Native American Hunter Input Sought...

[bobcat]

Yes, the "in common with" phrase is key. If the tribal members wish to hunt off reservation, then they should follow all the same rules we do. The only perk they should get is that the hunting license and tag should be free. They should be limited to one tag each for deer and elk just like we are. After all, the treaties do say "in common with".  On their reservations, they can feel free to do whatever they wish.

[carpsniperg2]

My thought's are right with bobcat on this subject.

[trophyhunt]

I'm with bobcat also, on this one.

[Arrowhead]

I believe your question should possibly be narrowed down to which Native Americans you are specifically interested in.  The individual tribes and more importantly the geographical regions/states that they occupy differ tremendously.  Being a Native American from the plains, I am CONSTANTLY outraged by the local tribes and regulations of the Pacific Northwest.  This areas laws and regulations concerning the tribal actions are a farse in my view.  The hunting and fishing regulations that govern the tribes need IMMEDIATE action to be brought into the modern era.  The overall "free for all" access and restrictions are doing damage not only to the wildlife but to the views of society concerning tribal actions.
We preach equality, but we fail to hold everyone to the same standards, and this is WRONG.  The poaching issues are not an isolated problem, and the fish nets and snagging continue to create problems across the board.  In my opinion this is a simple case of people wanting stuff for free, without regulation, without  reprecussions. 
I am not saying that every Indian of the PNW tribes is poaching, or snagging, or doing something wrong.  I am stating that as long as we allow the rules to be different, then there are going to be those individuals that ABUSE the system.  And those individuals need to be STOPPED!   

[h20hunter]

Your 2 cents are welcome. Well put.

[Wazukie]

Yes, the "in common with" phrase is key. If the tribal members wish to hunt off reservation, then they should follow all the same rules we do. The only perk they should get is that the hunting license and tag should be free. They should be limited to one tag each for deer and elk just like we are. After all, the treaties do say "in common with".  On their reservations, they can feel free to do whatever they wish.

When you talk about "off reservation", don't forget that the ceded land, is considered reservation land when it comes to hunting and fishing rights of the Natives.

[carpsniperg2]

I believe your question should possibly be narrowed down to which Native Americans you are specifically interested in.  The individual tribes and more importantly the geographical regions/states that they occupy differ tremendously.  Being a Native American from the plains, I am CONSTANTLY outraged by the local tribes and regulations of the Pacific Northwest.  This areas laws and regulations concerning the tribal actions are a farse in my view.  The hunting and fishing regulations that govern the tribes need IMMEDIATE action to be brought into the modern era.  The overall "free for all" access and restrictions are doing damage not only to the wildlife but to the views of society concerning tribal actions.
We preach equality, but we fail to hold everyone to the same standards, and this is WRONG.  The poaching issues are not an isolated problem, and the fish nets and snagging continue to create problems across the board.  In my opinion this is a simple case of people wanting stuff for free, without regulation, without  reprecussions. 
I am not saying that every Indian of the PNW tribes is poaching, or snagging, or doing something wrong.  I am stating that as long as we allow the rules to be different, then there are going to be those individuals that ABUSE the system.  And those individuals need to be STOPPED!   

Very well put! Nice to read your  I think a few lines of that needs to be in your report!

[bobcat]

Yes, the "in common with" phrase is key. If the tribal members wish to hunt off reservation, then they should follow all the same rules we do. The only perk they should get is that the hunting license and tag should be free. They should be limited to one tag each for deer and elk just like we are. After all, the treaties do say "in common with".  On their reservations, they can feel free to do whatever they wish.

When you talk about "off reservation", don't forget that the ceded land, is considered reservation land when it comes to hunting and fishing rights of the Natives.

I realize that, but that's where the "in common with" phrase comes in.

[Coastal_native]

Hopefully you post your paper when you're done writing it...it sounds interesting.

I've been thinking more and more about the challenges with co-managing a resource like wildlife...and the challenges of dealing with two different management ideologies (WDFW & Tribes).  It seems that tribal management is geared toward making it at easy as possible to be successful at harvesting an animal, when it comes to setting regulations.  Where as, in most cases, WDFW tries very hard to minimize hunter success, as a mitigation measure to selling 1000 times the amount of tags as the amount of available animals.  I know most don't like to hear it, but tribes don't necessarily have to use that mitigation measure because they aren't putting as much of a demand on the resource.  I think the reservations are proof of that...in that, there aren't any tribes that are driving big game populations into the toilet on their reservations by their hunting practices.

So it would seem that a successful season for a tribe, is if hunters have a high rate of success and wildlife population levels are maintained.  Where as, a successful season for the state, is when tag revenues are high and hunter success is low.  I don't know if it's possible for those two management philosophies to coexist.  The tribes have the authority to manage wildlife in their ceded area and the state has been given the authority to manage wildlife throughout the state.  In the areas where there is overlap, the wildlife are at the mercy of the co-managers.  It'll be ugly if it ever comes down to a resource allocation.  I don't see many tribes wanting to take on the philosophy that revolves around low hunter success.

My thoughts...after a second glance, very poorly worded.

[bobcat]

I think the reservations are proof of that...in that, there aren't any tribes that are driving big game populations into the toilet on their reservations by their hunting practices.

I'm not sure about the above statement. Maybe it's true, I don't know. But if that is true, then why do the Yakama indians need to go so far off their reservation to hunt deer and elk? They have a huge reservation with prime deer and elk habitat. Why don't they just hunt there? Is it because the reservation has been over-hunted and deer and elk numbers are "in the toilet"?

[HighCountryHunter88]

i agree with what bobcat is saying, the colvilles on the other hand have the best game herds in the state period deer, elk, bear, cats, turkeys, and soon sheep.

[Coastal_native]

that's a fair question.   I'm not sure about the Yaks.  For us, I'd say it has to do with retaining the rights to the areas we've always hunted...and serving our members that live in the outlying areas of our ceded area. 

[Wazukie]

I think the reservations are proof of that...in that, there aren't any tribes that are driving big game populations into the toilet on their reservations by their hunting practices.

I'm not sure about the above statement. Maybe it's true, I don't know. But if that is true, then why do the Yakama indians need to go so far off their reservation to hunt deer and elk? They have a huge reservation with prime deer and elk habitat. Why don't they just hunt there? Is it because the reservation has been over-hunted and deer and elk numbers are "in the toilet"?

I believe its because they can.  When the reservation was set up, the Yakama's retained their right to hunt and fish on all ceded land that was not privately owned.  I don't agree with it, but the state has no say in it.  It is a Federal issue.  I agree with what has been said about the treaties needing to be revised, but it needs to be done at the Federal level, although the State could push for this but I would guess that they make to much money from the Reservations? 

[trophyhunt]

that's a fair question.   I'm not sure about the Yaks.  For us, I'd say it has to do with retaining the rights to the areas we've always hunted...and serving our members that live in the outlying areas of our ceded area.

I respect your remarks because they are well thought out, but you say " not sure about the yaks" and it seems your more about what your tribes do. And the way you intelligently talk it seems you represent all tribes.  If you just know about the way one tribe is then you should present that before you talk about facts of other tribes when you express your feelings about the subject.

[bobcat]

OK, so the Yakamas hunt anywhere they want because they CAN (makes sense), but does anyone know- how are deer and elk populations on the Yakama reservation? It just seems to me that if I were a Yakama tribal member I would WANT to hunt on the reservation where nobody else can hunt.