One less bull in the Tieton Dr. herd...

[norsepeak]

I've found dead and rotting salmon thrown out in the woods on chinook pass on several occasions.  I've also personally seen natives driving around with several (more than 4) elk in the back of a truck still with the guts and hides on warm days for hours and hours....those were most likely wasted.  I've also seen natives shoot deer and becuase it died too far from the road just drive on and shoot another one....talk about waste...and yet we have to keep paying for those animals and not get upset when we see this....time for a reality check.

[NoBark]

Tony was right way back at the start of this thread. The  ONLY thing that has a chance at making this end is public display of unsportsman behavior (chasing the herd with a truck) played before the general public enough to bring overwhelming public outcry and discust upon whom ever is doing it.  And, even that may not stop it.  My  

[boonerboy]

   maybe someone can find that picture of a pile of rotting salmon that was posted a while back and show it to biggdogg?

[biggdogg]

Just repeating what everybody talks about on here so what's that say about most of the people on here

[biggdogg]

For info my hunting partner is the head of all natural resources for the yakama tribe I have been discussing some of the concerns from this site but why waste my time any more most think I'm just another indian that doesn't have any respect for fish and wildlife.

[Coastal_native]

I have two questions.

1) How many "rights" do you think Indians would have if say the Portuguese, Spaniards or one of the Asian countries would have landed here first?  Do you really think they would have taken the "natives" into account and given them anything except a death sentence or a slave collar.  My point is that someone was going to land on this continent and though things certainly didn't go picture perfect I think all "native americans" should be somewhat thankful it was "whitey" that landed here and stuck around and not someone else.  Now before you go and get all spun out of control, sit and think how BAD it could have gone.  Then reply.

2) How does everyone think things would go if we left big game management up to the Indians?  Say we throw our hands in the air and make a general open statement that the gloves are off and Indians can do freely as they want without ANY retaliation and bitching from anyone.  All indians could shoot kill and do whatever they want to big game animals.  Does ANYONE think they would use ANY kind of self control or would it just be an all out slaughter with dead animals laying in waste???

I'm not sure if these were addressed to me, but I don't mind answering...I will warn you though, I love answering questions.  I have to add a disclaimer that I do not necessarily consider my answers to be the right answers, and most of the time they just lead to more questions & answers that will inevitably leave everyone unsatisfied

1.)  It's been said before, by me...the "rights" were not "given" to Native Americans by the federal government out of pity for killing 90% of the indigenous population.  In fact it was arguably some of the greatest military strategists in world history (on the side of the Natives) that lead to the feds giving in and opting to enter into treaties.  Also, treaties are not something that exist only in the realm of the US government...they are indeed a higher level of law honored by many other nations.  So, my answer to your question is yes it could have been different and much worse...or much better...it would be highly speculative to say which one.  If you ask some Natives they might say it can't get any worse...we have lost 99% of our traditions because we've been forced to modernize...Myself, I'm thankful for the 1% and the treaty rights that help secure that 1%.  

2.) We don't have to think what would happen...we have hundreds of years of history prior to western civilization that shows what would happen.  If you remove all non tribal hunters from the equation in washington there is little doubt in my mind what the result would be...an overpopulation of big game (and I'm not advocating that as a solution).  If you remove all natives from the equation there would be minimal affect, except a small percentage of the non tribal hunters would see increased success.  In most cases our regs/seasons/bag limits are so loose that we are basically hunting unrestricted anyway, and over the course of a few decades no agency can show data that suggests natives are solely responsible for any declines in the game populations or overall heard health.

IMO, those are solid answers and not intended to be antagonistic...as usual, comments are welcome.  For the record, I don't think Bigdogg deserves the heat he is getting for chiming in, but as we all know...it comes with the territory.

[fishunt247]

In most cases our regs/seasons/bag limits are so loose that we are basically hunting unrestricted anyway, and over the course of a few decades no agency can show data that suggests natives are solely responsible for any declines in the game populations or overall heard health.

Coastal, I'm grateful for people like you on here that can answer a question intelligently and ask new educated questions. That's what I like about the debate. Like Ron White said, claiming "Well f**k you" in a debated does not mean you are the winner, which some do not understand.

My question to you is: It may be true that tribal hunters are not solely responsible for declines in game populations or overall herd health, but this statement negates the fact/observation that tribal hunters (or Yakamas, I cannot speak for any other tribe) selectively harvest the largest bull elk they can find in regions where the harvest of these elk is restricted for non-tribal hunters. So, while they may not significantly impact overall herd health, they can/do significantly impact bull to cow ratios and the proportion of mature vs. non-mature bulls. It would be very interesting to see a study that looked at this. Maybe one that looked the long term number of mature bulls in a unit where they regulated big bull tags to tribal members in the same manor that they are alloted to non tribal, per capita (so a 1:200 ratio or whatever the math would be). Or a study of success rates for tribal vs non tribal big bull hunters based SOLELY on time of year each group can/does hunt in.   

[Coastal_native]

Fishunt,

I don't disagree with anything you said.  Not only would it be an interesting study, it's arguably a necessity for the purposes of modern management in Washington.  I was involved in a study that tracked some of the things you mentioned to a lesser degree...here on the westside that is.  I think most would be surprised how the harvest fluctuates as the state seasons are taking place.  Most Natives refuse to leave the reservation in the state seasons.  I think some would also be surprised how good the reporting is and how low the total harvest actually is.  I still keep my finger on the pulse of branched bull harvest over here (even tabulating it sometimes), which is easy to do because everyone trolls around with a rack in their truck after they get one.  By the time mid September rolls around I think to myself "man we're killing alot of bulls", by the end of the year I'm thinking "man...we didn't kill enough bulls". 

[JimmyHoffa]

So, when natives hunt off the reservation can they hunt on private property?  Reason I ask is there are other threads (ex:  one about an area in Mason County where locals chase the animals out of fields/pastures so they wouldn't get shot up) kind of alluding to that they either can or just do it anyways.  I know that private property isn't always what it seems...as in the case of surface rights and mineral rights.  In some places the two can be sold separately and if you own surface rights but not mineral....ex:  oil companies can come on and build roads/drill/install pipes.  So I'm curious if natives have some sort of hunting right to private property that would fall into a category such as surface or mineral.

[halflife65]

I kind of second fishunt - thanks for the thought out answer Coastal Native.  However, I also agree that native hunting could have an affect on population, bull to cow ratio (which will eventually have a negative effect), etc.  I also think that there are cases such as the White River unit that require further study - the herd when downhill quickly and there is a lot of very loosely restriced native hunting with multiple tribes and, as far as I know, little reporting.  That herd is kind of a disaster compared to what it used to be.  It would be nice to know how much of that is due to native hunting, how much to restricted (at least on federal lands) logging and spraying of herbicides on clearcuts.  Unfortunately, that's difficult to figure out...

I've also seen piles of fish on the banks of rivers that were the wrong species and thrown out after being netted and watched some Native Americans knock down an entire herd of elk in the White River (this was 10 or 15 years ago) that consisted of nothing but cows and calves.  I also witnessed a Native on the Skok come into a fishing hole, purposely run his boat over everyone's line, throw nets in the river, stand in his boat on the other (reservation) side of the river and yell obscenities at the white guys fishing with rod and reel.  I had skipped school and driven down there on my own at about 16 years of age and it looked like there was going to be a riot with grown men threatening to kill each other.  At the time I couldn't wait to get out of there (I'm 38, so this was a long time ago now - however it left a lasting impression.)  

On the other hand, there is a thread right now where some (not all) are complaining about a master hunter damage hunt north of Eburg where apparently 9 cows were just shot (given it was 9 people that did the shooting and not 1 person loading up a pickup.  Still, a dead elk is a dead elk.)  Oregon has stated that poaching might actually equal the number of deer that are legally harvested and people are moving into, and building big houses on, winter range of elk and deer all over the western states.

The problem is that we can't accurately assess the effect that native hunting has and the exposure that most of us have had (including me) to Native hunting and fishing is almost entirely negative.  People see  atrocities, such as what started this thread and what I have seen in the past, and it REALLY sticks in the mind.  It seems to me that there needs to be a more coordinated effort to manage the deer and elk with harvest reports, etc. from Indians, some restraint where called for and cooperation.  Doesn't appear that there is any of that now...It's "I'll get mine because it's my right" and "look at those *censored*s shooting all the elk" - pretty antagonistic all around.  I know that I've personally felt some REALLY serious anger in the past (White River massacre that I witnessed, for instance) and am NOT happy about the rumored number of mature bulls that the Yakama's have shot in Colockum.  There have been a bunch - I've heard 26+ this year alone and in the 40s in years past - but I don't really know if it's true because there are no requirements to record the numbers taken.  Hard to manage that way.

[Coastal_native]

So, when natives hunt off the reservation can they hunt on private property?  Reason I ask is there are other threads (ex:  one about an area in Mason County where locals chase the animals out of fields/pastures so they wouldn't get shot up) kind of alluding to that they either can or just do it anyways.  I know that private property isn't always what it seems...as in the case of surface rights and mineral rights.  In some places the two can be sold separately and if you own surface rights but not mineral....ex:  oil companies can come on and build roads/drill/install pipes.  So I'm curious if natives have some sort of hunting right to private property that would fall into a category such as surface or mineral.

Someone on here has to be able to answer this question...any legal eagles out there, I've had it explained many times to me, but it never sticks.  This is complex, the treaty specifies  "open and unclaimed" lands, which is the topic of debate and I'm not sure of any litigation?  I think most tribes consider this to mean "open and unclaimed" at the time of treaty signing?  

Anyone...?

[halflife65]

Pretty sure that it needs to be public - except that I know that they hunt on timber company lands.  However, I don't think that they can just come in your yard and start whacking deer.  Not sure how that is interpreted or should read. 

Maybe under XX acres in size and/or with structures is "claimed" but is not "open" because of the structures while timber company lands are "claimed" but are "open" because nobody has built anything on them.  Interesting to find out the real definition (Note: I'm not claiming what I wrote is accurate and I'm just speculating.)

[grundy53]

I have two questions.

1) How many "rights" do you think Indians would have if say the Portuguese, Spaniards or one of the Asian countries would have landed here first?  Do you really think they would have taken the "natives" into account and given them anything except a death sentence or a slave collar.  My point is that someone was going to land on this continent and though things certainly didn't go picture perfect I think all "native americans" should be somewhat thankful it was "whitey" that landed here and stuck around and not someone else.  Now before you go and get all spun out of control, sit and think how BAD it could have gone.  Then reply.

2) How does everyone think things would go if we left big game management up to the Indians?  Say we throw our hands in the air and make a general open statement that the gloves are off and Indians can do freely as they want without ANY retaliation and bitching from anyone.  All indians could shoot kill and do whatever they want to big game animals.  Does ANYONE think they would use ANY kind of self control or would it just be an all out slaughter with dead animals laying in waste???

I'm not sure if these were addressed to me, but I don't mind answering...I will warn you though, I love answering questions.  I have to add a disclaimer that I do not necessarily consider my answers to be the right answers, and most of the time they just lead to more questions & answers that will inevitably leave everyone unsatisfied

1.)  It's been said before, by me...the "rights" were not "given" to Native Americans by the federal government out of pity for killing 90% of the indigenous population.  In fact it was arguably some of the greatest military strategists in world history (on the side of the Natives) that lead to the feds giving in and opting to enter into treaties.  Also, treaties are not something that exist only in the realm of the US government...they are indeed a higher level of law honored by many other nations.  So, my answer to your question is yes it could have been different and much worse...or much better...it would be highly speculative to say which one.  If you ask some Natives they might say it can't get any worse...we have lost 99% of our traditions because we've been forced to modernize...Myself, I'm thankful for the 1% and the treaty rights that help secure that 1%.  

2.) We don't have to think what would happen...we have hundreds of years of history prior to western civilization that shows what would happen.  If you remove all non tribal hunters from the equation in washington there is little doubt in my mind what the result would be...an overpopulation of big game (and I'm not advocating that as a solution).  If you remove all natives from the equation there would be minimal affect, except a small percentage of the non tribal hunters would see increased success.  In most cases our regs/seasons/bag limits are so loose that we are basically hunting unrestricted anyway, and over the course of a few decades no agency can show data that suggests natives are solely responsible for any declines in the game populations or overall heard health.

IMO, those are solid answers and not intended to be antagonistic...as usual, comments are welcome.  For the record, I don't think Bigdogg deserves the heat he is getting for chiming in, but as we all know...it comes with the territory.

Except it was probably less then ten percent of the tribes that could give the army trouble. We could of wiped the rest of this earth with out much trouble. not that i would want to or condone it. i'm just saying it was mostly us showing restraint and to be honest quite generous. we could have said this is all ours we will take what we want and you as a conquered nation can have whats left. but we didn't.... now look at what it got us.

[norsepeak]

Coastal in regards to your statement:

In most cases our regs/seasons/bag limits are so loose that we are basically hunting unrestricted anyway, and over the course of a few decades no agency can show data that suggests natives are solely responsible for any declines in the game populations or overall heard health.

My local gw, says that the tribal harvests are not reported to the state like the non-tribal hunters have to so that is why there is no data, and their harvest does indeed effect not only total population numbers, but population dynamics and hunting opportunity for everyone else.  I think most people would completely satisfied if natives had to hunt the same seasons as everyone else and report their hunting activity just like everyone else.

[grundy53]

Pretty sure that it needs to be public - except that I know that they hunt on timber company lands.  However, I don't think that they can just come in your yard and start whacking deer.  Not sure how that is interpreted or should read. 

Maybe under XX acres in size and/or with structures is "claimed" but is not "open" because of the structures while timber company lands are "claimed" but are "open" because nobody has built anything on them.  Interesting to find out the real definition (Note: I'm not claiming what I wrote is accurate and I'm just speculating.)

i know that in the package that came with my Hancock pass it says that their land is not to be considered "open and unclaimed"