White river special permit holders of the past

[Practical Approach]

Practical: Some of us actually talk to WDFW Officers when being checked. Kind of like, any big cases lately? or What happened last week, I saw you going with lights and siren?

  I have only hunted Washington for a decade now and I have never been checked in the woods.  I guess it is because I try to stay away from masses. Maybe thats why it seems odd.

[trophyhunt]

Bruce is a friend of the family's so I didn't just run into him in the woods. If I had a better memory I would love to recite a few pages of his experiences with the mucks and all the travesties they've done.

[Practical Approach]

Bruce is a friend of the family's so I didn't just run into him in the woods. If I had a better memory I would love to recite a few pages of his experiences with the mucks and all the travesties they've done.

You know I figured some of the folks had to know him.  Usually a person is more passionate about the stories if they have a connection to the person telling them.  Just as I am fairly passionate about some of the stories I have heard the tribes tell me about hunting and harrassment.  I am not trying to discount anyones stories, but just trying to make the point, that while yes there probably have been some unethical hunting issues that tribes have been involved with in the past, but there have also probably has been harrassment to tribal hunters in the past as well. 

I just hate to see people dog the tribal and state wildlife departments for the misguided ways of the politicians and a few bad hunters.

[7mag.]

7 mag bet you're talking about the elk thats hanging in the tribes building that was shot on private land in a farmers field lol

That is one of the 2 I'm talking about. After the incident, so many local people knew about it, and called the game dept. mad, Bruce was instructed to write a letter to the editor in a local newspaper, explaining why he was wrong, and why he gave the animal back. That is the one, I believe that is hanging in the tribes building. These are only the accounts that I was present for, not even a drop in the bucket, compared to the rediculous violations I've either seen or heard about from close friends.

[AKBowman]

Good point, you know I've never run across any native americans when I've been out bowhunting (38 years) ?  Anyone out there want to add to these comments as to why no or few native americans hunt with bow and arrow ?  After all, can't get much more traditional than that 

For the same reasons why they still hunt walrus/wales up north with outboard motors and high powered rifles. This subsistence thing is a crock of $hit. The nats want to have the right to hunt for "subsisntence" fine. I agree, but than you must hunt by traditional means and you must choose either the subsistence areas/seasons OR you pay for a tag and abide by the rules every other AMERICAN abides by.

The situation in this state with the nats does not seem to be equal rights at all. In fact there does not seem to be any equality what so ever. 

[AKBowman]

"If the tribal member was on private property then he should have been cited for that at a minimum"

Guy I have just lost ALL respect for anything you have to say. You are OK with words but if you are telling me that if a person of tribal membership goes onto private land and kills multiple elk (bulls and cows) cuts the head off of the bulls and leaves the cows to rot and you say they should get cited for tresspassing! That is sick. Listen, I have lived in and around tribal members my whole life and I find them to be some of the BEST people I have ever met. But its the old 80-20 rule, unfortunately the 20% that choose to waste and break laws can do so without governing! This makes no sense.

Ill tell you what should have happened to these wasteful people. They should have had all of their hunting gear confiscated, guns confiscated and anything they used to transport the heads confiscated (vehicles, etc).

In AK if you get caught poaching (tribal or state) they suspend or eliminate your hunting rights, confiscate your weapons, confiscate your vehicles (boat, plane, truck, car whatever you used to get to or from hunting location) THEN prosecute your ass.

According to you, what those muckleshoots did was not right so they should recieve a citation. That is a JOKE

[Practical Approach]

Good point, you know I've never run across any native americans when I've been out bowhunting (38 years) ?  Anyone out there want to add to these comments as to why no or few native americans hunt with bow and arrow ?  After all, can't get much more traditional than that 

For the same reasons why they still hunt walrus/wales up north with outboard motors and high powered rifles. This subsistence thing is a crock of $hit. The nats want to have the right to hunt for "subsisntence" fine. I agree, but than you must hunt by traditional means and you must choose either the subsistence areas/seasons OR you pay for a tag and abide by the rules every other AMERICAN abides by.

The situation in this state with the nats does not seem to be equal rights at all. In fact there does not seem to be any equality what so ever. 

Why do you assume that subsistance hunting requires traditional hunting methods?  Subsistence hunting puts food on the table, for ceremonies, funerals, weddings, etc.  If you need game for yourself or a ceremony, why wouldn't you use the most quick and effective way to get the animal you need. 

I understand people don't like the idea, that there is some mental tie that to be native and subsistence hunt you must do it the way your ancestors did, but this simply doesn't make sense.  If natives were to go back to traditional methods, then should they be allowed to have hunt however they want without any regulations?  There were no regulations historically....   I am sure some of you will fire back that tribes don't use regulations anyway so what difference does it make, but you would be wrong. 

[Practical Approach]

"If the tribal member was on private property then he should have been cited for that at a minimum"

Guy I have just lost ALL respect for anything you have to say. You are OK with words but if you are telling me that if a person of tribal membership goes onto private land and kills multiple elk (bulls and cows) cuts the head off of the bulls and leaves the cows to rot and you say they should get cited for tresspassing! That is sick. Listen, I have lived in and around tribal members my whole life and I find them to be some of the BEST people I have ever met. But its the old 80-20 rule, unfortunately the 20% that choose to waste and break laws can do so without governing! This makes no sense.

Ill tell you what should have happened to these wasteful people. They should have had all of their hunting gear confiscated, guns confiscated and anything they used to transport the heads confiscated (vehicles, etc).

In AK if you get caught poaching (tribal or state) they suspend or eliminate your hunting rights, confiscate your weapons, confiscate your vehicles (boat, plane, truck, car whatever you used to get to or from hunting location) THEN prosecute your ass.

According to you, what those muckleshoots did was not right so they should receive a citation. That is a JOKE

That is OK.  I am not here trying to earn peoples respect.  Just enjoying commenting on some of the issues with tribal/state hunting.  I believe the statement that you have quoted that I posted previously states cited for trespassing at a minimum.  Do you know what minimum is.  That means that they should be cited for everything they did wrong, but if they couldn't cite them for those other issues then tresspassing at a minimum.  I think you misinterpreted what I was trying to convey. 

I agree with everything you say that happens in AK, I wouldn't have a problem with that at all.  I am all for stronger enforcement and stiffer penalties for state and tribal poachers.  Sorry that your panties got all in a wad.  I think we are on the same page on the prosecution end of things.

[greenhead_killer]

practical:

so as far as substinence hunting goes, why shoot every quality bull or buck when the meat is so tough and gamey. wouldnt you think that if they were hunting for food, that they would want to shoot the most tender and best eating, cow or doe? it is just a shield that they hide behind and sooner or later, us tax paying americans, are going to hit boiling point and say enough is enough. you dont want ot contribute to anything that goes on in the state, except rape and pillage the natural resources we have, stay on your own soverign land. do whatever you want there, but stay the f off my land, or follow the rules like the rest of us.

[Practical Approach]

practical:

so as far as substinence hunting goes, why shoot every quality bull or buck when the meat is so tough and gamey. wouldnt you think that if they were hunting for food, that they would want to shoot the most tender and best eating, cow or doe? it is just a shield that they hide behind and sooner or later, us tax paying americans, are going to hit boiling point and say enough is enough. you dont want ot contribute to anything that goes on in the state, except rape and pillage the natural resources we have, stay on your own soverign land. do whatever you want there, but stay the f off my land, or follow the rules like the rest of us.

I agree, if there are not any management restrictions that have cow hunting closed then I agree, cows or young bulls are better for harvesting.  I agree that some are probably using it as a shield, however I hate to see all tribal hunters thrown into this category.  There are a lot of good tribal hunters that abide by the rules and are disgusted by the situations described in this post. 

In regards to not contributing anything,  I don't want to get into the whole tax issue.  I would rather talk about management, and the tribes contribute a substantial amount of money to wildlife management.  The state and tribes often work hand in hand to insure there is enough money to make sure management is done properly. 

I know we have all been down this road before about where tribes can and can't hunt.  You mention sovereign land.  Are you talking about reservations?  Areas that tribes hunt has little to do with reservation land, it has to do with treaty language and more importantly how the language has been interpreted by judges over time.  I am taking for granted that you don't understand this principle by the comments you made and the fact that you are a new poster on this forum. 


Maybe I am wrong and you understand all the intricate details around tribal and state hunting and you are simply venting.

[trophyhunt]

My grandfather and his grandfather had nothing to do with the indian wars, time to get over it. It is racism plain and simple- the fact that the tribes put themselves in a different category than us and they believe they deserve special rights with life, hunting, fishing and gambling this day and age is plain racism. Period. You might have decent tribes out on the coast, but these muck's are the worst in the state. IT'S WRONG, INDIANS ARE RACIST.

[Practical Approach]

My grandfather and his grandfather had nothing to do with the indian wars, time to get over it. It is racism plain and simple- the fact that the tribes put themselves in a different category than us and they believe they deserve special rights with life, hunting, fishing and gambling this day and age is plain racism. Period. You might have decent tribes out on the coast, but these muck's are the worst in the state. IT'S WRONG, INDIANS ARE RACIST.

Your grandfathers grandfather may not have had anything to do with the wars, but the politicians of his day did.  They are the ones that wrote up the current treaties, they are the ones that put the tribes in different categories, they are the ones that wrote the language that gave the rights to the tribes.  Whether it is racist or not is not for me to decide. It would be interesting to know how many of folks ancestors who were here in Washington back in the treaty days were in support of the treaties or not?  Anyone out there have any information related to public support for treaties in the mid 1800's??

[trophyhunt]

Things have changed dramatically since the treaties dont you think? We don't need separate nations in our United States anymore. The tribes should have gave up their hunting and fishing rights (or what I like to call Wrongs) when they started with all this casino crap. You and I will never agree on the wrongs that the tribes do in the woods, when will it end? We will continue to hate until everyone is viewed as an equal in our nation.

[Practical Approach]

Sure things have changed since the mid 1800's.  I don't think we ever needed seperate nations now or then, it was just what was part of the deal (treaty).  I don't see how someones hunting or fishing rights should be affected by their business ventures?  I would hate to think I didnt get to go hunt because I opened a furniture store.  If you are referring to tribal hunting and fishing, I don't think it will end any time in yours or my lifetime.  Happy hating, because there has always been inequalities in our nation and I am sure there will continue to be inequalities in the future. 

[deerslyr]

the subsitsence hunting is a crock of *censored*. Ive yet to see an indian "needing" to put food on the table, considering they receive money, scholarships, just for being native american. And yah why should they have to use traditional equipment? I mean they only get to hunt year round for what ever moves wether its bull or cow, buck or doe...are you serious?