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

[Special T]

There is a guy near me... In Fearndale that teaches people how to make longbows out of native Vine maple... I have wanted to take his course for some time... Curt Brisky...  I know a guy that hunts with falcons and kills his deer with a hand carved bow he made himself... I would think it would be pretty rewarding regardless if your a native or not.  it takes a lot of dedication tho...
CN i think part of many peoples frustration with natives is the perceived lack of dedication to the sport... I think that is why you get lots of comments about hunting with bows and such... And if i remember one of your older posts correctly that most deer and elk were killed with dead-falls and snares from west side tribes...

I think what jimmyhoffa said plays right into your point about traditional methods...

[bloodhound]

i used to hunt grass mtn area, but a combination of  weyerhaeuser logging the whole mtn in about two years and indians driving around with flatbeds shooting entire herds of elk that area went to crap. so i dont hunt there any more. so as for snares i dont know about that cuz ive seen them loaded in trucks with guns of all shapes and sizes hangin out their windows. but i do have to say its been better since they put in the check station for them at the mud mtn damn road, but they are not always there checking animals so who knows how many get by unchecked

[huntnfmly]

Sorry Coastal this was another case of misinterpretation.  I was referring to the threads in Dec. Regarding Yakama members caught Poaching in the Nile and the Yakama and Colville members caught poaching in the Wenas.  Both those threads had Yakama (I'm assuming) members posting negative comments and making borderline racial comments on here.  I did not refer to you Coastal or Big Dog in my earlier posts and if I did, I would've just said your name or somebody else's directly.  I read the posts with my own eyes and they weren't posted by either one of you 2.  I followed these threads all the way to the end and then finally started posting after the dust settled.  As I stated many times before I'm not here to threaten, discriminate or name call anybody.  I'm here for the enjoyment of hunting and if called upon provide information regarding Tribal issues.  I never expected to agree with anybody on here 100% whether they were Tribal members or not.  We may be Tribal members but we're gonna have disagreements and our opinions regardless of ethnic background and Tribal Affiliation.  I'm assuming that your definition of me being a "splitter" is separatist?  I encourage you to read all my posts on this thread and other recent threads regarding Tribal issues and not once did I ever give the impression nor present myself as being a separatist or biased.  As far as the "Tribal Hunting" issue you're referring to was not about what you're thinking.  To inform you about my request to the Site Moderators was about creating a topic possibly called "Tribal Issues" or something related.  A place where forum members could go to ask or post questions regarding "Tribal Issues."  If there was a bit of confusion on your part about me then I hope you got a better understanding about me from this if not then again I encourage you to read this whole thread and if that still does not suffice then PM me and I can give you some insight into my background just as I provided to the Site Moderators upon request.  I don't have nothing to hide.

No confusion, I didn't have to read too many of your posts to draw the conclusion that you're an asset to the hunting community in this state...and a stand up guy. 

I'd like to see this "tribal issue" go away, because I don't think it's an issue.  I wouldn't mind seeing a few threads of hunters venting their frustration about a difference in management and regulation setting between jurisdictions or co-managers, but all too often it turns into racial inequality, treaties are BS, trashy homes, Indians have no regard for the land or natural resources, etc.  I think this state suffers from a serious case of the "Big Lie theory" when it comes to tribal hunting, and it's been passed down to the next generation of "post Boldt era" hunters/fisherman. 

Generally, the foundation for the anti treaty hunting argument is based on cases of poaching, wasting, excessive harvesting, lack of enforcement, etc...and if that's the only argument, then it's not a "tribal issue", as those things are often overstated and are not specific to tribes.  Very few people take the time to educate themselves on what tribal natural resources managers are doing it terms of population monitoring, habitat improvement, habitat protection, holding state/federal agencies accountable for abuse and mismanagement of Land and natural resources, etc.  Everyone is so fixated on the liberal bag limits/season lengths and trying to argue that it is racial inequality, instead of acknowledging that it is separate jurisdictions servicing their citizens differently.  The Feds do not set seasons and bag limits for tribes...they've given regulatory authority to the tribes.  It is tribal governments that set regulations. 

So, I guess my gripe would be...as a fellow native, lets try to move the discussion away from the status quo "tribal hunting issues", by no longer acknowledging that tribal hunting is an issue.  We would better serve ourselves by trying to educate people on why tribes choose to set regulations like we do, and how we ensure that it is not to the detriment of wildlife populations.  We need to be able to offer up perspective as to how we retain the cultural aspect of hunting while using modern technology? why do we feel we need 6 months to do it? where does all the meat go?  Why does it "seem" as if we target trophy animals?  How many tribal members actually hunt?  etc...

If you share that opinion, then I was mistaken and we are 100% in agreement. 

I would like you to offer your perspective on your last paragraph if you dont mind.I am really curious this is not meant in a smart a$$ way either

[PlateauNDN]

Good luck CN.  I heard that when one group wanted to do a hunt using traditional methods, things started to become a legal mess.  For example, a whale hunt conducted a few years ago was supposedly planned as being as close to historically accurate as possible; but when word got out the HSUS filed all kinds of lawsuits in federal court based on animal cruelty.  The story is the tribe was forced to use a large rifle to make it humane.  I guess other groups got involved too, which is why it seemed so modern---USCG rules.  This is just stuff I've been reading lately, but haven't found on any official sites. 

JimmyHoffa, your story is true and I remember it very well.  It was the Makah Tribe that was involved in this incident.  They had been fighting in Federal Court for almost 80 years (I believe that's the correct amount of years?) to exercise their Treaty Rights to harvest whales on a yearly basis.  After finally getting their Rights re-instated they were taken to court again and again and again by all kinds of animal rights groups and tree huggers etc...

I remember this story well because it was early in my career as an L.E.O. for the Tribal Police and the Makah Tribe put out a request to all Tribes in Washington to assist with security and policing (I wasn't one of the lucky ones selected) on their Reservation because all those groups moved into town and were causing all kinds of problems and threatened to do what ever it takes to keep them from harvesting a whale. 

The mandate imposed by the court was for the hunters to use a harpoon to snare or kill the whale but, if that did not kill the whale immediately then they were to use a .50 cal. high-powered rifle.  Another part of the mandate was they were not allowed to harvest a whale without permission from the Feds. 

A couple of Tribal Members got into trouble the following year because they went out and harvested a whale without permission from the Feds and ended up in Federal Court for "killing a protected animal" or something like that and they ended up losing their hunting rights for life if I remember right?

WenatcheeJay, I know what you're saying about this topic being diluted.  The request I made was for reasons like this.  The issue here was DNR issuing keys without permission and then it turned into the Tribes this and the Tribes that, the Tribes, the Tribes, the Tribes....I asked for a thread regarding "Tribal Issues" not just pertaining to hunting but, everything because anything anybody says on here with the hint of Tribal in it, it takes off as being Tribal, Tribal, Tribal.

Whether it's hunting, fishing, taxes, Treaty Rights, fireworks, casinos, stores being opened on Tribal Lands they are all being mixed up with main topics and diluting what was actually trying to be said. 

I'm all for tradition and I'm teaching my children our traditional ways and up until I became a member of this forum I had no interest in bow hunting.  Sure it was something Tribes did almost 200 years ago but this was not something I was taught.  I was taught how to use a rifle and that's how I've taught my oldest son.  I've learned more about bow hunting on here then I have from the very few people I know that do bow hunt.  It might be something I pick up in the very near future and from the looks of it I really might enjoy it more than rifle hunting. 

Huntnfmly, if you're referring to CN's last post then in my opinion he was not being sarcastic.  I have learned that if you want to reach somebody you have to kill them with "kindness" and educate the person/public on what it is you're trying to accomplish.  I'll relate it to a project I'm just completing.

Let's say you own a business that serves the public (grocery store, gas station etc...) and I think it would be beneficial for my company to invest and partner with you to better serve my clients and yours as well.  But, you're hesitant because you're not familiar with me or my company and so you say no.  I come back and meet with you and also invite you to a meeting involving other organizations just like yourself and give a presentation on how successful partnerships with my company have been with organizations such as yours. 

At this meeting you learn a great deal of how we operate and how we conduct ourselves with all of the organizations.  Again, you're still hesitant and so you say no again.  Since the meeting other organizations have partnered and I meet with you again to show you what has transpired and this time I bring "public opinion" with me and show you how this would benefit the public not just our organizations.

You finally agree and after I completed the project you start to notice a lot more people frequenting your business and a more positive attitude from the public.  Now I got what I wanted through educating you on the benefits of the project and serving the people and you got what you wanted on increase in sales and positive feedback from the public.

That's an example of educating somebody on a subject they don't know anything about.  I, just like CN (I'm assuming) have to give a report to Stakeholders on a quarterly basis to report my progress in servicing the public. 

I'm also in agreement with a lot of you that DNR and WDFW could've found different ways to address this issue.  Especially ways that would increase their revenue such as more permits and extended spring hunts.  But, this didn't happen and it's a travesty.  Maybe next time they'll think real hard about what they're about to do and not just jump in head first. 

If it was me and I seen we had a problem area that needed to be addressed my first thoughts are how do we salvage this situation?  If my employee was giving away free stuff I knew we could make money on then yes, I would definitely reprimand them.  Losing out on revenue is not smart business thinking.

[huntnfmly]

Good luck CN.  I heard that when one group wanted to do a hunt using traditional methods, things started to become a legal mess.  For example, a whale hunt conducted a few years ago was supposedly planned as being as close to historically accurate as possible; but when word got out the HSUS filed all kinds of lawsuits in federal court based on animal cruelty.  The story is the tribe was forced to use a large rifle to make it humane.  I guess other groups got involved too, which is why it seemed so modern---USCG rules.  This is just stuff I've been reading lately, but haven't found on any official sites. 

JimmyHoffa, your story is true and I remember it very well.  It was the Makah Tribe that was involved in this incident.  They had been fighting in Federal Court for almost 80 years (I believe that's the correct amount of years?) to exercise their Treaty Rights to harvest whales on a yearly basis.  After finally getting their Rights re-instated they were taken to court again and again and again by all kinds of animal rights groups and tree huggers etc...

I remember this story well because it was early in my career as an L.E.O. for the Tribal Police and the Makah Tribe put out a request to all Tribes in Washington to assist with security and policing (I wasn't one of the lucky ones selected) on their Reservation because all those groups moved into town and were causing all kinds of problems and threatened to do what ever it takes to keep them from harvesting a whale. 

The mandate imposed by the court was for the hunters to use a harpoon to snare or kill the whale but, if that did not kill the whale immediately then they were to use a .50 cal. high-powered rifle.  Another part of the mandate was they were not allowed to harvest a whale without permission from the Feds. 

A couple of Tribal Members got into trouble the following year because they went out and harvested a whale without permission from the Feds and ended up in Federal Court for "killing a protected animal" or something like that and they ended up losing their hunting rights for life if I remember right?

WenatcheeJay, I know what you're saying about this topic being diluted.  The request I made was for reasons like this.  The issue here was DNR issuing keys without permission and then it turned into the Tribes this and the Tribes that, the Tribes, the Tribes, the Tribes....I asked for a thread regarding "Tribal Issues" not just pertaining to hunting but, everything because anything anybody says on here with the hint of Tribal in it, it takes off as being Tribal, Tribal, Tribal.

Whether it's hunting, fishing, taxes, Treaty Rights, fireworks, casinos, stores being opened on Tribal Lands they are all being mixed up with main topics and diluting what was actually trying to be said. 

I'm all for tradition and I'm teaching my children our traditional ways and up until I became a member of this forum I had no interest in bow hunting.  Sure it was something Tribes did almost 200 years ago but this was not something I was taught.  I was taught how to use a rifle and that's how I've taught my oldest son.  I've learned more about bow hunting on here then I have from the very few people I know that do bow hunt.  It might be something I pick up in the very near future and from the looks of it I really might enjoy it more than rifle hunting. 

Huntnfmly, if you're referring to CN's last post then in my opinion he was not being sarcastic.  I have learned that if you want to reach somebody you have to kill them with "kindness" and educate the person/public on what it is you're trying to accomplish.  I'll relate it to a project I'm just completing.

Let's say you own a business that serves the public (grocery store, gas station etc...) and I think it would be beneficial for my company to invest and partner with you to better serve my clients and yours as well.  But, you're hesitant because you're not familiar with me or my company and so you say no.  I come back and meet with you and also invite you to a meeting involving other organizations just like yourself and give a presentation on how successful partnerships with my company have been with organizations such as yours. 

At this meeting you learn a great deal of how we operate and how we conduct ourselves with all of the organizations.  Again, you're still hesitant and so you say no again.  Since the meeting other organizations have partnered and I meet with you again to show you what has transpired and this time I bring "public opinion" with me and show you how this would benefit the public not just our organizations.

You finally agree and after I completed the project you start to notice a lot more people frequenting your business and a more positive attitude from the public.  Now I got what I wanted through educating you on the benefits of the project and serving the people and you got what you wanted on increase in sales and positive feedback from the public.

That's an example of educating somebody on a subject they don't know anything about.  I, just like CN (I'm assuming) have to give a report to Stakeholders on a quarterly basis to report my progress in servicing the public. 

I'm also in agreement with a lot of you that DNR and WDFW could've found different ways to address this issue.  Especially ways that would increase their revenue such as more permits and extended spring hunts.  But, this didn't happen and it's a travesty.  Maybe next time they'll think real hard about what they're about to do and not just jump in head first. 

If it was me and I seen we had a problem area that needed to be addressed my first thoughts are how do we salvage this situation?  If my employee was giving away free stuff I knew we could make money on then yes, I would definitely reprimand them.  Losing out on revenue is not smart business thinking.

I must of worded it wrong what i was trying to ask was how do the tribes retain cultural aspect while using modern tech?Why they feel it needs to take 6mths?and the reason it seems tribes target trophy animals is not a question but seems to be a fact.In 2009 i believe it was there was a topic on here that showed pics of 3 trophy bulls that one individual entered in the sportsmans show in yakima.From what i have read on your posts and how you think i dont think you believe that is ok or right but you have to agree those instances are what the majority of people hear.But i do understand tribes hunting for those whe cannot but what is the reason for 6mth seasons
Thanks jim

[PlateauNDN]

huntnfmly, "Modern Technology" I'm assuming you mean a rifle?  Speaking from myself and you might've missed it in my last post where I stated I was never taught nor do I have anybody in my family that uses a bow and arrow.  I was taught how to use a rifle and that's what I have now passed down to my oldest son.  He is and will continue to learn how to use a rifle and how to properly handle one until he can do it in his sleep. 

My children know that my rifle and pistol are not toys and I have taught them that very hard.  I showed them what they were and what they can do and told them and showed them and disciplined them not to play with or touch any of my weapons unless I said they could. 

As I stated previously I'm seriously considering picking up bow hunting because it looks to be enjoying.   The only answer I can give you was this just happened to be one of the things that was assimilated into Tribal Culture when there was battles and wars going on between the Govt. and Tribes.  They put down the bow and arrows and picked up the rifle and have not looked back since.

I don't think it takes 6months to stock a freezer and as far as seasons go the Yakama Nation are allowed to harvest males throughout the year with the exception that the genitals of the deer/elk have to still be attached to it.  Females are not allowed to be harvested from Jan. 1 to Aug. 31.

I have stated here before I don't support abuse of privileges or abuse of our Treaty Rights.  I've said it before and I'll say it again.  I know overharvesting takes place and I have said it before on here.  I've also stated I would like to see our Tribal Council do something but until somebody with a strong political base is put in then there won't be a change for awhile. 

I hunt with ethics and it does not take me 6 months to fill my freezer, my mother-in-laws freezer, my parents freezer and my grandmothers freezer.  I and my wife and kids hunt for my in-laws because out of 5 sisters and 2 brothers they don't have any sons that hunt or show interest in doing so but, they fish occasionally.  My mother has 4 brothers and 2 sisters with no children that are hunters, fishers or gatherers.  Not saying any of them don't but they are at that age where my generation is supposed to be the primary providers now and passing down our Tradition to our children.

My dads side of the family has 2 brothers and 5 sisters with no children that hunt etc...except 1 younger cousin that hunts occasionaly.  My grandmother is the eldest of my dads side of the family and I do everything I can to help her relive the old days by taking her to the mountains to gether roots and berries.

What she has taught me when I was a child I am now teaching my children and hopefully they will continue to do as such when they become parents.  If we don't teach our children as it is evident in my family then we will become nothing but after thoughts of a dying culture.  I see a lot of kids that don't understand that and it makes me frustrated.  I shouldn't have to show my in-laws or my families kids how to be in touch with their culture if their parents are alive but I do because they are family and if I want our Culture to survive then somebody must.

[Wenatcheejay]

Here is an update. I got this letter:

Jayson,

 

On behalf of Senator Parlette, thanks again for contacting her in regards to tribal access to DNR land.  As promised, we've forwarded on the concerns we heard to DNR.  At this point, they're still looking into the situation, but I wanted to write to provide what information we have at this time. 

 

·         Investigation into this matter is ongoing by DNR headquarters (in Olympia)

·         Headquarters is taking interim action; upper level management (The Commissioner and his management team) was not aware of this arrangement

·         In 2008 the previous administration granted access to two pieces of DNR land in the South Puget Sound Region. The purpose of this access was for cedar barking; there was written documentation that provide access on an annual basis, and instructed they could not damage the trees. This access was re-approved in 2009 and 2010 for the purpose of studying elk here in the area. Then, in the spring of 2011 the access was expanded to cover two additional parcels and the purpose was for “wildlife management”.

·         The decision to allow access to these lands by the tribe was done at the regional level and without headquarters’ approval.

·         Headquarters has asked all regions to provide them with all formal and informal access that has been granted to DNR lands in their respected areas

·         Headquarters will be re-evaluating all the decisions the regions have made and have informed the regions that access issues are policy issues and need to be routed through headquarters

·         Headquarters is working on an access agreement to be used so there is a written agreement for the terms, reason, and review of all access to DNR lands—especially government to government agreements. This may take a few months to finalize.

·         It is not the current policy of this administration to grant access to tribes; all access, tribal or not, should have a written agreement/policy.

·         The only agreement with a tribal entity this administration was aware of is with the Lummi Tribe, which started in 2006

 

I hope this information is helpful.  We'll continue to keep you updated as we learn more.

 

Sean Graham

Legislative Assistant

to Senator Linda Evans Parlette

12th Legislative District 

360.786.7622

[pianoman9701]

Here is an update. I got this letter:

Jayson,

 

On behalf of Senator Parlette, thanks again for contacting her in regards to tribal access to DNR land.  As promised, we've forwarded on the concerns we heard to DNR.  At this point, they're still looking into the situation, but I wanted to write to provide what information we have at this time. 

 

·         Investigation into this matter is ongoing by DNR headquarters (in Olympia)

·         Headquarters is taking interim action; upper level management (The Commissioner and his management team) was not aware of this arrangement

·         In 2008 the previous administration granted access to two pieces of DNR land in the South Puget Sound Region. The purpose of this access was for cedar barking; there was written documentation that provide access on an annual basis, and instructed they could not damage the trees. This access was re-approved in 2009 and 2010 for the purpose of studying elk here in the area. Then, in the spring of 2011 the access was expanded to cover two additional parcels and the purpose was for “wildlife management”.

·         The decision to allow access to these lands by the tribe was done at the regional level and without headquarters’ approval.

·         Headquarters has asked all regions to provide them with all formal and informal access that has been granted to DNR lands in their respected areas

·         Headquarters will be re-evaluating all the decisions the regions have made and have informed the regions that access issues are policy issues and need to be routed through headquarters

·         Headquarters is working on an access agreement to be used so there is a written agreement for the terms, reason, and review of all access to DNR lands—especially government to government agreements. This may take a few months to finalize.

·         It is not the current policy of this administration to grant access to tribes; all access, tribal or not, should have a written agreement/policy.

·         The only agreement with a tribal entity this administration was aware of is with the Lummi Tribe, which started in 2006

 

I hope this information is helpful.  We'll continue to keep you updated as we learn more.

 

Sean Graham

Legislative Assistant

to Senator Linda Evans Parlette

12th Legislative District 

360.786.7622

Nice going, Jayson. Why aren't you on the legislative committee for WFW? You'd be a big asset to the team. Thanks for writing your rep. Keep up the pressure.
John