nile paper says muck's shot 140+/- deer last weekend?

[trophyhunt]

I swear, the longer I monitor some of these threads the more I lose respect for the opinions expressed by a large number of the users.  I can't believe the mob mentality that some of these threads exhibit. If you don't have the document to share with the group, then don't start a rumor mill. 


Can someone produce this "Nile newspaper article" Surely someone lives in the area or has the resources to dig it up.  If after 5 pages of threads it hasn't been produced, I doubt it exists.   

plat found the article, and he is a native so I hope you believe him.

[Holg3107]

http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=85069.0

I think its already been posted on here. I assume this is what people are talking about anyway.

[huntnphool]

As for the Muck shooting\poaching a sheep, we have a member here who dealt with that, so I know thats fact.   I hope they fry his a$$.

 My point exactly Bone, notice how they are ignoring this one.

[igotbigbulls]

not ignoring. dont know anything about it. do you?

[PlateauNDN]

Here is the article from the Yak-herald.

http://sportsyakima.com/2011/10/hunting-season-all-about-location-location-location/

As for the Muck shooting\poaching a sheep, we have a member here who dealt with that, so I know thats fact.   I hope they fry his a$$.

 My point exactly Bone, notice how they are ignoring this one.

And who said I was ignoring this one.  If the person did something illegal then by all means prosecute.  I've said it before and I'll say it again provide the facts and I will glad to pass them along to L.E. if you don't want to but since Bone stated somebody already took care of it then why bother with it?  Bone knows I'm all about the truth and will pursue it as far as I can and he knows I don't tolerate the illegal crap whether their Tribal or Non-Tribal. 

[Coastal_native]

plat found the article, and he is a native so I hope you believe him.

I don't believe him

Plat found an article, but it's a far stretch to say that it's the article that was described in the OP...unless we're all OK with the level of misinformation provided in the OP.

I'm still curious where those numbers came from anyway.  They didn't come from the NWIFC, or else there's some inaccurate reporting going on.  Did the Mucks offer up the numbers to the Yakima Herald? or were they numbers based on anecdotal information from the interviewer and the interviewee? The article doesn't specify.

FACT: The newspaper reported x amount of deer harvested by the Mucks
FICTION:  news papers always report accurately

Just trying to add some clarity, so that we all have a solid foundation for another 30 page "ignorant fest".

[Ridgerunner]

The biggest issue with the treaties for me is that they are so outdated.  I certain that when they were written no one could fathom the technology that we have now, if they are going to be able to hunt open and unclaimed land then the methods used to hunt need to be restricted in someway(like along traditional methods i.e. bow and arrow).  To allow this to continue is unfortunately going to be one of the contributors to the decline in our wildlife, along with predators, loss of habitat, etc.  I also highly doubt that back in the day there was much trophy hunting going on, so perhaps they should have to leave the horns at the site the kill like they did back in the day too. 

[Ridgerunner]

• Quote from: Craig on Today at 08:35:24 AM
•    

  It's amazing how Arizona, New Mexico and other states have world class hunting and game management on the reservations and Washington tribes seem not to really care. They would rather exploit the issue.
  

   
  The fact that you even made a comparison between washington reservations and reservations in the SW shows me that you don't understand the issue.   Please explain this to me and why our tribes, specifically the Yakimas and Colville cannot set up worldclass hunting on there reservations if they wanted to. 

[Coastal_native]

• Quote from: Craig on Today at 08:35:24 AM
•    

  It's amazing how Arizona, New Mexico and other states have world class hunting and game management on the reservations and Washington tribes seem not to really care. They would rather exploit the issue.
  

   
  The fact that you even made a comparison between washington reservations and reservations in the SW shows me that you don't understand the issue.   Please explain this to me and why our tribes, specifically the Yakimas and Colville cannot set up worldclass hunting on there reservations if they wanted to. 

I wouldn't even attempt to answer that question for any tribe.  My point was that there are many considerations, and the comparison was unjust.  The only consideration that really matters in my opinion, is whether or not they want to.  I'm still confused about why treating wildlife as communal resources to be managed for no other reason than the benefit of the people is considered exploitation, but instituting a worldclass guiding program for economic benefit is not considered exploitation.  I don't have anything against what the SW tribes are doing.  I've talked to some of the NR managers from White Mt. and San Carlos and they seem to have it figured out.  IMO, the socioeconomic climate, political climate, resource value, land base, habitat, ownership patterns, etc... are very different between the two regions.  All those considerations lend to the feasibility of a guiding program on a reservation.  Having a land base and having wildlife on it are not the only two qualifications. 

It's innappropriate to simply say "they have guiding programs on their reservations, therefor they're better game managers".

[Practical Approach]

I swear, the longer I monitor some of these threads the more I lose respect for the opinions expressed by a large number of the users.  I can't believe the mob mentality that some of these threads exhibit. If you don't have the document to share with the group, then don't start a rumor mill. 


Can someone produce this "Nile newspaper article" Surely someone lives in the area or has the resources to dig it up.  If after 5 pages of threads it hasn't been produced, I doubt it exists.   

plat found the article, and he is a native so I hope you believe him.

  Interesting read.  I agree with Coastal, where did the numbers come from?  They didn't come from the agency that the Muckleshoot tribe reports to.  Something smells fishy.

[trophyhunt]

I totally agree with ridgerunner, the treaties are very much out dated. The tribes know this, but why would they volunteer any change.  If the mucks were smart, when they buy hancock they will turn that into world class elk hunting. But I'm sure they'll have to wipe the elk and deer out before that happens. If I ever won a big lottery I would hire the best damn team of attorney's and get a law suit going on this treaty B.S.

[phishisgroovin]

I totally agree with ridgerunner, the treaties are very much out dated. The tribes know this, but why would they volunteer any change.  If the mucks were smart, when they buy hancock they will turn that into world class elk hunting. But I'm sure they'll have to wipe the elk and deer out before that happens. If I ever won a big lottery I would hire the best damn team of attorney's and get a law suit going on this treaty B.S.

then wont every tribe in the USA join as one and bring in all their casino money to fight you to keep their horrendous privileges?

[igotbigbulls]

I totally agree with ridgerunner, the treaties are very much out dated. The tribes know this, but why would they volunteer any change.  If the mucks were smart, when they buy hancock they will turn that into world class elk hunting. But I'm sure they'll have to wipe the elk and deer out before that happens. If I ever won a big lottery I would hire the best damn team of attorney's and get a law suit going on this treaty B.S.


thats the best idea you had on how to spend your money. WOW! must really hate the treaty.

[CedarPants]

Like usual, I see both sides on this topic.

I just have a few questions I'm hoping can be answered ....... 1) If the treaty went away, would the non-tribal poachers that wipe out more animals than ever get mentioned in these threads suddenly just stop poaching?  2)   If the treaty went away, would the tribal hunters that shoot as many animals as they want, just because they can, suddenly just stop shooting as many animals as they want?  3)  If the treaty went away and neither 1 nor 2 above were to take place, at what point would ungulate numbers magically start increasing?  4)  Don't those against the 2nd Amendment constantly point out that it's 'outdated', and don't we tell them where to go when they do so?  5)  When did some of you decide Uncle Sam's word wasn't worth the paper it was written on?

Like I've said before, i don't have to like certain aspects of the treaty - but what kind of group of people are we if we think the US should just rip apart its agreements with other nations because those agreements don't benefit our personal wants?  Sad really.

It's almost humorous to me that some of you think ripping up the treaty will accomplish anything in the form of improving ungulate numbers.  All it will accomplish is making you feel better because everyone is now 'treated equally'.  Nothing would change with the hunting though.

My    Now I'll sit back for the rest of the day and take my beatings.  Ready, go ....

[Coastal_native]

I totally agree with ridgerunner, the treaties are very much out dated. The tribes know this, but why would they volunteer any change.  If the mucks were smart, when they buy hancock they will turn that into world class elk hunting. But I'm sure they'll have to wipe the elk and deer out before that happens. If I ever won a big lottery I would hire the best damn team of attorney's and get a law suit going on this treaty B.S.

Save your money.  Elected officials have been trying to undermind treaties with bogus legislation for decades.  If 5% of the deer and elk and 50% of the salmon in the state of Washington is a big enough issue to consider "updating" the treaties.  Then the federal goverment can give Indians back the territories they ceded and let them have 100% of the fish and wildlife in those areas. 

I've never argued that treaties don't make management a little more tricky for the states, but consider this:  The relationship between Indians and fish & widlife was so important to the tribes that even "on the eve of doom" they thought it was necessary to protect those rights and privledges specifically...in a document that was only a few pages long and that would seemingly seal their fate. 

Regardless of what most people want to believe, even with the advent of modern technology there is still a fundamental difference between treaty hunting and state hunting that goes beyond the regulations, trophies, sport vs. subsistance, etc...  There is no way the treaty signatories could have predicted how far technology would advance, nor could they have predicted how much habitat would be lost do to developement, or how many people would settle the area, or how state hunting would progress to what it is today, or...that at some point someone would suggest that because there are so many people and so few animals, Indians should have to hunt a 10 day season in competition with 4000 other hunters with a 10% chance of being successful.  That would make the signatories role over in their graves more so than an Indian kid with a Jordan T-shirt on shooting a deer from his truck in august. 

If you can except that, and give up on the inequality argument, then maybe you could focus on the bigger picture. It's been said over and over again that Indians are the cause of some sort of wildlife decline across the state of Washington.  Really?  Someone show me that report.

....CedarPants, I used the same 2nd amendment argument before and never got a response.