Post by: loveipabeer on December 22, 2008, 10:10:56 AM
There is an article titled "Tribes Killed the Elk" in the December 2008 issue of The Reel News, written by John Fulwiler. It details the recent plight of the Colockum Elk Herd. Somebody scanned it and emailed it to me today. I tried to attach it but as you can see it's a little small.
This article should be read and discussed and if it's true it's sad.
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsmg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv136%2FArrogant%2Acensored%2A%2Fth_TRIBESKILLTHEELK.jpg&hash=341c7bc2653b83b14e3352a87e0c8d90947c6a91)
Post by: Diehard0123 on December 22, 2008, 02:49:26 PM
Post by: loveipabeer on December 22, 2008, 06:40:52 PM
Post by: mkcj on December 22, 2008, 06:57:43 PM
Post by: gasman on December 22, 2008, 08:07:40 PM
Post by: loveipabeer on December 22, 2008, 09:21:20 PM
The article needs to get up on this site with a link to somebody’s email address at the WDFW, then we all can write a little nasty gram, and maybe somebody will at least acknowledge it’s actually going on…but it’s Christmas and peace love etc. prevails.
Post by: NWTFhunter on December 22, 2008, 10:38:25 PM
Post by: loveipabeer on December 23, 2008, 09:56:07 AM
Remember about one year ago when THE REEL NEWS reported on the secret meetings that WDFW was having with the tribes? The main purpose of these meetings was to expand the various tribes hunting and fishing rights, and the areas to which these rights applied. As stated, it was to allow them into more traditional non-tribal areas. The tribes felt they should be allowed to hunt on the same land non-tribal hunters do using their laws. I have seen first hand what these rights amount to.
Long time readers know that I elk hunt in the Colockum Wildlife Area in Eastern Washington. My family settled in this area around 1880. At one time my grandfather owned or leased in excess of 3,500 acres, and along with two other families, was in the process of purchasing all of that and more. His untimely passing at a young age resulted in my grandmother selling his holdings to Washington State. My Uncle Neil owns the section of land that remained. It is the Colockum Ranch. The road from the Wenatchee side accessing the Colockum, runs past his and my cousins property. They see what goes up and down this road.
What they saw a lot of this summer was truck loads of dead elk. Starting at the end of July, as soon as antlers mature and harden, Yakima tribal hunters are decimating the Colockum elk herd. On the last Friday of deer season in the area, my dad and brother saw Indian hunters with a very large 7 point bull in the back. Nothing was open at the time for elk but the elk was dead, none the less. Relatives have seen truck loads of spikes, the only size bull us non-Indians are allowed to shoot. The man in charge of running the area has been told by his superiors, 'hands off." It is estimated by people in the area that the tribes killed 48 large bulls during the summer of 2008. My Uncle works very closely with the WDFW in the area. He tells me the Colockum elk herd is down by 1500 animals. All rules for this herd will change for the 2009 season.
I really have a hard time comprehending the greed in these hunters. They are absolutely classless as far as hunters go. For my lifetime, the top of the mountain in the Colockum has been the elk preserve. It was donated land from one Arthur Coffin. He donated the land for the preservation of elk. Non-tribal hunters cannot access this land at any time. Absolutely no trespassing. Doesn't apply to the tribes. They not only kill elk in the preserve, they camp on it. This year it was estimated that over 40 hunters made up this camp at one time. The elk have had decades of conditioned learning that they are safe in the preserve. Not any longer. And if tribal hunters can't kill their elk by hunting on a game preserve, they spot light at night, and it is legal by their rules. Amazing.
What is even more amazing to me is the fact that the Colockum elk herd was started by non-Indians around 1913. Elk were introduced to the area from the Yellowstone herd. Why do the tribes get to hunt for elk that weren't there prior to our putting them there? I asked this question and was told they have found drawings on caves near the Columbia River showing elk. According to the powers that be, this was enough to give them elk rights on the Colockum herd. I say it is shady closed door decision making at its worst.
I have two references in my collection that state elk were not readily available in Washington, except for the Roosevelt's. In the diary of Lewis and Clark. Lewis wrote that the tribes on the Columbia River really liked elk meat and were quite willing to trade for it, as they didn't have a successful means of killing them unless one stumbled into a bear pit. I have read that the Nez Pierce traveled to Idaho for their elk hunts. In another publication I have, written by R. Roundtree about himself, he describes how he and his brothers had to travel to Idaho for elk. They settled the Pe Ell area prior to the Civil War. But. because now they found a drawing, all the history goes aside.
Unless I am very mistaken about Indi-an traditions, they drew pictures of animals for reasons other than they were in the area. They would draw them to gain power over them for the hunt. They drew pictures in thanks for a successful hunt. Those pictures they found could have been elk killed in Idaho, which everything I have read shows both tribal hunters and non-tribal hunters went for Rocky Mountain elk, prior to their introduction here.
Non-tribal hunters have to draw a permit to shoot a branch antlered bull. In 2004, when my dad and brother were drawn, 28 permits were issued. This year 3 were issued. Just when we thought the practice of not shooting big bulls was starting to pay off, the Yakima tribe is decimating them. Plus, they kill spikes and cows also. I would like to see the spike only rule go away. All it is doing is giving classless tribal hunters carte blanche on big elk. Another item I intend to pursue is getting my hands on the paperwork that had to have been drawn up when Mr. Coffin donated all the land to the state for the elk preserve. It has to contain language pertaining to preservation. Allowing tribal hunters onto that land is not preservation. I am thinking someone could take that information and make the state nervous.
Hunting in this area has been going downhill for the past 3 years. Now we know why. When TRN sent out the questionnaires to the gubernatorial candidates, one of the questions was whether they supported these closed door secret meetings. Our newly re-elected governor chose not to respond. Guess what? We already knew the answer. Soon, elk in the Colockum will go the way of salmon, crab and the Nooksack elk herd, which was nearly wiped out by tribal hunters.
Post by: WDFW-SUX on December 23, 2008, 10:12:05 AM
Post by: NCWCracker on December 23, 2008, 02:18:41 PM
…How 'bout this; get some organization like RMEF to pay someone (maybe Littlefoot???) to follow these clowns around with a video camera, to document the killing, then release it to the media….think that might get the tribe’s attention???
Post by: NCWCracker on December 23, 2008, 02:25:20 PM
Issue Statement:
The Colockum elk herd has long been plagued by low bull: cow ratios, and calf: cow ratios have
also declined precipitously during the last decade. In 1994, spike-only hunting was adopted for
general license holders. This regulatory change occurred throughout eastern Washington and was
designed to increase bull survival, increase the ratios of adult bulls to adult cows, and to promote
early, synchronized breeding. In the Yakima elk herd the effect on bull: cow ratios was rapid and
dramatic. A similar response has not occurred in the Colockum herd. Bull survival apparently
remains low. Bull: cow ratios have generally remained below objective. Branch-antlered bull
hunting has essentially been eliminated. No positive effects have been seen in recruitment
patterns in the Colockum herd as well. Habitat condition also appears to be generally poor in
some concentrated use areas, such as the Coffin Game Reserve. There are a number of potential
factors that may be impacting elk recruitment, including poor nutrition, predation, and low
numbers of breeding adult bulls. Defensible estimates of yearling bull survival and calf survival
are needed. Movements and population dynamics of elk and deer in the upper Kittitas Valley are
poorly understood. Elk-landowner conflicts have been increasing on private lands in the upper
Kittitas Valley. Gain a better understanding of the population dynamics and habitat use of elk in
the upper Kittitas Valley.[/i]
Hmmmmmmm……I wonder why there is a problem here??? Hello!! Yakama Indians maybe!! Not even acknowledged!!
Post by: Craig on December 23, 2008, 03:02:42 PM
"It is estimated by people in the area that the tribes killed 48 large bulls during the summer of 2008."
If they only gave out 3 permits last year the indians killed 16 years worth of bulls in one year.
Post by: buck470 on December 23, 2008, 03:26:29 PM
Post by: NCWCracker on December 23, 2008, 03:56:12 PM
....sustenance & ceremonial purposes....ha!
Post by: logger on December 23, 2008, 04:37:32 PM
Post by: Big10gauge on December 23, 2008, 04:45:43 PM
Post by: Huntbear on December 23, 2008, 04:59:01 PM
Post by: bow4elk on December 23, 2008, 05:01:48 PM
Post by: NCWCracker on December 23, 2008, 05:09:40 PM
48 branched bulls taken by a handful of guys is friggin' sick.
Post by: rougheye on December 23, 2008, 05:10:48 PM
I can't even respond to this crap. Our state is pathetic with wildlife management (a big misnomer!)
pathetic just about sums it up :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:
Living over here i have seen bull elk in the backs of trucks a few times , you can call but nobody cares it is total B.S.
Post by: rougheye on December 23, 2008, 05:14:08 PM
Agree, that some organized pressure needs to be put together to get WDFW and the Yakamas to come to a real, enforcable, sustainable game management plan for that area. No more political correctness. What the tribe is doing is not politically correct, so why does the State have to be? Organize and force the issue!! If the true activity really got good media coverage, people would freak.
48 branched bulls taken by a handful of guys is friggin' sick.
If we did that they would turn it around on us , i doubt it will ever change . But i would be on board to try , I have a neighbor who used to feed the elk at Joe Watt and he has had to open the gate a few times to let them go get the meat , otherwise he said they just take the antlers and leave the meat
Post by: ELKBURGER on December 23, 2008, 05:16:24 PM
Post by: NWTFhunter on December 23, 2008, 06:20:12 PM
Ok, we can bitch and complain til we are blue in the face here. Or we can get organized and stand up and say we are not going to stand for this.
Anyone wanting to take the next step and organize let me know I will sign a petition or attend any meetings.
I know that we are not going to stop the tribal hunting, but they must follow the rules set forth by the WDFG and the Tribal Council. If we want the rules changed they are not going to happen by any of us sitting on our larrals, we have to put the pressure on WDFG and our wonderful Gov. to make the change.
Post by: Craig on December 23, 2008, 06:27:25 PM
Post by: runamuk on December 23, 2008, 06:36:39 PM
Still it might be worth documenting on film.
Post by: runniNgunnin on December 23, 2008, 06:42:21 PM
sport or leisure, but is instead a traditional and cultural activity that is needed to
provide food for funerals, memorials, name givings, food feasts, and family dinners."
:liar:
there must be a *censored* load of funerals and name givings, cause they obviously dont need the meat for FOOD FEAST, or FAMILY DINNERS.... obsolutely rediculous!!
(sorry for the french, but i thought it was needed)...
Post by: Houndhunter on December 23, 2008, 06:49:19 PM
Post by: NWTFhunter on December 23, 2008, 06:53:39 PM
I just sent a very long mail asking him to come to our page and discuss this issue and to get involved with the people of this state..... Among some other bitches/complaints and issues that we all need to bring to the table.
Come on guys email him... If enough of us get on his door matt he will have to listen.
Post by: logger on December 23, 2008, 06:57:32 PM
Post by: NWTFhunter on December 23, 2008, 06:59:10 PM
What is the legal hunting season there ?
Post by: chukarchaser on December 23, 2008, 07:15:39 PM
I had hoped that this issue would have come to the forefront when Jerry Gutzwiler got on the commission. This is happening in his backyard but alas it goes on every year to greater and greater degrees.
Post by: NWTFhunter on December 23, 2008, 07:27:50 PM
Post by: chukarchaser on December 23, 2008, 07:33:36 PM
Post by: bobcat on December 23, 2008, 07:48:12 PM
Quote
Elk Area No. 3068 Klickitat Meadows (Yakima County): Beginning at Darland Mountain, southeast along the main divide between the Diamond Fork drainage and the Ahtanum Creek drainage to the point due west of the headwaters of Reservation Creek (Section 18, T12N, R14E); then along a line due west to Spencer Point (as represented in the DNR 100k map); northeast from Spencer Point to US Forest Service (USFS) Trail 1136; north along USFS Trail 1136 to USFS Trail 615; east on USFS Trail 615 to Darland Mountain and the point of beginning.
Post by: chukarchaser on December 23, 2008, 07:57:39 PM
I hate what is going on in the Colockum, and I am even more upset with the fact that the commision knows what is gong on and does nothing to even attempt to resolve it. It makes one wonder if hte goal is not to eliminate the heard and turn the area into more orchards.
Post by: Charlie on December 23, 2008, 08:40:41 PM
Post by: Ridgerunner on December 23, 2008, 09:00:35 PM
Post by: loveipabeer on December 23, 2008, 09:44:06 PM
Somebody write a nice little 2-paragraph email summarizing our position and post it to this link.
When this nice somebody does write that 2 paragraph email, we can copy and paste it into an email and forward it to the "public" servant of our choice.
This is a quick and paineless excercise the gets results and it's also one of the most important things that we and Hunt WA can do.
Post by: NWTFhunter on December 23, 2008, 09:57:23 PM
I nor you can force anyone to send an email or letter to the gov, or the wdfg. But if you value your hunting you need to stand up and be counted damn it.
Post by: SuperDave on December 23, 2008, 10:21:09 PM
Post by: logger on December 23, 2008, 10:22:42 PM
Post by: bobcat on December 23, 2008, 10:36:58 PM
Do they have to cross private ground to access this area? Dig the road up!
There is public access to the Colockum, but I don't understand why the state can't simply gate the entire area and ban the use of any motorized vehicles. Indians aren't going to hunt somewhere they can't drive.
Post by: logger on December 23, 2008, 10:39:53 PM
Post by: dbllunger on December 23, 2008, 11:25:42 PM
Post by: bobcat on December 23, 2008, 11:35:22 PM
Post by: logger on December 23, 2008, 11:43:32 PM
Post by: bobcat on December 23, 2008, 11:44:47 PM
Post by: logger on December 23, 2008, 11:50:37 PM
Post by: NCWCracker on December 24, 2008, 10:24:36 AM
Hello Senator Parlette,
The tribal hunting abuses of the Colockum elk herd continue to get worse every year. Recently an article was published by John Fulwiler on “The Reel News”; December 2008 issue. It has been posted on Hunt Washington in a discussion, and many of us in this State are fed up with the abuses and mis-management of the herd, and would like to see changes ASAP.
The WDFW appears to be more concerned with political correctness than with trying to right a wrong. The Yakama Tribe is not working to control hunting abuses on elk in the Colockum. The WDFW Elk Mgt. statement for the Colockum area indicates that the Yakama Tribe is to assist in the management and share harvest data, etc. From what I’ve heard, this is not happening.
Please take the time to read John Fulwiler’s article. It is indicated that close to 50 branched antlered bulls were harvested by the Yakama’s from the Colockum area in 2008. The total number of elk harvested by them must be a substantially greater number.
The Yakama’s website in regard to hunting this area indicates that they are to hunt for sustenance and ceremonial purposes only.
As taken direct from their website (http://www.ynwildlife.org/pdf/yakamahuntingrights.pdf)
“Members of the Yakama Nation, and other tribes, hunt throughout their
ancestral lands in Washington State for the purpose of gathering meat for sustenance and ceremonial purposes. It is not the custom of tribal people to hunt or gather food for sport or leisure, but is instead a traditional and cultural activity that is needed to provide food for funerals, memorials, name givings, food feasts, and family dinners. On the reservation and ceded areas, these laws and rights override the jurisdiction of the Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife.”
We all know that they are more often hunting for trophy elk and very often, selling the antlers for substantial profit. There are rumors of many of them driving closed roads, hunting on the Game Reserve, and hunting at night. These activities are clearly; legally, ethically, and morally wrong.
I know that if someone were to document this abuse of treaty rights with video, and slip it to the mass media, there would be huge public outcry. What also needs to be done, because it sounds to me like the Yakama’s treaty rights in regard to hunting the area will not likely go away; is that WDFW and the Yakama’s need to be forced to sit and come up with a workable, enforceable management plan for that area which will stop the blatant tribal hunting abuses. Currently, they are threatening this resource for everyone – it is a sickening thought.
Something needs to be done before the herd is completely decimated, and/or someone takes matters into their own hands against these tribal hunters. We as taxpayers are paying to have that area’s game managed, and currently, the Yakama Tribal hunters are undermining all efforts in a very significant way. What are your suggestions for solving this problem? What would you suggest to best draw attention to this issue?
Sincerely,
Senator Parlette's email address is: parlette.linda@leg.wa.gov
If you like, copy this letter and send it to Senator Parlette, and/or other politician of your choice. If you think this is a good letter, maybe start a new thread to get more exposure on this site?
Post by: loveipabeer on December 24, 2008, 10:51:35 AM
Senator Parlette's email address is: parlette.linda@leg.wa.gov
Hello Senator Parlette,
The tribal hunting abuses of the Colockum elk herd continue to get worse every year. Recently an article was published by John Fulwiler on “The Reel News”; December 2008 issue. It has been posted on Hunt Washington in a discussion, and many of us in this State are fed up with the abuses and mis-management of the herd, and would like to see changes ASAP.
The WDFW appears to be more concerned with political correctness than with trying to right a wrong. The Yakama Tribe is not working to control hunting abuses on elk in the Colockum. The WDFW Elk Mgt. statement for the Colockum area indicates that the Yakama Tribe is to assist in the management and share harvest data, etc. From what I’ve heard, this is not happening.
Please take the time to read John Fulwiler’s article. It is indicated that close to 50 branched antlered bulls were harvested by the Yakama’s from the Colockum area in 2008. The total number of elk harvested by them must be a substantially greater number.
The Yakama’s website in regard to hunting this area indicates that they are to hunt for sustenance and ceremonial purposes only.
As taken direct from their website (http://www.ynwildlife.org/pdf/yakamahuntingrights.pdf)
“Members of the Yakama Nation, and other tribes, hunt throughout their
ancestral lands in Washington State for the purpose of gathering meat for sustenance and ceremonial purposes. It is not the custom of tribal people to hunt or gather food for sport or leisure, but is instead a traditional and cultural activity that is needed to provide food for funerals, memorials, name givings, food feasts, and family dinners. On the reservation and ceded areas, these laws and rights override the jurisdiction of the Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife.”
We all know that they are more often hunting for trophy elk and very often, selling the antlers for substantial profit. There are rumors of many of them driving closed roads, hunting on the Game Reserve, and hunting at night. These activities are clearly; legally, ethically, and morally wrong.
I know that if someone were to document this abuse of treaty rights with video, and slip it to the mass media, there would be huge public outcry. What also needs to be done, because it sounds to me like the Yakama’s treaty rights in regard to hunting the area will not likely go away; is that WDFW and the Yakama’s need to be forced to sit and come up with a workable, enforceable management plan for that area which will stop the blatant tribal hunting abuses. Currently, they are threatening this resource for everyone – it is a sickening thought.
Something needs to be done before the herd is completely decimated, and/or someone takes matters into their own hands against these tribal hunters. We as taxpayers are paying to have that area’s game managed, and currently, the Yakama Tribal hunters are undermining all efforts in a very significant way. What are your suggestions for solving this problem? What would you suggest to best draw attention to this issue?
Sincerely,
Post by: NCWCracker on December 24, 2008, 11:05:36 AM
Post by: NWTFhunter on December 24, 2008, 11:08:33 AM
Not only send this to Parlette, but to your local reps as well as Anderson at the WDFG
Post by: skybusterbo on December 24, 2008, 11:21:28 AM
Post by: NCWCracker on December 24, 2008, 11:54:36 AM
1) where did your original thread go to?
2) how do you get a moderator to post this so that it is fixed at the top of the page?
3) post also on the "elk hunting" forum?
Post by: loveipabeer on December 24, 2008, 12:21:16 PM
Post by: Ray on December 24, 2008, 12:49:42 PM
Post by: Backstraps on December 24, 2008, 02:32:53 PM
b careful thou u dont want 2 make them mad or piss them off they can really put a hurt on anything they want to and make it worse 4 us, 30 of them head up HLR area and shoot 10 or so and no one can say much about it. We r kind lucky they havnt messed with the deer around here 2 bad, but the elk r def. gettin the shaftDuck,they're killing many deer as well! >:(
Post by: yelp on December 27, 2008, 11:06:03 AM
WA state has 26 indian tribes all with thier own rights and ceremonial hunting areas. Treaties with standing...We need better negotiations from WDFW. The bending over everytime tribal interests want something and giving it to them is crap! The WDFW believes that is cooperating. Many of the individuals(wdfw) "cooperating" don't hunt or fish so they have no idea how to negotiate for the sportsman. They just want that card for other issues that come up politically when they need tribal support...pathetic. I am a Washington state native born and bred where are my rights!
To fight this monstrocity will have to take it Federal and out of the states hands...BUT The federal district is San Fran..lots of liberals. I think we need to worked with tribes to make things better for all...it sad to say but that is the way I see it right now! :puke: :puke:
Post by: bucksnort on December 27, 2008, 11:49:36 AM
Post by: boneaddict on December 27, 2008, 12:16:16 PM
Post by: buckhorn2 on December 27, 2008, 01:27:21 PM
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on December 27, 2008, 07:12:14 PM
Post by: FrankDown on December 28, 2008, 05:12:23 AM
When I moved to Washington state, you dont have to be the smartest or brightest to realize some things. Hmmm. Lets see, the salmon counts are down, and the natives are netting the entire river, hmmm. Neting, no slamon. Netting, no salmon. The thing I dislike about the west coast is the PC attitude and liberal. I see nothing wrong with them managing wildlife whether it be fish or elk or grouse or what. Everywhere else Ive lived the game was a property of the state, not the few people that wanted to do whatever they wanted. I have nothing against natives, but their management practices are absurd. I also heard about the whale hunti with shotguns. Ha. And boatmotors. Ha again. I can see letting them go do their thing traditionally and doing what they want, but come on. They are raping the wildlife. Its absurd.
I dont go to the casinos, dont buy duty free stuff from them either. Not that I have anything against them, I just dont gamble (ie give my hard earned money away) etc.
Post by: Wacenturion on December 28, 2008, 08:20:50 AM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on December 28, 2008, 08:49:46 AM
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on December 28, 2008, 10:16:41 AM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on December 28, 2008, 10:24:49 AM
Post by: FrankDown on December 28, 2008, 12:01:02 PM
Anyone have a name for a website to start about this? For the things like this mismanagement of elk and salmon? It needs a name, do like the peta puffers do with their agendas. Just dont put the outright lies, misdirection, and disconnected emotion that they use to trick the innocent public into believing their lies and propaganda so they can buy houses in the mountains and drive BMWs and live big. You know, actually do something beside raise millions of dollars by fraudulent endeavors.
Post by: NCWCracker on December 29, 2008, 10:44:25 AM
Again, if you agree that the tribal hunting abuses on Colockum elk is a major issue that should be addressed in this State, send a letter to a politician...copy/paste mine if you like. And, I think that if anyone can document what they witness with cameras and video....excellent tool to get exposure in the media. Throw it into the public eye!!
Post by: Wenatcheejay on December 30, 2008, 09:13:47 AM
Post by: whacker1 on December 30, 2008, 04:18:37 PM
Thank you for starting this discussion
Post by: snuff on December 31, 2008, 02:45:48 PM
Post by: kingsalmonkllr77 on January 01, 2009, 09:12:59 PM
Post by: NWTFhunter on January 02, 2009, 12:45:47 AM
I sent one to him regarding this subject and the wolves in the state. I made it very clear that the dept needs to take a very close look at what the tribes are doing when it comes to hunting and taking elk and deer in these areas.
Well guess what ? Tuesday I get a call from one of the guys in his office.. I couldnt take the call cause we had birds working into the decoys. I dont recall the name that the officer left on my voice mail, but I will call him back on Monday to discuss this.
I urged them to come here and look at what we are talking about and to be a part of the solution..
I hope all of you guys that feel the same way would send him a email.
Post by: TheHunt on January 02, 2009, 09:31:12 AM
Hunt out of state... Hunt in states that control the indians... E.g. Utah, Arizona, etc.
Post by: ICEMAN on January 02, 2009, 09:33:40 AM
I have never and will never step foot into an indian casino. I am hoping that others would stop going to them as well. The cat is out of the bag and as long as they have money they will continue to push for more and more.
:yeah:
Post by: loveipabeer on January 02, 2009, 11:00:47 AM
Copy, paste and send this letter to somebody.
The tribal hunting abuses of the Colockum elk herd continue to get worse every year. Recently an article was published by John Fulwiler on “The Reel News”; December 2008 issue. It has been posted on Hunt Washington in a discussion, and many of us in this State are fed up with the abuses and mis-management of the herd, and would like to see changes ASAP.
The WDFW appears to be more concerned with political correctness than with trying to right a wrong. The Yakama Tribe is not working to control hunting abuses on elk in the Colockum. The WDFW Elk Mgt. statement for the Colockum area indicates that the Yakama Tribe is to assist in the management and share harvest data, etc. From what I’ve heard, this is not happening.
Please take the time to read John Fulwiler’s article. It is indicated that close to 50 branched antlered bulls were harvested by the Yakama’s from the Colockum area in 2008. The total number of elk harvested by them must be a substantially greater number.
The Yakama’s website in regard to hunting this area indicates that they are to hunt for sustenance and ceremonial purposes only.
As taken direct from their website (http://www.ynwildlife.org/pdf/yakamahuntingrights.pdf)
“Members of the Yakama Nation, and other tribes, hunt throughout their
ancestral lands in Washington State for the purpose of gathering meat for sustenance and ceremonial purposes. It is not the custom of tribal people to hunt or gather food for sport or leisure, but is instead a traditional and cultural activity that is needed to provide food for funerals, memorials, name givings, food feasts, and family dinners. On the reservation and ceded areas, these laws and rights override the jurisdiction of the Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife.”
We all know that they are more often hunting for trophy elk and very often, selling the antlers for substantial profit. There are rumors of many of them driving closed roads, hunting on the Game Reserve, and hunting at night. These activities are clearly; legally, ethically, and morally wrong.
I know that if someone were to document this abuse of treaty rights with video, and slip it to the mass media, there would be huge public outcry. What also needs to be done, because it sounds to me like the Yakama’s treaty rights in regard to hunting the area will not likely go away; is that WDFW and the Yakama’s need to be forced to sit and come up with a workable, enforceable management plan for that area which will stop the blatant tribal hunting abuses. Currently, they are threatening this resource for everyone – it is a sickening thought.
Something needs to be done before the herd is completely decimated, and/or someone takes matters into their own hands against these tribal hunters. We as taxpayers are paying to have that area’s game managed, and currently, the Yakama Tribal hunters are undermining all efforts in a very significant way. What are your suggestions for solving this problem? What would you suggest to best draw attention to this issue?
Sincerely,
Senator Parlette's email address is: parlette.linda@leg.wa.gov
Here is Phil Anderson's email. director@dfw.wa.gov
Post by: forest cat on January 02, 2009, 03:43:59 PM
I get so po'ed about this subject! I for one have sent a copy of this letter, with my autograph,
to Mr. Anderson. There are enough hunters on this forum, that if voiced their opinion, it could keep him busy formore than just an afternoon.
Post by: bowhuntin on January 02, 2009, 03:56:45 PM
Post by: NWTFhunter on January 02, 2009, 06:01:40 PM
Writing a letter to Mr. Anderson just doesn't seem like it will have much impact other than making him aware of how we feel about the indian's and their lack of stewardship for the land and animals. This is a federal issue, it was a treaty between the federal government and the tribes not the state and the tribes. The whole situation sucks, just like with the wolves. I just don't see any cooperation or management between the state and tribes for managing our wildlife.
Bowhuntin, but we can not ignore blatant violations when they occur. If there is solid evidence that the tribes are breaking the law in the the form of over harvest, waste, or illegal means of harvest the WDFW has to do something about it.
If Joe Plumber the hunter witnesses a violation and reports it to WDFW, and SGT Smith shows up and takes a report and doesnt follow up with an investigation, Joe should be on the horn with the WDFW finding out why nothing was done. But I feel that any officer would do what is right and investigate.
I posted earlier that I got a call from one of the WDFW officers the other day and I couldnt take the call...... well he called back today and we had a talk about how the WDFW takes these complaints of tribal hunting violations serious. And that we should report any and all violations immediately. But he also stated that it is a very political issue to say the least.
And there are people from the WDFW div that have been to this site and read what we are talking about here.
Will anything ever change regarding the treaty rights? I doubt it. But we cannot sit on our asses when there is a violation that has been documented and think what am I going to do about it... We must speak up and say enough is enough.
Active lobbying through groups such as RMEF to make changes down the road. Using the statement "oh well, I am just going to hunt other states" is not the answer. If you or I enjoy hunting a certain game animal we must do what is right, but not always easy to ensure that there is an opportunity for our children and grandchildren to hunt them.
Post by: WDFW-SUX on January 02, 2009, 06:04:34 PM
Quote
Active lobbying through groups such as RMEF to make changes down the road
:chuckle:
Post by: bowhuntin on January 02, 2009, 07:00:49 PM
Writing a letter to Mr. Anderson just doesn't seem like it will have much impact other than making him aware of how we feel about the indian's and their lack of stewardship for the land and animals. This is a federal issue, it was a treaty between the federal government and the tribes not the state and the tribes. The whole situation sucks, just like with the wolves. I just don't see any cooperation or management between the state and tribes for managing our wildlife.
Bowhuntin, but we can not ignore blatant violations when they occur. If there is solid evidence that the tribes are breaking the law in the the form of over harvest, waste, or illegal means of harvest the WDFW has to do something about it.
If Joe Plumber the hunter witnesses a violation and reports it to WDFW, and SGT Smith shows up and takes a report and doesnt follow up with an investigation, Joe should be on the horn with the WDFW finding out why nothing was done. But I feel that any officer would do what is right and investigate.
I posted earlier that I got a call from one of the WDFW officers the other day and I couldnt take the call...... well he called back today and we had a talk about how the WDFW takes these complaints of tribal hunting violations serious. And that we should report any and all violations immediately. But he also stated that it is a very political issue to say the least.
And there are people from the WDFW div that have been to this site and read what we are talking about here.
Will anything ever change regarding the treaty rights? I doubt it. But we cannot sit on our asses when there is a violation that has been documented and think what am I going to do about it... We must speak up and say enough is enough.
Active lobbying through groups such as RMEF to make changes down the road. Using the statement "oh well, I am just going to hunt other states" is not the answer. If you or I enjoy hunting a certain game animal we must do what is right, but not always easy to ensure that there is an opportunity for our children and grandchildren to hunt them.
I am not saying stand around and do nothing. My point was that it is kind of pointless to contact a state organization like the wdfw because there hands are tied because of treaty is with the Federal Gov't. Seems like emails should be directed towards those that the treaty was originally signed with, which is the Feds.
I am glad the Game Warden investigates but there isn't much he can do other than document and as long as they are in their ceded areas it isn't illegal for them to shoot animals.
I think the better thing to do rather than lobbying the RMEF, is to contact those that are land managers in the Colockum and get them to close down roads to make it more difficult to do what they do. Not gate roads but kelly hump them so they can't get keys.
Post by: NWTFhunter on January 02, 2009, 10:46:19 PM
I agree that we should be sending to the fed as well, need to find a address.
But the state monitors what animals are taken, or are supposed to be informed by the Indians for sound management.
Who do you reccomend in contacting in regards to getting these land owners to work better with us? I used RMEF as an example to get things rolling. I have never been affiliated with them and not sure what stance they take on this issue. But thought that they would be a good start.
Post by: bowhuntin on January 03, 2009, 02:08:43 AM
I don't know if it would work but maybe involve the RMEF, MDF or even Kittitas Field and Stream and get volunteers to work hand in hand with the DNR, BLM or Forest Service and get roads closed down to make access harder for them. Some how I don't think gates would work because as others have stated they can get keys to the gates.
Post by: bankwalker on January 03, 2009, 08:36:47 PM
seems like that would keep them out of the woods after a few dozen tires for pop. id rather see the deer and elk rot in the woods then to see them f'd *censored*s get thier hands on them. >:(
everyone says SSS to wolves. hell they are nothing compared to the indians and them taking animals just because they can.
well i can shoot out tires well...because hell i can. ill play the game on my terms and my rules.
Post by: GoPlayOutside on January 03, 2009, 10:29:24 PM
Pop some tires....
Post by: bankwalker on January 04, 2009, 08:19:25 AM
Sounds good to me. Letters and complaints to Politicians haven't, and are not going to cut it. Small rallies by a few "Gun Lovin Cowboys" isn't going to cut it either. It's going to take a small shootout for the politicians and media to give a rip.
Pop some tires....
thats the only way i see to get some real attention to it. if not the killing of the animals. but why there are people shooting out indian tires. and if someone has to go down for the shooting of tires which is only a misdenmeanor(sp) at best then so be it.
this is not about indians hunting. they are poaching and they know it. just becuase thier laws state they can kill animals when ever doesnt mean anything. taking 48 branched antler bulls from the colockum herd is rediculous. and that doesnt even count the animals taken from teanaway, teanum, the rest of neanum, manastash, nile etc etc etc.
i know a couple indians personaly from the muckleshoot tribe that hunt stampede and they take 3 cows and 2 bulls every year. doesnt seem like much compared what other indian groups are taking but when it in a unit that is already whiped out then yes its alot.
Post by: GoPlayOutside on January 04, 2009, 12:13:18 PM
Then, we go out and bust our ass hiking for archery bucks in early December....and they tell us about the 5 big bucks they killed with their rifles in late December.
Well, I'm done hiring those "Land Raping" MF'ers.
Post by: bowhuntin on January 04, 2009, 01:14:39 PM
Sounds good to me. Letters and complaints to Politicians haven't, and are not going to cut it. Small rallies by a few "Gun Lovin Cowboys" isn't going to cut it either. It's going to take a small shootout for the politicians and media to give a rip.
Pop some tires....
thats the only way i see to get some real attention to it. if not the killing of the animals. but why there are people shooting out indian tires. and if someone has to go down for the shooting of tires which is only a misdenmeanor(sp) at best then so be it.
this is not about indians hunting. they are poaching and they know it. just becuase thier laws state they can kill animals when ever doesnt mean anything. taking 48 branched antler bulls from the colockum herd is rediculous. and that doesnt even count the animals taken from teanaway, teanum, the rest of neanum, manastash, nile etc etc etc.
i know a couple indians personaly from the muckleshoot tribe that hunt stampede and they take 3 cows and 2 bulls every year. doesnt seem like much compared what other indian groups are taking but when it in a unit that is already whiped out then yes its alot.
That may be a way to get their attention, but I bet the stupid prosecutor would try to nail you with domestic violence or something really serious like they like to do to people. A domestic violence charge, only being a misdemeanor will cost you your right to bear arms.
Post by: WDFW-SUX on January 04, 2009, 01:26:13 PM
It's sad and pisses me off horribly when I go to work during the fall. My buddies, family, and I talk about our spike hunts in the Colockum, or our muley hunts that are too crowded. Then our two Tulalip Indian subcontractors tell us about their 4 6x6 bulls that they killed (by driving on the roads around Stampede). All 4 were killed one week before the season opened for the rest of us.
Then, we go out and bust our ass hiking for archery bucks in early December....and they tell us about the 5 big bucks they killed with their rifles in late December.
Well, I'm done hiring those "Land Raping" MF'ers.
good call.
Post by: bankwalker on January 04, 2009, 05:06:40 PM
Sounds good to me. Letters and complaints to Politicians haven't, and are not going to cut it. Small rallies by a few "Gun Lovin Cowboys" isn't going to cut it either. It's going to take a small shootout for the politicians and media to give a rip.
Pop some tires....
thats the only way i see to get some real attention to it. if not the killing of the animals. but why there are people shooting out indian tires. and if someone has to go down for the shooting of tires which is only a misdenmeanor(sp) at best then so be it.
this is not about indians hunting. they are poaching and they know it. just becuase thier laws state they can kill animals when ever doesnt mean anything. taking 48 branched antler bulls from the colockum herd is rediculous. and that doesnt even count the animals taken from teanaway, teanum, the rest of neanum, manastash, nile etc etc etc.
i know a couple indians personaly from the muckleshoot tribe that hunt stampede and they take 3 cows and 2 bulls every year. doesnt seem like much compared what other indian groups are taking but when it in a unit that is already whiped out then yes its alot.
That may be a way to get their attention, but I bet the stupid prosecutor would try to nail you with domestic violence or something really serious like they like to do to people. A domestic violence charge, only being a misdemeanor will cost you your right to bear arms.
well if thats what it takes to get it some real attention and then maybe something being done about what is really happening then i would mind losing my right to own a couple firearms.
with the way hunting has been in this state id rather archery hunt a couple crappy unit and hope to shoot a doe or cow then to tromp around during modern firearm season and hope to see a 3pt legal buck or spike bull which arent there to begin with.
i know i sure in the hell wont be out shooting tires. but trust me that would be the way to get the attention needed to have this subject in the public eyes. not just the hunting community.
anti hunters hate us hunting already taking our one deer and one elk a year. think how much they hate indians taking 30 deer or elk each throughout the year.
Post by: NCWCracker on January 04, 2009, 07:02:32 PM
Would be great if an organization could pay someone to follow them around, or if someone or a group w/free time organized to do it.
Post by: GoPlayOutside on January 04, 2009, 10:41:09 PM
Bring your cameras / video cameras w/you and document every time you see them hunting. I have heard several say they've witnessed them setting up camp in the reserve. ....Take a friggin' video of it and send it in!!! Every time you see them with bulls, cows, bucks and does - take a pic/video & send it in w/date and license #'s!!That is a great idea. There is enough of us up in the woods hunting, hiking, camping, scouting, etc....Get pix or video of them out of season. Of course, they have no season, but that might make the news channels, papers, and media wake the hell up and pay a little attention. There's gotta be some liberal media outlets that would love to question or break a story like this. Also, make it obvious that we are videoing them, and we are keeping records of what they hunt, where, and when. It might pursuade even a couple of them to stay off some of the hills.
Would be great if an organization could pay someone to follow them around, or if someone or a group w/free time organized to do it.
Post by: runniNgunnin on January 04, 2009, 10:55:04 PM
Post by: WACATHUNTER on January 05, 2009, 04:08:28 PM
Post by: NWTFhunter on January 05, 2009, 05:03:56 PM
NWTFHUNTER, Any reply from the WDFW?Cat, yes I was called the other day and we had a discussion about the indians hunting up there. He said that they are hunting with in the areas ceeded to them, and though I have not witnessed any violation he stated that any report recieved did recieve investigation. He didnt want to say anything that would comprimise his job, and was careful with his words. I dont blame him. In my opinion, he knows there is a problem on this subject and that we are pissed about certain practices. He didnt come right out and give a solution, but he didnt argue that gathering evidence and creating a case was bad thing to do.
Now on wolves, he knows they are here. He refered me to the WDFW page that discusses this topic. I havent read it yet though.
Any documentation of wolves from us is needed, pics and gathering of scat is ideal. He stated in remote areas trying to find a wolf on a sighting can be very difficult. He didnt dispute them being in the blues, or the NE corner of the state at all. He did say that the state wants to properly manage them, what that means exactly we will have to see or get more involved.
I urge you all to carry a camera in your adventures and take pics on both subjects, and contact the WDFW !!!!!!
Post by: runniNgunnin on January 05, 2009, 05:15:01 PM
i think the world is coming to and end so every body start saving up your cambells soup !!!
Post by: NWTFhunter on January 05, 2009, 05:35:02 PM
A few years ago we spotted a huge grizz sow while hunting and took lots of pics of her. Now we didnt have the cameras that some of the guys on here have !! But we did take pics and sent them in. They disputed our pics, so the next week we gathered scat that we found the same day. WOW how fast they wanted to know where that came from. This was the same time frame that one was shot by a local land owner with a shotgun after raiding his livestock. But not the same grizz, but general location.
I feel that if you provide the proper documentation they cant dispute it.
Post by: runniNgunnin on January 05, 2009, 05:45:51 PM
Post by: Slamadoo on January 05, 2009, 09:21:12 PM
just curious
Post by: NWTFhunter on January 05, 2009, 11:37:41 PM
Post by: whacker1 on January 06, 2009, 05:56:22 PM
A quick comment on the wolves - Now that there is snow on the ground, I would also take pictures of wolf sign for those of you who run into it. You can usually take pictures in the snow with a ball cap or a hand next to it to differentiate size of animal from a coyote. We took several pictures in Idaho of Wolf Sign. I too have seen evidence of the Grizz in the NE corner, sign and scat, haven't yet seen any Griz standing around for pictures yet.
For those that don't think these issues will be heard - please take the time to send a note to your legislator. We have some legislators (Republican) that very well could be reading our posts, as they think like us and apply for the same special permits as we do. Granted these are the more rural legislators, but they are around. I believe that the Media will get a hold of this in the next few years and it is up to us to keep wolves and tribal hunting methods in front of the media with good footage. I have never witnessed these accounts, but I do know of similar stories as those mentioned. I believe that I will ask the WDFW if they will give better descriptions of the tribes and the areas that are within the designated ceded hunting grounds along with the acceptable hunting methods. I think that in itself would make a good post for this thread.
Post by: NCWCracker on January 06, 2009, 09:57:25 PM
Mike Armstrong was just named the "ranking Republican on the House State Govt. and TRIBAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE".
State Rep. Armstrong's email address is: armstrong.mike@leg.wa.gov
Another idea; we need to remember to bring this up fresh on this site in June....which is about the time to start patroling the Colockum with video cams in hand...
Post by: Up a Creek on January 06, 2009, 10:24:44 PM
I'm new to the site and since I hunt the Colockum area I would be more than happy to keep a camera with me. I'm one of those people who wants to do something instead of sit back and watch our hunting opportunity's disappear.
Grill Master
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on January 08, 2009, 04:38:03 PM
Do they have to cross private ground to access this area? Dig the road up!
There is public access to the Colockum, but I don't understand why the state can't simply gate the entire area and ban the use of any motorized vehicles. Indians aren't going to hunt somewhere they can't drive.
+1. If the Colockum was actually managed primarily for wildlife, and not recreation (including hunting), tribal harvest would not be an issue. Decommissioning and gating roads, enhancing habitat and implementing winter range motorized access closures, would be wonderful for elk, and other wildlife; and would create a quality Colockum elk hunting experience for those hunters fit and ambitious enough to either hike in, or ride horses in, to hunt.
It is obvious WDFW WON’T go there, due to the outcries from ORV riders, truck-based hunters, and the elderly and disabled – unless conservationists are the most vocal group demanding it.
Tribal hunting is a fact of life. Complaining about it is a waste of time, even less useful than complaining about taxes. Access management - applied to everyone equally - is the only PRACTICAL answer.
Post by: bowhuntin on January 08, 2009, 05:02:50 PM
Post by: NCWCracker on January 09, 2009, 09:49:31 AM
Media exposure. Catch them on film enough & expose it to the mass media along w/the stories of what they've been doing. Look what happened w/the whale hunting - people freaked. Try it w/a beautiful, furry elk or deer, & watch the public outcry...
Post by: groundhog on January 09, 2009, 10:57:54 AM
Unfortunately, I believe the only way the Indians will self regulate is to address a safety problem. In other words I think it well take a "shoot out" before things change. I am not saying it should happen but I think that it WELL HAPPEN! Folks are fed up (rightly so) and sooner or later someone is going to loose it and bullets will fly.
If the Indians were really "stewards of the land" they would establish cow only seasons, spike seasons and limit the mature bull harvest and work with the state to achieve healthy herds. Instead they rape the resource!
Mark my words. If nothing is done about this AN INDIAN WILL BE SHOT IN THE COLOCKUM! When it happens, and it well. I bet it slows em down. I am not recommending a cowboys and Indians shoot out. I am just predicting that it well come to that! just my :twocents:
Post by: NWTFhunter on January 09, 2009, 02:13:08 PM
Post by: runamuk on January 15, 2009, 02:37:10 PM
http://www.dnr.wa.gov/AboutDNR/Pages/commissioner.aspx (http://www.dnr.wa.gov/AboutDNR/Pages/commissioner.aspx)
http://www.dnr.wa.gov/AboutDNR/TribalRelations/Pages/Home.aspx (http://www.dnr.wa.gov/AboutDNR/TribalRelations/Pages/Home.aspx)
Region 1 FWS
Hawaii, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington
Contact: Pat Gonzales-Rogers, (503) 231-6123
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Native American Liaison
Eastside Federal Complex
911 N.E. 11th Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97232-4181
and all of your reps and senators are good people to write to.
Constituent lobbying does have an impact. Short to the point letters that are not copied en-mass have a much better impact. So using a letter someone posted here sent by 50 people may get read once or twice where 25 people each writing their own letter will all get read ;)
Also sending a letter off to the county offices where these problems are occurring is another good way to go.
Media exposure has a habit of backfiring, people like peta and hsus pick it up and run with it, portraying all hunting and hunters in a bad light, so documenting is good but using proper channels is safer albeit slower.
Post by: firefighter4607 on January 19, 2009, 11:37:12 AM
Post by: FrankDown on January 23, 2009, 10:25:11 AM
Closing acess to the roadsmay work, as well as posting private land.
The treaty is not clear. It states hunting "priviledge" and the fishing is "in common withthe people". The Boldt decision stated that, but has it been reheard since the Boldt decision 30 years ago?
Post by: colockumelk on January 24, 2009, 07:32:29 PM
ARTICLE 3.
And provided, That, if necessary for the public convenience, roads may be run through the said reservation; and on the other hand, the right of way, with free access from the same to the nearest public highway, is secured to them; as also the right, in common with citizens of the United States, to travel upon all public highways.
The exclusive right of taking fish in all the streams, where running through or bordering said reservation, is further secured to said confederated tribes and bands of Indians, as also the right of taking fish at all usual and accustomed places, in common with the citizens of the Territory, and of erecting temporary buildings for curing them; together with the privilege of hunting, gathering roots and berries, and pasturing their horses and cattle upon open and unclaimed land.
What we are trying to do is not change the treaty. This is what everyone has tried in the past. Our goals are to launch a Public Relations campaign against the tribes. We will use their unwillingness and inability to police their own members unethical hunting practises. Utilizing volunteers with video cameras we will video their hunting camps and get pictures of their poaching and their kills. Game camera's will help out alot as well. In any case we will launch a PR campaign against them and also get a petition so that we can get on the 2010 state wide ballot in order to enact new laws that prohibit the unrestricted havesting of big game animals by the tribe. With all the bad PR they will get this bill is bound to pass. We already have a website we just don't know what to call it. We need everyones help in getting some pics of poached animals or video anything we can put on our website. We plan on having meetings within two months.
We are not talking about taking away the right to hunt from the Native Tribes. OUr new law would require them while hunting off their reservation to abide by the same rules and regulations that we must abide by. They would be given free licenses and could have their own special permits drawings. This would be just like their program that allows them to hunt sheep. They still get to hunt but they just wont be allowed to continue to decimate our big game herds.
We are also looking at helping to close off the roads that are already closed. I am not interested at this time about closing more roads just putting physical barriers in front of the ones that are already closed. This would go along ways in preventing poaching.
Post by: FrankDown on January 24, 2009, 11:18:08 PM
Post by: colockumelk on February 17, 2009, 02:52:09 PM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on February 17, 2009, 06:56:02 PM
Post by: colockumelk on February 17, 2009, 07:25:56 PM
Post by: InsideWDFW on February 18, 2009, 06:43:40 PM
To start with, I have haven't seen the link to our tribal hunting site at http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/tribal/ yet.
I'll wait for you to browse....
Done?
To summarize WDFW's position on tribal hunting:
We can't do jack #&$*.
What a lot of people don't understand is that the treaties that give the tribes the right to hunt on public land where with the US Government before Washington became a state. Washington - and especially WDFW - have absolutely no control on tribal hunting. This includes State Legislators. Washington State public agencies have absolutly no say or jurisdiction when it comes to tribal rights. Technically we could sue the tribe in a federal court, but we haven't had much luck going that route, and we are dealing with a slighly light wallet. Litigation would most likely last years, cost millions of dollars, and end up going no where.
So why doesn't WDFW come out and say that? It has to do with politics. The Yakima tribe could kill every single bull, cow, and calf of the colockum herd and all WDFW could do is sit back and watch with the rest of you. This is the last thing we ever want to see. So for us to be able to work with the tribes regarding wildlife management (something they are not obligated to do) we have to play nice. Also known as kissing ass. This frustrates us even more then it does you due to the fact that our job at WDFW is managing Washington's wildlife, and we can't.
I do want to say that a majority of the tribes in Washington go the extra mile in assisting WDFW in managing wildlife. A lot of good has come from tribal/state agreements. Not all tribal members out to take advantage of their treaty rights. Tribal partnerships have been some of the most rewarding that WDFW has had.
While I'm cloaked in anonymity, a few comments on Mr. Fulwiler's article. Take another look at the article. The first paragraph is regarding "secret meetings" WDFW held with the tribe, while the rest is a rant against tribal hunting. Notice how he fails to mention the fact that tribal hunting rights are between the tribes and the US Government and that the state has nothing to do with them? Mr. Fulwiler may have a personal vendetta against WDFW that for legal reasons I can not get into. Also for the record, Arthur Coffin did not donate the land, but sold it. Also according to Pete Lopushinski, the Wildlife Manager for the area, there are no areas of the Wildlife Area that are "Absolutely no trespassing" to "Non-tribal hunters".
Regarding that first paragraph. Just as the State of Washington can not restrict treaty rights, we can't add anything to them. All we can do is work with the tribes on how to best interpret them. Again this is solely at the discretion of the tribe, remember what the Yakima tribe could do to the herd if they wanted? These "secret" meetings that where held were open to public, the notes of which are available for anyone who asks.
O yea the purpose of the meeting? The Yakima tribe basically told the state to f*^% off, and that they were going to do what they wanted to do with the herd, which by federal treaty the could. There was alot of begging and pleading on our part.. about the only thing we could do.
So what can you do? Contact your US rep or senator. The US Government is the only one who can do anything about it.
Standard Disclaimer: These are not the view of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. These are the thoughts of one person written off the clock who works for WDFW.
Post by: runamuk on February 18, 2009, 06:50:07 PM
Post by: MichaelJ on February 18, 2009, 06:53:16 PM
Michael
Post by: Backstraps on February 18, 2009, 06:53:28 PM
Post by: billythekidrock on February 18, 2009, 07:05:50 PM
Thought I might chime in.
To start with, I have haven't seen the link to our tribal hunting site at http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/tribal/ yet.
I'll wait for you to browse....
Done?
To summarize WDFW's position on tribal hunting:
We can't do jack #&$*.
What a lot of people don't understand is that the treaties that give the tribes the right to hunt on public land where with the US Government before Washington became a state. Washington - and especially WDFW - have absolutely no control on tribal hunting. This includes State Legislators. Washington State public agencies have absolutly no say or jurisdiction when it comes to tribal rights. Technically we could sue the tribe in a federal court, but we haven't had much luck going that route, and we are dealing with a slighly light wallet. Litigation would most likely last years, cost millions of dollars, and end up going no where.
So why doesn't WDFW come out and say that? It has to do with politics. The Yakima tribe could kill every single bull, cow, and calf of the colockum herd and all WDFW could do is sit back and watch with the rest of you. This is the last thing we ever want to see. So for us to be able to work with the tribes regarding wildlife management (something they are not obligated to do) we have to play nice. Also known as kissing ass. This frustrates us even more then it does you due to the fact that our job at WDFW is managing Washington's wildlife, and we can't.
I do want to say that a majority of the tribes in Washington go the extra mile in assisting WDFW in managing wildlife. A lot of good has come from tribal/state agreements. Not all tribal members out to take advantage of their treaty rights. Tribal partnerships have been some of the most rewarding that WDFW has had.
While I'm cloaked in anonymity, a few comments on Mr. Fulwiler's article. Take another look at the article. The first paragraph is regarding "secret meetings" WDFW held with the tribe, while the rest is a rant against tribal hunting. Notice how he fails to mention the fact that tribal hunting rights are between the tribes and the US Government and that the state has nothing to do with them? Mr. Fulwiler may have a personal vendetta against WDFW that for legal reasons I can not get into. Also for the record, Arthur Coffin did not donate the land, but sold it. Also according to Pete Lopushinski, the Wildlife Manager for the area, there are no areas of the Wildlife Area that are "Absolutely no trespassing" to "Non-tribal hunters".
Regarding that first paragraph. Just as the State of Washington can not restrict treaty rights, we can't add anything to them. All we can do is work with the tribes on how to best interpret them. Again this is solely at the discretion of the tribe, remember what the Yakima tribe could do to the herd if they wanted? These "secret" meetings that where held were open to public, the notes of which are available for anyone who asks.
O yea the purpose of the meeting? The Yakima tribe basically told the state to f*^% off, and that they were going to do what they wanted to do with the herd, which by federal treaty the could. There was alot of begging and pleading on our part.. about the only thing we could do.
So what can you do? Contact your US rep or senator. The US Government is the only one who can do anything about it.
Standard Disclaimer: These are not the view of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. These are the thoughts of one person written off the clock who works for WDFW.
Thanks.
Post by: AlpineMuley on February 18, 2009, 08:38:45 PM
Post by: colockumelk on February 18, 2009, 09:05:38 PM
Post by: runamuk on February 18, 2009, 09:12:44 PM
That is a huge part of the problem as I see it.... The people we HIRED are down at the Dome telling the other people who work for US what to do and WE their employers have little to do with any of it.... They get told by Lobbyists paid by special interests...
How many businesses would succeed if managed like that??
Post by: colockumelk on February 18, 2009, 09:34:49 PM
Remember we are not powerless. We have numbers on ourside. I still don't understand why something hasn't been done before. If you read the treaty there is nothing in there about hunting all year round. I even took it to my super liberal law professor who doesn't hunt and knows nothing abou this and asked him to interpret it how he read it and he interpreted it as they have the right to hunt like the common people of the territory. Which would be non-tribal people. That is unless the treaty has been annulled and re-written behind the publics back or other sorts of dealing that have given them this right.
Post by: Wenatcheejay on February 19, 2009, 07:36:41 AM
Post by: runamuk on February 19, 2009, 07:43:21 AM
Cloockumelk, I am going to give a disclaimer because I know that there are people on the site who have worked on this issue longer than me and understand more. With that said what I understand is that the current court will interpret the Treaty with every and any advantage given to the Tribes assuming that they were worldly traveled having full knowledge of North America the world and understood everything about everything. All of this with a 300 word working vocabulary. Every advantage in wordage must be given to in Tribes and every interpretation must liberally favor the Tribes. Until we have a change in the courts this will be the case.
Part of this is caused by the Boldt decision, which made that interpretation. Every time it has been challenged in the courts that decision has been upheld..... at least from all the reading I have done of cases since that decision it seems the precedent was set and in stone.
Post by: Wenatcheejay on February 19, 2009, 07:51:00 AM
Post by: colockumelk on February 19, 2009, 12:31:46 PM
Post by: elksnout on February 21, 2009, 10:21:22 PM
Post by: runamuk on February 22, 2009, 10:38:11 AM
Runamuk where do you find all the different cases that have been brought up since then? How many times has the public tried to change how things are?
I just saw this soryy...my computer is having issues and my links are in it not my little midget laptop...LOL as soon as I get the computer fixed I will send them to you ;) I also told frank I was sending him some stuff...woke up to a dead monitor, things are not going my way today LOL
Post by: colockumelk on February 22, 2009, 11:13:55 AM
Post by: hangumhi on February 26, 2009, 11:29:45 AM
Post by: colockumelk on February 26, 2009, 09:47:02 PM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on December 28, 2009, 09:04:27 AM
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=lGwKAAAAIBAJ&sjid=xEoDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6529%2C3593375
If one could only travel in time.....
Post by: slyrei on December 29, 2009, 11:58:03 AM
Wait... wait... I take it all back. Like Maverick said in the movie:
"I figure its their fault... for being on our land before we got here." ;)
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on December 29, 2009, 12:12:39 PM
Quote
There was a LOT more wildlife before non-natives arrivedthat is a false statement. Check your history.
It was the clearing of the land and fires of the early 1900's that made habitat for deer (whitetail) and elk, populations are higher now than then, with habitat loss they are crowded onto less land, causing problems.
Post by: whacker1 on December 29, 2009, 12:23:43 PM
hunting & trapping of predators helped increase the number of animals as well in the late 1800's and 1900's
Post by: sako223 on December 29, 2009, 12:31:11 PM
No question habitat has diminished and been polluted.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on December 31, 2009, 08:20:16 AM
I might be the only person standing up for the tribesman, and I'm sure this will get attacked, but maybe it will make you think. I really think you all are being a little quick to judge. How many of you would not hunt those same elk if given the opportunity? Plus, I'm certain that throughout the US there are far more White poachers than tribal poachers, or even tribal hunters. There was a LOT more wildlife before non-natives arrived and i'm sure if given the choice, Native Americans would love to have us gone. The reason wildlife populations decrease usually has more to do with habitat loss than hunting. I don't know the situation specifically for elk but the article also mentions salmon, and tribesmen are definitely not to blame for that! Commercial fishing aside, salmon habitat loss has devastated the population. Even if less were fished, they would have no where to go. We(non-natives) have done so much damage to both the wildlife and to the Native American way of life. Why not let them have a few privledges?! They probably wouldn't over-hunt them if there weren't white people buying elk products
Wait... wait... I take it all back. Like Maverick said in the movie:
"I figure its their fault... for being on our land before we got here." ;)
#1 I see this is your first post
#2 this is not poachingwashington.com
#3 You have not done your homework before making the statement about " a LOT more wildlife"
#4 You obviously have never hunted the Colockum area as many on here have for years or decades or generations and seen the changes
#5 As others have stated there were NO elk when the treaty was signed in this area
Post by: bonkellekter on December 31, 2009, 08:37:03 AM
I might be the only person standing up for the tribesman, and I'm sure this will get attacked, but maybe it will make you think. I really think you all are being a little quick to judge. How many of you would not hunt those same elk if given the opportunity? Plus, I'm certain that throughout the US there are far more White poachers than tribal poachers, or even tribal hunters. There was a LOT more wildlife before non-natives arrived and i'm sure if given the choice, Native Americans would love to have us gone. The reason wildlife populations decrease usually has more to do with habitat loss than hunting. I don't know the situation specifically for elk but the article also mentions salmon, and tribesmen are definitely not to blame for that! Commercial fishing aside, salmon habitat loss has devastated the population. Even if less were fished, they would have no where to go. We(non-natives) have done so much damage to both the wildlife and to the Native American way of life. Why not let them have a few privledges?! They probably wouldn't over-hunt them if there weren't white people buying elk products
Wait... wait... I take it all back. Like Maverick said in the movie:
"I figure its their fault... for being on our land before we got here." ;)
#1 I see this is your first post
#2 this is not poachingwashington.com
#3 You have not done your homework before making the statement about " a LOT more wildlife"
#4 You obviously have never hunted the Colockum area as many on here have for years or decades or generations and seen the changes
#5 As others have stated there were NO elk when the treaty was signed in this area
:iamwithstupid:
It does not matter who was where when. We are all here now and none of us alive today played any part in what went down back in the day. And with all the efforts that have gone into equal rights in this country I just have to say that it is BS when a certain "people" get special rights above and beyond everyones "equal rights"
Post by: high country on December 31, 2009, 08:45:52 AM
chances are that not one of the surviving tribesmen have endured a single moment of hardship that was not brought upon themselves. should we donate the train right of ways to the chinese who were forced to slave on them? should we give the japanese reservations to repay the land that was taken from them during ww2 internment? those were the times as are these....deal with it. I have respect for native corps in alaska....they run their land like a business.
Post by: Geno on December 31, 2009, 09:13:51 AM
I don't think the elk were here when Lewis & Clark arrived.:yeah:
The tribes claim they have the right to hunt animals in their "ceded" lands. The elk never existed there when the treaty was signed. What gives them the legal right to hunt them? I think they should follow all game laws for eastern wa elk herds except those elk found on the reservation. :twocents:
Post by: Houndhunter on January 03, 2010, 01:48:35 PM
Post by: Sporting_Man on January 06, 2010, 08:46:48 AM
Made me think about 2009 salmon season, that was supposed to be historic. Yes, it was, but netting was of a historic proportions too. All in all, Feds seem to hold keys of this game, but State should be more honest and keep its face while dealing with tribes. That way, truth would be a good instrument of justice. The way it works now, sportsmen are entitled to :bash:, and that is not enough. I think that this fight has to be fought on two fronts: one is to press WA state for transparency and tougher policy (for whatever it is worth), and the other is straight forward to the Fed Courts to clear the language or do something about these treaties. Maybe to isolate the case to one area only (Colockum) and show what goes on there...
Post by: Brooks on January 06, 2010, 09:56:13 AM
Post by: haus on January 06, 2010, 11:19:53 AM
I might be the only person standing up for the tribesman, and I'm sure this will get attacked, but maybe it will make you think. I really think you all are being a little quick to judge. How many of you would not hunt those same elk if given the opportunity? Plus, I'm certain that throughout the US there are far more White poachers than tribal poachers, or even tribal hunters. There was a LOT more wildlife before non-natives arrived and i'm sure if given the choice, Native Americans would love to have us gone. The reason wildlife populations decrease usually has more to do with habitat loss than hunting. I don't know the situation specifically for elk but the article also mentions salmon, and tribesmen are definitely not to blame for that! Commercial fishing aside, salmon habitat loss has devastated the population. Even if less were fished, they would have no where to go. We(non-natives) have done so much damage to both the wildlife and to the Native American way of life. Why not let them have a few privledges?! They probably wouldn't over-hunt them if there weren't white people buying elk products.The priviledge to what, kill *censored* and leave most of it? I'd expect the opposite wouldn't you? Nothin' says I killed it for the coin and a snack like some backstraps and antlers missing from a kill. If you want to know what a non-native market hunters mentality may have been like, you don't have to look far to find out.
Wait... wait... I take it all back. Like Maverick said in the movie:
"I figure its their fault... for being on our land before we got here." ;)
I don't doubt that non-native poachers do more damage on average to game animal herds in this state though.
Post by: colockumelk on January 22, 2010, 08:38:07 AM
I might be the only person standing up for the tribesman, and I'm sure this will get attacked, but maybe it will make you think.Only that you havn't done your homework. I really think you all are being a little quick to judge. How many of you would not hunt those same elk if given the opportunity?We do hunt these elk. However we also pay for our licenses and we have rules and regulations that scientifically restricts the amount of harvest so we don't kill all of the elk off. The Indians don't have this. Plus, I'm certain that throughout the US there are far more White poachers than tribal poachers, or even tribal hunters.The difference is that as Americans we prosecute and punish those of us who are not ethical. Where for the Indians it's just another day at the office. There was a LOT more wildlife before non-natives arrived and i'm sure if given the choice, Native Americans would love to have us gone.This is FALSE. With the exeption of the bison there are more elk deer and turkey and waterfowl than there has ever been. The reason wildlife populations decrease usually has more to do with habitat loss than hunting.In the Colockum it has more to do with a low bull:cow ratio. I don't know the situation specifically for elk but the article also mentions salmon, and tribesmen are definitely not to blame for that!Really so while our state is trying it's hardest to bring the population back it's perfectly okay for the tribes to string their nets across the river and catch every last salmon they can? I'm sure this has little to no impact on the salmon numbers. Commercial fishing aside, salmon habitat loss has devastated the population. Even if less were fished, they would have no where to go. We(non-natives) have done so much damage to both the wildlife and to the Native American way of life. Why not let them have a few privledges?!The Romans destroyed the Germanic Tribes way of life and you don't see the German's or the French or the British etc demanding the Italians for reparations do you? They probably wouldn't over-hunt them if there weren't white people buying elk products. Or maybe they are not ethical hunters and unlike us Americans do not care about the wellfare of our wildlife. But your right it's all our fault that they over hunt the elk. Man now I really feal bad. I should have known it's always the white guys fault no matter what. Really You can't be that ignorant can you?
Wait... wait... I take it all back. Like Maverick said in the movie:
"I figure its their fault... for being on our land before we got here." ;)
This truly shows how little you know since you are quoting a COMMEDY!!!