indians on one side, and the U.S. on the other.  Negotiations took place with the idea that the fishing and hunting rights would be divided among groups, not individuals.  The fact that our individual right is now diminished because our population has grown beyond what was foreseen is not the legal question at all.  Courts can't, and shouldn't be able to, twist laws as written into whatever flavor of the day is most popular.  Think large scale if this were to occur.  Think McCarthy hearings.  Think witch hunts and eroded Constitutional rights.  Think courts in Kalifornia interpreting the second amendment as was popular, rather than as intended.  Boxer and Pelosi not being constrained by the laws as written.

As you say, the biggest challenge you face is getting rid of all the "extremely  liberal" "white guilt" folks out there.  You are going to have to convince the Feds that we should do away with the treaty rights, or modify them.  And, if you can get enough support, more power to you.  As the Boldt decision and culverts case should show you though, the State needs to be very cautious when they stir the pot, or may very well end up with something they don't like and didn't foresee.  

[WSU]

WSU, you keep making good points on the wrong side of the discussion. "Shared Equally By" Do you honestly believe that is happening. If the general public gets 25 mature bulls, the indians get 25 mature bulls. They are taking WAY more than that. You can't interpret that because there are 272 bulls in the herd the tribe gets 136 of them every year. Again, a resource that takes 4-5 years to cycle to maturity needs to be managed that way. taking roughly 50 total between the parties is good management. hunters taking 25 and Indians taking 70 is moronic, even by the most liberal interpretation of Boldts decision.

The discussion has been defining laws that everyone must adhere to EQUALLY. As you say, the resource must be "shared Equally" meaning total harvest numbers by gender and antler size which is clearly defined in our Game Regs. Right now there is blatant discrimination applied to a publicly funded resource on public lands...which is against the law. I agree, "shared equally" which means you can't seperate harvest numbers from the laws regulating that harvest. NO ONE looking at this can say the current system is "shared equally" because the Indians have no accountability. This is not only illegal according to Boldt, but allows racial discrimination in a publicy funded and managed activity . Why the total lack of accountability by the Tribes? Because it gives them a loophole to rape the system and fall back on the total BS, wag the dog, just plain stupid response.."you can't prove its us" comeback. Laws need to be in place so we can prove, definatively, what the problem is so we can fix it. Why won't the Yakimas do that...because they like their meat POACHED.

The analysis, as I see, is not limited to mature bulls.  We kill a pile of spikes in the Colockum that must be added into our numbers.  Everyone adhering equally means the same number of elk for each side.

I've said before, but I don't think in this post, that the system isn't working smoothly.  There are times, especially fish runs, where neither side should be harvesting any.  Tribes in places shouldn't be netting at all.  There should be accountability and harvest numbers for each side.  It should all be scientifically managed, and the herd/runs should not be the ones that suffers.  But, this is separate from the legal question regarding tribal rights, or at least a distinction must be made when discussing what can be done and what it all really means.  I don't honestly think that the Yakamas are poaching elk.  If you look at Colockum Elk's numbers, it seems very unlikely that the tribes kill as many elk as we do in the Colockum.  Perhaps he can post up the figures from his research showing the total number of bulls recruited each year, our harvest, etc.  I know the tribe's numbers are not certain, but we could get some good insight just from knowing our take as a percentage of the total herd.

[6x6rack]

Coastal,

You are welcome on any site, and it's nice to have you here. Any Tribal members who are willing to be pro-active in their efforts to have Tribes as EQUAL partners,and stewards, in management are a bonus to any hunting or fishing forum or orginization.

I hope when you say you buy your tags and hunt by your rules you are refering to WDFW rules and regs, if not I would love to have you post a copy of the rules and regs you do hunt by. It would be interesting to see what the Tribes in your neck of the woods consider "equal" if you are hunting by a different set of regs than the rest of us do.

I appreciate the fishing offer but that trip ruined it for me. The dogs eating spoiled elk, nets across the ENTIRE river, fishing with "indian specials" (snagging with 3" trebble hooks) and the trip being OVER at 12:30 because we didn't bring enough beer for Tater was one of the saddest days of my sporting life.  He is their Tribal game manager...what are the others doing 


WSU.

If a spike was "equal" to a mature bull then we would'nt have "spike only" and "true spike" seasons as part of our game management, we would have "any bull" seasons. I am dumbfounded that this part of management is lost on the tribes and those who argue for them. For the umteenth time posted here by many members, the mature bull escapement and recent changes to spike and true spike only were designed to help more mature bulls survive and insure the passing of good genes and high calving rates, the lack of which is a big part of the declining Colockum herd. Tribes wiping out mature bulls with an "elk is an elk" attitude is total BS and underlines the complete lack of Tribal understanding and participation in management. If an "elk was an elk" then why aren't you only shooting cows? Because you and I both know every elk is not created equal. All I can say is I'm shocked at your last post and it truly highlights the need for immediate change if this herd is ever going to recover.