good day 4 the tribe

[WSU]

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.

I think you misunderstand my post.  I'm aware that all elk aren't the same. My point is that we are making a bigger dent in large bull escapement by killing all the spikes before they even get a chance to become mature.  I'm certainly not arguing that a spike is "equal" to a big bull in any way (including ability to breed).  What I am arguing is that it is tough to point the blame solely at the tribe when we kill 80% of the spikes before they ever get a chance to grow up.  Kinda why people don't want to shoot immature animals.  They never get to be big if you kill them as yearlings.  Having an any bull season would result in us killing not only a ton of spikes, but also the few bulls that escape the yearling stage in the colockum. 

[6x6rack]

I think I understand clearly, and you make two points that not only clarify, but underline, my posisition and the feelings of many other hunters.

1.

The dictionary defines "common" to mean "belonging equally to, or shared alike by, two or more or all in question."

2.

I'm certainly not arguing that a spike is "equal" to a big bull in any way (including ability to breed).

Herein lies the truth as you have just outlined so simply and clearly. According to current law AND the Boldt decision Indians ARE poaching the big bulls in the Colockum. They should be arrested just like the three hunters who killed branch antler bulls opening day of rifle season.

[Practical Approach]

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.

Hey 6x6 I know Tater as well.  I have hunted with him as well had have had a great hunt.  Sorry you saw all the drama.  By they way Tater has never been their game manager.  He at one time was a wildlife technician, but has never been the manager.  The Quinault tribe has a staff wildlife manager and two wildlife biologists, none of which are Tater. 

[Practical Approach]

I am not sure you want to keep using equal as a comparison.  I don't think hunters want the tribes to hunt the same way they fish if it goes to litigation.  The courts have ruled that equal means 50%.  If the tribes are awarded 50% of the harvestable game then certainly all hunting will go to permit only.  Not only that, but with the state hunters taking well over 85% of the deer and elk harvest in western washington alone, there will definitely be cut backs on state opportunity.  You can't argue against history and the precedence already established in the courts.  Well you can, but it might be in vain.

[Special T]

Which is why I don't understand anyone engaging my earlier pint that we should look at tribes as an asset and try to utilize thier abilty to hunt without excess regulation... there is too many possible negatives attacking the tribes(when maybe a little cooperation is all that is necessary) to get a better outcome, MORE GAME! 

[SliverSlinger21]

If this issue was made more apparent to the general public I bet it would go along way. We should start a movement and get people to start taking pictures of Tribal members and their hunting ethics, post it to a website, and call attention to it.

[WSU]

I think I understand clearly, and you make two points that not only clarify, but underline, my posisition and the feelings of many other hunters.

1.

The dictionary defines "common" to mean "belonging equally to, or shared alike by, two or more or all in question."

2.

I'm certainly not arguing that a spike is "equal" to a big bull in any way (including ability to breed).

Herein lies the truth as you have just outlined so simply and clearly. According to current law AND the Boldt decision Indians ARE poaching the big bulls in the Colockum. They should be arrested just like the three hunters who killed branch antler bulls opening day of rifle season.

According to all laws and the Boldt decision, Indians aren't poaching when they harvest animals in compliance with their seasons and laws.  It is that simple.  You say the word poached over and over, but it still ain't poaching.  

My point is very simple.  We kill way over, and I mean way over, 50% of the deer and elk killed annually in WA.  That is fact.  In the Colockum, we choose to kill ours as yearlings (spike only regs).  Not the tribes fault, decision, or problem.  Arguing that we have not created the lack of big bulls defies logic since we kill the vast majority of the bulls before they ever get the chance to grow up.  Simple math will illustrate this.  Say we start with 100 spikes.  We then kill 80.  The tribes then kill 10 branch bulls.  Hard to argue that we are not having a bigger impact, since every year we remove 80% of the potential branch antlered bulls.  Unless only 1 out of 8 spikes that survives becomes  branch bull, we are killing more.  Repeat every year for a few decades.  You simply cannot kill 80% of your potential branch antlered bulls and expect to have a lot of branch antlered bulls.

[Practical Approach]

Which is why I don't understand anyone engaging my earlier pint that we should look at tribes as an asset and try to utilize thier abilty to hunt without excess regulation... there is too many possible negatives attacking the tribes(when maybe a little cooperation is all that is necessary) to get a better outcome, MORE GAME! 

[WSU]

I am not sure you want to keep using equal as a comparison.  I don't think hunters want the tribes to hunt the same way they fish if it goes to litigation.  The courts have ruled that equal means 50%.  If the tribes are awarded 50% of the harvestable game then certainly all hunting will go to permit only.  Not only that, but with the state hunters taking well over 85% of the deer and elk harvest in western washington alone, there will definitely be cut backs on state opportunity.  You can't argue against history and the precedence already established in the courts.  Well you can, but it might be in vain.

That is the idea I was alluding to above.  We better be careful what we wish for when saying we are going to attempt to regulate the tribes based on conservation. 

We better make damn sure that they are killing more than we are before we do that, or guess who is going to end up with even less opportunity.  Another thing to think about is that it isn't necessarily only taking into account animals killed during hunting season.  If the culverts case is any indication, it may also include lack of habitat and the like, all caused by us.  I'm not sure how much we limit deer and elk numbers by changing habitat, closing off winter-range (the reason for AHE hunts, feed stations, etc.), and on and on.  Perhaps we couldn't put a number on it, perhaps we could.  The fact remains that even if we only count deer and elk season we still kill far more per year.

[bobcat]

"WE" are always going to kill more than the tribes- there are MORE of "us." If they want to go by the Boldt decision and say it applies to wildlife the same as it does fish, fine. They can have an equal amount of deer and elk- PROPORTIONALLY. That means if we get one elk per person, they get one elk per person. NOT if we kill 1000 bull elk, they also get to kill 1000 bull elk.

[Practical Approach]

"WE" are always going to kill more than the tribes- there are MORE of "us." If they want to go by the Boldt decision and say it applies to wildlife the same as it does fish, fine. They can have an equal amount of deer and elk- PROPORTIONALLY. That means if we get one elk per person, they get one elk per person. NOT if we kill 1000 bull elk, they also get to kill 1000 bull elk.

Sorry, thats a nice wish, but not the way the previous court cases have gone.  Proportion has nothing to do with it.

[runamuk]

"WE" are always going to kill more than the tribes- there are MORE of "us."  If they want to go by the Boldt decision and say it applies to wildlife the same as it does fish, fine. They can have an equal amount of deer and elk- PROPORTIONALLY. That means if we get one elk per person, they get one elk per person. NOT if we kill 1000 bull elk, they also get to kill 1000 bull elk.

We dont always agree but this is what I mean when I say equal and not discriminating.  If seasons are set to"manage" game then those seasons need to be abided by and it says right in the damn boldt decision that the state has the right to set seasons etc as relates to managing the game ....yet time and time again I hear the tribes can do whatever they please...because they do not follow the same laws the rest of the state follows.  And again I will say there is no way on earth to manage a population of animals if everyone is not on board with those management goals   wont happen cant happen will never happen and is NOT management.....it is a bunch of crap laws only applicable to one part of society based on race...... boom my head just exploded

[WSU]

"WE" are always going to kill more than the tribes- there are MORE of "us." If they want to go by the Boldt decision and say it applies to wildlife the same as it does fish, fine. They can have an equal amount of deer and elk- PROPORTIONALLY. That means if we get one elk per person, they get one elk per person. NOT if we kill 1000 bull elk, they also get to kill 1000 bull elk.

Do you have a reason that case law and the treaties should be interpreted to require proportionality?  Especially, is there a reason other than it seems more fair?

[bobcat]

"WE" are always going to kill more than the tribes- there are MORE of "us." If they want to go by the Boldt decision and say it applies to wildlife the same as it does fish, fine. They can have an equal amount of deer and elk- PROPORTIONALLY. That means if we get one elk per person, they get one elk per person. NOT if we kill 1000 bull elk, they also get to kill 1000 bull elk.

Do you have a reason that case law and the treaties should be interpreted to require proportionality?  Especially, is there a reason other than it seems more fair?

Yes, the words "in common with." Nowhere does it say the tribes are entitled to 50% of the wildlife.

[Practical Approach]

"WE" are always going to kill more than the tribes- there are MORE of "us." If they want to go by the Boldt decision and say it applies to wildlife the same as it does fish, fine. They can have an equal amount of deer and elk- PROPORTIONALLY. That means if we get one elk per person, they get one elk per person. NOT if we kill 1000 bull elk, they also get to kill 1000 bull elk.

Do you have a reason that case law and the treaties should be interpreted to require proportionality?  Especially, is there a reason other than it seems more fair?

Yes, the words "in common with." Nowhere does it say the tribes are entitled to 50% of the wildlife.

You are right, it doesn't, but precedence in our court system is a powerful thing.