Dangerous Precedent- DNR Gives Gate Keys To Tribes for Bear Hunting, What's Next

[Wenatcheejay]

The major problem that will happen that is going to piss off hunters beyond the initial bear problem, is access to these same lands so indians can go in and slaughter the deer and elk as well.

An executive order can be issued by the governor allowing whatever the hell she wants as far as hunting rights.  There can be an emergency hunt allowed by executive order, that could allow baiting and hound hunting.

Multiple avenues could be explored to combat the problem but the apologist in our government who have their hand out during election time for campaign donations are bending over the general public again, and handing crap over to a special interest group.

Before anyone says that it is legal, and that I would jump on this as well if it was offered to me, just save it.  Legality has nothing to do with this.  It is the welfare nation that tribes have become accepting anything and everything that the government will give them.  It is a nation that is not part of the United States asking for handouts.  It is a race asking for special privileges and receiving them undeservedly.

To try to shift the blame completely away from thesetribes is unfair and misdirected.  Pressure needs to be put on the lawmakers and the special interest groups equally.

Great response and some of what you said is true.  Yes, multiple avenues could've been explored and there are certain executive orders that could've been issued but they weren't and that (in any other word would not do it justice) sucks.  I don't know what occured in the past but I have some ideas floating around in my head but, your take on Natives has been tarnished and it's pretty obvious nothing I nor anybody else can say or do will ever change your mind. 

I have not once tried shifting blame nor spoken for anybody but myself.  My words and opinions are mine and mine alone. 

If the Muckleshoot go in and "slaughter" deer and elk without permission and are not in their right to, then yes, it's poaching and should be reported.  If the land was not theirs and they have no rights to it then by all means enforce the law and prosecute them.

Just because you think it's not legal doesn't mean it isn't legal.  If they have rights to the land and the State DNR did what it did then the Muckleshoot are Legal to proceed with what they are doing by Federal Standards.  The State is not above Federal and the Tribes are not above Federal either.  It might not be right or fair to others but it's still Legal.

I've had this debate before and I don't mind having it again.  If you're going to dislike a group dislike individuals not the entire group.  I'm not, nor have I ever been, nor will I ever be on Welfare.  The only handout I except is the 100.00 dollar per capita I get every month from the Tribe.  I have worked since I graduated high school and my wife works as well.  I push my children to be highly educated and excel at everything they do.

If your idea of me is some drunk, no job and collecting welfare "Indian" then you're sadly wrong.  I've said it before and I'll say it again direct your frustrations at individuals not at groups.  If you're upset at what has transpired then contact your local State Lawmaker and do something about it. 

"It is a nation that is not part of the United States asking for handouts.  It is a race asking for special privileges and receiving them undeservedly."

This statement pretty much sums it up.  The original thinking of the Former Presidents' and Congress was to separate Tribes from the United States and its American citizens.  We as Tribes were not considered American Citizens then and it's pretty obvious we are not considered Citizens now by some people.  I don't ask for anything I don't deserve and I will continue to fight for it as long as I'm still alive.

I nor did my ancestors ASK for special privileges the US Govt. gave them to the Tribes when they made the Treaties so the "Indian" would stay away from the American Citizens. 

As for undeserving, if this Great Nation of ours said Citizenship shall be granted only to those that have elected to serve then punch my ticket because I've served my Country have you?  I earned the right to call myself a Marine and Citizen of this Great Nation when I marched across the Parade Deck at MCRD San Diego have you?  I fly Old Glory and the Marine Corps Flag high with pride everyday. 

I pray everyday my children will make the same choice I did and serve so they can say the got everything they deserve so that way when somebody tells them they don't deserve what their getting they can say "Yes I do!"   
 
I keep myself professional and on duty all the time in case of emergencies or my services are needed and that's by choice not mandate.  When performing my job duties I don't see the color of ones skin or the ethnic background at which they came from.  I serve the general public and I do everything I can to serve them well.

Your posts are well thought out and appreciated. I believe many that have expressed an opinion here are not really upset with the Tribes. There is nowhere in the treaty that states the General population will be barred (locked gates) and denied effective means of hunting while allowing Tribes all but special rights to bear hunting. The problem here is DNR/WDFW wildlife mismanagement and anti-hunting activists misleading the public. It is not the Tribes fault or issue. The Tribes are actually doing a service removing nuisance bears. It is just to bad that the General Population is being denied the ability to participate. Our funds could potentially help wildlife issues. Instead it is an untapped revenue stream when our Government so desperately needs every dollar.

[BOWHUNTER45]

Will we ever do anything to disrupt this type of bullsh$t ?? The only way to get our point agross is to QUIT BUYING LICENSES !!! One year of that would get their attention !!!

[bucklucky]

Will we ever do anything to disrupt this type of bullsh$t ?? The only way to get our point agross is to QUIT BUYING LICENSES !!! One year of that would get their attention !!!

I used to think the same thing but after seeing that chart about revenue, I think the hunting side of the state is just a thorn in the side of our government. Pretty sure if we didnt buy tags they would be happy just to close it down . They will bring in more wolves to keep the game from over population,

[Practical Approach]

I dont really know If everybody should be freaking out yet.

I worked for a timber company and the company could get bear damage permits for areas where bears peeled trees. The company would then contact guys with hounds to come in, track down bears, and kill them. The company would issue gate keys to the hound hunters. There were a bunch of requirements that had to be met, for instance a bear had to be killed within a certain distance to the damage.

The DNR is state land, I know. I dont know the laws or precedent that the DNR has to follow regarding bear damage permits on DNR land.

It could be that the DNR has bear damage on its land, and they are getting damage permits, and the Muckleshoots are killing bears on those permits. And yes, they would need gate keys to access the area. If the DNR cannot issue damage permits on state land, and they are using the Muckleshoots through a loophole in the system, that is another story.

This might not be the huge deal everyone is making it out to be.

[Gamblin Guy]

I received the following response from Rep. Kristiansen just a little bit ago.

Thank you for emailing Rep. Kristiansen.  The following is a link with some more information that may be of interest to  you; http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2011/jun/14/muckleshoots-hunting-acces-dnr-land-investigated/ .

The House Republican Caucus Staff person who follows these issues is looking into this.

As you may know Rep. Kristiansen prime sponsored a bill this session, HB 1273;
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1273&year=2011  that had a hearing, but the chair of the committee did not bring it up for a committee vote.  The bill is still a viable bill next session, however in order for it to move through the process help from the public will be needed. 

Again, thank you for emailing this to Rep. Kristiansen. 

[PlateauNDN]

I received the following response from Rep. Kristiansen just a little bit ago.

Thank you for emailing Rep. Kristiansen.  The following is a link with some more information that may be of interest to  you; http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2011/jun/14/muckleshoots-hunting-acces-dnr-land-investigated/ .

The House Republican Caucus Staff person who follows these issues is looking into this.

As you may know Rep. Kristiansen prime sponsored a bill this session, HB 1273;
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1273&year=2011  that had a hearing, but the chair of the committee did not bring it up for a committee vote.  The bill is still a viable bill next session, however in order for it to move through the process help from the public will be needed. 

Again, thank you for emailing this to Rep. Kristiansen.

Thanks for the info.  This story just keeps getting better and better.

[tlbradford]

I am going to go in order so as to not miss anything.

TL, it's our government who made the deals. Your anger is misdirected. The tribes have been given rights in exchange for giving up their stuff. If you don't like it, go to your US senators and representatives and see who'll put a bill forth to change the treaties.

My anger is not misdirected.  My anger over the mismanagement of our fish and game in this state is distributed equally over our elected officials, bio's who are unwilling to listen to people who have field experience both in and outside the various agencies, tribal harvest that occur in ceded lands (not the reservation proper), poachers, and so on.

You are correct about who put forth the treaties.  I am not oblivious to the fact that atrocities between settlers and indians occurred.  I am also aware that the US Government did not negotiate these treaties for the most part and were getting the best parts of the deal at the time.  I am also aware that the US Government could have taken everything at the time, so many people in the government did have the interest of the original tribes in mind, and helped broker these treaties to help this race.

In the meantime, many tribal members are also members of this site. Suggesting that all their people are a welfare state and that they're all there with their hands out for Government gimmes is over-simplification, inaccurate, and insulting, especially to those who practice fair chase and don't go out to "slaughter deer and elk". 

A welfare state applies to a group of people as a whole.  Individuals may be an exception to the rule.  (ie: PlateauNDN and Coastal Native, who are valuable members and contributors to this site.)  I have many friends who are tribal members.  I know many individuals who do not live on a reservation who have opinions similar to mine regarding those that live on reservations.  The best man at my wedding is a tribal member, had his college paid for by his tribe, and until last year was involved with tribal government in some for the last 10 years.  I am well aware of good and bad individuals.  The fact remains that the tribal nations receive much more than they put in, when it comes to there economic well being in this state.  That is what a welfare nation is.  It is over-simplifying, but not inaccurate.  It is insulting to those that practice fair chase, work hard, and follow a higher set of moral standards, and I understand that.  Hopefully, they will take that statement and use it as change within the tribes to show how some perceive the tribe, and that the only avenue for a change in that perception, is to clean up the dirty element.

    All of the people on this site are hunters and deserving of the courtesy we should be showing each other. All of us have common ground and want to see certain issues resolved in a way that benefits hunters. Dividing us hunters as a group, into smaller groups is foolhardy. Singling out Natives in here will accomplish nothing positive for our future as a group which advocates for hunting and the outdoor lifestyle. My 

That is a wonderful view to have.  I have the utmost respect for our membership, but we are not all going to agree on everything.  I am not singling out tribal members, the topic that is being discussed did that.  Tribes got rights to hunt to public land, and the general public did not.  This is not a hunters vs government topic.  This is a hunter vs government and tribes topic.

[tlbradford]

Great response and some of what you said is true.  Yes, multiple avenues could've been explored and there are certain executive orders that could've been issued but they weren't and that (in any other word would not do it justice) sucks.  I don't know what occured in the past but I have some ideas floating around in my head but, your take on Natives has been tarnished and it's pretty obvious nothing I nor anybody else can say or do will ever change your mind. 

I have not once tried shifting blame nor spoken for anybody but myself.  My words and opinions are mine and mine alone. 

If the Muckleshoot go in and "slaughter" deer and elk without permission and are not in their right to, then yes, it's poaching and should be reported.  If the land was not theirs and they have no rights to it then by all means enforce the law and prosecute them.

Just because you think it's not legal doesn't mean it isn't legal.  If they have rights to the land and the State DNR did what it did then the Muckleshoot are Legal to proceed with what they are doing by Federal Standards.  The State is not above Federal and the Tribes are not above Federal either.  It might not be right or fair to others but it's still Legal.

I've had this debate before and I don't mind having it again.  If you're going to dislike a group dislike individuals not the entire group.  I'm not, nor have I ever been, nor will I ever be on Welfare.  The only handout I except is the 100.00 dollar per capita I get every month from the Tribe.  I have worked since I graduated high school and my wife works as well.  I push my children to be highly educated and excel at everything they do.

If your idea of me is some drunk, no job and collecting welfare "Indian" then you're sadly wrong.  I've said it before and I'll say it again direct your frustrations at individuals not at groups.  If you're upset at what has transpired then contact your local State Lawmaker and do something about it. 

"It is a nation that is not part of the United States asking for handouts.  It is a race asking for special privileges and receiving them undeservedly."

This statement pretty much sums it up.  The original thinking of the Former Presidents' and Congress was to separate Tribes from the United States and its American citizens.  We as Tribes were not considered American Citizens then and it's pretty obvious we are not considered Citizens now by some people.  I don't ask for anything I don't deserve and I will continue to fight for it as long as I'm still alive.

I nor did my ancestors ASK for special privileges the US Govt. gave them to the Tribes when they made the Treaties so the "Indian" would stay away from the American Citizens. 

As for undeserving, if this Great Nation of ours said Citizenship shall be granted only to those that have elected to serve then punch my ticket because I've served my Country have you?  I earned the right to call myself a Marine and Citizen of this Great Nation when I marched across the Parade Deck at MCRD San Diego have you?  I fly Old Glory and the Marine Corps Flag high with pride everyday. 

I pray everyday my children will make the same choice I did and serve so they can say the got everything they deserve so that way when somebody tells them they don't deserve what their getting they can say "Yes I do!"   
 
I keep myself professional and on duty all the time in case of emergencies or my services are needed and that's by choice not mandate.  When performing my job duties I don't see the color of ones skin or the ethnic background at which they came from.  I serve the general public and I do everything I can to serve them well.

First off I will say that I appreciate your viewpoints, your past service to the United States, and I have respect for the values and what you are choosing to pass along to your children.  I have given you support in multiple threads ad I truly wish that all tribal members thought along the same lines as you.

Just so you know where I stand on my opinion of tribes.  I am favor in them doing whatever they want on their reservations.  I am in favor of them having their own government.  I am in favor of them being self sufficient, promoting private industry, utilizing their natural resources, etc.  I do not believe in dual citizenship.  A tribe for all intents and purposes is a foreign nation.  I don't believe in a tribe receiving any type of support from the United States government, unless it is mutually beneficial to both nations.  I feel the same way with foreign aid to all countries around the world as well.  I feel our government should shrink a lot and let those that are on welfare, or are in need, be supported by charities and churches.  I am not indicting just tribes, it is anyone that accepts government handouts without offering anything in return.

I believe the treaties were misinterpreted with the Boldt decision.  I am not a court of law, but I believe it was not a numerical division that was intended, but a 50/50 split in the opportunity to pursue fish and game.  That is purely an opinion that I have stated before, but it is the basis of my dislike for tribal policy concerning fish and game on ceded lands. 

Other than that you took my statements personally, which is fair, and used yourself as an example to the contrary.  You are an exception to the rule, unfortunately.  Are tribal members also US citizens?  Yes.  Are they members of a sieving nation?  Yes.  Am I a US citizen?  Yes.  Am I a member of a sovereign nation, or do I hold dual citizenship?  No.

If you can't see the difference between us than I feel you are the one that needs to have a more open mind.  I do not have anything dividing my loyalties to the United States.  If asked to defend or die for my country, I do not have to consider what country that is.  If the US decided that they would abolish the treaties and envelop the reservations, what side would you be on, regardless of the fairness of it? 

Back to the topic at hand.  Our state could have continued hound hunting for the general public.  They could have allowed various hound owners to maintain and pursue game in this state.  They could have done a lot of things that would have allowed equal opportunity access to these animals.  They didn't.  Whose fault is that and where should the blame lie?  I agree the blame lies with the elected official?  How did those officials get elected?  Did those decision makers get support from tribes, in exchange for special consideration when special opportunities arise?  I believe they did, and that is why I believe the fault is shared.

[bearpaw]

I received the following response from Rep. Kristiansen just a little bit ago.

Thank you for emailing Rep. Kristiansen.  The following is a link with some more information that may be of interest to  you; http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2011/jun/14/muckleshoots-hunting-acces-dnr-land-investigated/ .

The House Republican Caucus Staff person who follows these issues is looking into this.

As you may know Rep. Kristiansen prime sponsored a bill this session, HB 1273;
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1273&year=2011  that had a hearing, but the chair of the committee did not bring it up for a committee vote.  The bill is still a viable bill next session, however in order for it to move through the process help from the public will be needed. 

Again, thank you for emailing this to Rep. Kristiansen.

Thought I would post the langauge of the Bill.....

HOUSE BILL 1273
_____________________________________________
State of Washington 62nd Legislature 2011 Regular Session
By Representatives Kristiansen, Blake, Orcutt, Chandler, McCune,
Pearson, and Harris

Read first time 01/18/11. Referred to Committee on Agriculture &
Natural Resources.

1 AN ACT Relating to prohibiting public agencies from providing
2 specific segments of the general public with access to land for the
3 purposes of hunting and fishing; adding a new section to chapter 77.12
4 RCW; adding a new section to chapter 43.17 RCW; adding a new section to
5 chapter 79A.05 RCW; adding a new section to chapter 79.10 RCW; adding
6 a new section to chapter 36.32 RCW; adding a new section to chapter
7 35.21 RCW; adding a new section to chapter 35A.21 RCW; and creating a
8 new section.
9 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
10 NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. A new section is added to chapter 77.12 RCW
11 to read as follows:
12 Unless otherwise specifically authorized in statute, no public
13 agency, as that term is defined in RCW 42.30.020, may provide only a
14 specified segment or segments of the general public with access to land
15 owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by the public agency for the
16 purpose of hunting or fishing without providing the same access
17 opportunity to the general public. This section applies to rules or
18 regulations of the public agency, access contracts and agreements, and
19 all other forms of express or implied access permission.
p. 1 HB 1273
1 NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. Any public agency, as that term is defined
2 in RCW 42.30.020, that allows a specified segment or segments of the
3 general public to access land owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by
4 the public agency for the purpose of hunting or fishing as of the
5 effective date of this section must either suspend access permission to
6 the specified segment or segments or allow access to the general
7 public.
8 NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. A new section is added to chapter 43.17 RCW
9 to read as follows:
10 Any department listed in RCW 43.17.010 shall comply with section 1
11 of this act when granting access for hunting or fishing to any land
12 owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by the department.
13 NEW SECTION. Sec. 4. A new section is added to chapter 79A.05 RCW
14 to read as follows:
15 The commission shall comply with section 1 of this act when
16 granting access for hunting or fishing to any land owned, leased, or
17 otherwise controlled by the commission for hunting or fishing access.
18 NEW SECTION. Sec. 5. A new section is added to chapter 79.10 RCW
19 under the subchapter heading "Multiple Use" to read as follows:
20 The department shall comply with section 1 of this act when
21 granting access for hunting or fishing to any land owned, leased, or
22 otherwise controlled by the department.
23 NEW SECTION. Sec. 6. A new section is added to chapter 36.32 RCW
24 to read as follows:
25 A county shall comply with section 1 of this act when granting
26 access for hunting or fishing to any land owned, leased, or otherwise
27 controlled by the county.
28 NEW SECTION. Sec. 7. A new section is added to chapter 35.21 RCW
29 to read as follows:
30 A city shall comply with section 1 of this act when granting access
31 for hunting or fishing to any land owned, leased, or otherwise
32 controlled by the city.
HB 1273 p. 2
1 NEW SECTION. Sec. 8. A new section is added to chapter 35A.21 RCW
2 to read as follows:
3 A code city shall comply with section 1 of this act when granting
4 access for hunting or fishing to any land owned, leased, or otherwise
5 controlled by the code city.
--- END ---

[bearpaw]

I had a discussion with Representative Blake. He indicated after researching this issue it appears it was the WDFW who dropped the ball. The DNR had gone to the WDFW and asked for them to address the bear damage with increased bear hunting and the WDFW didn't do it.

It appears someone in a local DNR office made the decision to use the tribes. I don't really blame the DNR if the WDFW failed to address the problem. After all, the DNR is charged with providing maximum return from our state forests which support our school system. While I think a poor decision was made, I do give whomever made the decision credit for trying to do what they thought was best for our forests. It's my suspition they didn't realize the can of worms they were opening.

I am disappointed that the WDFW did not address the problem, however, I would imagine it gets addressed in the future as it is obvious the public and several legislators are not happy with the current handling or lack of handling of the problem by both agencies. 

[gaddy]

 i dont know all the legal aspect of this but it seems to me that the wdfw could have said, well we have a bear problem in this area, lets do a depridation hunt with x # of tags with this set of rules, first come first served for this one time. look at the results & readress the situation at this time. take care of the bear problem & gain some revinue at the same time while offering more oppertunity for the hunting public. win, win, win. seems so easy to me but, again i dont know all the peramiters they have to work within.

[bigtex]

WDFW District 12 (King County) recently changed their District Wildlife Biologist, probably within the last 6 months or so. Russ Link was the former biologist for the area and had been in that position for quite awhile. Ruth Milner is the "new" bio for the area. Would be interesting to see who "dropped the ball" on this issue 

[PlateauNDN]

The major problem that will happen that is going to piss off hunters beyond the initial bear problem, is access to these same lands so indians can go in and slaughter the deer and elk as well.

An executive order can be issued by the governor allowing whatever the hell she wants as far as hunting rights.  There can be an emergency hunt allowed by executive order, that could allow baiting and hound hunting.

Multiple avenues could be explored to combat the problem but the apologist in our government who have their hand out during election time for campaign donations are bending over the general public again, and handing crap over to a special interest group.

Before anyone says that it is legal, and that I would jump on this as well if it was offered to me, just save it.  Legality has nothing to do with this.  It is the welfare nation that tribes have become accepting anything and everything that the government will give them.  It is a nation that is not part of the United States asking for handouts.  It is a race asking for special privileges and receiving them undeservedly.

To try to shift the blame completely away from thesetribes is unfair and misdirected.  Pressure needs to be put on the lawmakers and the special interest groups equally.

Yes, I did take your statement personal.  The above remarks warranted my type of response.  I could lower myself to another standard and bash other ethnic groups and cause havoc and be a menace as some of my fellows "Indians" have done in the past but I choose not to.  I choose to use my head and diplomacy.  If you want to continue to bash "Indians" as a whole group then be prepared to provide a rebuttal to my responses as I have done with your responses.

You say legality has nothing to do with it and your own words, phrases and even rebuttals provide the back-up to it being all legal.  So is it legal or not?  You say it's not legal then you mention the Boldt decision and to me it seems you need to get your opinions in line before you make them.

If you want to take a stand against something then find your footing and hold on tight and be prepared for anything that gets thrown at you.  Don't contradict yourself because in somebody else's eyes it make you look like you don't know what you're talking about and it makes you look foolish.

Yes, I did use myself as an example and that is my right to do so since you want to label all "Indians" as welfare bound and unable to move forward in life without the Govt.

"You are an exception to the rule, unfortunately."  Now you have gone from labeling "Indians" to labeling me?  I'm sorry it's unfortunate that I've become an exception to the rule and succeeded in life.  I'm sorry that it's unfortunate that I've been able to provide for my family without being on welfare and I've slaughtered all the bulls in the Colockum, which by the way I have never been to nor hunted and do not plan on ever going that way and to reiterate that I do not honestly know the exact area of where this is located other than it's near Wenatchee.

I didn't join this site to debate the issues of Tribal Sovereignty nor have I or will ever single out a ethnic group but since the topic always seems to arise then, yes, I'm going to debate it.  This difference between you and me has been a topic I have dealt with all my life.  You grew up caucasian I assume?  The color of your skin and your heritage have never been a problem for you as it has for me (not to say you haven't or will ever experience prejudice).  I'm pretty sure you were not the minority growing up like I was.  I was taught to defend myself only when it was the last resort and that I did quite a bit. 

Because I was a "savage" who lived in a "teepee" and had hair longer than a girl or when I had to present almost every year during grade school and middle school on cultural heritage day they laughed and called me names for wearing my traditional regalia or spoke my own language.  Don't misinterpret what I've said because I love this country but the atrocities are still occuring to this day.  Even when I was going through Recruit Training I was constantly being told by other recruits that I shouldn't be there or why should they listen to me because I still live in a teepee and have an out-house for a bathroom and rode a horse all day.

I was a squad leader for almost the entire duration of Recruit Training and in the beginning that pissed a lot of other recruits off.  I had to earn their trust and respect one day at a time.  I know I'm not the only one dealing with racism and prejudice and it affects a lot of people from different nationalities but, when you question my loyalty I do take offense.  When you question what my family has done as far as military service to this country then, yes I will take offense because you're calling all of us as a group "Welfare People."

The difference between the Tribes and other ethnic groups was we were here first and were not brought here on slave ships or migrated here illegally (granted it has been debated throughout history that the Native American migrated here from Asia but that's a whole other discussion).  We were not civilized like our European bretheren and that disadvantage was exploited very heavily.

The Tribes were defeated and lost more battles than they won and were forced into signing Treaties to preserve their livelihood and way of life.  At the time it was thought best to push the "Indians" to the ugliest parts of the land where there were no viable way for them to survive and leave them be as long as they didn't bother American Citizens.  This turned out to be wrong.  As it turned out those same ugly lands had natural resources that proved to be invaluable towards the advancement of this Nation.  Why do you think land was CEDED (Taken back) by the US Govt.  Precious Metals (gold, silver, copper etc.), Oil and Fresh Water to name a few.  And recently discovered Natural Gas.

Yes, the US Govt. granted us a way of life and called us sovereign nations because they didn't want us assimilating with American Citizens.  The debate over what the US Govt. at the time did or didn't do to "Indians" still carries on today and it will carry on for a very long time. 

Your assumptions are mostly right about me.  When this Great Nation is at War I support and will defend her if ever called upon.  IF this Great Nation ever declared War on its Tribes then I won't have to draw the line or pick sides it will be picked for me and my personal experience and the history of this Country is proof.  IF War was declared I would go back to being a "flea-bitten savage" no matter what I've done and no matter what I try to do to be diplomatic about the situation.

Even now with my job it shocks people when they meet me in person.  Speaking on the phone and then meeting them they get this picture that I wasn't the one on the other end of the phone.  They get this perception in their head that I'm going to stroll into their office or meeting wearing war-paint and wearing buckskin with moccasins.  They look at me and ask why did I show up wearing a business suit when the 5 guys sitting to my left are wearing the same attire but were they asked the same question? 

If you don't believe this look at the Japanese-Americans when Pearl Harbor occured and WE as a Nation entered World War II.  Here's another shining example of being labeled:  Japanese-Americans, Mexican-Americans, African-Americans and Native Americans.  We did not give ourselves those titles they were given to us.

I have kept and will continue to keep an open mind when discussing issues here and if you don't think I have then obviously you have not read or followed any other topics I have debated and/or commented on.

And, I wasn't going to say anything but since you want to say "I" have taken this personal and taken it to heart and not kept an open mind, maybe you should re-evaluate your position as a MODERATOR.  The last time I checked a moderator is supposed to be a person or persons who mediate and/or preside over other parties to ensure a fair and equal stance is taken.  At least as far as the topic of Tribal Issues is concerned you're not a moderator exercising his best judgement or providing a fair and unbiased voice.

As far as others topics are concerned you in my opinion have provided some very good moderation and exercised your better jdugement just not this one.

I think we can agree to disagree that the debate will carry on for quite awhile and if you wish to continue this then we can exchange PM's and have the debate there or just end it here and now.  I can let it rest if you're willing to do the same and let the original topic get back on track.

[bearpaw]

i dont know all the legal aspect of this but it seems to me that the wdfw could have said, well we have a bear problem in this area, lets do a depridation hunt with x # of tags with this set of rules, first come first served for this one time. look at the results & readress the situation at this time. take care of the bear problem & gain some revinue at the same time while offering more oppertunity for the hunting public. win, win, win. seems so easy to me but, again i dont know all the peramiters they have to work within.

I agree, they should have consulted the DNR about the damage, determined how many bear likely need removed, then set a spring hunt with enough permits that when considering the average success rate would result in the number of bear harvested as desired. 

Maybe the new bio just needs to get her feet wet before she recommends a spring season, hopefully next year... 

[huntnfmly]

i dont know all the legal aspect of this but it seems to me that the wdfw could have said, well we have a bear problem in this area, lets do a depridation hunt with x # of tags with this set of rules, first come first served for this one time. look at the results & readress the situation at this time. take care of the bear problem & gain some revinue at the same time while offering more oppertunity for the hunting public. win, win, win. seems so easy to me but, again i dont know all the peramiters they have to work within.

I agree, they should have consulted the DNR about the damage, determined how many bear likely need removed, then set a spring hunt with enough permits that when considering the average success rate would result in the number of bear harvested as desired. 

Maybe the new bio just needs to get her feet wet before she recommends a spring season, hopefully next year... 

whats sad is when i talked to ruth the other day she said they were going to do more studies to figure out the best way to manage the problem bears.I dont think they need another study seems pretty simple