Boycott Cabela's, they are in bed with the tribes in Tulalip !!!!

[pianoman9701]

+2 and I will not particiapte in this racism!  Life is not fair and everyone is not treated equal nor would I wever wish so.  It takes a big mind to understand this.

 


I remember in one of my business classes at UI one of the professors talking about how open ended contracts in which the terms and conditions of it are no longer valid or later used for far from the original intentions can have a term date set after the fact on which it can be made void or amended through some sort of arbitration.  I know a treaty may be treated differently than a contract, but if this were the case it should definitely be amended.  There is no way the ancestors of both sides today knew where society and technology would be today and wrote the treaties to apply to today's world.

I cannot agree more.  The treaties today do not work and are causing a great deal of harm.  I am not confusing that at all.  But I do not look at it like, well they can and I cannot, that is the way a child perceives things.

These are all valid points. I'm glad to see that the emphasis is changing from one of blaming the Indians to one of seeing that the treaty we ratified was short-sighted and may need amending. Apparently, our white guys who wrote it up didn't have much foresight. Were I Native, I'd certainly be using all of my rights under it.

[Alan K]

It boils down to doing what's 'right' really.  In the majority of people's eyes it's NOT right for one person to take a half dozen mature bulls and bucks each year in the heat of the rut in areas 99% of the hunters in the state can only hope to draw one or two tags there in their lifetime, or netting the *censored* out of our 'sacred' salmon rivers to sell it on the side of the road and just go dump what doesn't sell in the woods at the end of the day. . . I understand they can do it under the treaty, but it doesn't make it right.  What if the treaty read that they could shoot and kill any white man woman or child that crossed on to the reservation? That certainly wouldn't be right, though it might technically be legal in a treaty.

They need amended so that the terms are both fair and 'right' for both sides.  Right now it's being abused.

[Armadillo]

NOt all are as open minded as you Armadillo.

I know, I get in trouble a lot with the girlfriend on that one 

[Armadillo]

It boils down to doing what's 'right' really.  In the majority of people's eyes it's NOT right for one person to take a half dozen mature bulls and bucks each year in the heat of the rut in areas 99% of the hunters in the state can only hope to draw one or two tags there in their lifetime, or netting the *censored* out of our 'sacred' salmon rivers to sell it on the side of the road and just go dump what doesn't sell in the woods at the end of the day. . . I understand they can do it under the treaty, but it doesn't make it right.  What if the treaty read that they could shoot and kill any white man woman or child that crossed on to the reservation? That certainly wouldn't be right, though it might technically be legal in a treaty.

They need amended so that the terms are both fair and 'right' for both sides.  Right now it's being abused.

Maybe it is time for a change to limit our native friends in order to restore or sustain our dwindling big game and fish populations. It probably wont happen until it can be scientifically proven that it is the privileged natives that are the root cause.

[jackmaster]

It boils down to doing what's 'right' really.  In the majority of people's eyes it's NOT right for one person to take a half dozen mature bulls and bucks each year in the heat of the rut in areas 99% of the hunters in the state can only hope to draw one or two tags there in their lifetime, or netting the *censored* out of our 'sacred' salmon rivers to sell it on the side of the road and just go dump what doesn't sell in the woods at the end of the day. . . I understand they can do it under the treaty, but it doesn't make it right.  What if the treaty read that they could shoot and kill any white man woman or child that crossed on to the reservation? That certainly wouldn't be right, though it might technically be legal in a treaty.

They need amended so that the terms are both fair and 'right' for both sides.  Right now it's being abused.

very well said, thats exactly whats going on

[h20hunter]

How did this go from a store opening thread to a hunting rights thread? Appears the thread has been jacked. Instead of the new line of discussion how about talking about jobs? They can't be staffing the entire store with tribal members only. This has to include some job ops for folks looking for work. What about tourism dollars for off the res lodging/eating/entertainment? There is some good here, you just have to look at the greater picture.

[pianoman9701]

It boils down to doing what's 'right' really.  In the majority of people's eyes it's NOT right for one person to take a half dozen mature bulls and bucks each year in the heat of the rut in areas 99% of the hunters in the state can only hope to draw one or two tags there in their lifetime, or netting the *censored* out of our 'sacred' salmon rivers to sell it on the side of the road and just go dump what doesn't sell in the woods at the end of the day. . . I understand they can do it under the treaty, but it doesn't make it right.  What if the treaty read that they could shoot and kill any white man woman or child that crossed on to the reservation? That certainly wouldn't be right, though it might technically be legal in a treaty.

They need amended so that the terms are both fair and 'right' for both sides.  Right now it's being abused.

very well said, thats exactly whats going on

Sorry Alan, but do you refuse any rights you have because they're not right? I doubt it. If you do, you're in the vast minority of people. Most people take what's available to them. Our government did that.

And, as far as "our sacred salmon rivers", those have been Native sacred salmon fishing grounds for many centuries, far longer than we've been here. The salmon stocks didn't go down from Native fishing. They went down after white men built dams and started using pesticides that run into those "sacred rivers". To include yours, all of the "anti" arguments I've read in this thread point back to the white man's failed ecological practices and to short-sighted agreements that our government pushed to get Indians off of their land so we could move in. You're blaming the wrong people.

[jackmaster]

he isnt blaming any one specific person or culture, he is saying that we all need to get it figured out before its to late, and you cant say the puyallup river run is the whitemans fault and the stuck river that dumps into the puyallup is supposed to be an endangered run well those salmon have to come up the puyallup to get to the stuck and it aint whitemans nets in the river, and of course no one is gonna pass up money or land or anything else of great value if given to them, but if you can honestly say that some native americans dont abuse the systemm then thats pretty naive

[The100Road]

I agree 100% ALAN K. pianoman9701 even if it is the white mans fault for the treaties they came up with why doesnt the Tribes take the bull by the horns and change there own laws sense it would be better for all people (except Indians) and game?

[Alan K]

When I mentioned the word sacred I wasn't talking about them being sacred to me personally, or even the white man really. I can see now that is the way it came across though.  I was talking about how they claim the salmon and the rivers are so sacred to their people, but they have no problem netting 90% of the river every 100 feet and dumping what they don't sell on the side of the road at the end of the day. . . Regardless of how the populations declined, you can't say that their netting practices are helping anything.  Imagine how the numbers would be bouncing back if they didn't net like this, or heck, just cut back on the spacing between nets, and the percentage of the width their nets span.

I'm not saying what the white man has done in the past is right, or didn't hurt anything. What I'm saying is that their reckless netting isn't helping the populations of what they claim to be so sacred to them. 

[Alan K]

And our laws and rights, which I abide by and use, are based off of what is 'right'.  I honestly can't think of any rights or anything that I take advantage of that the vast majority of people would say isn't 'right'. 

[pianoman9701]

And our laws and rights, which I abide by and use, are based off of what is 'right'.  I honestly can't think of any rights or anything that I take advantage of that the vast majority of people would say isn't 'right'. 

If these rights are way out of line and you truly want to do something to change them, I would imagine appealing to Natives' sense of fair play and care for their natural environment, and enlisting them to your point of view is the way to go.  If you're perceived by someone as adversarial or painting all of them with a broad stroke, the chances they'll see your point of view are slim to none. People always respond better when treated with respect. I would suggest approaching a tribal council and you might be surprised with the results. Honey works better than vinegar. Boycotting Cabela's will have no effect whatsoever on over-hunting and fishing. Otherwise, write to your congressman/woman about amending the treaties. Just dissing the Indians isn't going to get you anywhere positive.

[singleshot12]

When I mentioned the word sacred I wasn't talking about them being sacred to me personally, or even the white man really. I can see now that is the way it came across though.  I was talking about how they claim the salmon and the rivers are so sacred to their people, but they have no problem netting 90% of the river every 100 feet and dumping what they don't sell on the side of the road at the end of the day. . . Regardless of how the populations declined, you can't say that their netting practices are helping anything.  Imagine how the numbers would be bouncing back if they didn't net like this, or heck, just cut back on the spacing between nets, and the percentage of the width their nets span.

I'm not saying what the white man has done in the past is right, or didn't hurt anything. What I'm saying is that their reckless netting isn't helping the populations of what they claim to be so sacred to them.

                                                                     
Alan you are right on and I completely understand your logic, native Americans are so hypocritical, it's as if sustenance and profit mean the same thing to them. There is no need for them to have a commercial fishery anyways, they make enough money with casinos and developing their land.

[dreamingbig]

I have to firmly believe they are going after the Canadian dollars that are being spent in the area rather than making it more convenient for Washington state residents to shop.

[CAMPMEAT]

This subject certainly got side tracked I must admit myself.

Why don't we all start over with a group hug  and talk about how crappy you think Cabelas is ?