and it begins!

[trophyhunt]

Thanks NDN....  You are doing a great job taking the wind out of some of the blow hards on this site... On another note. I saw some large bear tracks along one of my corn fields sunday morn. Its been a long time since that has happened.  Once again.... thankx

Who's a blow hard in your opinion? Anyone who disagrees with the benefits that native get when it comes to fishing and hunting? Most people on this site are just being honest in saying what pisses them off the most about the whole deal. Most of us like it when NDN gives us facts, but most of us still are not happy with the way it is. So put me in your blow hard category if that's what your talking about, and make some room there is plenty of us out there.

[farmin4u_98948]

Yes my sympathies are with the natives... I have spent my whole life on the rez. Rent farm ground and range land from the tribe. Get my water from the B I A. People see how things are now . They dont realize what the tribes gave up and how they were treated by the B I A.  When do you get over what happened in the past and move on to the future?? Its a treaty. Just like our Constitution... We are a nation of laws.. Not that we like them all...  Many of our prejudices are based on mis information. Thank you NDN for the education you are giving all of us....

[huntnfmly]

  When do you get over what happened in the past and move on to the future?? /quote]      Bingo farmin4u.Thats what alot of us are talking about when it comes to special treatment .Killing bulls instead of cows for ceremonial meat non native permits dwindling but natives having very liberal seasons in the same areas just not right.Lets get to the part ....In common with....

[runamuk]

the below quoted from http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/caselaw/boldt_decision.htm

The Boldt Decision (U.S. v. Washington, also known as The Boldt Decision) - U.S. District Judge George Boldt's ruling interpreted the language of treaties made with Washington tribes more than a century earlier. He determined that the treaties -- agreements to move tribes to reservations to make way for white settlers -- reasserted Indian rights to half of the salmon harvests in perpetuity. The following is treaty language at the center of the controversy, and how Boldt interpreted it: "The right of taking fish, at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations, is further secured to said Indians in common with all citizens of the Territory." - Treaty of Medicine Creek, 1854, Article 3. (The first of six treaties negotiated between Washington Territorial Gov. Isaac Stevens and Coastal Salish tribes between 1854 and 1856. All such treaties include variations of this provision.) "By dictionary definition and as intended and used in the Indian treaties and in this decision, 'in common with' means sharing equally the opportunity to take fish ... therefore, non-treaty fishermen shall have the opportunity to take up to 50% of the harvestable number of fish ... and treaty right fishermen shall have the opportunity to take up to the same percentage." - U.S. District Judge George Boldt, U.S. v. Washington, February 12, 1974.
 

http ://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/WAWD/Documents.nsf/0/b74f7de7e3ab8d85882564ae006b735e?open document

 

[huntnfmly]

the below quoted from http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/caselaw/boldt_decision.htm

The Boldt Decision (U.S. v. Washington, also known as The Boldt Decision) - U.S. District Judge George Boldt's ruling interpreted the language of treaties made with Washington tribes more than a century earlier. He determined that the treaties -- agreements to move tribes to reservations to make way for white settlers -- reasserted Indian rights to half of the salmon harvests in perpetuity. The following is treaty language at the center of the controversy, and how Boldt interpreted it: "The right of taking fish, at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations, is further secured to said Indians in common with all citizens of the Territory." - Treaty of Medicine Creek, 1854, Article 3. (The first of six treaties negotiated between Washington Territorial Gov. Isaac Stevens and Coastal Salish tribes between 1854 and 1856. All such treaties include variations of this provision.) "By dictionary definition and as intended and used in the Indian treaties and in this decision, 'in common with' means sharing equally the opportunity to take fish ... therefore, non-treaty fishermen shall have the opportunity to take up to 50% of the harvestable number of fish ... and treaty right fishermen shall have the opportunity to take up to the same percentage." - U.S. District Judge George Boldt, U.S. v. Washington, February 12, 1974.
 

http ://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/WAWD/Documents.nsf/0/b74f7de7e3ab8d85882564ae006b735e?open document

 

so in common with only is only for fishing?

[JCClement]

Thanks for the information NDN.  I believe the treaties are in place to keep the heritage and ceremony alive for most of the tribes.  Unfortunately, there are some members (much like non-tribal hunters) who may abuse the situation.  I feel you have shown that there isn't a "blind eye" to that aspect, at least not where you are concerned.

Thanks again

[huntnfmly]

Thanks for the information NDN.  I believe the treaties are in place to keep the heritage and ceremony alive for most of the tribes.  Unfortunately, there are some members (much like non-tribal hunters) who may abuse the situation.  I feel you have shown that there isn't a "blind eye" to that aspect, at least not where you are concerned.

Thanks again

Tell me jc how is killing bulls in velvet/ very liberal hunting seasons bear hunting with dogs and baiting bears that non tribal members cannot do keep the heritage and ceramony alive?cant they do that without all the special treatment?pretty sure they could

[trophyhunt]

Yes my sympathies are with the natives... I have spent my whole life on the rez. Rent farm ground and range land from the tribe. Get my water from the B I A. People see how things are now . They dont realize what the tribes gave up and how they were treated by the B I A.  When do you get over what happened in the past and move on to the future?? Its a treaty. Just like our Constitution... We are a nation of laws.. Not that we like them all...  Many of our prejudices are based on mis information. Thank you NDN for the education you are giving all of us....

This might just end up getting nuked. The tribes didn't give up anything the government took it, it's called war and it was a very long time ago- they lost. Were we supposed to turn around and go back to Europe? And what about Kenniwick man? The natives want that buried and not talked about because he possibly was here before the natives, does that mean your on our land.  Why do you take so much pride in having your hands held by the government, most tribes now can sustain their own people without the governments hand outs.  Your the racist in constantly thinking you deserve special rights over people that have been here as long as you, we should have the same amount of rights to OUR fish and wildlife as YOU or anyone.  Some guy posted some real intelligent facts about how the white man saved the indians when we first got here from disease and themselves, it was last year I believe.  It was some of the best information I've read about this whole *censored* ball topic, I wonder if someone can find it and re post it for you to read.