Post by: blackdog on January 29, 2013, 06:52:28 AM
Post by: KNOPHISH on January 29, 2013, 07:07:03 AM
HOUSE BILL 1495
_____________________________________________
State of Washington 63rd Legislature 2013 Regular Session
By Representatives Sawyer, Liias, McCoy, Fey, Hunt, Riccelli,
Appleton, Santos, Dunshee, and Stanford
1 AN ACT Relating to access of tribal members to state lands; and
2 adding a new section to chapter 79.10 RCW.
3 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
4 NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. A new section is added to chapter 79.10 RCW
5 to read as follows:
6 The closure of any state lands, including any roads, maintained by
7 the department shall not restrict access by any member of a federally
8 recognized tribe to any open and unclaimed lands where the tribe has a
9 treaty right to hunt.
HOUSE BILL 1496
_____________________________________________
State of Washington 63rd Legislature 2013 Regular Session
By Representatives Sawyer, McCoy, Hunt, Appleton, Santos, Liias,
Riccelli, Dunshee, and Stanford
1 AN ACT Relating to hunting-related enforcement actions involving
2 tribal members; and adding a new section to chapter 77.15 RCW.
3 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
4 NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. A new section is added to chapter 77.15 RCW
5 to read as follows:
6 Upon presentation of a tribal identification card by a member of a
7 federally recognized tribe to a fish and wildlife officer or ex officio
8 fish and wildlife officer, the officer must immediately refer any
9 inspection, investigation, or other enforcement action related to the
10 hunting activity of the tribal member to the enforcement authority of
11 the tribe, if the activity occurred on any open and unclaimed lands
12 where the tribe has a treaty right to hunt.
Post by: bobcat on January 29, 2013, 07:14:00 AM
If the land is closed in the winter to prevent disturbance of deer and elk on their winter range, the Indians can still drive in and slaughter them?
Why am I not surprised? :bash:
Post by: ICEMAN on January 29, 2013, 07:14:20 AM
Post by: fair-chase on January 29, 2013, 07:24:29 AM
Post by: boneaddict on January 29, 2013, 07:26:14 AM
WRITE WRITE WRITE THIS IS the slime at the bottom of the compost heap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on January 29, 2013, 07:27:29 AM
Post by: boneaddict on January 29, 2013, 07:30:50 AM
Post by: bobcat on January 29, 2013, 07:39:04 AM
Post by: NW-GSP on January 29, 2013, 07:43:54 AM
Post by: CementFinisher on January 29, 2013, 07:47:43 AM
Post by: Lcl 66 Tinner on January 29, 2013, 08:10:25 AM
Make them hunt the same way their ancestors did and they have to walk or ride a horse to get to where they hunt !They will do the samething as the Macah (sp?) Indians did with their "traditional whale hunt". Paddle out to the whale, harpoon it once, then call thier buddies on the radio to bring out the power boat and .50 calto finish the whale off and pull the canoe and whale in. Thats how their ancestors did it.......Right?
Post by: Practical Approach on January 29, 2013, 08:15:50 AM
Make them hunt the same way their ancestors did and they have to walk or ride a horse to get to where they hunt !They will do the samething as the Macah (sp?) Indians did with their "traditional whale hunt". Paddle out to the whale, harpoon it once, then call thier buddies on the radio to bring out the power boat and .50 calto finish the whale off and pull the canoe and whale in. Thats how their ancestors did it.......Right?
That was the requirement by the Federal Government to humanely kill the whale.
Post by: mfswallace on January 29, 2013, 08:25:33 AM
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1496&year=2013 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1496&year=2013)
go to these links to comment on bills
you should also be able to get to the representatives who are dumb enough to support this crap :bdid: :bdid:
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 29, 2013, 08:26:11 AM
I don't like em.
HOUSE BILL 1495
_____________________________________________
State of Washington 63rd Legislature 2013 Regular Session
By Representatives Sawyer, Liias, McCoy, Fey, Hunt, Riccelli,
Appleton, Santos, Dunshee, and Stanford
1 AN ACT Relating to access of tribal members to state lands; and
2 adding a new section to chapter 79.10 RCW.
3 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
4 NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. A new section is added to chapter 79.10 RCW
5 to read as follows:
6 The closure of any state lands, including any roads, maintained by
7 the department shall not restrict access by any member of a federally
8 recognized tribe to any open and unclaimed lands where the tribe has a
9 treaty right to hunt.
HOUSE BILL 1496
_____________________________________________
State of Washington 63rd Legislature 2013 Regular Session
By Representatives Sawyer, McCoy, Hunt, Appleton, Santos, Liias,
Riccelli, Dunshee, and Stanford
1 AN ACT Relating to hunting-related enforcement actions involving
2 tribal members; and adding a new section to chapter 77.15 RCW.
3 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
4 NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. A new section is added to chapter 77.15 RCW
5 to read as follows:
6 Upon presentation of a tribal identification card by a member of a
7 federally recognized tribe to a fish and wildlife officer or ex officio
8 fish and wildlife officer, the officer must immediately refer any
9 inspection, investigation, or other enforcement action related to the
10 hunting activity of the tribal member to the enforcement authority of
11 the tribe, if the activity occurred on any open and unclaimed lands
12 where the tribe has a treaty right to hunt.
This is the law now, federally, isn't it? The government protects Indians' rights to hunt on treaty lands.
Post by: uplandhunter870 on January 29, 2013, 08:39:22 AM
I don't like em.
HOUSE BILL 1495
_____________________________________________
State of Washington 63rd Legislature 2013 Regular Session
By Representatives Sawyer, Liias, McCoy, Fey, Hunt, Riccelli,
Appleton, Santos, Dunshee, and Stanford
1 AN ACT Relating to access of tribal members to state lands; and
2 adding a new section to chapter 79.10 RCW.
3 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
4 NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. A new section is added to chapter 79.10 RCW
5 to read as follows:
6 The closure of any state lands, including any roads, maintained by
7 the department shall not restrict access by any member of a federally
8 recognized tribe to any open and unclaimed lands where the tribe has a
9 treaty right to hunt.
HOUSE BILL 1496
_____________________________________________
State of Washington 63rd Legislature 2013 Regular Session
By Representatives Sawyer, McCoy, Hunt, Appleton, Santos, Liias,
Riccelli, Dunshee, and Stanford
1 AN ACT Relating to hunting-related enforcement actions involving
2 tribal members; and adding a new section to chapter 77.15 RCW.
3 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
4 NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. A new section is added to chapter 77.15 RCW
5 to read as follows:
6 Upon presentation of a tribal identification card by a member of a
7 federally recognized tribe to a fish and wildlife officer or ex officio
8 fish and wildlife officer, the officer must immediately refer any
9 inspection, investigation, or other enforcement action related to the
10 hunting activity of the tribal member to the enforcement authority of
11 the tribe, if the activity occurred on any open and unclaimed lands
12 where the tribe has a treaty right to hunt.
This is the law now, federally, isn't it? The government protects Indians' rights to hunt on treaty lands.
as the treaties read, the treaties preserve the right to hunt and fish at traditional locations (ie deeded lands, reservations and accustomed hunting and fishing locations) they do not say anything about how those lands are to be accessed only that the tribes have a right to hunt and fish there in accordance with the tribal regs.
if i were a warden and was up in the hills and a group of tribal members got hacked off at me cause the gate was locked id say "tough, the treaties say i cant keep you off these lands and even if these new bills pass they say nothing about unlocking a gate for you only that i cant bar you access so get to walking"
these new bills dont say anything new that hasnt already been covered in the federal treaties and the court cases that involve the treaties, but im sure some political puke will extort them to a new level of BS
Post by: bobcat on January 29, 2013, 08:45:34 AM
Quote
6 The closure of any state lands, including any roads, maintained by
7 the department shall not restrict access by any member of a federally
8 recognized tribe to any open and unclaimed lands where the tribe has a
9 treaty right to hunt
To me the entire reason this was written is to allow the tribes to have keys to all gates on state land.
Post by: CP on January 29, 2013, 08:50:13 AM
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1495 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1495)
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1496&year=2013 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1496&year=2013)
go to these links to comment on bills
you should also be able to get to the representatives who are dumb enough to support this crap :bdid: :bdid:
Thanks for those links. I signed up for an account an commented on both bills. Everyone should take the time to do the same.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on January 29, 2013, 09:12:24 AM
Post by: uplandhunter870 on January 29, 2013, 09:13:48 AM
Uplandhunter, you're right, but you know what the real intent of this is don't you?Quote6 The closure of any state lands, including any roads, maintained by
7 the department shall not restrict access by any member of a federally
8 recognized tribe to any open and unclaimed lands where the tribe has a
9 treaty right to hunt
To me the entire reason this was written is to allow the tribes to have keys to all gates on state land.
yeah i know exactly why the are being introduced, see my last sentence of my previous post, and yes i do honestly whole heartedly believe that a native voice is whispering in the ear of those supporting these bills in an effort to get keys to locked gates on state lands. im not saying that to start a fight or sound bigoted against natives but i think as long as access, of the non motorized flavor, is allowed behind locked gates then they should quit their whining. i mean lets face it everyone that was born in the US in the last 100 years is just as "native" as everyone else, ancestry is cool and shows us where we come from shouldnt be a defining variable in the rights granted to certain groups over others
Post by: grundy53 on January 29, 2013, 09:14:59 AM
Huntnphool must have been making some progress about the roads. Man this irritates me.:yeah:
Post by: mfswallace on January 29, 2013, 09:27:23 AM
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1495 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1495)
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1496&year=2013 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1496&year=2013)
go to these links to comment on bills
you should also be able to get to the representatives who are dumb enough to support this crap :bdid: :bdid:
Thanks for those links. I signed up for an account an commented on both bills. Everyone should take the time to do the same.
It takes 2minutes everyone needs to comment!
Post by: jackelope on January 29, 2013, 09:58:57 AM
Post by: CP on January 29, 2013, 10:04:12 AM
I sent him a personal message.
Post by: mfswallace on January 29, 2013, 10:09:10 AM
I just sent letters to all the sponsors, if you look at who's sponsoring this McCoy you'll see who is pushing it! and my 3 reps as well!! Why WHy WHy do we need to continue to divide AMERICANS :bash:
what's good for the Goose better be good enough for the Gander!!!
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on January 29, 2013, 10:18:07 AM
especially now they have more money than most of us Americans :dunno: :bash:
Post by: fireweed on January 29, 2013, 10:38:19 AM
Post by: jess on January 29, 2013, 10:39:15 AM
Post by: LowRange on January 29, 2013, 10:59:24 AM
It has always been my understanding that there were never any elk in the Yakima area when the treaties were signed and that they were in fact brought here in rail cars from out of state.
IF that is so then how can they claim rights to --harvest-- them at all, at the feeding stations no less as we all know?
Some people that i know do say that they were here at that time but killed off,others such as myself am not sure of that. The Olympic herd yes i know that but the Yakima herd is not clear to me.
Thanks in advance for some education to me on this.Sorry if this has been brought up before. I really would like to know the story.
I know i havent said anything about the gates but i let you guess where i stand on that one! :twocents:
Post by: huntnphool on January 29, 2013, 12:35:40 PM
Thats right, they know the gates are a major issue and are trying to pre empt any attempt to restrict access. This bill is not just about the Entiat either, it would allow them unrestricted access behind any gate.Huntnphool must have been making some progress about the roads. Man this irritates me.:yeah:
It's well past the time for everyone to get in the ears of your representatives. It shows you that those treaties do have holes, they are trying to fill one of those holes in with these bills.
Post by: bearpaw on January 29, 2013, 12:55:51 PM
Post by: scotty1969 on January 29, 2013, 01:30:26 PM
Post by: Practical Approach on January 29, 2013, 01:35:53 PM
Correct if i am wrong,or am i?Historic Distribution
It has always been my understanding that there were never any elk in the Yakima area when the treaties were signed and that they were in fact brought here in rail cars from out of state.
IF that is so then how can they claim rights to --harvest-- them at all, at the feeding stations no less as we all know?
Some people that i know do say that they were here at that time but killed off,others such as myself am not sure of that. The Olympic herd yes i know that but the Yakima herd is not clear to me.
Thanks in advance for some education to me on this.Sorry if this has been brought up before. I really would like to know the story.
I know i havent said anything about the gates but i let you guess where i stand on that one! :twocents:
The Yakima Elk Herd is a reintroduced herd resulting from an initial transplant of 50 Rocky
Mountain elk (Cervus elaphus nelsoni) from Gardiner, Montana in January 1913 and an
additional 6 elk from Montana purchased from Manitou Park in Spokane, Washington in 1913.
These animals were released on the Stevens Ranch on the Naches River (Pautzke et al.1939).
They noted that, “There were no elk native to Yakima County at the time of these plantings, nor
is there definite evidence that elk ever occupied that area in recent times.” Based on recent
archeological records from the Columbia Basin the evidence suggests that elk were present and
utilized by the early inhabitants (Dixon et al. 1996 and McCorquodale 1985). Elk were possibly
extirpated from the region by the late 1880's (McCorquodale 1985).
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on January 29, 2013, 01:37:59 PM
Post by: huntnphool on January 29, 2013, 01:58:50 PM
@ Scotty .... yeah but that will not happen ... I just can not stand the thought of them wanting to keep taking more and more from us ...Again we all live on earth and not one of us should have something over the other when it comes to public land !Correct, that will never happen, but what you could do that would severely impact the tribes would be to legalize gambling.
Post by: scotty1969 on January 29, 2013, 03:46:38 PM
i so agree with this,but our gov.is to willing to give to them and not us for there own benefits.the casinos have contributed more to the elections of these indiduals with our money than we ever could to get the right ones elected.by the way for anyone that wants or needs to know i am 3/4 native american from back east...............@ Scotty .... yeah but that will not happen ... I just can not stand the thought of them wanting to keep taking more and more from us ...Again we all live on earth and not one of us should have something over the other when it comes to public land !Correct, that will never happen, but what you could do that would severely impact the tribes would be to legalize gambling.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on January 29, 2013, 04:43:09 PM
Post by: uplandhunter870 on January 29, 2013, 04:50:31 PM
Ya know I have been thinking about this whole deal :chuckle: :chuckle: Maybe what should happen is let the tribes reclaim their land ...Yeah that's right ... I honestly think if we would give it back to them then we may have a much better chance or managing it ... We would be able to continue logging - planting new trees to insure we have healthy trees growing at all times ..We would illuminate the tree huggers from taking over everything ...We will have a better chance of of bringing back hound hunting ...we would have a better chance at managing our salmon runs ....we would have a better chance at managing deer & elk herds and we would totally take it out of the hands of those who do not have a clue about managing anything ! :twocents: I seriously think it would benefit us all ! :dunno: 8)
this is why someone needs to invent a sarcasm font, because i sincerely hope you are joking and the sarcasm just isnt slapping me in the face
if not joking then--- youve got to be joking right?
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on January 29, 2013, 05:13:54 PM
Post by: gaddy on January 29, 2013, 05:30:44 PM
Post by: uplandhunter870 on January 29, 2013, 06:06:09 PM
Post by: deerhuntr4885 on January 29, 2013, 06:57:48 PM
No I am not joking ... think about it ...the only thing on the mind of Washington is shutting everything down ... I heard this straight up from a warden ,,,yeah no one may believe that but whoever believes what I say anyways :dunno: :hello: I believe we would be much better off .... I know the reason there are tags in my area ....and it sure is not from the dept ...thank the tribes !!! So that being said I think thats what we need to do ;)
You are pretty naive at best to believe this. Who says the tribes would allow ANY non tribal hunters? Have you ever been on the Yakima Rez? They have so little game. That is why they keep destroying the other units. They have almost completely wiped out their own deer and elk herds. Then the LT, then Quillomene, now Entiat. :bdid:
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 29, 2013, 07:13:37 PM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on January 29, 2013, 08:15:00 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 29, 2013, 11:03:13 PM
IF THERE IS ANY HUNTING LEGISLATION THAT NEEDS YOUR OPPOSITION THIS YEAR THIS IS IT!
Post by: bigtex on January 29, 2013, 11:12:38 PM
So what does that mean? If state land is closed due to fire danger the Indians can still hunt it? Does it mean if it's gated they will be given keys? Probably so. Why can't they walk in like everyone else?
If the land is closed in the winter to prevent disturbance of deer and elk on their winter range, the Indians can still drive in and slaughter them?
Why am I not surprised? :bash:
The land access legislation is simply DNR lands, not other state or federal lands. Yes, given keys. You bring up a very good question in regards to fire danger.
Personally, there are a lot of "ifs" on both pieces of legislation. However what scares me is the fact that 11 representatives are sponsoring this legislation.
Post by: lokidog on January 29, 2013, 11:16:45 PM
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freesmileys.org%2Fsmileys%2Fsmiley-angry021.gif&hash=49df2a9e155cc118408a92e62c916d45ebd5bab4) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)X1000
Bigtex, I agree with you absolutely, 100% completely on this one!!
The 2 bills are sponsored by the same 11 Democrat reps.
IF THERE IS ANY HUNTING LEGISLATION THAT NEEDS YOUR OPPOSITION THIS YEAR THIS IS IT!
Post by: bobcat on January 29, 2013, 11:45:18 PM
The land access legislation is simply DNR lands, not other state or federal lands. Yes, given keys. You bring up a very good question in regards to fire danger.
I didn't see where it said only DNR lands. Doesn't it just say "state lands?" Which would include WDFW? Meaning the Colockum, Quilomene, LT Murray, Wenas, Oak Creek, Chelan Butte, etc.
Post by: huntnphool on January 29, 2013, 11:50:54 PM
exactly!!!!The land access legislation is simply DNR lands, not other state or federal lands. Yes, given keys. You bring up a very good question in regards to fire danger.
I didn't see where it said only DNR lands. Doesn't it just say "state lands?" Which would include WDFW? Meaning the Colockum, Quilomene, LT Murray, Wenas, Oak Creek, Chelan Buttle, etc.
Post by: bobcat on January 29, 2013, 11:53:00 PM
Post by: huntnphool on January 30, 2013, 12:35:35 AM
Post by: madmack76 on January 30, 2013, 01:24:10 AM
im injun and hate them whats that make me :dunno:
Post by: bearhunter99 on January 30, 2013, 03:40:34 AM
Post by: boneaddict on January 30, 2013, 04:36:18 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on January 30, 2013, 05:23:30 AM
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1495 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1495)
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1496&year=2013 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1496&year=2013)
Post by: bearpaw on January 30, 2013, 06:48:26 AM
So what does that mean? If state land is closed due to fire danger the Indians can still hunt it? Does it mean if it's gated they will be given keys? Probably so. Why can't they walk in like everyone else?
If the land is closed in the winter to prevent disturbance of deer and elk on their winter range, the Indians can still drive in and slaughter them?
Why am I not surprised? :bash:
The land access legislation is simply DNR lands, not other state or federal lands. Yes, given keys. You bring up a very good question in regards to fire danger.
Personally, there are a lot of "ifs" on both pieces of legislation. However what scares me is the fact that 11 representatives are sponsoring this legislation.
I would be willing to bet the tribes are big contributors to all these reps campaigns. :twocents:
Which committee is this in? Someone should post an easy "copy and paste email list" so people can easily send messages to the reps in that committee.
We have all the reps listed in this topic with an email "copy and paste" list of all reps: http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,31831.0.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,31831.0.html)
Post by: CP on January 30, 2013, 07:38:51 AM
The land access legislation is simply DNR lands, not other state or federal lands. Yes, given keys. You bring up a very good question in regards to fire danger.
I didn't see where it said only DNR lands. Doesn't it just say "state lands?" Which would include WDFW? Meaning the Colockum, Quilomene, LT Murray, Wenas, Oak Creek, Chelan Butte, etc.
It reads “the department” which is defined in chapter 79 as the DNR
Post by: Special T on January 30, 2013, 07:50:28 AM
Just like the salmon issue here on the west side, I think this is much bigger than road access for tribal members. I find it hard to believe that these bills would not legal.
Elk being here originally is a non issue to me. The Col-ville have an awesome elk program in the hells canyon region on their Rez.
Post by: CP on January 30, 2013, 07:58:51 AM
Rep. David Sawyer D 29th LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT
Rep. Marko Liias (D) 21st LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT
Rep. John McCoy (D) 38th LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT
Rep. Jake Fey (D) 27th LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT
Rep. Sam Hunt (D) 22nd LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT
Rep. Marcus Riccelli (D) 3rd LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT
Rep. Sherry Appleton (D) 23rd LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT
Rep. Sharon Tomiko Santos (D) 37th LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT
Rep. Hans Dunshee (D) 44th LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT
Rep. Derek Stanford (D) 1st LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT
Rep. Cindy Ryu Assistant Majority Whip (D) 32nd LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT
Rep. Steve O'Ban (R) 28th LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT
Rep. Timm Ormsby (D) 3rd LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT
Rep. Gerry Pollet (D) 46th LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT
Post by: bobcat on January 30, 2013, 08:21:52 AM
It reads “the department” which is defined in chapter 79 as the DNR
Thanks for clarifying that.
I'm glad to know that before I start writing letters.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on January 30, 2013, 08:28:13 AM
Post by: Special T on January 30, 2013, 08:45:09 AM
Post by: whiteeyes on January 30, 2013, 08:57:01 AM
Post by: mfswallace on January 30, 2013, 08:59:23 AM
Its not the tribes putting up gates every where and locking every body out. Every body always gets so against the Tribes when the people causing the problems are the same people that are wanting to take your guns and 2A. All the Tribes are doing is the same thing we are doing to keep from loosing the 2A.
BH that kind of statement will get us NOWHERE! Since equality is soooo important to all the lib's in Government we need to make the case that IF it is open to one usergroup then it needs to be open to all. If its public land then we ALL should have equal access. :twocents::tup:
Post by: Special T on January 30, 2013, 09:12:18 AM
I think there is a BIG jump in logic between the tribes engaging in thier treaty rights, like hunting, fishing or gathering, and carving out excemptions for tribal members only that are NOT addressed in the treaty.
I feel tribes are just trying to do what they feel is best for thier members. I think Sportmen and Tribes men COULD be better allies to help us both. Tribes distrust the WDFW, and so do many sportmen. These bills have us argueing how to Divide the pie instead of argueing about how we are going to make a bigger one.
That said we have some Real POS in our state legisalture that need a good :violent1: While i can't blame the tribes for trying to protect themselves from the Liberal adjenda, i do blame our stupid representatives.
Post by: mfswallace on January 30, 2013, 09:31:38 AM
I think part of the Us Vs Them stems from 2 facts Whiteeyes. 1st the tribes are not very vocal about certian bs like closing roads and such. 2nd The tribes push for esceptions to these BS rules opposed to fighting them in general.:yeah:
I think there is a BIG jump in logic between the tribes engaging in thier treaty rights, like hunting, fishing or gathering, and carving out excemptions for tribal members only that are NOT addressed in the treaty.
I feel tribes are just trying to do what they feel is best for thier members. I think Sportmen and Tribes men COULD be better allies to help us both. Tribes distrust the WDFW, and so do many sportmen. These bills have us argueing how to Divide the pie instead of argueing about how we are going to make a bigger one.
That said we have some Real POS in our state legisalture that need a good :violent1: While i can't blame the tribes for trying to protect themselves from the Liberal adjenda, i do blame our stupid representatives.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on January 30, 2013, 09:41:40 AM
Post by: Curly on January 30, 2013, 09:43:44 AM
14 sponsors – 1 republican in the group – 2 are from Spokane and the rest are from the urban areas from Marysville to Olympia. I doubt if any of them have ever set foot on the public lands they are opening up.
Rep. David Sawyer D 29th LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT
Rep. Marko Liias (D) 21st LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT
Rep. John McCoy (D) 38th LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT
Rep. Jake Fey (D) 27th LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT
Rep. Sam Hunt (D) 22nd LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT
Rep. Marcus Riccelli (D) 3rd LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT
Rep. Sherry Appleton (D) 23rd LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT
Rep. Sharon Tomiko Santos (D) 37th LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT
Rep. Hans Dunshee (D) 44th LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT
Rep. Derek Stanford (D) 1st LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT
Rep. Cindy Ryu Assistant Majority Whip (D) 32nd LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT
Rep. Steve O'Ban (R) 28th LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT
Rep. Timm Ormsby (D) 3rd LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT
Rep. Gerry Pollet (D) 46th LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT
None of these morons are in my district. I think it would help if they hear from some people that are from their disticts. If you don't know who your representatives are, you can check out this link: http://app.leg.wa.gov/districtfinder/ (http://app.leg.wa.gov/districtfinder/)
Post by: huntnphool on January 30, 2013, 09:44:02 AM
...If they handed us the same rights as the tribes we would be all over it !and the herds would suffer.
Post by: Practical Approach on January 30, 2013, 10:11:17 AM
I think tribal governments are doing what is best for their hunters. Their hunters probably complain about lack of access due to gates and their government takes steps to help resolve the problem.
I also belive the WDFW works to gain access to closed areas for state hunters as well. I think they have different mechanisms for pursuing access opportunities.
My guess is that the state and the tribes find it hard to work together on this same issue due to differences in hunting seasons, areas they want to access to etc. Not to mention one tribe with 5-150 licensed hunters are easier to focus and find solutioins for than however many thousand state hunters there are. Lets say the tribes have 500 hunters, I would wager that they all want the same type of access, ask the thousands of state hunters what they want, and I bet you get a whole lot of different answers. Many will want more access, many will think there is too much access. Others will have other ideas.
It seems the main thing the state hunters do agree on is that they don't want the tribes getting anything different (percieved special treatment) than them. If you feel that access is adequate as it is to state lands then oppose this bill. However, if you are upset that you don't have the same access then let WDFW and your representatives know that you want a similar bill or equall access. :twocents:
Post by: JM on January 30, 2013, 10:20:53 AM
Its not the tribes putting up gates every where and locking every body out. Every body always gets so against the Tribes when the people causing the problems are the same people that are wanting to take your guns and 2A. All the Tribes are doing is the same thing we are doing to keep from loosing the 2A.
I don't think that people are upset that the gates are getting locked. I think it's the fact that they want access to areas that are closed to the rest of us for a reason deemed benefical to the land and wildlife by our bioligists. The other thing is why wouldn't you want to be checked by a fish & game officer? If you are on land that the general public can use and is maintained by state or federal tax dollars you should be subject to our officers inspections at their descretion. Besides I have read time and time again from tribal members on here that the ceeded land is so large that their officers can't patrol it all, but yet they want to make it so our fish and game officers have to call their understaffed fish and game to take care of it? Makes no sense to me.
Post by: lokidog on January 30, 2013, 10:40:55 AM
Its not the tribes putting up gates every where and locking every body out. Every body always gets so against the Tribes when the people causing the problems are the same people that are wanting to take your guns and 2A. All the Tribes are doing is the same thing we are doing to keep from loosing the 2A.
I don't think that people are upset that the gates are getting locked. I think it's the fact that they want access to areas that are closed to the rest of us for a reason deemed benefical to the land and wildlife by our bioligists. The other thing is why wouldn't you want to be checked by a fish & game officer? If you are on land that the general public can use and is maintained by state or federal tax dollars you should be subject to our officers inspections at their descretion. Besides I have read time and time again from tribal members on here that the ceeded land is so large that their officers can't patrol it all, but yet they want to make it so our fish and game officers have to call their understaffed fish and game to take care of it? Makes no sense to me.
:yeah:
I guess the natives can't find enough animals to kill in open areas during the other 8 months that noone else can hunt. :dunno: :bash:
Post by: Practical Approach on January 30, 2013, 10:55:39 AM
Its not the tribes putting up gates every where and locking every body out. Every body always gets so against the Tribes when the people causing the problems are the same people that are wanting to take your guns and 2A. All the Tribes are doing is the same thing we are doing to keep from loosing the 2A.
I don't think that people are upset that the gates are getting locked. I think it's the fact that they want access to areas that are closed to the rest of us for a reason deemed benefical to the land and wildlife by our bioligists. The other thing is why wouldn't you want to be checked by a fish & game officer? If you are on land that the general public can use and is maintained by state or federal tax dollars you should be subject to our officers inspections at their descretion. Besides I have read time and time again from tribal members on here that the ceeded land is so large that their officers can't patrol it all, but yet they want to make it so our fish and game officers have to call their understaffed fish and game to take care of it? Makes no sense to me.
:yeah:
I guess the natives can't find enough animals to kill in open areas during the other 8 months that noone else can hunt. :dunno: :bash:
Check your regs. If you include general deer seasons and special permits and master hunter programs, the state has seasons for deer from August 1 through March 31. While all of those dayse aren't open consecutively, the state does have deer hunting opportunities 8 out of the 12 months.
I haven't checked elk yet.
Post by: lokidog on January 30, 2013, 11:01:25 AM
Its not the tribes putting up gates every where and locking every body out. Every body always gets so against the Tribes when the people causing the problems are the same people that are wanting to take your guns and 2A. All the Tribes are doing is the same thing we are doing to keep from loosing the 2A.
I don't think that people are upset that the gates are getting locked. I think it's the fact that they want access to areas that are closed to the rest of us for a reason deemed benefical to the land and wildlife by our bioligists. The other thing is why wouldn't you want to be checked by a fish & game officer? If you are on land that the general public can use and is maintained by state or federal tax dollars you should be subject to our officers inspections at their descretion. Besides I have read time and time again from tribal members on here that the ceeded land is so large that their officers can't patrol it all, but yet they want to make it so our fish and game officers have to call their understaffed fish and game to take care of it? Makes no sense to me.
:yeah:
I guess the natives can't find enough animals to kill in open areas during the other 8 months that noone else can hunt. :dunno: :bash:
Check your regs. If you include general deer seasons and special permits and master hunter programs, the state has seasons for deer from August 1 through March 31. While all of those dayse aren't open consecutively, the state does have deer hunting opportunities 8 out of the 12 months.
I haven't checked elk yet.
Not for those of us that have to pick a weapon and, for elk, a side of the state. :bash:
Post by: bobcat on January 30, 2013, 11:07:15 AM
Quote
Check your regs. If you include general deer seasons and special permits and master hunter programs, the state has seasons for deer from August 1 through March 31. While all of those dayse aren't open consecutively, the state does have deer hunting opportunities 8 out of the 12 months.
Maybe so, but 99.99% of our deer hunting is from September 1 to December 31.
(But I'm sure you know that)
Post by: Practical Approach on January 30, 2013, 11:08:14 AM
Post by: Practical Approach on January 30, 2013, 11:11:08 AM
True.QuoteCheck your regs. If you include general deer seasons and special permits and master hunter programs, the state has seasons for deer from August 1 through March 31. While all of those dayse aren't open consecutively, the state does have deer hunting opportunities 8 out of the 12 months.
Maybe so, but 99.99% of our deer hunting is from September 1 to December 31.
(But I'm sure you know that)
Post by: bobcat on January 30, 2013, 11:16:11 AM
For female deer and elk the season is September 1 to December 31, also with no limit to how many they kill.
Post by: boneaddict on January 30, 2013, 11:22:35 AM
bump, Make your comments heard!!!
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1495 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1495)
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1496&year=2013 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1496&year=2013)
Post by: Practical Approach on January 30, 2013, 11:48:38 AM
That is true PA, but I feel that you are focusing on a very small percentage of the nontrivial hunters. If you were to add up the number of people who could hunt the dates you listed above, either having a maltose's tag, damage control permit, special hunt permit, or being a master hunter that number would pale in comparison to those who hunt a general season tag. That also being said most nontrivial hunters only harvest one deer and one elk per season, there are opportunities for second deer tags and gov. tags or raffles but again by the numbers that would make up a small percentage of the nontrivial hunters. Having the liberal seasons to hunt that some tribes are granted with large or no bag limits is the point of contention. If the tribes hunted the same bag limits off the reservation lands that the non-tribe member were held to then I would take no issue with access to the ceded lands. Having unrestricted access to ceded lands with no harvest guidelines especially during the wintering months does not promote a healthy heard management practice in my opinion.I agree that having unrestricted acess with no harvest guidelines is less than ideal. However, as I think about the discussions we are having, it seems as though a lot of the contention boils down to a game of numbers. The tribes have a very small number of hunters in comparison to state hunters, therefore it is more reasonable for tribes to allow (in some cases) a larger bag limit. While the State in comparison has thousands of hunters, which if they were given a larger number of tags, would surely jeapordize the populations. The State doesn't base their harvest levels in most cases off of what tribes harvest, they base it off of what state hunters harvest and estimated population sizes. While as a state hunter it may be unfair, there is just too many hunters for the game populations to support increased opportunity.
One day I hope Washington goes to a permit system. I would be fine with being drawn every other year for a species like deer or elk just to have the opportunity to not be slammed into a two week opening shoulder to shoulder with other hunters. While I might be in the minority, I like the idea of haveing less pressure on the game, better quality of game and a more pleasant hunt overall. Anyone ever read about great deer and elk hunting opportunities in Washington in the big hunting magazines? Whoops getting off subject.
Post by: 6x6in6 on January 30, 2013, 11:51:37 AM
I also sent a note of to my Senate Rep Doug Ericksen and linked both HB's for his review. I asked him if similar pieces of legislation should make it into the Senate, what his position would be on them.
All three of the above have an (R) next to them, so we shall see what they have to say here.
Post by: Curly on January 30, 2013, 11:55:15 AM
While as a state hunter it may be unfair, there is just too many hunters for the game populations to support increased opportunity.
Your point right there points to why gating the roads for everyone is needed. Too many hunters for the game populations. Gating will help stop over-harvest and protect the roads from damage/erosion. There is absolutely no logical reason to allow access thru gates to certain groups of people.
(It doesn't take very many hunters (just a couple) to devastate a herd on their winter range.)
Post by: bigtex on January 30, 2013, 11:56:51 AM
Just sent a note off to Rep's Overstreet and Buys in my 42nd District. Basically, just asked them where they stand on both these HB's and whether or not they feel these will gain enough traction to see a vote on the floor.
I also sent a note of to my Senate Rep Doug Ericksen and linked both HB's for his review. I asked him if similar pieces of legislation should make it into the Senate, what his position would be on them.
All three of the above have an (R) next to them, so we shall see what they have to say here.
Good
The one good thing is that the Senate is controlled by the Republicans. So if the bills do pass the Democrat controlled House it still has to go through the Republican controlled Senate.
Post by: CP on January 30, 2013, 11:59:38 AM
Rep. Marko Liias - sponser
Rep. Mary Roberts
Sen. Paull Shin
I'll let you know what their response is.
Post by: 6x6in6 on January 30, 2013, 12:01:11 PM
And that is exactly why I asked Senator Ericksen where he is on this subject if it gets that far.Just sent a note off to Rep's Overstreet and Buys in my 42nd District. Basically, just asked them where they stand on both these HB's and whether or not they feel these will gain enough traction to see a vote on the floor.
I also sent a note of to my Senate Rep Doug Ericksen and linked both HB's for his review. I asked him if similar pieces of legislation should make it into the Senate, what his position would be on them.
All three of the above have an (R) next to them, so we shall see what they have to say here.
Good
The one good thing is that the Senate is controlled by the Republicans. So if the bills do pass the Democrat controlled House it still has to go through the Republican controlled Senate.
Post by: Practical Approach on January 30, 2013, 12:05:06 PM
While as a state hunter it may be unfair, there is just too many hunters for the game populations to support increased opportunity.
Your point right there points to why gating the roads for everyone is needed. Too many hunters for the game populations. Gating will help stop over-harvest and protect the roads from damage/erosion. There is absolutely no logical reason to allow access thru gates to certain groups of people.
(It doesn't take very many hunters (just a couple) to devastate a herd on their winter range.)
I agree, I think gates serve a valuable purpose in Washington State. However, whether it is opening gates for the tribes, state hunters, handicap hunters, elderly hunters, special access for timber company employees, the list goes on. Gates are unfairly open all the time.
Post by: Curly on January 30, 2013, 12:07:39 PM
Quote
Gates are unfairly open all the time.
So; doesn't mean that having law to allow unfairly opening gates is right.
It seems like you are arguing for the new bills. :dunno:
Post by: Rainier10 on January 30, 2013, 12:16:09 PM
I think the big concern is at wintering areas like the colockum where non natives are only allowed 13 anybull tags total for modern, muzzy and archery combined on a draw system from a pool of thousands of hunters. Then a few tribal hunters go in a shoot more than that. The same is being said about the trophy deer areas around Entiat/swakane, thousands of hunters put in for 40 rifle tags and then after the late season tribal hunters come in and shoot a couple of truckloads of animals. The numbers are just out of whack and one user group shouldn't get free access to that many animals on winter range.That is true PA, but I feel that you are focusing on a very small percentage of the nontrivial hunters. If you were to add up the number of people who could hunt the dates you listed above, either having a maltose's tag, damage control permit, special hunt permit, or being a master hunter that number would pale in comparison to those who hunt a general season tag. That also being said most nontrivial hunters only harvest one deer and one elk per season, there are opportunities for second deer tags and gov. tags or raffles but again by the numbers that would make up a small percentage of the nontrivial hunters. Having the liberal seasons to hunt that some tribes are granted with large or no bag limits is the point of contention. If the tribes hunted the same bag limits off the reservation lands that the non-tribe member were held to then I would take no issue with access to the ceded lands. Having unrestricted access to ceded lands with no harvest guidelines especially during the wintering months does not promote a healthy heard management practice in my opinion.I agree that having unrestricted acess with no harvest guidelines is less than ideal. However, as I think about the discussions we are having, it seems as though a lot of the contention boils down to a game of numbers. The tribes have a very small number of hunters in comparison to state hunters, therefore it is more reasonable for tribes to allow (in some cases) a larger bag limit. While the State in comparison has thousands of hunters, which if they were given a larger number of tags, would surely jeapordize the populations. The State doesn't base their harvest levels in most cases off of what tribes harvest, they base it off of what state hunters harvest and estimated population sizes. While as a state hunter it may be unfair, there is just too many hunters for the game populations to support increased opportunity.
One day I hope Washington goes to a permit system. I would be fine with being drawn every other year for a species like deer or elk just to have the opportunity to not be slammed into a two week opening shoulder to shoulder with other hunters. While I might be in the minority, I like the idea of haveing less pressure on the game, better quality of game and a more pleasant hunt overall. Anyone ever read about great deer and elk hunting opportunities in Washington in the big hunting magazines? Whoops getting off subject.
Just my opinion.
Post by: Practical Approach on January 30, 2013, 12:25:32 PM
QuoteGates are unfairly open all the time.
So; doesn't mean that having law to allow unfairly opening gates is right.
It seems like you are arguing for the new bills. :dunno:
I guess I must not be coming across right. I thought I stated I liked gates in several posts?????
Post by: Chase 1 on January 30, 2013, 12:27:46 PM
Post by: boneaddict on January 30, 2013, 12:29:13 PM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on January 30, 2013, 12:53:07 PM
Post by: Rainier10 on January 30, 2013, 01:31:49 PM
Good! Who else sent letters?I voted opposed on both links with a message that if it was closed to all I would be in favor of it but closed to most is no good.
Post by: boneaddict on January 31, 2013, 04:46:57 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on January 31, 2013, 04:58:43 AM
Post by: huntnphool on January 31, 2013, 10:41:31 AM
Post by: bobcat on January 31, 2013, 11:10:06 AM
I've got emails in to KOMO, King5, The Tacoma Tribune and Andy Wolgamott at NW Sportsman Magazine. Three days later and the only one that has contacted me about it is Andy, are any of you surprised? >:(
No I'm not surprised. To the average person who does not hunt, why would they oppose this?
It sounds reasonable, if you're not a hunter and don't understand the issues.
Post by: Curly on January 31, 2013, 11:13:17 AM
:yeah:I've got emails in to KOMO, King5, The Tacoma Tribune and Andy Wolgamott at NW Sportsman Magazine. Three days later and the only one that has contacted me about it is Andy, are any of you surprised? >:(
No I'm not surprised. To the average person who does not hunt, why would they oppose this?
It sounds reasonable, if you're not a hunter and don't understand the issues.
Poor tribal members is what the majority of people will think.
Post by: Rainier10 on January 31, 2013, 11:18:35 AM
What? :dunno: Maybe that is how baiting and hound hunting got voted down....non hunters who don't understand the issues.I've got emails in to KOMO, King5, The Tacoma Tribune and Andy Wolgamott at NW Sportsman Magazine. Three days later and the only one that has contacted me about it is Andy, are any of you surprised? >:(
No I'm not surprised. To the average person who does not hunt, why would they oppose this?
It sounds reasonable, if you're not a hunter and don't understand the issues.
Post by: asl20bball on January 31, 2013, 11:21:52 AM
Anyone else?
I'm opposed to both bills and submitted my comments on the state website.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on January 31, 2013, 11:23:53 AM
Post by: gaddy on January 31, 2013, 11:38:46 AM
Post by: Curly on January 31, 2013, 11:40:31 AM
Anyone else?
I'm opposed to both bills and submitted my comments on the state website.
That is what I did too. :tup:
Post by: huntnphool on January 31, 2013, 11:48:16 AM
Im a little more intelligent than to show my hand so early Bob, my emails were vague but intriguing. I will pull the slaughter of wintering animals card when I have their attention and need to tug on the liberal heart strings.I've got emails in to KOMO, King5, The Tacoma Tribune and Andy Wolgamott at NW Sportsman Magazine. Three days later and the only one that has contacted me about it is Andy, are any of you surprised? >:(
No I'm not surprised. To the average person who does not hunt, why would they oppose this?
It sounds reasonable, if you're not a hunter and don't understand the issues.
Post by: lokidog on January 31, 2013, 11:58:28 AM
This is what I'm sending.
Subject: Please oppose this special privelages bill
This bill needs to be opposed. WDFW and other agencies close their gates for specific reasons, not the least of which being to protect wildlife from disturbances during, often stressful, times of the year. These closures have been determined by the State's own biologists and are based on scientific knowledge of the biology and behavior of the animals that they are charged with managing.
The native population in the State of Washington already has longer seasons and less restrictions than the rest of us that are also trying to put food on our tables to feed our families. There is no reason to allow them one more privelage that is in actuality a detriment to the wildlife that WDFW is tasked to manage.
Please oppose this bill for the sake of wildlife and equity between user groups. Thank you for taking the time to read this.
Post by: Rainier10 on January 31, 2013, 12:02:15 PM
Is there any way to contact all of the reps on the sponsor list that are not in one's own district? Or do you just have to do them individually?Very well written response. Can others cut and paste this into their replies? Maybe make a subltle changes so it doesn't look identical?
This is what I'm sending.
Subject: Please oppose this special privelages bill
This bill needs to be opposed. WDFW and other agencies close their gates for specific reasons, not the least of which being to protect wildlife from disturbances during, often stressful, times of the year. These closures have been determined by the State's own biologists and are based on scientific knowledge of the biology and behavior of the animals that they are charged with managing.
The native population in the State of Washington already has longer seasons and less restrictions than the rest of us that are also trying to put food on our tables to feed our families. There is no reason to allow them one more privelage that is in actuality a detriment to the wildlife that WDFW is tasked to manage.
Please oppose this bill for the sake of wildlife and equity between user groups. Thank you for taking the time to read this.
Post by: lokidog on January 31, 2013, 12:06:35 PM
Post by: asl20bball on January 31, 2013, 12:42:06 PM
Here is the web address for finding representatives:
http://app.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/ (http://app.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/)
Post by: bigtex on January 31, 2013, 03:34:15 PM
The enforcement bill applies to any law enforcement officer enforcing hunting laws, not just WDFW Officers.
Post by: CP on January 31, 2013, 03:55:09 PM
Post by: FisherKing on January 31, 2013, 06:28:17 PM
Subject: Please oppose this special privelages bill
Please oppose this bill for the sake of wildlife and equity between all users of Washington's natural resources.
The Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and the DNR close their gates for specific reasons. It enables them protect wildlife from disturbances during times of the year which are stressful to wildlife. These closures have been determined and are set by the State's own biologists. They are based on scientific knowledge of the biology and behavior of the animals that they are charged with managing.
The native population in the State of Washington already have longer hunting seasons and less restrictions than the general population. There is no scientific reason to allow them privileged access to DNR land that has been deemed detrimental by the very agency tasked to manage wildlife, the WDFW.
Please oppose this bill for the sake of wildlife and to maintain equity between user groups.
I thank you for taking your time to read this.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on January 31, 2013, 06:30:09 PM
In addition to commenting on the general bills page, I would encourage everyone to also send a note to your representatives. This is easy to do...all you do is plug in your address and it will locate your senator and 2 representatives then click on one of the 3 and hit "email" . You are also given the option copy the other 2 then simply type in your comments.THAT MAKES IT REAL EASY ...THANKS ... all 3 in my district are republicians ......sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeet ! :tup:
Here is the web address for finding representatives:
http://app.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/ (http://app.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/)
Post by: Whitefoot on January 31, 2013, 06:36:35 PM
Post by: bobcat on January 31, 2013, 06:46:25 PM
Post by: sebla on January 31, 2013, 08:05:57 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 31, 2013, 08:12:09 PM
WDFW would rather sit in the truck and tell the sherrifs that a truck was coming out of the hills with mud on thier rig than take care of what realy matters.
Highly doubt this considering WDFW can enforce all laws, just like the sheriff's office.
Post by: whiteeyes on January 31, 2013, 08:12:47 PM
been watching a few HUGE bulls in the ellensburg area went out to look 4 some deer sheds and a truck was driving on a closed road, a closer look with the binos revealed the last thing i wanted to see one of the bulls i had been watching for weeks now dead in the back. cant say for shure if it was an indian but a few years ago the same thing happened, but they had 6 big bulls in the back of the truck and decided to peraide them around town. WTF is the deal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WDFW would rather sit in the truck and tell the sherrifs that a truck was coming out of the hills with mud on thier rig than take care of what realy matters.
Sorry but that rumor has already been played, nice try though.
Post by: JM on January 31, 2013, 08:22:48 PM
been watching a few HUGE bulls in the ellensburg area went out to look 4 some deer sheds and a truck was driving on a closed road, a closer look with the binos revealed the last thing i wanted to see one of the bulls i had been watching for weeks now dead in the back. cant say for shure if it was an indian but a few years ago the same thing happened, but they had 6 big bulls in the back of the truck and decided to peraide them around town. WTF is the deal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WDFW would rather sit in the truck and tell the sherrifs that a truck was coming out of the hills with mud on thier rig than take care of what realy matters.
Sorry but that rumor has already been played, nice try though.
I don't think that it is a good idea to turn an informational thread that was started to protect our natural resources into a tribal bashing thread. We're all entitled to our opinions, but I don't believe that this is the place for it. This is us trying to make it so things like this don't go unpunished and its not so easy for people to access these sensitive areas.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on January 31, 2013, 08:29:13 PM
Maybe we need a POLL on this thread to see how many members have responded to the legislators !
Post by: haugenna on January 31, 2013, 08:33:04 PM
Post by: huntnphool on January 31, 2013, 08:34:34 PM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on January 31, 2013, 08:43:59 PM
Post by: Harborhunter on January 31, 2013, 08:45:02 PM
Post by: ICEMAN on January 31, 2013, 08:49:06 PM
Ya know one thing I have to say is why do some people post stuff on here saying they seen this and that in a back of a truck ...sorry but I have to say that is BS ! Why even go their when you have no idea who it was or any evidence of anyone committing a crime :bash: :bash: Just peeses me off :yeah:
Pictures are not a requirement to post what someone has seen...
Post by: lil_red_wagon on January 31, 2013, 09:03:07 PM
Post by: washelkhunter on January 31, 2013, 09:26:41 PM
A Solutrean. Live It!
Post by: Time Immemorial on January 31, 2013, 09:30:06 PM
Post by: Time Immemorial on January 31, 2013, 09:31:32 PM
Im all for so-called first nations enjoying their so-called rights just like it was back in the good ole days. You can fish, hunt, trap, roam whatever. But you have to do so exactly as they were back in 1804. No modern contrivances whatsoever. No boats, no nylon nets, no 2x4's for platforms, no firearms, no motors, no trucks, no guns, no steel. Be the heritage. Show US the WAY.When y'all go back to covered wagons an muskets :tup:
A Solutrean. Live It!
Post by: lokidog on January 31, 2013, 09:36:59 PM
I hope your not offended by my redux....
Subject: Please oppose this special privelages bill
Please oppose this bill for the sake of wildlife and equity between all users of Washington's natural resources.
The Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and the DNR close their gates for specific reasons. It enables them protect wildlife from disturbances during times of the year which are stressful to wildlife. These closures have been determined and are set by the State's own biologists. They are based on scientific knowledge of the biology and behavior of the animals that they are charged with managing.
The native population in the State of Washington already have longer hunting seasons and less restrictions than the general population. There is no scientific reason to allow them privileged access to DNR land that has been deemed detrimental by the very agency tasked to manage wildlife, the WDFW.
Please oppose this bill for the sake of wildlife and to maintain equity between user groups.
I thank you for taking your time to read this.
Sounds good, email away, EVERYONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: bobcat on January 31, 2013, 09:37:20 PM
I dont know why these bills even need to be brought up, maybe to help you all understand them better, can already do what they say without needing this
I think it's obvious that the intent is to allow access behind locked gates, by motorized vehicle. No it doesn't specifically say that, but like you said, tribal members already have the right to hunt state land in their ceded area.
This new bill says the state cannot deny access. Which to me means the state cannot put up a gate, or if they do, the tribes will whine about it and demand to be given keys.
Is that not the way you understand it?
Post by: huntnphool on January 31, 2013, 09:40:33 PM
I dont know why these bills even need to be brought up, maybe to help you all understand them better, can already do what they say without needing thisIts quite simple TI, someone from the tribes brought it up. The reps in the government don't just arbitrarily come up with these things, someone in the tribes is working to fill in a hole in the treaties. :twocents:
Post by: lokidog on January 31, 2013, 09:42:39 PM
I dont know why these bills even need to be brought up, maybe to help you all understand them better, can already do what they say without needing this
I think it's obvious that the intent is to allow access behind locked gates, by motorized vehicle. No it doesn't specifically say that, but like you said, tribal members already have the right to hunt state land in their ceded area.
This new bill says the state cannot deny access. Which to me means the state cannot put up a gate, or if they do, the tribes will whine about it and demand to be given keys.
Is that not the way you understand it?
Uh, yeah..... You know what all you tribal punks that want to take advantage of the system (no offense meant to those of you that appear to be somewhat ethical), the law may allow you to hunt wherever, but walk your butts in there. :twocents: I try to be nice and sensitive and understanding and all that, but give me a friggin break, and the wildlife too. All of you know this is not a good thing for the resource, many just don't seem to care. :bash:
Post by: JM on January 31, 2013, 10:01:15 PM
I dont know why these bills even need to be brought up, maybe to help you all understand them better, can already do what they say without needing this
Why do you say things like this? I understand why it's important to get all sides on a debate or topic, but I am yet to hear an intelligent retort come from you. It's always negative and probing for another angry response?
Post by: Green broke on January 31, 2013, 10:16:53 PM
Post by: Green broke on January 31, 2013, 10:19:39 PM
By the way offense taken.....I dont know why these bills even need to be brought up, maybe to help you all understand them better, can already do what they say without needing this
I think it's obvious that the intent is to allow access behind locked gates, by motorized vehicle. No it doesn't specifically say that, but like you said, tribal members already have the right to hunt state land in their ceded area.
This new bill says the state cannot deny access. Which to me means the state cannot put up a gate, or if they do, the tribes will whine about it and demand to be given keys.
Is that not the way you understand it?
Uh, yeah..... You know what all you tribal punks that want to take advantage of the system (no offense meant to those of you that appear to be somewhat ethical), the law may allow you to hunt wherever, but walk your butts in there. :twocents: I try to be nice and sensitive and understanding and all that, but give me a friggin break, and the wildlife too. All of you know this is not a good thing for the resource, many just don't seem to care. :bash:
Post by: lokidog on January 31, 2013, 10:34:15 PM
By the way offense taken.....I dont know why these bills even need to be brought up, maybe to help you all understand them better, can already do what they say without needing this
I think it's obvious that the intent is to allow access behind locked gates, by motorized vehicle. No it doesn't specifically say that, but like you said, tribal members already have the right to hunt state land in their ceded area.
This new bill says the state cannot deny access. Which to me means the state cannot put up a gate, or if they do, the tribes will whine about it and demand to be given keys.
Is that not the way you understand it?
Uh, yeah..... You know what all you tribal punks that want to take advantage of the system (no offense meant to those of you that appear to be somewhat ethical), the law may allow you to hunt wherever, but walk your butts in there. :twocents: I try to be nice and sensitive and understanding and all that, but give me a friggin break, and the wildlife too. All of you know this is not a good thing for the resource, many just don't seem to care. :bash:
I'm sorry you were offended as you do seem to be one of the ethical ones that actually cares for the resource that I referred to in my exception, and yes, I have done a lot of these things having a degree in biology, worked for various state and federal agencies, taught high school biology, been a hunter ed instructor, girl scout leader, etc.
So, again, this is not referring to you, it is referring to those that would drive into closed areas and shoot five or more trophy bulls under the guise of "feeding their families" with no actual concern for the resource and habitat. And, no, I have not seen this personally in this state (I have in OR) as I do not live on the eastside in the areas of concern. I have read enough posts in the last three years or so to guess that this is an actual problem and not something just made up by one or two troublemaking hotheads.
If this offends you, again, I am sorry, but maybe you and your ethical cohorts need to get the rest under control so that those of us that do not have special privelages don't lump you in with the rest.
Post by: mfswallace on January 31, 2013, 10:42:40 PM
lokidog I'm not here to pick fights but seem to be finding them. You seem to care for our natural resources, I get that. Have you met with bios about concerns of herd management or forest practices? This tribal punk has on numerous occasions and have continued to do so for 20 plus years. Have you gone on to Dnr lands and done clean up? This tribal punk has. Have you volunteered on habitat enhancement? I have. Have you worked on herd augmentation and voluntarily given up right in the name of conservation? This punk/somewhat ethical tribal member has. I don't know you or your contributions to the great outdoors we are trying hard to save for future generations. As for the bills in question the gate keys matters very little to me personally, however I could build an arguement for allowing acess due to the huge difference in the two user groups. the 2nd bill doesn't change too many things as far as i can see. The state should still take precidence when its a saftey issue. The tribes already have jurisdiction of their own members within the ceded lands.
Please explain the difference :dunno: not wanting a fight just explain why tribal hunters are so different than everyone else...
Post by: huntnphool on January 31, 2013, 10:45:04 PM
As for the bills in question the gate keys matters very little to me personally, however I could build an arguement for allowing acess due to the huge difference in the two user groups.Allowing access is not in question here, the treaties guarantee you that. However, as far as I know the treaties say nothing about allowing vehicles. Nobody has a issue with indians walking, biking or riding horses in.
Post by: Green broke on January 31, 2013, 11:10:50 PM
Apology accepted. I maybe a little sensitive, I apologize too. Now I will play devils advocate and defend(an unknown) my eastside relatives. I will tell you I do not try to defend market(meat or antler) hunting in any way shape or form. Maybe some from the Yak nation are true hunters. I think a generalization would be that a true hunter can harvest an animal that is in the top 10% in terms of trophy quality.( just a generalization) It also is to some a status as a hunter to produce big animals(this is a time tested measurement). I do not advocate gross overharvest but if I was a Yak I probably would exercise my rights on trophy class animals too, I think most members of this site would given the oppurtunity.(while being aware of herd health)By the way offense taken.....I dont know why these bills even need to be brought up, maybe to help you all understand them better, can already do what they say without needing this
I think it's obvious that the intent is to allow access behind locked gates, by motorized vehicle. No it doesn't specifically say that, but like you said, tribal members already have the right to hunt state land in their ceded area.
This new bill says the state cannot deny access. Which to me means the state cannot put up a gate, or if they do, the tribes will whine about it and demand to be given keys.
Is that not the way you understand it?
Uh, yeah..... You know what all you tribal punks that want to take advantage of the system (no offense meant to those of you that appear to be somewhat ethical), the law may allow you to hunt wherever, but walk your butts in there. :twocents: I try to be nice and sensitive and understanding and all that, but give me a friggin break, and the wildlife too. All of you know this is not a good thing for the resource, many just don't seem to care. :bash:
I'm sorry you were offended as you do seem to be one of the ethical ones that actually cares for the resource that I referred to in my exception, and yes, I have done a lot of these things having a degree in biology, worked for various state and federal agencies, taught high school biology, been a hunter ed instructor, girl scout leader, etc.
So, again, this is not referring to you, it is referring to those that would drive into closed areas and shoot five or more trophy bulls under the guise of "feeding their families" with no actual concern for the resource and habitat. And, no, I have not seen this personally in this state (I have in OR) as I do not live on the eastside in the areas of concern. I have read enough posts in the last three years or so to guess that this is an actual problem and not something just made up by one or two troublemaking hotheads.
If this offends you, again, I am sorry, but maybe you and your ethical cohorts need to get the rest under control so that those of us that do not have special privelages don't lump you in with the rest.
Post by: mfswallace on January 31, 2013, 11:15:40 PM
lokidog I'm not here to pick fights but seem to be finding them. You seem to care for our natural resources, I get that. Have you met with bios about concerns of herd management or forest practices? This tribal punk has on numerous occasions and have continued to do so for 20 plus years. Have you gone on to Dnr lands and done clean up? This tribal punk has. Have you volunteered on habitat enhancement? I have. Have you worked on herd augmentation and voluntarily given up right in the name of conservation? This punk/somewhat ethical tribal member has. I don't know you or your contributions to the great outdoors we are trying hard to save for future generations. As for the bills in question the gate keys matters very little to me personally, however I could build an arguement for allowing acess due to the huge difference in the two user groups. the 2nd bill doesn't change too many things as far as i can see. The state should still take precidence when its a saftey issue. The tribes already have jurisdiction of their own members within the ceded lands.
Please explain the difference :dunno: not wanting a fight just explain why tribal hunters are so different than everyone else...
Post by: Green broke on January 31, 2013, 11:41:50 PM
I'm here. I sarted to explain my views earlier. Its a slippery slope for me to navigate when it comes to our differences. I have a responsibility to provide(and a ton of self placed pressure to produce).I do agree that there are many similarities but I would guess that few "sportsman" have been burdened/blessed with expectations that are placed upon myself and many other tribal hunters. I draw differences in meanings of bringing meat home(usually back to the rez) and its powers to heal and nourish, this is steeped in beliefs, but the mind is a powerful thing. We believe there is more than whats physically here and it ties into the hunting/gathering traditions. I have to watch what I say and apologize for my limitations. This is where (from a management perspective) I come to a "user group status" and feel the wildlife should be managed accordingly. The justifaction for gate keys may be to improve herd health by opening more area? I said it before and will say it again I do not need a key or acess to be sucessful in bringing meat home. I hope I was able to give a little and hope nobody pukes from my post.(this post probably belongs in the speak your mind thread)lokidog I'm not here to pick fights but seem to be finding them. You seem to care for our natural resources, I get that. Have you met with bios about concerns of herd management or forest practices? This tribal punk has on numerous occasions and have continued to do so for 20 plus years. Have you gone on to Dnr lands and done clean up? This tribal punk has. Have you volunteered on habitat enhancement? I have. Have you worked on herd augmentation and voluntarily given up right in the name of conservation? This punk/somewhat ethical tribal member has. I don't know you or your contributions to the great outdoors we are trying hard to save for future generations. As for the bills in question the gate keys matters very little to me personally, however I could build an arguement for allowing acess due to the huge difference in the two user groups. the 2nd bill doesn't change too many things as far as i can see. The state should still take precidence when its a saftey issue. The tribes already have jurisdiction of their own members within the ceded lands.
Please explain the difference :dunno: not wanting a fight just explain why tribal hunters are so different than everyone else...
Post by: Green broke on January 31, 2013, 11:57:28 PM
Huntnphool I wish your statement was accurate. We have been harassed on numerous occasions while walking in behind gates. From meeting my children and I with a drawn gun asking whats going on to our vehicle being vandalized.(and no this is not one of the threats i spoke of earlier. This was not a threat according to LE)As for the bills in question the gate keys matters very little to me personally, however I could build an arguement for allowing acess due to the huge difference in the two user groups.Allowing access is not in question here, the treaties guarantee you that. However, as far as I know the treaties say nothing about allowing vehicles. Nobody has a issue with indians walking, biking or riding horses in.
Post by: lokidog on February 01, 2013, 12:09:27 AM
Huntnphool I wish your statement was accurate. We have been harassed on numerous occasions while walking in behind gates. From meeting my children and I with a drawn gun asking whats going on to our vehicle being vandalized.(and no this is not one of the threats i spoke of earlier. This was not a threat according to LE)As for the bills in question the gate keys matters very little to me personally, however I could build an arguement for allowing acess due to the huge difference in the two user groups.Allowing access is not in question here, the treaties guarantee you that. However, as far as I know the treaties say nothing about allowing vehicles. Nobody has a issue with indians walking, biking or riding horses in.
Harassing you in your legal pursuit is not OK, I am sorry this has happened to you. Hopefully, you understand the frustration of those of us that view special rights of any user group in our modern age unacceptable. This does not excuse harrassment or vandalism which should be punished to the fullest. The only way that a lot of this animosity will be assuaged is by the more enlightened tribal members, as you appear to be, to try to put a stop to the exploitation of the laws and resources by less enlightened individuals. Many of us are attempting to put food on the table and have a chance at getting a "trophy" animal as well but have to follow the guidelines imposed by the State biologists that, theoretically, have the best interest of the herds in mind. Good hunting. Lokidog.
Post by: mfswallace on February 01, 2013, 12:17:42 AM
I'm here. I sarted to explain my views earlier. Its a slippery slope for me to navigate when it comes to our differences. I have a responsibility to provide(and a ton of self placed pressure to produce).I do agree that there are many similarities but I would guess that few "sportsman" have been burdened/blessed with expectations that are placed upon myself and many other tribal hunters. I draw differences in meanings of bringing meat home(usually back to the rez) and its powers to heal and nourish, this is steeped in beliefs, but the mind is a powerful thing. We believe there is more than whats physically here and it ties into the hunting/gathering traditions. I have to watch what I say and apologize for my limitations. This is where (from a management perspective) I come to a "user group status" and feel the wildlife should be managed accordingly. The justifaction for gate keys may be to improve herd health by opening more area? I said it before and will say it again I do not need a key or acess to be sucessful in bringing meat home. I hope I was able to give a little and hope nobody pukes from my post.lokidog I'm not here to pick fights but seem to be finding them. You seem to care for our natural resources, I get that. Have you met with bios about concerns of herd management or forest practices? This tribal punk has on numerous occasions and have continued to do so for 20 plus years. Have you gone on to Dnr lands and done clean up? This tribal punk has. Have you volunteered on habitat enhancement? I have. Have you worked on herd augmentation and voluntarily given up right in the name of conservation? This punk/somewhat ethical tribal member has. I don't know you or your contributions to the great outdoors we are trying hard to save for future generations. As for the bills in question the gate keys matters very little to me personally, however I could build an arguement for allowing acess due to the huge difference in the two user groups. the 2nd bill doesn't change too many things as far as i can see. The state should still take precidence when its a saftey issue. The tribes already have jurisdiction of their own members within the ceded lands.
Please explain the difference :dunno: not wanting a fight just explain why tribal hunters are so different than everyone else...
So it's to put meat on the table for the tribe, I get that. My small family of 4 eat elk, deer, pheasant and duck *when able to harvest animals) as a staple because it is usually cheaper to buy $60 in groceries(bread, PBJ, granola bars and liquids), $100 in gas and $50 in ammo go hunt a few times then process and seal everything so we have something to eat when money runs out before the end of the month.......
Not sure I get the "opening more areas to 4x4's in order to keep herds healthy".... :dunno:
I get that you are a different type that doesn't need this and seem to be like Plat and some others here that are trying to foster cooperation throughout the tribes in being responsible stewards of the land. There are "bad apples", on both sides of this tribal and non-tribal issue of saving something for those that follow but that is all the more reason to work together!!
Here's my perception/opinion with an honest question attached- it seems like the tribes try and hide or keep secrets to these kinds of activities(hunting/resource managment), why ??
:dunno:
If all the harvest information was shared between state, fed and tribal agencies wouldn't we be able to better manage the land and animals? Is there a negative aspect to knowing all you can about a subject that you need to find answers for??
:dunno:
I appreciate your time and thoughtfulness in trying to answer what you can :tup:
Post by: Green broke on February 01, 2013, 12:42:46 AM
Post by: huntnphool on February 01, 2013, 12:53:31 AM
Your opinion on reporting is absolutely wrong and absolutely right. To confuse things more and educate/upset the general public. It is up to individual tribes to set standards of tagging and reporting. Many (not all)westside tribes report to nwifc. Seveal tribes have very strict reporting standards and even have incentive programs for reporting. I stated earlier this is a recent trend that continues to improve. Some tribes see no reason to place regulations or bag limits on their members( I have no dog in that fight and will not speak for or against them). With the composition of this state being(I believe the 3rd smallest land mass in the west, with the 3rd largest population) I think herd heath and management should be on the mind of all user groups. Not all think that reporting would improve state/tribal relations either(on this I myself am still a little undecided). If you look at recent expendatures by tribes on wildlife you may be pleasantly suprised. Tribes are hiring more and more bios and field staff with a focus on the future. So even if we are late to the management game at least we are here and moving in a positive direction. another positive is the tribes at times are not shackeled by politics when it comes to wildlife. They are also getting more involved in funding co-op projects with state agencies.Good stuff GB, I can respect those views.
Any kind of harassment or intimidation is unacceptable IMO, and should be reported and dealt with by the authorities.
Post by: Warrior Wayz on February 01, 2013, 09:57:13 AM
Post by: Warrior Wayz on February 01, 2013, 10:00:17 AM
www.ynwildlife.org/pdf/yakamahuntingrights.pdf (http://www.ynwildlife.org/pdf/yakamahuntingrights.pdf)
Post by: Time Immemorial on February 01, 2013, 10:05:58 AM
How ya like them apples
"Put that in your book"
Post by: Warrior Wayz on February 01, 2013, 10:14:53 AM
Post by: bobcat on February 01, 2013, 10:29:35 AM
And that's not even what's actually harvested, since our success rates average around 10% for elk and 20% for deer, due to our short seasons at times of the year that favor the animals.
So basically we each get 1 deer every 5 years, and 1 elk every 10 years. Whereas if I was a Yakama member I could easily kill 10 elk and 10 deer every single year (just for example.)
How many Yakama members are killing hundreds of deer and elk every year? Well, there's no way to know, because the tribe does not have any way of keeping track, and no way of limiting the number of animals that each person takes.
Question for you, Warrior Ways- how many Yakama members hunt deer and elk for the purpose of selling the meat and/or the head?
Post by: huntnphool on February 01, 2013, 10:34:19 AM
Another FYI, the Yakama Nation signed the treaty in 1855. Washington did not become a state until 1889 as is the same with the State constitution.Exactly why the treaty does not mention vehicle access and why they are concerned enough to get this bill introduced. ;)
Post by: Warrior Wayz on February 01, 2013, 10:40:09 AM
Post by: huntnphool on February 01, 2013, 10:41:27 AM
As for walking in, I have no problem with that since many of you know that the biggest animals do not come from road hunting.Then why the defense of the bill? AGAIN!!!! nobody is denying access, walk, bike, horse etc, just no motorized vehicles.
Post by: Warrior Wayz on February 01, 2013, 10:42:40 AM
Post by: huntnphool on February 01, 2013, 10:44:39 AM
Defending myself and others from nonsense that goes on in these forums.Stick to the topic at hand, the mods will take care of any bashing.
Post by: Warrior Wayz on February 01, 2013, 10:46:47 AM
Post by: huntnphool on February 01, 2013, 10:48:12 AM
Not from what I have been reading, bashing is another form of bullying and that stems from being SCARED.Do you care to address my points or are you're intentions simply to take this off topic?
Post by: Warrior Wayz on February 01, 2013, 10:49:03 AM
Post by: mfswallace on February 01, 2013, 10:49:28 AM
Defending myself and others from nonsense that goes on in these forums.Stick to the topic at hand, the mods will take care of any bashing.
Not that I want to get bashed but sometimes the mods are just like you and me and get a little heated or :stirthepot: not in a foul language type of way but just saying--- it's not bad for someone who wants to stand up for their beliefs to come on this forum to make sure their point is heard :twocents:
Post by: huntnphool on February 01, 2013, 10:51:40 AM
Agreed, but it needs to stick to the topic at hand, or else he can start his own thread.Defending myself and others from nonsense that goes on in these forums.Stick to the topic at hand, the mods will take care of any bashing.
it's not bad for someone who wants to stand up for their beliefs to come on this forum to make sure their point is heard :twocents:
Post by: huntnphool on February 01, 2013, 10:53:19 AM
We dont bash about all of the duck hunting that goes on without tribal permits and also the use of battery powered mojo ducks that are allowed only on the reservation and no where else in the State.This thread has nothing to do with those issues, if you would like to address them then start another thread please.
Post by: whiteeyes on February 01, 2013, 11:05:06 AM
We dont bash about all of the duck hunting that goes on without tribal permits and also the use of battery powered mojo ducks that are allowed only on the reservation and no where else in the State.This thread has nothing to do with those issues, if you would like to address them then start another thread please.
So you ask a question and then tell people to start a new thread? Didnt like the facts it appears.
Post by: huntnphool on February 01, 2013, 11:07:12 AM
Correct, those issues have zero to do with the bills.We dont bash about all of the duck hunting that goes on without tribal permits and also the use of battery powered mojo ducks that are allowed only on the reservation and no where else in the State.This thread has nothing to do with those issues, if you would like to address them then start another thread please.
So you ask a question and then tell people to start a new thread? Didnt like the facts it appears.
Post by: mfswallace on February 01, 2013, 11:10:58 AM
As for walking in, I have no problem with that since many of you know that the biggest animals do not come from road hunting.Then why the defense of the bill? AGAIN!!!! nobody is denying access, walk, bike, horse etc, just no motorized vehicles.
Post by: bobcat on February 01, 2013, 11:11:55 AM
Post by: Practical Approach on February 01, 2013, 11:12:07 AM
Doesn't matter who "trumps" who, what matters is conserving our wildlife for future generations, and I don't see the Yakama tribe doing that. Why is it that all of us non-tribal hunters can limit ourselves to one deer and one elk per year?Wow.....Non tribal hunters are not limiting themselves on their own, they are being limited by a regulative authority. Most non-tribal hunters if they werent in jeapordy of being fined would hunt more than one animal. If there weren't so many people and so little game in Washington, non tribal hunters could be taking more than one deer or elk. Hell, some states allow 5-6 deer.
And that's not even what's actually harvested, since our success rates average around 10% for elk and 20% for deer, due to our short seasons at times of the year that favor the animals.
So basically we each get 1 deer every 5 years, and 1 elk every 10 years. Whereas if I was a Yakama member I could easily kill 10 elk and 10 deer every single year (just for example.)
How many Yakama members are killing hundreds of deer and elk every year? Well, there's no way to know, because the tribe does not have any way of keeping track, and no way of limiting the number of animals that each person takes.
Question for you, Warrior Ways- how many Yakama members hunt deer and elk for the purpose of selling the meat and/or the head?
By sheer numbers of non tribal hunters, non-tribal poachers harvest more animals than all of the reporting tribes.
Sounds a little unrealistic that Yakama members are killing hundreds of deer and elk. I don't think populations in the area would allow for that all of these generations that Yakama members have been hunting.
Post by: huntnphool on February 01, 2013, 11:15:15 AM
Quote
By sheer numbers of non tribal hunters, non-tribal poachers harvest more animals than all of the reporting tribes.And gates/motorized vehicle access help combat against them as well. :tup:
Post by: Warrior Wayz on February 01, 2013, 11:17:14 AM
Post by: Warrior Wayz on February 01, 2013, 11:18:37 AM
Post by: huntnphool on February 01, 2013, 11:18:53 AM
HuntnFOOLSo you resort to name calling? :chuckle: You will have to do better than that, I have thick skin. ;)
Post by: huntnphool on February 01, 2013, 11:20:25 AM
Them, you, us???? combat??? WOWNo comment about the bills?
Post by: Warrior Wayz on February 01, 2013, 11:20:52 AM
Post by: Warrior Wayz on February 01, 2013, 11:22:20 AM
Post by: huntnphool on February 01, 2013, 11:22:45 AM
Calling like I see it, as it is written....So you have no intelligent thought on the topic?
Post by: Warrior Wayz on February 01, 2013, 11:24:45 AM
Post by: RG on February 01, 2013, 11:29:13 AM
Post by: huntnphool on February 01, 2013, 11:30:05 AM
NopeI'm not surprised.
Post by: Green broke on February 01, 2013, 11:30:26 AM
Post by: bobcat on February 01, 2013, 11:32:42 AM
My point was that the Yakama tribe doesn't limit their members in any way, as far as how many animals they can take each year. (As we are)
Now the tribes are wanting to have motorized access behind gates where we don't.
Where does their greed end?
Neither of these bills are needed, they're a total waste of paper and ink. If tribal members want to hunt behind locked gates, they can walk like the rest of us.
You know, kind of like how in the treaty it says they can hunt "in common" with us?
Post by: huntnphool on February 01, 2013, 11:34:02 AM
I will go into the book as a yes vote(i support them). I say this because i am concerned for the saftey of tribal members. another issue I would adress is it spreads the tribal hunters out therefore taking pressure off the few open areas. I also like the fact that it takes it out of the public eye so to speak. I have nothing to hide when it comes to the public eye, I would just rather its a more private setting(that may be percieved as selfish). Contrary to popular belief we very seldom target trophy animals, and parading them around is never been done(by myself or my kids).Thanks for the honest answer. :tup:
Post by: Time Immemorial on February 01, 2013, 11:35:36 AM
It is mentioned in the treatyAnother FYI, the Yakama Nation signed the treaty in 1855. Washington did not become a state until 1889 as is the same with the State constitution.Exactly why the treaty does not mention vehicle access and why they are concerned enough to get this bill introduced. ;)
Post by: Warrior Wayz on February 01, 2013, 11:41:44 AM
Post by: Curly on February 01, 2013, 11:42:39 AM
My question were there any gates when we signed the treaty? NO we reserved that right long before there were any gates so my answer is full support. YES
Were there roads to even have gates when the treaty was signed?..................
Post by: Time Immemorial on February 01, 2013, 11:45:08 AM
Post by: mfswallace on February 01, 2013, 11:46:19 AM
Blame who you must just make sure you look in all directions, there are other poachers out there that are not tribal. As for walking in, I have no problem with that since many of you know that the biggest animals do not come from road hunting.
I will go into the book as a yes vote(i support them). I say this because i am concerned for the saftey of tribal members. another issue I would adress is it spreads the tribal hunters out therefore taking pressure off the few open areas. I also like the fact that it takes it out of the public eye so to speak. I have nothing to hide when it comes to the public eye, I would just rather its a more private setting(that may be percieved as selfish). Contrary to popular belief we very seldom target trophy animals, and parading them around is never been done(by myself or my kids).
What is the safety concern?? :dunno:
Hike further from those high pressure areas and they won't be so high pressure or regulate yourselves to not overhunt an area, is that too much to ask to ensure future generations have animals to hunt?
I get your not the "bad apple" but why continue to make it easier for them to be "bad apples"-tribal and non-tribal
These aren't sound arguments IMHO
Post by: mfswallace on February 01, 2013, 11:48:10 AM
My question were there any gates when we signed the treaty? NO we reserved that right long before there were any gates so my answer is full support. YES
Were there roads to even have gates when the treaty was signed?..................
Tushay :chuckle:
Post by: Warrior Wayz on February 01, 2013, 11:50:03 AM
Post by: huntnphool on February 01, 2013, 11:50:38 AM
No!My question were there any gates when we signed the treaty? NO we reserved that right long before there were any gates so my answer is full support. YES
Were there roads to even have gates when the treaty was signed?..................
Post by: Time Immemorial on February 01, 2013, 11:53:19 AM
Was never any shiapos eitherNO!!!! AN TUSHAY :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: Curly on February 01, 2013, 11:56:29 AM
So, if the reason for shutting and locking a gate is to prevent the roads from getting torn up, why should they let anyone in there on motorized vehicles? I think the benefit to wildlife is likely a secondary issue. :dunno:
Post by: mfswallace on February 01, 2013, 11:57:16 AM
I's sorry masta fo gittn oudda line
You seem like one of the "bad apples"- :twocents: or are you just being argumentative because of a lack of education and you can't peaceably reason your way thru these kinds of discussions. :sry:
I realize it goes both ways on this forum sometimes but at some point the high road must be taken and most of your comments(easy to see your history) aren't really even constructive, just a dig here or there and f u to some :dunno:
Post by: Time Immemorial on February 01, 2013, 12:05:16 PM
Post by: mfswallace on February 01, 2013, 12:21:55 PM
Well get over it and accept that it will never change, I'm not one of the bad apples, an yes is edjumacated :chuckle: getting along will never happen as long as there are people like YOU!! the ones who bring these type of threads up, as long as its a red white hate discussions I will mock ignorance :tup:
start of thread
HB 1495 and HB 1496
Yeah this guy seams like he had a hidden agenda doesn't he :dunno:
Kinda think he just put it out there for all to see and let people make up there own mind
Post by: Time Immemorial on February 01, 2013, 12:26:32 PM
Post by: fair-chase on February 01, 2013, 12:30:48 PM
getting along will never happen as long as there are people like the ones who bring these type of threads up,
These types of threads??? So let me get this straight. We are not to discuss any proposed legislation if it has anything to do with a certain race or special class of people? Is that about right?
Post by: TheHunt on February 01, 2013, 12:37:34 PM
Post by: mfswallace on February 01, 2013, 12:40:21 PM
If your going to quote someone dont change what they say, quote it right, yet again ignorance at its best,
I didn't misquote you I added you to being the problem of why people wont get along :boxin:
slowly this time so you get it, It's because of people like YOU that people won't get along :bash:
Post by: huntnphool on February 01, 2013, 12:42:58 PM
Well get over it and accept that it will never change, I'm not one of the bad apples, an yes is edjumacated :chuckle: getting along will never happen as long as there are people like the ones who bring these type of threads up, as long as its a red white hate discussions I will mock ignorance :tup:The tribes proposed this bill not the white man, this thread was started to discuss the bills.
As far as never changing, I wouldn't say never, just maybe not anytime soon. If you honestly believe never then you are the most naive person on this forum. There is a push to ratify the entire US constitution. Do really think the government would go to the trouble to ratify a 200+ year old constitution and leave those treaties intact? :chuckle:
There are other holes in those treaties that could be exploited if the government felt inclined, I believe they are waiting for a bigger fish to fry before they play those cards though. ;)
Post by: Warrior Wayz on February 01, 2013, 12:50:50 PM
Post by: huntnphool on February 01, 2013, 01:04:21 PM
THICK SKINS round here, sticks and stones. enit huntnphool?no name calling on my end Wayz, unlike some of you I can debate intelligently without resorting to that. ;)
Post by: Warrior Wayz on February 01, 2013, 01:05:37 PM
Post by: huntnphool on February 01, 2013, 01:11:19 PM
artificial intellegence?And this concludes my demonstration. :chuckle:
Post by: Warrior Wayz on February 01, 2013, 01:18:44 PM
Post by: Green broke on February 01, 2013, 02:02:02 PM
The loopholes you are referring to can definitely go both ways and one thing that has been a deciding factor is deception. Deception in wording, and overall deceptive intent. This has swayed many supreme court rulings in the favor of tribes. Both sides have '' cards'' in their hand that they are waiting to play. This could end ugly in terms of hunting specifically. If you start talking resource allocation and yours and mine, as opposed to a shared resource being used by '' user groups''.Well get over it and accept that it will never change, I'm not one of the bad apples, an yes is edjumacated :chuckle: getting along will never happen as long as there are people like the ones who bring these type of threads up, as long as its a red white hate discussions I will mock ignorance :tup:The tribes proposed this bill not the white man, this thread was started to discuss the bills.
As far as never changing, I wouldn't say never, just maybe not anytime soon. If you honestly believe never then you are the most naive person on this forum. There is a push to ratify the entire US constitution. Do really think the government would go to the trouble to ratify a 200+ year old constitution and leave those treaties intact? :chuckle:
There are other holes in those treaties that could be exploited if the government felt inclined, I believe they are waiting for a bigger fish to fry before they play those cards though. ;)
Post by: huntnphool on February 01, 2013, 02:11:36 PM
Agreed but you have to keep in mind that our Supreme Court will soon look a lot different.The loopholes you are referring to can definitely go both ways and one thing that has been a deciding factor is deception. Deception in wording, and overall deceptive intent. This has swayed many supreme court rulings in the favor of tribes. Both sides have '' cards'' in their hand that they are waiting to play. This could end ugly in terms of hunting specifically. If you start talking resource allocation and yours and mine, as opposed to a shared resource being used by '' user groups''.Well get over it and accept that it will never change, I'm not one of the bad apples, an yes is edjumacated :chuckle: getting along will never happen as long as there are people like the ones who bring these type of threads up, as long as its a red white hate discussions I will mock ignorance :tup:The tribes proposed this bill not the white man, this thread was started to discuss the bills.
As far as never changing, I wouldn't say never, just maybe not anytime soon. If you honestly believe never then you are the most naive person on this forum. There is a push to ratify the entire US constitution. Do really think the government would go to the trouble to ratify a 200+ year old constitution and leave those treaties intact? :chuckle:
There are other holes in those treaties that could be exploited if the government felt inclined, I believe they are waiting for a bigger fish to fry before they play those cards though. ;)
Post by: asl20bball on February 01, 2013, 02:12:53 PM
Or better yet lets be more civilized and choose equality among all people irregardless of race. Sounds pretty fair to me. That's my :twocents:
Post by: jess on February 01, 2013, 02:18:13 PM
Post by: Green broke on February 01, 2013, 02:31:54 PM
It is a concern on many levels(saftey). Their are not very many tribal hunters who have not been harassed. To answer your question about hiking further I will do my best. At times gathering meat (hunting) is very time sensitive. Like I said before it's not a hobby. So one scenario that plays out is that when meat is needed several guys will head to an open area (not gated) , this creates an environment of ''over harvest''. Once meat is gathered you will not see most of these guys until the need presents itself again. It's easy to say to self regulate and make more members act like myself, not so easy to make it a reality. As you know humans are creatures of habit, this habit (amongst all user groups) tends to be road hunting. I will teach when possible and lead by example, but I will not criticize those tribal guys who don't act the way I do. I don't tolerate waste or excessive harvest under any circumstances.Blame who you must just make sure you look in all directions, there are other poachers out there that are not tribal. As for walking in, I have no problem with that since many of you know that the biggest animals do not come from road hunting.I will go into the book as a yes vote(i support them). I say this because i am concerned for the saftey of tribal members. another issue I would adress is it spreads the tribal hunters out therefore taking pressure off the few open areas. I also like the fact that it takes it out of the public eye so to speak. I have nothing to hide when it comes to the public eye, I would just rather its a more private setting(that may be percieved as selfish). Contrary to popular belief we very seldom target trophy animals, and parading them around is never been done(by myself or my kids).
What is the safety concern?? :dunno:
Hike further from those high pressure areas and they won't be so high pressure or regulate yourselves to not overhunt an area, is that too much to ask to ensure future generations have animals to hunt?
I get your not the "bad apple" but why continue to make it easier for them to be "bad apples"-tribal and non-tribal
These aren't sound arguments IMHO
Post by: scotty1969 on February 01, 2013, 02:35:30 PM
Post by: huntnphool on February 01, 2013, 02:40:10 PM
Good stuff GB :tup: I think you understand that if this were actually about "sustenance" hunting then few would be concerned. The outrage is the targeting of the bucks/bulls, which we both know is the crux of the issue. ;)It is a concern on many levels(saftey). Their are not very many tribal hunters who have not been harassed. To answer your question about hiking further I will do my best. At times gathering meat (hunting) is very time sensitive. Like I said before it's not a hobby. So one scenario that plays out is that when meat is needed several guys will head to an open area (not gated) , this creates an environment of ''over harvest''. Once meat is gathered you will not see most of these guys until the need presents itself again. It's easy to say to self regulate and make more members act like myself, not so easy to make it a reality. As you know humans are creatures of habit, this habit (amongst all user groups) tends to be road hunting. I will teach when possible and lead by example, but I will not criticize those tribal guys who don't act the way I do. I don't tolerate waste or excessive harvest under any circumstances.Blame who you must just make sure you look in all directions, there are other poachers out there that are not tribal. As for walking in, I have no problem with that since many of you know that the biggest animals do not come from road hunting.I will go into the book as a yes vote(i support them). I say this because i am concerned for the saftey of tribal members. another issue I would adress is it spreads the tribal hunters out therefore taking pressure off the few open areas. I also like the fact that it takes it out of the public eye so to speak. I have nothing to hide when it comes to the public eye, I would just rather its a more private setting(that may be percieved as selfish). Contrary to popular belief we very seldom target trophy animals, and parading them around is never been done(by myself or my kids).
What is the safety concern?? :dunno:
Hike further from those high pressure areas and they won't be so high pressure or regulate yourselves to not overhunt an area, is that too much to ask to ensure future generations have animals to hunt?
I get your not the "bad apple" but why continue to make it easier for them to be "bad apples"-tribal and non-tribal
These aren't sound arguments IMHO
Post by: Smossy on February 01, 2013, 02:46:28 PM
Post by: bobcat on February 01, 2013, 02:49:31 PM
:dunno: :dunno:
You're new to all this, just read and learn.
Post by: mfswallace on February 01, 2013, 03:34:11 PM
:dunno: :dunno:
You're new to all this, just read and learn.
But please don't speak :chuckle: we have enough uniformed uneducated ignorant opinions already :bash: not meant as an insult smossy but you freely admit hunting and resource managment is all new to you :tup:
Not that you wouldn't lend a different perspective but if you go back and read this through you'll see how one simple comment can bring out the vultures who just want to make smart butt comments :sry:
Post by: bobcat on February 01, 2013, 03:38:08 PM
I never realized how bad the tribal problem was until I started reading about it on this forum ( and some others before this one came into existence).
Post by: mfswallace on February 01, 2013, 03:43:31 PM
I didn't really mean that he shouldn't post. He really SHOULD. Ask questions, because I'm sure there are others who don't quite understand the entire issue here.True, just trying to avoid the off topic stuff but I guess he might ask questions we don't think about as more experienced hunters :twocents:
I never realized how bad the tribal problem was until I started reading abou it on this forum ( and some others before this one came into existence).
Let me :violent1: myself or :nono:
Post by: whiteeyes on February 01, 2013, 04:23:23 PM
I didn't really mean that he shouldn't post. He really SHOULD. Ask questions, because I'm sure there are others who don't quite understand the entire issue here.
I never realized how bad the tribal problem was until I started reading abou it on this forum ( and some others before this one came into existence).
Ya Smossy, make sure you believe every thing you read on the forums, to funny.
Post by: bobcat on February 01, 2013, 04:29:02 PM
I didn't really mean that he shouldn't post. He really SHOULD. Ask questions, because I'm sure there are others who don't quite understand the entire issue here.
I never realized how bad the tribal problem was until I started reading abou it on this forum ( and some others before this one came into existence).
Ya Smossy, make sure you believe every thing you read on the forums, to funny.
I don't find it funny at all. I find it simply educational. :dunno:
Post by: lil_red_wagon on February 01, 2013, 04:56:57 PM
I will be thinking of ur blah blah blah when I drive threw that gate n u have to oark on the other side n just sit there n watch... So please keep up the act.. N trash talk :tup:
Post by: Bigtine96 on February 01, 2013, 05:07:33 PM
blah blah blah.i cant believe all the were your ancestors here were there cars roads etc.. let me ask.how many F B I are still around that was here when the treaty was signed.everyone wants equality but only for themselves and that is bs.they want there treaty to still work for them just like we want our constitution to still work for us it is no diff.but like i said closed for one closed for all we could work together way better than this.just like jeepers have to work with the hikers and the horseman.compromise so everyone can get a piece.on another note there are a lot of non tribals in yakima that go hunting with tribals all year round i know this to be a fact the dollar can buy most anything on the rez.
:yeah:
Post by: Time Immemorial on February 01, 2013, 05:09:38 PM
blah blah blah.i cant believe all the were your ancestors here were there cars roads etc.. let me ask.how many F B I are still around that was here when the treaty was signed.everyone wants equality but only for themselves and that is bs.they want there treaty to still work for them just like we want our constitution to still work for us it is no diff.but like i said closed for one closed for all we could work together way better than this.just like jeepers have to work with the hikers and the horseman.compromise so everyone can get a piece.on another note there are a lot of non tribals in yakima that go hunting with tribals all year round i know this to be a fact the dollar can buy most anything on the rez.We are all full blooded :tup:
Post by: gaddy on February 01, 2013, 05:22:29 PM
Post by: JackOfAllTrades on February 01, 2013, 06:51:56 PM
Was never any shiapos either
Huh?
Post by: Curly on February 01, 2013, 07:02:03 PM
Was never any shiapos either
Huh?
Maybe Hairtrigger means shiaopau (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=shiaopau) :dunno:
Post by: Practical Approach on February 01, 2013, 07:23:54 PM
Practical Approach,
My point was that the Yakama tribe doesn't limit their members in any way, as far as how many animals they can take each year. (As we are)
Now the tribes are wanting to have motorized access behind gates where we don't.
Where does their greed end?
Neither of these bills are needed, they're a total waste of paper and ink. If tribal members want to hunt behind locked gates, they can walk like the rest of us.
You know, kind of like how in the treaty it says they can hunt "in common" with us?
I think the problem is we really don't know who is behind the bill. Is it Yakama, other tribes or legislators in general. I guess there are issues between Yakama and state hunters, but sometimes I feel this website focuse too intensly on just Yakama. There are 25 othere tribes out there as well.
There are plenty of non tribal hunters that would love to have access behind gates, even more would love to have access behind gates and restrict the tribes. This boils down to someone writing a bill on behalf of tribal access and it doest represent the non tribal hunter.
Whether we like it or not, there are bills written all of the time that benefit certain user groups.
Don't get me wrong, I am a big supporter of gates. I hike and ride my mountain bike every year behind gates. I know many tribal memebers that do it as well.
Post by: Practical Approach on February 01, 2013, 07:33:03 PM
the fact is fair and equal treatment of everyone and not getting special rights because of your skin color.. I have been pushing for years to make all hunting fair.. Off the rezervation EVERYONE must have a state hunting/fishing permit and folow state seasons.. This is why there is so much hate towards natives.. Its not FAIR for a non-native to put in for a permit for years when a native can hunt that same hunt every year.. Make everyone EQUAL!! natives should want to be equal not just judged by the color of thier skin.Special rights are not because of skin color but an agreement between the United States Government and the Tribes. Not sure why you get so pissed about an agreement that your government made with other governments. Ok, you don't have the same hunting season, but you do have a piece of property that you have a house on and you call home.
Post by: trophyhunt on February 01, 2013, 07:34:09 PM
Post by: Bigtine96 on February 01, 2013, 07:34:36 PM
Yes there are many tribes in washington, and for the most part they both have their good and bad qualities/tribal members. However from what I have personally seen and heard of from credible sources there are many many yakima members who completely abuse and rape our resources for their own pleasure. There would be no problem if all members were respectful and grateful of the resources we all share. But thats not the case and thats why there is a problem.
Post by: Time Immemorial on February 01, 2013, 08:01:03 PM
Shiapos=white manWas never any shiapos either
Huh?
Maybe Hairtrigger means shiaopau (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=shiaopau) :dunno:
Post by: sled on February 01, 2013, 08:05:49 PM
were your ancestors here when we signed the treaty???oh. You were there?
Post by: Time Immemorial on February 01, 2013, 08:07:16 PM
Post by: sled on February 01, 2013, 08:15:21 PM
Yeah he was an so was I :chuckle:hairtrigger.
Post by: Time Immemorial on February 01, 2013, 09:05:11 PM
:dunno: :dunno: :dunno:Yeah he was an so was I :chuckle:hairtrigger.
Post by: trophyhunt on February 01, 2013, 10:30:53 PM
I'm getting the feeling that the tribes are as messed up politically as our country is, so a question for you tribal members. Can I join a tribe and have tribal rights with just a generous donation????Feel tree to PM me if you want.
Post by: Time Immemorial on February 01, 2013, 10:56:30 PM
Who :dunno:I'm getting the feeling that the tribes are as messed up politically as our country is, so a question for you tribal members. Can I join a tribe and have tribal rights with just a generous donation????Feel tree to PM me if you want.
Post by: 6x6in6 on February 01, 2013, 11:05:14 PM
YouWho :dunno:I'm getting the feeling that the tribes are as messed up politically as our country is, so a question for you tribal members. Can I join a tribe and have tribal rights with just a generous donation????Feel tree to PM me if you want.
He's trying to buy his way into some YN blood. :chuckle:
Post by: Green broke on February 01, 2013, 11:06:38 PM
No tribal membership is not for sale. there was corruption in the past but I think most of the members who were not legit(blood related), have been dis-enrolled. I can only speak from my personal experiences. Any political arena weather tribal, state, or at a federal level usually comes with conflict. Tribal governments that I have knowledge of for most part are made up of a council where there is a cross section of our communities.(I am admittedly limited on these things) Most of the council minutes are available with a little looking. Tribes usually have general council where you can bring issues out in a public arena. There are also many committees much like many other modern governments.I'm getting the feeling that the tribes are as messed up politically as our country is, so a question for you tribal members. Can I join a tribe and have tribal rights with just a generous donation????Feel tree to PM me if you want.
Post by: Time Immemorial on February 01, 2013, 11:20:51 PM
Bahahahaha funniest I've ever heardYouWho :dunno:I'm getting the feeling that the tribes are as messed up politically as our country is, so a question for you tribal members. Can I join a tribe and have tribal rights with just a generous donation????Feel tree to PM me if you want.
He's trying to buy his way into some YN blood. :chuckle:
Post by: huntnphool on February 07, 2013, 09:32:05 AM
Post by: huntrights on February 11, 2013, 12:43:03 PM
Is there any way to contact all of the reps on the sponsor list that are not in one's own district? Or do you just have to do them individually?
Legislator’s emails
https://dlr.leg.wa.gov/MemberEmail/Default.aspx
Post by: huntrights on February 11, 2013, 01:00:19 PM
Link with a copy and paste option to communicate with the committe members and your Representatives:
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,118211.0.html
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on February 11, 2013, 01:17:52 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 11, 2013, 04:07:19 PM
Post by: huntnphool on February 11, 2013, 04:14:19 PM
Post by: huntnphool on February 11, 2013, 07:01:03 PM
I think its great we have a guy willing to do the hard parts to make it easy for all of us, please take advantage of his kindness and send in a letter, it will take you less than a minute of your time.
Here are the pieces to do this, thanks again jshunt. :tup:
Copy and paste the email addresses for the Community Development, Housing & Tribal Affairs Committee:
john.mccoy@leg.wa.gov; sherry.appleton@leg.wa.gov; jan.angel@leg.wa.gov; norm.johnson@leg.wa.gov; larry.haler@leg.wa.gov; liz.pike@leg.wa.gov; cindy.ryu@leg.wa.gov; sharontomiko.santos@leg.wa.gov; david.sawyer@leg.wa.gov
Copy and paste subject:
Please Oppose HB1495 and HB1496 – Tribal Access to State Lands and Hunting-related Enforcement
Copy and Paste message:
Dear Community Development, Housing & Tribal Affairs Committee:
I am writing to respectfully request that you oppose
HB1495 - AN ACT Relating to access of tribal members to state lands; and
HB1496 - AN ACT Relating to hunting-related enforcement actions involving tribal members.
While I do hold the Washington State Indian Tribes in high regard, I am concerned that both of these Bills are vague, and will result in prejudiced consequences. HB1495 would give preferential treatment to tribal members that would not be available to any other class of citizens. HB1496 would remove jurisdiction from Washington State law enforcement personnel in at least some areas where they now have jurisdiction; they would be required to surrender it exclusively to tribal authorities when a tribal member is involved.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
[Your contact information]
Post by: bigtex on February 11, 2013, 07:02:58 PM
HB1496 would remove jurisdiction from Washington State law enforcement personnel in at least some areas where they now have jurisdiction; they would be required to surrender it exclusively to tribal authorities when a tribal member is involved.
FYI,
The bill requires ALL (State, County, City, Federal) law enforcement officers to essentially stop their investigation/contact upon being shown the tribal permit. Not just for state/WDFW Officers.
Post by: bigtex on February 11, 2013, 07:03:39 PM
Post by: huntrights on February 11, 2013, 07:46:05 PM
A lot of these bills sponsors are also on the committee responsible for hearing and pushing this bill forward :bash:
We need to contact our Represntatives as well.
Post by: huntrights on February 11, 2013, 07:46:26 PM
Please contact the Community Development, Housing & Tribal Affairs Committee to respectfully ask them to oppose
HB1495 - AN ACT Relating to access of tribal members to state lands; and
HB1496 - AN ACT Relating to hunting-related enforcement actions involving tribal members.
Links to HB1495:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1495
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1495.pdf (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1495.pdf)
Links to HB1496:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1496&year=2013
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1496.pdf (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1496.pdf)
Also, please contact your state Representatives and respectfully ask that they oppose these Bills (You can use the same message sent to the Community Development, Housing & Tribal Affairs Committee).
Find Your Washington State Legislator:
http://app.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/
Copy and paste the email addresses for the Community Development, Housing & Tribal Affairs Committee:
john.mccoy@leg.wa.gov; sherry.appleton@leg.wa.gov; jan.angel@leg.wa.gov; norm.johnson@leg.wa.gov; larry.haler@leg.wa.gov; liz.pike@leg.wa.gov; cindy.ryu@leg.wa.gov; sharontomiko.santos@leg.wa.gov; david.sawyer@leg.wa.gov
Copy and paste subject:
Please Oppose HB1495 and HB1496 – Tribal Access to State Lands and Hunting-related Enforcement
Copy and Paste message:
Dear Community Development, Housing & Tribal Affairs Committee:
I am writing to respectfully request that you oppose
HB1495 - AN ACT Relating to access of tribal members to state lands; and
HB1496 - AN ACT Relating to hunting-related enforcement actions involving tribal members.
While I do hold the Washington State Indian Tribes in high regard, I am concerned that both of these Bills are vague, and will result in prejudiced consequences. HB1495 would give preferential treatment to tribal members that would not be available to any other class of citizens. HB1496 would remove jurisdiction from Washington State law enforcement personnel in at least some areas where they now have jurisdiction; they would be required to surrender it exclusively to tribal authorities when a tribal member is involved.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
[Your contact information]
Post by: Chase 1 on February 11, 2013, 11:25:14 PM
Post by: Practical Approach on February 12, 2013, 11:44:31 AM
Post by: lokidog on February 12, 2013, 11:47:10 AM
Bills were heard today. Nobody showed in opposition? However, there was a lot of testimony that was for the bills.
That blows!! I've sent several letters but don't have the ability to go there. >:(
Post by: huntrights on February 12, 2013, 11:47:15 AM
Bills were heard today. Nobody showed in opposition? However, there was a lot of testimony that was for the bills.
Did the Committee say anything about all of the letters of opposition?
Post by: Practical Approach on February 12, 2013, 11:51:05 AM
Post by: bigtex on February 12, 2013, 11:54:31 AM
Bills were heard today. Nobody showed in opposition? However, there was a lot of testimony that was for the bills.
Did the Committee say anything about all of the letters of opposition?
No.
It was very much a PRO hearing for both bills
Post by: Time Immemorial on February 12, 2013, 12:19:46 PM
Post by: lokidog on February 12, 2013, 12:44:00 PM
Too bad our illustrious, "one with nature" brothers on here need so much help to destroy the resource they profess to love. Oh, oh, I must be a racist... :puke: because I think that having unmanaged access to a PUBLIC resource is bad.
Post by: Practical Approach on February 12, 2013, 12:50:16 PM
Post by: CP on February 12, 2013, 12:55:05 PM
Post by: lokidog on February 12, 2013, 12:58:13 PM
I found it interesting that with all of the hoopla and banter on this website regarding these bills, that nobody had the time to provide public testimony. Very surprising.
Some of us actually work for a living.................
Post by: woodswalker on February 12, 2013, 01:07:17 PM
I found it interesting that with all of the hoopla and banter on this website regarding these bills, that nobody had the time to provide public testimony. Very surprising.
That just might be because some of us work for a living and cannot just hie off willy-nilly to run defend against things that should never have gained traction were the folks in the Marble Zoo worth their salt.
Post by: Practical Approach on February 12, 2013, 01:08:01 PM
I found it interesting that with all of the hoopla and banter on this website regarding these bills, that nobody had the time to provide public testimony. Very surprising.
Some of us actually work for a living.................
I figured that would be the predictable answer. Some do work for a living, however some don't work Tuesdays and some are even retired. Some might even be able to take a few hours off or a day if they thought it was important enough. Some might get together and pay someone to represent their position.
Then some might just make excuses.
Post by: bobcat on February 12, 2013, 01:08:12 PM
I wouldn't be surprised in the future if they just flat out turned Washington state over to the tribes. This is sickening. At a time when our state government should be pulling in the reins on the Indians, they do the opposite. :bash: :bash: :bdid:
Post by: Green broke on February 12, 2013, 01:09:24 PM
Surprise, special interest wins out again, let's make the special ones more special. :bash: Hopefully the Senate doesn't have their heads so far up the special interest butt that they can see the damage this will do to wildlife.If I wasn't at work I would offer you a hug. :hello:
Too bad our illustrious, "one with nature" brothers on here need so much help to destroy the resource they profess to love. Oh, oh, I must be a racist... :puke: because I think that having unmanaged access to a PUBLIC resource is bad.
Post by: blackdog on February 12, 2013, 08:01:16 PM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on February 12, 2013, 08:20:34 PM
This is the problem with allowing the tribes to have a monopoly on gambling in this state. They now have more money than they know what to do with, and of course much of it ends up in the pockets of our politicians.Thats where I am coming from ...100% A FACT ! :tup:
I wouldn't be surprised in the future if they just flat out turned Washington state over to the tribes. This is sickening. At a time when our state government should be pulling in the reins on the Indians, they do the opposite. :bash: :bash: :bdid:
Post by: Green broke on February 12, 2013, 08:52:23 PM
This comment strikes me as odd in ways. Several tribes (not all) are concentrating on management where in the past it was never a point of focus. Bowhunter45 correct me if I'm wrong but I believed you have even recognized some of the efforts of the tribes when it comes to wildlife management.
We could go back to a time and place where tribes had no regulations or concern for the management side of wildlife. Tribes are becoming more proactive than ever before (at least in my lifetime). Each tribe has the ability to make as liberal or as strict of season/bag limit as they choose. I have said before the trend is definitely towards conservation and proper management to ensure animals for future generations.
I would have to say I would entrust my future herds to certain tribes natural resource programs before I would give it to the WDFW. That said there are some really competent professionals in the WDFW they just seem to have their reins pulled too tight, weather it be funding issues or departmental politics.
Post by: Practical Approach on February 12, 2013, 08:59:20 PM
Allowing? The state has gambling, plenty of private casinos out there, oh how about the state run lottery. The state regulates how their casinos operate.This is the problem with allowing the tribes to have a monopoly on gambling in this state. They now have more money than they know what to do with, and of course much of it ends up in the pockets of our politicians.Thats where I am coming from ...100% A FACT ! :tup:
I wouldn't be surprised in the future if they just flat out turned Washington state over to the tribes. This is sickening. At a time when our state government should be pulling in the reins on the Indians, they do the opposite. :bash: :bash: :bdid:
Tribes have more money than they know what to do with???? Has anyone been to a reservation and seen some of the hardship and poverty? I don't doubt tribes support politicians that support tribal interests. Thats the American way. Been that way since the U.S. was formed.
Why is it a time that the state should be reining in tribes??? What happened that makes this the time? I hope folks realize the state doesn't reign in tribal rights. Tribal rights were agreed upon in Federal treaties that trump a lot of the states ability to "reighn" in Indians.
Post by: bobcat on February 12, 2013, 09:27:20 PM
Quote
Why is it a time that the state should be reining in tribes??? What happened that makes this the time? I hope folks realize the state doesn't reign in tribal rights. Tribal rights were agreed upon in Federal treaties that trump a lot of the states ability to "reighn" in Indians.
Because, more and more, Indians are taking advantage of their treaty rights by hunting for trophy-sized animals. They're not hunting to feed their families or to provide food for some sort of traditional ceremony. If that were the case they wouldn't be going out on the winter range and killing all of the biggest bucks and bulls that are available. And then entering those heads in a contest at the Sportsman Show. Or selling them on eBay.
It's obvious some of these tribal members couldn't care less about conserving the state's deer and elk for future generations. The tribes right now are trying to get a bill passed that will allow them access with motorized vehicles behind locked gates on state land, and another bill that takes away the state's right to enforce wildlife laws when a tribal member is in violation. The treaties didn't give them the right to drive anywhere they want. That's what I'm talking about.
Post by: Practical Approach on February 12, 2013, 09:36:39 PM
I am not a trophy hunter so I will leave the Sportsman show issue up to you and your judgement. I don't know how those operate. However, I thought that animals killed with a tribal tag were not eligable for Boone and Crocket or Pope and Young. Maybe Sportsman shows are different. Selling them on Ebay. I haven't seen that yet. I do see a lot of people selling sheds though.
Post by: huntnphool on February 12, 2013, 10:56:08 PM
I will leave it up to attorneys as to whether they are taking advantage or finally being able to utilize their treaty rights.:chuckle: Of course you will.
Post by: skywalker253 on February 13, 2013, 01:46:07 AM
Allowing? The state has gambling, plenty of private casinos out there, oh how about the state run lottery. The state regulates how their casinos operate.This is the problem with allowing the tribes to have a monopoly on gambling in this state. They now have more money than they know what to do with, and of course much of it ends up in the pockets of our politicians.Thats where I am coming from ...100% A FACT ! :tup:
I wouldn't be surprised in the future if they just flat out turned Washington state over to the tribes. This is sickening. At a time when our state government should be pulling in the reins on the Indians, they do the opposite. :bash: :bash: :bdid:
Tribes have more money than they know what to do with???? Has anyone been to a reservation and seen some of the hardship and poverty? I don't doubt tribes support politicians that support tribal interests. Thats the American way. Been that way since the U.S. was formed.
Why is it a time that the state should be reining in tribes??? What happened that makes this the time? I hope folks realize the state doesn't reign in tribal rights. Tribal rights were agreed upon in Federal treaties that trump a lot of the states ability to "reighn" in Indians.
Yakima Nation is not rich! We get a whopping $115 per month when they feel like sending it. Maybe $350 at Xmas time. This year we got nothing. I guess it does not pay to be married to an enrolled tribal member. Next time I will marry a Puyallup!
Post by: Practical Approach on February 13, 2013, 01:33:27 PM
You laugh, but so will you.I will leave it up to attorneys as to whether they are taking advantage or finally being able to utilize their treaty rights.:chuckle: Of course you will.
Post by: Chase 1 on February 13, 2013, 11:29:16 PM
A lot of these bills sponsors are also on the committee responsible for hearing and pushing this bill forward :bash:
We need to contact our Represntatives as well.
A response I received today from Rep. Jan Angel.
I checked in to this as I thought this was new legislation –it is not. It is already current law and it appears it was offered for clarity. I will watch as if it is amended in any way that opens other doors I will take appropriate action. Thanks for your e-mail –these bills do not appear to really even be necessary. Rep. Jan Angel
Post by: huntrights on February 14, 2013, 07:20:59 AM
A lot of these bills sponsors are also on the committee responsible for hearing and pushing this bill forward :bash:
We need to contact our Represntatives as well.
A response I received today from Rep. Jan Angel.
I checked in to this as I thought this was new legislation –it is not. It is already current law and it appears it was offered for clarity. I will watch as if it is amended in any way that opens other doors I will take appropriate action. Thanks for your e-mail –these bills do not appear to really even be necessary. Rep. Jan Angel
This is similar to what I received.
Post by: npaull on February 14, 2013, 12:21:22 PM
Post by: Rainier10 on February 14, 2013, 12:23:26 PM
These separate rights for public resources perpetuate racism, animosity and bitterness. They help prevent integration and hurt goodwill among citizens of different backgrounds. It is increasingly hard to see this as a good thing for anyone involved in the long run. I increasingly wonder whether separate wildlife rights are the way to go anymore. It's a complicated issue, though, I'll concede.:yeah:
Post by: huntrights on February 14, 2013, 01:57:32 PM
These separate rights for public resources perpetuate racism, animosity and bitterness. They help prevent integration and hurt goodwill among citizens of different backgrounds. It is increasingly hard to see this as a good thing for anyone involved in the long run. I increasingly wonder whether separate wildlife rights are the way to go anymore. It's a complicated issue, though, I'll concede.
In my opinion, no one should ever "concede" if they feel strongly about something. Tribal issues are obviously sensitive issues. Based on some of the posts I've read, there appear to be several tribal members that read and participate in the forum. The goal for all of us, tribal and non-tribal, should be to promote wildlife management based on sound and unbiased science. Any departure from that hurts all of us and the wildlife populations. If there are laws in place that defeat that goal, then we should work to change that. "We" means tribal members and non-tribal citizens. Laws can be nullified and/or changed to do what is benficial for all of us and the wildlife populations. The way to do that is to identify real issues that can be verified and studied. We cannot allow an "us versus them" rift to develop; if it's already there, let's work to fix it. :twocents:
Post by: Practical Approach on February 14, 2013, 02:15:10 PM
These separate rights for public resources perpetuate racism, animosity and bitterness. They help prevent integration and hurt goodwill among citizens of different backgrounds. It is increasingly hard to see this as a good thing for anyone involved in the long run. I increasingly wonder whether separate wildlife rights are the way to go anymore. It's a complicated issue, though, I'll concede.
In my opinion, no one should ever "concede" if they feel strongly about something. Tribal issues are obviously sensitive issues. Based on some of the posts I've read, there appear to be several tribal members that read and participate in the forum. The goal for all of us, tribal and non-tribal, should be to promote wildlife management based on sound and unbiased science. Any departure from that hurts all of us and the wildlife populations. If there are laws in place that defeat that goal, then we should work to change that. "We" means tribal members and non-tribal citizens. Laws can be nullified and/or changed to do what is benficial for all of us and the wildlife populations. The way to do that is to identify real issues that can be verified and studied. We cannot allow an "us versus them" rift to develop; if it's already there, let's work to fix it. :twocents:
Well said.
Post by: npaull on February 14, 2013, 02:23:06 PM
Post by: Green broke on February 14, 2013, 02:55:57 PM
:yeah:These separate rights for public resources perpetuate racism, animosity and bitterness. They help prevent integration and hurt goodwill among citizens of different backgrounds. It is increasingly hard to see this as a good thing for anyone involved in the long run. I increasingly wonder whether separate wildlife rights are the way to go anymore. It's a complicated issue, though, I'll concede.
In my opinion, no one should ever "concede" if they feel strongly about something. Tribal issues are obviously sensitive issues. Based on some of the posts I've read, there appear to be several tribal members that read and participate in the forum. The goal for all of us, tribal and non-tribal, should be to promote wildlife management based on sound and unbiased science. Any departure from that hurts all of us and the wildlife populations. If there are laws in place that defeat that goal, then we should work to change that. "We" means tribal members and non-tribal citizens. Laws can be nullified and/or changed to do what is benficial for all of us and the wildlife populations. The way to do that is to identify real issues that can be verified and studied. We cannot allow an "us versus them" rift to develop; if it's already there, let's work to fix it. :twocents:
Post by: huntrights on February 14, 2013, 03:08:39 PM
I think you may misinterpret - I'm not conceding my opinion, merely acknowledging that it's complicated.
It was just my :twocents: to all saying we can fix things that are broken if we work together.
Post by: huntnphool on February 14, 2013, 05:27:02 PM
Well said.These separate rights for public resources perpetuate racism, animosity and bitterness. They help prevent integration and hurt goodwill among citizens of different backgrounds. It is increasingly hard to see this as a good thing for anyone involved in the long run. I increasingly wonder whether separate wildlife rights are the way to go anymore. It's a complicated issue, though, I'll concede.
In my opinion, no one should ever "concede" if they feel strongly about something. Tribal issues are obviously sensitive issues. Based on some of the posts I've read, there appear to be several tribal members that read and participate in the forum. The goal for all of us, tribal and non-tribal, should be to promote wildlife management based on sound and unbiased science. Any departure from that hurts all of us and the wildlife populations. If there are laws in place that defeat that goal, then we should work to change that. "We" means tribal members and non-tribal citizens. Laws can be nullified and/or changed to do what is benficial for all of us and the wildlife populations. The way to do that is to identify real issues that can be verified and studied. We cannot allow an "us versus them" rift to develop; if it's already there, let's work to fix it. :twocents:
I noticed that a couple of the tribal members on here agreed with you as well, however actions suggests that the tribes have zero interest in working together if it means any kind of limitations imposed on their hunting/fishing rights, even if presented with sound and unbiased science.
Post by: bigtex on February 14, 2013, 05:45:59 PM
Video of the initial hearing. WDFW and DNR starts at 8:30
Post by: huntrights on February 14, 2013, 06:13:51 PM
Well said.
I noticed that a couple of the tribal members on here agreed with you as well, however actions suggests that the tribes have zero interest in working together if it means any kind of limitations imposed on their hunting/fishing rights, even if presented with sound and unbiased science.
The first step is starting the [open, honest, and respectful] conversation.
Post by: Green broke on February 14, 2013, 06:47:32 PM
Post by: haugenna on February 14, 2013, 07:19:09 PM
http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2013020107 (http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2013020107)
Video of the initial hearing. WDFW and DNR starts at 8:30
What value did this guy bring? That was most pointless dribble I have ever heard. (the gentleman that spoke at 8:30.
Post by: HardCorpsHuntr on February 14, 2013, 07:39:40 PM
http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2013020107 (http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2013020107)
Video of the initial hearing. WDFW and DNR starts at 8:30
What value did this guy bring? That was most pointless dribble I have ever heard. (the gentleman that spoke at 8:30.
Well, he probably wants to keep his appointed job as the WDFW chief, and appear somewhat modest on this topic to prevent it from turning into a perceived racist...!
Post by: huntnphool on February 14, 2013, 08:14:17 PM
Phool I'm guessing you are are referring to me with your comment. Lets see we voluntarily quit hunting a unit because the herd was in trouble. We meet with the wdfw. We helped with funding and even did some augmentations on our own. We self limit in different gmus. Where do you get your info on me and my actions? I even tried to give a little insight to you specifically because I respect anyone with as much passion you have for wildlife.To my knowledge I've never met you GB, I was not referring to you. ;)
Post by: haugenna on February 14, 2013, 08:35:40 PM
I am surprised no sportsman showed up. Looked like McCoy was shocked as well.
Post by: Green broke on February 14, 2013, 09:40:57 PM
Post by: ICEMAN on February 15, 2013, 06:25:30 AM
The puyallup panel was pretty interesting. Officer Herrera claims that there is not enough land for the tribes to hunt and they are so concentrated. Barbara Miller gets on there and says that they have no effect on the wintering populations because they have so few hunters.
I am surprised no sportsman showed up. Looked like McCoy was shocked as well.
I am not surprised sportsman may not have shown. How many anti gun bills are before the legislature? Very hard for guys to make themselves available for making comments in public at a hearing. And, especially on tribal issues, I am sure most hunters feel that the cards are stacked against the non tribal entities...
I am sure most are feeling pretty burnt out over the past 4 years and are now looking at 4 of the same or worse.
Post by: blackdog on February 16, 2013, 04:15:26 PM
Post by: Fishmasterdan on February 17, 2013, 12:44:40 PM
I am So tired of the government and their regulation ... Lately the government is wanting to regulate everything ... this country belongs to all of us and the government keeps stepping over the line ...I can see it already ...it another 10 yrs every river and all state lands will have signs up everywhere ...Saying TRIBAL FISHING & HUNTING ONLY !!!! Unauthorized personnel will be executed :yike: I am personally tired of all of it and this is why I can not seem to like any of them ...The government and all of its agencies :dunno: when I sit here thinking of how the times have changed in the last 10 yrs alone my stomach hurts ..Can not freely drive up a mountain road , can not head to the river and catch salmon , can not pull over at a rest station without seeing a discover Pass sign taped to the sheeter and on & on .... :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:
I am with you!!! .Its time to fight back
Post by: boneaddict on February 17, 2013, 01:55:24 PM
Post by: bearpaw on February 17, 2013, 03:51:21 PM
TAKE ACTION
Legislative Hotline: 1-800-562-6000
The call took less than 2 minutes, I asked them to: "Please oppose HB 1495 and HB 1496"
........Hotline Hours........
Monday-Friday...8am - 8pm
Saturday...........9am - 1pm
Sunday.............closed
Post by: Eli346 on February 17, 2013, 04:00:09 PM
Post by: boneaddict on February 17, 2013, 04:12:58 PM
Post by: bearpaw on February 18, 2013, 08:26:09 AM
Legislative Hotline: 1-800-562-6000
A call takes less than 2 minutes, ask them to: "Please oppose HB 1495 and HB 1496"
........Hotline Hours........
Monday-Friday...8am - 8pm
Saturday...........9am - 1pm
Sunday.............closed
Post by: Harborhunter on February 20, 2013, 08:32:21 AM
Post by: WAbowhntr on February 20, 2013, 09:08:03 AM
Post by: huntrights on February 20, 2013, 09:24:44 AM
Call made.
Post by: Rainier10 on February 20, 2013, 11:58:45 AM
Post by: Gringo31 on February 20, 2013, 01:15:40 PM
Can't help but wonder just what this whole world or country is coming to...... I think next will be a baby sitting program from the govt that uses inmates. :bash:
Post by: CP on February 21, 2013, 06:35:18 AM
Mary Helen Roberts
21st District Representative
“My understanding is that these bills simply clarify in state law our commitment to honoring State and Federal treaty obligations. It sounds to me like what you oppose are the hunting rights for tribes that already exist in the treaties signed long ago. Based on the bill reports, it appears that both of these bills passed out of committee without opposition.”
Looks like they intend to ride the “simply clarify in state law our commitment to honoring State and Federal treaty obligations” as party line.
Post by: Rainier10 on February 21, 2013, 01:57:39 PM
Post by: gaddy on February 21, 2013, 06:53:47 PM
basically was a thank you for contacting me letter concerning HB 1495 reguarding access to tribal members to state lands & HB 1496 reguarding enforcement actions involving tribal members.
bolth bills passed out of the house committiee on community development and housing & tribal affairs on feb 14 and are awaiting further action.
thank you bla, bla i will keep your thoughts in mind.
sharon brown, senator, 8th district
Post by: haugenna on February 23, 2013, 11:58:03 AM
Post by: bearpaw on February 23, 2013, 12:42:49 PM
Is there anymore public opinion opportunities?
HB 1495 - DIGEST
Prohibits the department of natural resources from restricting access to federally recognized tribe members to certain open and unclaimed lands.
HB 1496 - DIGEST
Requires a fish and wildlife officer, under certain circumstances, to refer any inspection, investigation, or other enforcement action related to the hunting activity of certain tribal members to the enforcement authority of the tribe.
Both Bills are in rules committee, the most effective thing is to call, next best thing is to send email, if you have time do both.
Legislative Hotline: 1-800-562-6000
A call takes less than 2 minutes, ask them to: "Please oppose HB 1495 and HB 1496"
........Hotline Hours........
Monday-Friday...8am - 8pm
Saturday...........9am - 1pm
Sunday.............closed
or you can send an email to the rules committee:
Copy and paste the email list for the Rules Committee:
frank.chopp@leg.wa.gov; cathy.dahlquist@leg.wa.gov; richard.debolt@leg.wa.gov; susan.fagan@leg.wa.gov; tami.green@leg.wa.gov; jeff.holy@leg.wa.gov; norm.johnson@leg.wa.gov; linda.kochmar@leg.wa.gov; joel.kretz@leg.wa.gov; marko.liias@leg.wa.gov; chad.magendanz@leg.wa.gov; marcie.maxwell@leg.wa.gov; jim.moeller@leg.wa.gov; terry.nealey@leg.wa.gov; tina.orwall@leg.wa.gov; eric.pettigrew@leg.wa.gov; chris.reykdal@leg.wa.gov; maryhelen.roberts@leg.wa.gov; cindy.ryu@leg.wa.gov; david.sawyer@leg.wa.gov; larry.springer@leg.wa.gov; pat.sullivan@leg.wa.gov; gael.tarleton@leg.wa.gov; kevin.vandewege@leg.wa.gov; jt.wilcox@leg.wa.gov
Copy and paste subject:
Please Oppose HB1495 and HB1496 – Tribal Access to State Lands and Hunting-related Enforcement
Copy and Paste message:
Dear Community Development, Housing & Tribal Affairs Committee:
I am writing to respectfully request that you oppose
HB1495 - AN ACT Relating to access of tribal members to state lands; and
HB1496 - AN ACT Relating to hunting-related enforcement actions involving tribal members.
While I do hold the Washington State Indian Tribes in high regard, I am concerned that both of these Bills are vague, and will result in prejudiced consequences. HB1495 would give preferential treatment to tribal members that would not be available to any other class of citizens. HB1496 would remove jurisdiction from Washington State law enforcement personnel in at least some areas where they now have jurisdiction; they would be required to surrender it exclusively to tribal authorities when a tribal member is involved.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
[Your name & contact information]
Post by: haugenna on February 23, 2013, 04:31:22 PM
Post by: blackdog on February 25, 2013, 07:32:09 PM
Post by: haugenna on February 25, 2013, 10:14:04 PM
There is a amendment on the Bar that should if accepted make this Bill acceptable, :)
What would that be?
Post by: blackdog on February 26, 2013, 06:11:17 AM
Post by: CP on February 26, 2013, 06:42:35 AM
Codifies current practice. The resource loses nothing.
If it just codifies current practice then the bill isn’t needed and it's just a waste of time and money.
Legislators should stop wasting their time on it and do something worthwhile.
Post by: blackdog on February 26, 2013, 12:45:57 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 26, 2013, 04:11:29 PM
- Require the Attorney General's Office to create a training module on treaty hunting rights for general authority officers, and what they should do when given a tribal ID.
- Every WDFW Officer would be required to take this course EVERY year and it must be at least 4 hours long
Post by: haugenna on February 26, 2013, 06:54:07 PM
I know they were presenting the bill as "nothing changed" but we all know that a gate on a road is going to restrict vehicle access. I think that is what most of us are concerned with.
Post by: bigtex on March 08, 2013, 04:31:57 PM
All current and former law enforcement officers who serve in the House voted in oppostion, with the exception of D-Chris Hurst (Enumclaw, Bonney Lake).
Those who voted in opposition: Buys, Chandler, Condotta, Crouse, DeBolt, Haler, Hargrove, Harris, Hawkins, Hayes, Holy, Hope, Klippert, Kretz, Kristiansen, Magendanz, Manweller, Orcutt, Overstreet, Pike, Schmick, Scott, Shea, Short, Stonier, Taylor, and Vick
Post by: alwaysontop on March 19, 2013, 10:04:18 PM
Post by: splitshot on March 19, 2013, 10:27:59 PM
Post by: Bigtine96 on March 21, 2013, 05:27:13 PM
if the season is closed it is closed,period. if the road is closed it is closed,period. what part of closed dont i know? sooner or later someone will be shot. mike w
:yeah:
Post by: hardkorrhunter on April 04, 2013, 07:27:13 PM