Native American Hunter Input Sought...

[rose-n-arrows]

Hello,
It's been a while since I visited this site (or any site) since I've been immersed in studies.  I am writing a paper about contemporary Native American issues (hunting, in particular) and remembered that people had strong opinions on this forum.  I am seeking input from both sides of the issue and would appreciate objective data, not inflammatory remarks.  I would especially appreciate input from Native Americans.  If you feel more comfortable sending me a PM, that's fine.  I am asking permission to paraphrase some of your comments, so I will consider your participation an implied consent.  Thanks!

[h20hunter]

I would recommend bouncing some ideas around with Coastal Native. I have thought his comments in the past have been well thought out and not inflamatory.

[Cougeyes]

This info may be useful to you depending on what you are exactly writing about.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/tribal/

[rose-n-arrows]

Thank you both for responding.  I am writing about issues that Native Americans encounter when it comes to treaty or reservation hunting priveleges.  I'm curious about how their practices are perceived by others, in comparison to how the Native Americans view the practices. I know it's pretty vague, but I'm hoping to get plenty of feedback and don't want to impose limitations. 

[trophyhunt]

The indians will always feel they should be able to do what they want in the woods and most hunters that buy tags, permits and follow the rules will for the most part dissagree with them.  Not that intelligent of a statement I know but that pretty much sum's it up.

[CamoDup]

Another good source that would be helpful would be to contact the Tribal Fish & Game officers or even Tribal Police to see how their hunting practices parallel with their cerimonies.

[bearpaw]

I have a little different take on it than some.

Treaty rghts are agreements that were signed by both parties, treaties need to be honored. I do however think the interpretation of some treaties may be questionable. There also comes into play the fact that treaties were based on primitive modes of transportation, primitive weapons, and tribal hunting as a means of survival. When you factor in all these issues, there's no doubt tribal hunting will continue to be a highly controversial issue and all parties will never be satified with how the issue is handled.

[Curly]

http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,33817.0.html

http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,6349.msg70065.html#msg70065

http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,655.msg14708.html#msg14708

I'm not sure if you've already read the above threads, but they may help you somewhat.

[runamuk]

Well I will reply, I dont think we are in the same class 

I have strong opinions and butt heads regularly with my classmates and instructor however I am entitled to my opinion even if it pisses some of them off.  Which it does one guy in particular I worry he is gonna have a heart attack the way he gets defending his right as a native, had many face to face discussions with my native american boss and he never got like that we had some really good conversations.

There are a few things at work here that create this mess as far as I see it.  On the one hand there were treaties written granting certain rights to the tribes and giving them certain lands.  Second these tribes were also guaranteed a certain amount of reparations many with no length of time established.  The tribes claim sovereign status inside another country and this is beyond awkward at best and rather unheard of in most past battles for land ownership.  Further complicate this matter with a few legal interpretations by a judge and you now have the ingredients for an eternal battle. 

My main points are you CANNOT manage a resource if you are not in control of the use, harvest, and monitoring.  So from a purely management position the treaty rights directly conflict with the management of state resources.  There is no management and cant be until everyone is held to the same standards.
Secondly on an issue of equal rights there is no equality when one group has special privileges this will create animosity and conflict period.  There is no way you can give perks to one set of people based on race and not expect to see racial tensions exist. 

From their standpoint they were given these rights in treaties but these treaties were written in a far different time and many are rather outdated.  For a look at a new treaty there is one underway in BC Canada and it is interesting and I am sure controversial up there as well, however I am less educated on their governmental system so not sure of the impacts.

I actually dont even have a huge issue with the treaty rights but the lack of working with our government body in charge of managing resources is the bigger problem.  Setting limits and seasons without full and accurate data on harvest is simply guessing and any farmer knows guessing is a good way to lose everything.  Kinda like betting on a lame horse just setting yourself up to fail.
Also the inability of our government to deal with poaching issues involving natives, we have enough problems right now with illegals stealing resources lets not make it even more difficult to stop what can be stopped. 

Reading the regs posted for some of the tribes is enlightening, and you will find certain groups seem to have some of the worst offenders who take pleasure in waving their rights in the faces of those who cannot stop them.  There are just people like that in the world and they seem to do a huge disservice to those who are trying to work together to change things.

I think really the treaties need to be reevaluated as they pertain to todays standards, there was a time when I could of made my living off of hunting and fishing but I have had to give that up due to changing times why do the tribes feel they dont have to change as well?  Can they do no other work?  Why is it ok to use technology and build and operate casino's but they cannot change their hunting practices?  And the claim that they must fish its the way they survive, I dunno it didn't work real well for the loggers they were told to suck it up and deal when the industry went tits up  this is the issue the practices are unfair, unequal, and give one group special rights creating division and essentially creating government approved racial profiling and racial preference which is basically the government keeping racial tension alive and well.

[Cougeyes]

I agree the treaties should be honored but Native americans need to understand we do not have a mass surplus of animals.  Our state sets permit levels based on their surveys and hunter harvest.  Native american harvest is hard to account for, often native americans harvest more animals in an area than that local herd may be able to sustain.  The Colockum herd is a prime example.  The state only allocates a few permits now to non tribal members.  The native americans have easy access to this area and often shoot a lot of the big bulls in there further contributing to the decline of bull to cow ratios. 

I think they should have to follow the state regulations on weapon use during each season.  That is, during the rut in september they should only be allowed to use bow and arrow, during rifle season for the state they should use rifle etc....  I think they shouldn't be allowed to harvest animals within a certain buffered distance of feed lots.  Most of the time they claim they are just seeking food to support their tribes which I dont disagree on.  However, if it's just food they're after then why are they constantly shooting big bulls and bucks, does and cows taste better anyway. 

By being allowed to hunt the Colockum and Entiat, Swakane etc... during the winter is a joke.  There aren't a bunch of 200 inch bucks running around but often it seems like they're targetting the trophy deer and elk more so than just the meat which could be obtained by harvesting a cow or doe. 

This does not apply to all tribal members as some do typically harvest females.  In the end i think the state and tribes need to come to an agreement on the number of animals that can be harvested by tribal within each GMU that lies within their ceded lands.  They need to spread out their harvest rather than focusing on areas that are easy access and produce trophy animals.  They should be hunting for meat not antlers, so killing a bunch of huge bulls and bucks during the rut and on their wintering grounds is a freaking joke. I think its ok if a tribal member shoots one big bull during the rut but not 10 from one area.  Again not all do this. 

[buckhorn2]

The treatys are outdated they shoud be amended like the fish wheel. Oh did you know they are building a fish wheel at john day dam. Not right spotlights keys to gates-shooting in feedlots-fish wheels never read about that in any treatys .

[h20hunter]

I think the idea of treatys needing to be updated to reflect current needs on both sides is a good topic for discussion and debate. Obviously the state treats fishing/hunting like a business so what business that you know of doensn't review and revise agreements as time goes on.

[rose-n-arrows]

I'm reading and following up on all of your ideas.  Keep it coming please, it's giving me a lot to ponder.

[Glockster]

Treaties are contracts made between sovereign nations and unless they have an expiration date, they're written in stone if / until one side decides to break it. ~If a country breaks a treaty what other country would ever make a treaty with them again?

In this case, it was not written with the caveat that once modern firearms, ATVS, and exploding human populations came along that we would renegotiate. Some say this treaty does not fit modern times.  That's the very same argument anti gunners like to make against the 2nd amendment.

What I have a hard time understanding is the "open and unclaimed lands" portion of the treaty.  I do not know of any unclaimed lands anywhere in the USA these days. 

[runamuk]

Treaties are contracts made between sovereign nations and unless they have an expiration date, they're written in stone if / until one side decides to break it. ~If a country breaks a treaty what other country would ever make a treaty with them again?

In this case, it was not written with the caveat that once modern firearms, ATVS, and exploding human populations came along that we would renegotiate. Some say this treaty does not fit modern times.  That's the very same argument anti gunners like to make against the 2nd amendment.

What I have a hard time understanding is the "open and unclaimed lands" portion of the treaty.  I do not know of any unclaimed lands anywhere in the USA these days.

and most treaties also say "IN COMMON WITH" to almost all people this means following the same guidelines as everyone else however even in the boldt decision where this was emphasized it has been completely ignored and tossed aside.

I just started reading here for a topic in my class and its the website for the northwest indian fisheries commission so lots to read there from the native point of view as well, hope that helps....

http://nwifc.org/