Free: Contests & Raffles.
Quote from: WSU on November 03, 2010, 01:56:06 PMQuote from: bobcat on November 03, 2010, 01:43:27 PM"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.
Quote from: bobcat on November 03, 2010, 01:43:27 PM"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?
"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.
"In common with" means they have the right to hunt wildlife the same as we do, following our laws, and by purchasing the same licenses and tags we are required to buy. That's what it means to me. It's obvious that Judge Boldt interpreted the treaty incorrectly. When people on here call it "indian poaching" they are right. That's what it is. They kill more than their limit, hunt out of season, and don't even bother to buy a hunting license. Oh, and do they wear the required 400 square inches of blaze orange? I doubt it.
So the courts are wrong because thats what it means to you?
Quote from: WSU on November 03, 2010, 02:20:20 PMSo the courts are wrong because thats what it means to you? No. Not just because that's what it means to me, but what it would mean to any normal person who read the phrase "in common with" including most third graders. I'm sure most tribes are just laughing their butts off with the way our judges/lawyers interpret the treaties in favor of the tribes. I'd bet most indians are smart enough to know that the treaties really didn't give them the right to kill off entire herds of elk, some of which didn't even exist before the "white man" came here and transplanted elk to the east side of the Cascades.
Quote from: bobcat on November 03, 2010, 02:33:10 PMNo. Not just because that's what it means to me, but what it would mean to any normal person who read the phrase "in common with" including most third graders. I'm sure most tribes are just laughing their butts off with the way our judges/lawyers interpret the treaties in favor of the tribes. I'd bet most indians are smart enough to know that the treaties really didn't give them the right to kill off entire herds of elk, some of which didn't even exist before the "white man" came here and transplanted elk to the east side of the Cascades.I really doubt that when the white man wrote those treaties there was any intent to interfere with his own pursuit of game and fish; basically making himself a second-class citizen in the hunting and fishing world. Yet the courts have decided that is what he wanted but didn't know it. Probably back when they were written, the white man was laughing hysterically about how badly the treaties were screwing the natives.
No. Not just because that's what it means to me, but what it would mean to any normal person who read the phrase "in common with" including most third graders. I'm sure most tribes are just laughing their butts off with the way our judges/lawyers interpret the treaties in favor of the tribes. I'd bet most indians are smart enough to know that the treaties really didn't give them the right to kill off entire herds of elk, some of which didn't even exist before the "white man" came here and transplanted elk to the east side of the Cascades.
First, you are wrong that elk didn't exist east of the Cascades. They did until we killed them, then had to transplant them. This info can be found all over the interwebz. Here is a map on the RMEF site: http://www.rmef.org/AllAboutElk/ElkRange/Notice the brown over the east cascades. In fact, notice how much more area elk lived in prior to us extirpating them. But yea, those damn Indians and their wiping out of the herds. The pot is calling the kettle black.
Quote from: WSU on November 03, 2010, 02:54:55 PMFirst, you are wrong that elk didn't exist east of the Cascades. They did until we killed them, then had to transplant them. This info can be found all over the interwebz. Here is a map on the RMEF site: http://www.rmef.org/AllAboutElk/ElkRange/Notice the brown over the east cascades. In fact, notice how much more area elk lived in prior to us extirpating them. But yea, those damn Indians and their wiping out of the herds. The pot is calling the kettle black.By the way, if it's so important to stick to every word written in the treaties, why are indians allowed to consume alcohol?
Just maybe, the elk were wiped out by the native Americans before the settlers showed up.............
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?
