Post by: justyhntr on January 10, 2015, 07:17:04 AM
-------- NOTIFICATION OF CHANGES OCCURING TO 2015 WHITE RIVER RECREATIONAL
ACCESS PROGRAM
------------------------------------------------------
Dear Recreational User,
As a 2014 Recreational Access Permit holder,
we wanted to notify you of changes that will be occurring to the White River
property in the 2015 season. These changes will be implemented at the
beginning of the 2015 season beginning April 1st. Please note these changes
BEFORE you purchase a Recreational Access Permit for 2015.
The ownership of the White River property has recently changed, and while
Hancock Forest Management continues to manage the property, the property
owners have requested changes to the Recreational Access program for 2015.
Changes are noted on the attached map, which will indicate the new areas
allowed for motorized Recreational Access, updated wildlife escapement areas,
as well as the NEW restricted use area. In the new restricted use areas
Recreational Access users are permitted for hiking, bicycling, and horseback
riding; however, there will be no hunting, fishing, or collection of any kind
permitted. It is also important to note that property owners will adhere to a
different map that allows them drive in access, hunting, fishing, and
gathering rights throughout the entire property, including all wildlife
escapement and restricted use areas.
Firewood collection will still be allowed, however we would like to remind
you that firewood is on an as available basis. We would also like to note
that camping permits have been reduced in price to $100. Thank you for your
continued support and understanding.
The restricted ( no hunting area ) is were I have spent the last 4 years scouting and learning . By allowing walk-in the restricted area I suppose they are going to still get a tax break . Looks like the Kitsap/Mason hunters can add two more hunters to their ranks next year .
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 10, 2015, 07:37:40 AM
Post by: justyhntr on January 10, 2015, 07:45:51 AM
Post by: Magnum_Willys on January 10, 2015, 08:01:08 AM
Post by: Halo on January 10, 2015, 08:32:29 AM
Post by: Bullkllr on January 10, 2015, 08:48:45 AM
Keep supporting those tribal businesses and casinos so they can afford more land and we can take in less dollars in taxes from them and consequently more from everyone else.
:yeah:
"In the new restricted use areas
Recreational Access users are permitted for hiking, bicycling, and horseback
riding; however, there will be no hunting, fishing, or collection of any kind
permitted. It is also important to note that property owners will adhere to a
different map that allows them drive in access, hunting, fishing, and
gathering rights throughout the entire property, including all wildlife
escapement and restricted use areas."
We're blind if we didn't see this coming. Only reason they still allow any non-tribal access is to squeeze out a few more $$.
Post by: kramer on January 10, 2015, 10:24:59 AM
Post by: trophyhunt on January 10, 2015, 11:07:08 AM
So essentially there allowing the tribe to hunt areas were they won't have white man pressure. They will make escapement areas close it to general population for hunting and let tribe shoot fish in barrel. Makes sense.Yeah, and as I read it, you guys who buy that permit can't even pick up sheds in those areas. What a bunch of BS, if they stayed off OUR lands to stay on their land I wouldn't have a problem with this. But now after buying hancock whiteriver, they can hunt almost any land they want and now, keep us off our traditional hunting land. What a joke. :puke:
Post by: Firedogg on January 10, 2015, 11:10:46 AM
Between the state parks land and the Nisqually Land Trust aquisitions a large portion of land around Eatonville, Ashford and Elbe have been lost for hunting.
Post by: bobcat on January 10, 2015, 11:37:23 AM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 10, 2015, 11:47:01 AM
I have been warning you here for the last three years that wolves and predators aren't the biggest threat to hunting in this State, access issues are and by a large margin.
My personal protest is going to be cutting my hunting back here to a bare minimum Probably just deer hunting and spending more time hunting out of state in Idaho which, with the new access fees here, is starting to look like a push as far as money goes. I'm also not putting in for any drawings except for maybe a second deer tag or a moose tag. If the State is going to allow "pay to hunt", it's going to cost the state a bunch of my money. I will probably move out of State over this eventually and it will cost the State even more money.
Post by: kramer on January 10, 2015, 12:00:08 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 10, 2015, 12:21:21 PM
So essentially there allowing the tribe to hunt areas were they won't have white man pressure. They will make escapement areas close it to general population for hunting and let tribe shoot fish in barrel. Makes sense.
Way to cut right to the point. Your analysis is right on
Post by: trophyhunt on January 10, 2015, 02:13:01 PM
Post by: Magnum_Willys on January 10, 2015, 02:25:59 PM
Other sections are also being lost to hunting access as the Nisqually Land Trust buys up land to "protect" the Nisqually River watershed. Most of those lands are now no access or no hunting. A big chunk of Hancock up on the Busy Wild Creek is goint through this transfer now.
Between the state parks land and the Nisqually Land Trust aquisitions a large portion of land around Eatonville, Ashford and Elbe have been lost for hunting.
which is why I don't understand the movement against big timber to block access fees which only encourages them to sell additional land or conservation easements. Paying an access fee is better than no access at all.
Post by: kramer on January 10, 2015, 02:26:33 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on January 10, 2015, 02:32:16 PM
Trophy I believe it's grass mt side and behind the mill. Quite a big chunk.they sent a map to the permit holders.Ok, thanks. Hmm, I wonder if we will see another casino where the old mill is???
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 10, 2015, 02:35:48 PM
Other sections are also being lost to hunting access as the Nisqually Land Trust buys up land to "protect" the Nisqually River watershed. Most of those lands are now no access or no hunting. A big chunk of Hancock up on the Busy Wild Creek is goint through this transfer now.
Between the state parks land and the Nisqually Land Trust aquisitions a large portion of land around Eatonville, Ashford and Elbe have been lost for hunting.
which is why I don't understand the movement against big timber to block access fees which only encourages them to sell additional land or conservation easements. Paying an access fee is better than no access at all.
Magnum Willys, do you see the irony of your post? The area in question is already a permit area and that didn't stop it from being sold. It probably didn't even enter into the equation except that a system was already in place to limit access which made it easier for the new owner to put in new restrictions.
Post by: lewy on January 10, 2015, 03:14:27 PM
-elk hunt the unit freely while we have to draw a tag
-rifle hunt the unit basically year around counting there ceremonial crap
-do it all out the truck window while we hike in and pack game out
-I wont even go into the slaughter on winter range bs
Now we cant hunt at all? As if they didn't already have enough of a handicap? wtf?
Post by: trophyhunt on January 10, 2015, 03:20:05 PM
What a joke. They already.......pretty much sums it up, this is the biggest load of crap we have seen in a while.
-elk hunt the unit freely while we have to draw a tag
-rifle hunt the unit basically year around counting there ceremonial crap
-do it all out the truck window while we hike in and pack game out
-I wont even go into the slaughter on winter range bs
Now we cant hunt at all? As if they didn't already have enough of a handicap? wtf?
Post by: notellumcreek on January 10, 2015, 03:52:37 PM
https://hancockrecreationnw.com/sites/default/files/2015MFCRecMap.docx
that is the new map.
Post by: bugs n bones on January 10, 2015, 04:04:33 PM
I've never hunted that area, but this is the kind of thing that makes me want to quit hunting in this state. It's unbelievable that a so called "sovereign nation" can buy up forest land in this state. It would be no different if China had purchased the White River tree farm and then closed it to hunting. >:( :bash:i agree bobcat ten fold......piss on them them.
Post by: trophyhunt on January 10, 2015, 04:23:18 PM
Post by: justyhntr on January 10, 2015, 06:01:34 PM
Post by: TheHunt on January 10, 2015, 06:16:30 PM
Post by: logger on January 10, 2015, 06:29:05 PM
Post by: longwalker on January 10, 2015, 06:34:22 PM
Post by: lewy on January 10, 2015, 06:34:59 PM
When I heard last year that they were going to buy it, I immediately knew that they would lock up hunting and fishing in the area. I wish they didnt come over here and judt hunted their land.
Folks, yes gambling and shooting off fireworks are fun, but dont support the muckleshoots or any indian reservation businesses for that matter. Go buy your fireworks out of state. This is going to continue to happen as people like to simply donate their money to the tribes for these things.
exactly
Post by: trophyhunt on January 10, 2015, 07:06:59 PM
Hunt it anyway. f' um. The day they buy Kapowsin is the day I start killing huge bulls in the mashel:yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: I'm with ya!
Post by: Tbar on January 11, 2015, 01:51:59 PM
For all intents and purposes you guys are saying if a tribe bus Kapowsin you will admittedly become poachers under the letter of the law? At the very least you would be charged with hunting while trespassing (i.e. poaching) and that's just while it's in trust. When it becomes reservation land you will be subject to federal charges. This, although I see your frustrations, is probably not the most wise move.Hunt it anyway. f' um. The day they buy Kapowsin is the day I start killing huge bulls in the mashel:yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: I'm with ya!
Post by: logger on January 11, 2015, 02:12:35 PM
Lottsa guys have said the same thing, being how that kapowsin has been off limits for general elk for years there is some mashers in there! better get one before their all gone!Hunt it anyway. f' um. The day they buy Kapowsin is the day I start killing huge bulls in the mashel:yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: I'm with ya!
Post by: cem3434 on January 11, 2015, 02:55:57 PM
What a joke. They already.......pretty much sums it up, this is the biggest load of crap we have seen in a while.
-elk hunt the unit freely while we have to draw a tag
-rifle hunt the unit basically year around counting there ceremonial crap
-do it all out the truck window while we hike in and pack game out
-I wont even go into the slaughter on winter range bs
Now we cant hunt at all? As if they didn't already have enough of a handicap? wtf?
Sounds like we should be petitioning WDFW to open the rest of the unit back to a general season and forget about keeping it a permit hunt. The herd is doomed as the Mucks will continue to over hunt the herd and there is nothing we can do about it. Elk in the White River unit will be a thing of the past in 20 years. :twocents:
Post by: cem3434 on January 11, 2015, 03:03:46 PM
For all intents and purposes you guys are saying if a tribe bus Kapowsin you will admittedly become poachers under the letter of the law? At the very least you would be charged with hunting while trespassing (i.e. poaching) and that's just while it's in trust. When it becomes reservation land you will be subject to federal charges. This, although I see your frustrations, is probably not the most wise move.Hunt it anyway. f' um. The day they buy Kapowsin is the day I start killing huge bulls in the mashel:yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: I'm with ya!
I don't think it's poaching. The unit is open for elk hunting and the game regs dont state that the Hancock property is closed. Hancock has putt this rule in place, so I think the most they could do is take your permit and charge you with criminal trtrespass, which is a simple misdemeanor. Any lawyers want to chime in?
Post by: Tbar on January 11, 2015, 03:26:40 PM
If you go onto the Hancock(Kapowsin/Eatonville) in land right now during elk season you will be charged (if you killa bull) with a RCW 77 violation. You will be subject to civil forfeiture and lose your hunting privileges for 2 years.For all intents and purposes you guys are saying if a tribe bus Kapowsin you will admittedly become poachers under the letter of the law? At the very least you would be charged with hunting while trespassing (i.e. poaching) and that's just while it's in trust. When it becomes reservation land you will be subject to federal charges. This, although I see your frustrations, is probably not the most wise move.Hunt it anyway. f' um. The day they buy Kapowsin is the day I start killing huge bulls in the mashel:yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: I'm with ya!
I don't think it's poaching. The unit is open for elk hunting and the game regs dont state that the Hancock property is closed. Hancock has putt this rule in place, so I think the most they could do is take your permit and charge you with criminal trtrespass, which is a simple misdemeanor. Any lawyers want to chime in?
Post by: Tbar on January 11, 2015, 03:35:08 PM
RCW 77.15.435
Unlawful hunting on or retrieving hunted wildlife from the property of another — defense — penalty — forfeiture and disposition of wildlife.
(1) A person is guilty of unlawfully hunting on, or retrieving hunted wildlife from, the property of another if the person knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in or on the premises of another for the purpose of hunting for wildlife or retrieving hunted wildlife.
(2) In any prosecution under this section, it is a defense that:
(a) The premises were at the time open to members of the public for the purpose of hunting, and the actor complied with all lawful conditions imposed on access to or remaining on the premises;
(b) The actor reasonably believed that the owner of the premises, or other person empowered to license access thereto, would have licensed him or her to enter or remain on the premises for the purpose of hunting or retrieving hunted wildlife;
(c) The actor reasonably believed that the premises were not privately owned; or
(d) The actor, after making all reasonable attempts to contact the owner of the premises, retrieved the hunted wildlife for the sole purpose of avoiding a violation of the prohibition on the waste of fish and wildlife as provided in RCW 77.15.170. The defense in this subsection only applies to the retrieval of hunted wildlife and not to the actual act of hunting itself.
(3) Unlawfully hunting on or retrieving hunted wildlife from the property of another is a misdemeanor.
(4) If a person unlawfully hunts and kills wildlife, or retrieves hunted wildlife that he or she has killed, on the property of another, then, upon conviction of unlawfully hunting on, or retrieving hunted wildlife from, the property of another, the department shall revoke all hunting licenses and tags and order a suspension of the person's hunting privileges for two years.
(5) Any wildlife that is unlawfully hunted on or retrieved from the property of another must be seized by fish and wildlife officers. Forfeiture and disposition of the wildlife is pursuant to RCW 77.15.100.
Post by: Tbar on January 11, 2015, 03:52:18 PM
77.15.410 << 77.15.420 >> 77.15.425
RCW 77.15.420Illegally taken or possessed wildlife — Criminal wildlife penalty assessed.
(1) If a person is convicted of violating RCW 77.15.410and that violation results in the death of wildlife listed in this section, the court shall require payment of the following amounts for each animal taken or possessed. This shall be a criminal wildlife penalty assessment that shall be paid to the clerk of the court and distributed each month to the state treasurer for deposit in the fish and wildlife enforcement reward account created in RCW77.15.425.
(a)Moose, mountain sheep, mountain goat, and all wildlife species classified as endangered by rule of the commission, except for mountain caribou and grizzly bear as listed under (d) of this
subsection . . . . . . . . . . . .
$4,000(b)Elk, deer, black bear, and cougar . . . . . . . . . . . .$2,000(c)Trophy animal elk and deer . . . . . . . . . . . .$6,000(d)Mountain caribou, grizzly bear, and trophy animal mountain sheep . . . . . . . . . . . .
$12,000
(2)(a) For the purpose of this section a "trophy animal" is:
(i) A buck deer with four or more antler points on both sides, not including eyeguards;
(ii) A bull elk with five or more antler points on both sides, not including eyeguards; or
(iii) A mountain sheep with a horn curl of three-quarter curl or greater.
(b) For purposes of this subsection, "eyeguard" means an antler protrusion on the main beam of the antler closest to the eye of the animal.
(3) If two or more persons are convicted of illegally possessing wildlife in subsection (1) of this section, the criminal wildlife penalty assessment shall be imposed on them jointly and severally.
(4) The criminal wildlife penalty assessment shall be imposed regardless of and in addition to any sentence, fines, or costs otherwise provided for violating any provision of this title. The criminal wildlife penalty assessment shall be included by the court in any pronouncement of sentence and may not be suspended, waived, modified, or deferred in any respect. This section may not be construed to abridge or alter alternative rights of action or remedies in equity or under common law or statutory law, criminal or civil.
(5) A defaulted criminal wildlife penalty assessment may be collected by any means authorized by law for the enforcement of orders of the court or collection of a fine or costs, including but not limited to vacation of a deferral of sentencing or vacation of a suspension of sentence.
(6) A person assessed a criminal wildlife penalty assessment under this section shall have his or her hunting license revoked and all hunting privileges suspended until the penalty assessment is paid through the registry of the court in which the penalty assessment was assessed.
(7) The criminal wildlife penalty assessments provided in subsection (1) of this section shall be doubled in the following instances:
(a) When a person is convicted of spotlighting big game under RCW 77.15.450;
(b) When a person commits a violation that requires payment of a wildlife penalty assessment within five years of a prior gross misdemeanor or felony conviction under this title;
(c) When the trier of fact determines that the person took or possessed the animal in question with the intent of bartering, selling, or otherwise deriving economic profit from the animal or the animal's parts; or
(d) When the trier of fact determines that the person took the animal under the supervision of a licensed guide.
Post by: logger on January 11, 2015, 07:07:04 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on January 12, 2015, 07:19:54 AM
:yeah: Open it up! That would piss them off in my opinon so it would never happen. Can't believe they have shut us out of land I've hunted for most my life, and no more antler hunting in Their area? F that!What a joke. They already.......pretty much sums it up, this is the biggest load of crap we have seen in a while.
-elk hunt the unit freely while we have to draw a tag
-rifle hunt the unit basically year around counting there ceremonial crap
-do it all out the truck window while we hike in and pack game out
-I wont even go into the slaughter on winter range bs
Now we cant hunt at all? As if they didn't already have enough of a handicap? wtf?
Sounds like we should be petitioning WDFW to open the rest of the unit back to a general season and forget about keeping it a permit hunt. The herd is doomed as the Mucks will continue to over hunt the herd and there is nothing we can do about it. Elk in the White River unit will be a thing of the past in 20 years. :twocents:
Post by: trophyhunt on January 12, 2015, 07:20:44 AM
It's worth the risk.:yeah:
Post by: liljozie495 on January 12, 2015, 11:27:49 AM
Post by: Tbar on January 12, 2015, 02:14:08 PM
It's worth the risk.I don't know if the last guy, who got away with it for years, would agree. Lawyers tend to get fairly expensive, but to each their own.
Post by: Tbar on January 12, 2015, 02:16:16 PM
I know it's been stated but thank god it's not all of white river permit area. But it is *censored*ty all the area is white folks cannot hunt up there no more is the areas most of us had to work out asses off scouting and hiking behind those no key entry gates to scout and find quality animals... F the mucks they can blow a fat D... They will not be receiving my money for a pass this year apparently Hancock is still running the show for them which I find funny a tribe that wants to have so much damn power cannot manage there land they just spent millions on... Either way the property is basically accessible from my back yard I'll have no problems walking in they can bite me!Very classy post liljozie. I hope this post enriches the "family friendliness" of this site.
Post by: Coastal_native on January 12, 2015, 02:24:45 PM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on January 12, 2015, 02:28:54 PM
Post by: lewy on January 12, 2015, 02:42:56 PM
...Because it would make perfect sense for the Mucks to continue to allow people to hunt their property when those same people have been bad mouthing them and cursing them for years.
The mucks have come by any badmouthing that goes on honestly. :twocents:
Post by: Coastal_native on January 12, 2015, 02:53:51 PM
...Because it would make perfect sense for the Mucks to continue to allow people to hunt their property when those same people have been bad mouthing them and cursing them for years.
The mucks have come by any badmouthing that goes on honestly. :twocents:
Even if that's true about ALL Mucks, unfortunately it's a "my ball, my rules" kind of game. I doubt many landowners are going to give you permission to hunt their property if you call them a worthless POS right before you ask. (not you specifically)
Post by: justyhntr on January 12, 2015, 04:41:58 PM
Post by: papisjeep on January 12, 2015, 06:46:23 PM
Post by: bobcat on January 12, 2015, 07:16:03 PM
Post by: Jingles on January 12, 2015, 07:20:35 PM
Post by: Coastal_native on January 12, 2015, 07:53:22 PM
Post by: pope on January 12, 2015, 09:53:48 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 12, 2015, 10:02:12 PM
Well, maybe the solution is to cut off the funding which facilitates these land purchases. The state is already involved with stealing money from the mathematically challenged public through operating Lotto. It doesn't seem to me that allowing casinos in this state would be some enormous immoral jump. Think of the taxes that could be generated wrecking families by taking advantage of gambling addicts. It's really no different than legalizing and taxing booze and marijuana.Been saying that for years--break the monopoly (or at least make a valid threat to) on the casinos.
Post by: Coastal_native on January 12, 2015, 10:11:20 PM
Well, maybe the solution is to cut off the funding which facilitates these land purchases. The state is already involved with stealing money from the mathematically challenged public through operating Lotto. It doesn't seem to me that allowing casinos in this state would be some enormous immoral jump. Think of the taxes that could be generated wrecking families by taking advantage of gambling addicts. It's really no different than legalizing and taxing booze and marijuana.Been saying that for years--break the monopoly (or at least make a valid threat to) on the casinos.
That would make way too much sense. Can you imagine if this state did something new to try to generate revenue and then actually took that revenue and used it in a way that would create more hunting opportunity AND more revenue. That would be amazing. Maybe the tribal governments are doing something right.
Post by: Whitpirate on January 12, 2015, 10:17:17 PM
Post by: Coastal_native on January 12, 2015, 10:23:13 PM
Certainly easier to operate a business without having to pay taxes, benefits etc... If it were level many tribal businesses would operate at a loss. Interesting Delbert Wheeler owns the businesses but when ruled he owes taxes it is a tribal manner.
We're talking about governments. They don't pay taxes, they collect them. Tribal casinos and enterprises are owned by tribal governments. If the state wants to develop a business enterprise, who would it pay taxes to? This is the biggest misconception out there.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 12, 2015, 10:24:07 PM
I don't blame the tribes for jumping on that kind of opportunity. The state is handing them a golden platter. But when I hear about how the state is 'powerless' to get any kind of change when it comes to issues regarding the tribes, I think....well, the state could impact the largest revenue source for some of them, so not really 'powerless'. I'm pretty sure that would definitely open up some ears if the state went down that road.Well, maybe the solution is to cut off the funding which facilitates these land purchases. The state is already involved with stealing money from the mathematically challenged public through operating Lotto. It doesn't seem to me that allowing casinos in this state would be some enormous immoral jump. Think of the taxes that could be generated wrecking families by taking advantage of gambling addicts. It's really no different than legalizing and taxing booze and marijuana.Been saying that for years--break the monopoly (or at least make a valid threat to) on the casinos.
That would make way too much sense. Can you imagine if this state did something new to try to generate revenue and then actually took that revenue and used it in a way that would create more hunting opportunity AND more revenue. That would be amazing. Maybe the tribal governments are doing something right.
Post by: pope on January 12, 2015, 10:36:26 PM
I'm torn on this issue, actually, because I am pleased to see the tribes finding ways to battle generations of depression and chemical dependency, through generating revenue and promoting health and education. When I was growing up, my mother's best friend was a powerful woman in the Muckleshoot tribe. I later attended a class at U.W. taught by her son, who at that time was the Director of Native American Education in the State of Washington. As an educator, I have worked with countless Muckleshoot students and donated hundreds of hours of my time. Yet....I currently feel like I'm being evicted from my traditional hunting grounds, areas where I have spent years scouting and hunting, all accessed by climbing long hills on a mountain bike.
I agree with justyhunter, a close friend. Whoever owns the property makes the rules, yet at some place in the equation, I think traditions are also important, even my traditions. And ultimately, the health and abundance of animals is critical. I will find other areas to hunt, but I will always remember the adventures I had in the White River, and I hope the new property owners will learn to manage their harvest in a sustainable manner.
Post by: Coastal_native on January 12, 2015, 10:40:43 PM
Post by: Whitpirate on January 12, 2015, 10:42:19 PM
Certainly easier to operate a business without having to pay taxes, benefits etc... If it were level many tribal businesses would operate at a loss. Interesting Delbert Wheeler owns the businesses but when ruled he owes taxes it is a tribal manner.
We're talking about governments. They don't pay taxes, they collect them. Tribal casinos and enterprises are owned by tribal governments. If the state wants to develop a business enterprise, who would it pay taxes to? This is the biggest misconception out there.
Governments also form trade agreements and ratify rules governing trade. Non-tax alcohol, tobacco and other various and sundry items to non-tribal individuals violate the free trade and commerce agreements that sovereign nations would hold. For instance I got to BC and pay VAT and then can get that back. The tribes want to play both sides of the coin and then scream sovereignty when it suits or will cost them. Curious to know how much western tribes paid to support traffic improvements to the various tribal lands that generate revenue.
Post by: Coastal_native on January 12, 2015, 10:43:47 PM
Post by: Coastal_native on January 12, 2015, 10:52:03 PM
Certainly easier to operate a business without having to pay taxes, benefits etc... If it were level many tribal businesses would operate at a loss. Interesting Delbert Wheeler owns the businesses but when ruled he owes taxes it is a tribal manner.
We're talking about governments. They don't pay taxes, they collect them. Tribal casinos and enterprises are owned by tribal governments. If the state wants to develop a business enterprise, who would it pay taxes to? This is the biggest misconception out there.
Governments also form trade agreements and ratify rules governing trade. Non-tax alcohol, tobacco and other various and sundry items to non-tribal individuals violate the free trade and commerce agreements that sovereign nations would hold. For instance I got to BC and pay VAT and then can get that back. The tribes want to play both sides of the coin and then scream sovereignty when it suits or will cost them. Curious to know how much western tribes paid to support traffic improvements to the various tribal lands that generate revenue.
Review the gaming and tax compacts.
Post by: bigtex on January 12, 2015, 10:52:03 PM
So this land is now part of the reservation. We are going to see lots more land moved to no access no hunting entities as timber companies lose tax advantages.
No.
It is essentially just private land owned by the tribe. Not an actual reservation.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 12, 2015, 10:56:18 PM
I think it has to be owned for seven years and then approved by Congress. Is that right BigTex?So this land is now part of the reservation. We are going to see lots more land moved to no access no hunting entities as timber companies lose tax advantages.
No.
It is essentially just private land owned by the tribe. Not an actual reservation.
Post by: bigtex on January 12, 2015, 11:03:26 PM
I don't know if there are any year specifics. However, it is not Congress that approves the reservation expansion but rather the Bureau of Indian Affairs.I think it has to be owned for seven years and then approved by Congress. Is that right BigTex?So this land is now part of the reservation. We are going to see lots more land moved to no access no hunting entities as timber companies lose tax advantages.No.
It is essentially just private land owned by the tribe. Not an actual reservation.
Basically the tribe will buy land then say hey BIA we want to give you this land, and in turn you will make it our reservation. BIA signs off and we now have an expanded reservation. You can thank a law enacted in 1934 for this.
Post by: Coastal_native on January 12, 2015, 11:04:39 PM
I think it has to be owned for seven years and then approved by Congress. Is that right BigTex?So this land is now part of the reservation. We are going to see lots more land moved to no access no hunting entities as timber companies lose tax advantages.
No.
It is essentially just private land owned by the tribe. Not an actual reservation.
Way more hoops to jump through. I've navigated my way through a couple small off reservation fee-to-trust conversions and it ain't easy...especially since gaming. Even it is allowed to be taken in to trust, it's not necessarily an Indian reservation, just tribal trust land.
Post by: longwalker on January 13, 2015, 05:22:23 AM
The war ended in peace treaties. Maybe you were hoping for genocide.
No, anyone to hope for that is an idiot. The problem is the duel citisanship. If you want your own nation you should need a passport to leave it and pay the taxes of mine when dealing in it.
Post by: trophyhunt on January 13, 2015, 07:10:55 AM
The war ended in peace treaties. Maybe you were hoping for genocide.Honestly, you probably don't want the answer to that. That's my angry response, But you guys are so proud to call yourselves a different nation I also think you should have passports and should leave through a check point. Lets be completly honest here, Your tribes in our state and others are the example of "You CAN have your cake and eat it to". The response from littlejosie is probably how most of us feel around a campfire, but on this forum, most will try not to offend in public. I have a hard time holding back myself.
Post by: Coastal_native on January 13, 2015, 07:20:19 AM
The war ended in peace treaties. Maybe you were hoping for genocide.
No, anyone to hope for that is an idiot. The problem is the duel citisanship. If you want your own nation you should need a passport to leave it and pay the taxes of mine when dealing in it.
We do pay taxes. Federal income and state sales. In certain cases, sales tax exemptions may occur for good and services delivered or work performed on the reservation. Passports to enter and leave Indian Reservations wouldn't be practical in my opinion.
Post by: liljozie495 on January 13, 2015, 08:54:20 AM
The war ended in peace treaties. Maybe you were hoping for genocide.Honestly, you probably don't want the answer to that. That's my angry response, But you guys are so proud to call yourselves a different nation I also think you should have passports and should leave through a check point. Lets be completly honest here, Your tribes in our state and others are the example of "You CAN have your cake and eat it to". The response from littlejosie is probably how most of us feel around a campfire, but on this forum, most will try not to offend in public. I have a hard time holding back myself.
I don't care if anyone gets offended, I speak what's on my mind heck it's a forum on the Internet freedom of speach just like there apparent freedom to "hunt" or freedom "to leave there res." trophy how u been man?
Post by: Coastal_native on January 13, 2015, 09:46:17 AM
The war ended in peace treaties. Maybe you were hoping for genocide.Honestly, you probably don't want the answer to that. That's my angry response, But you guys are so proud to call yourselves a different nation I also think you should have passports and should leave through a check point. Lets be completly honest here, Your tribes in our state and others are the example of "You CAN have your cake and eat it to". The response from littlejosie is probably how most of us feel around a campfire, but on this forum, most will try not to offend in public. I have a hard time holding back myself.
That's all fine, but what Indians had vs. what they had to give up, I don't think that qualifies as "having their cake and eating it too". The treaties were a major compromise for the tribes and a minor compromise for the US government. I think you are in a very, very small minority of US citizens who's lives are impacted (arguably) by treaties.
Post by: trophyhunt on January 13, 2015, 10:16:09 AM
Post by: Coastal_native on January 13, 2015, 10:37:32 AM
I agree I am impacted very little by Indians, but that's only because I'm a hunter who cares about the amimals. If I wasn't a hunter I probably wouldn't think about the tribes at all. I think the gov was stupid in giving up what they did in those treaties regarding the fish, wildlife and souvern crap. We really didn't need to go the treaty route, it shouldn't have went that way. The treaty just kept the indians from being wiped out, other wise the battle would have just gone on a little longer and the inevitable would have happened. Someone always is gonna lose in war, we wern't going to turn around and go back to Europe. And there is evidence out there that proves your ancestor's may have not been here first, and if that's the case then those treaties should be abolished. I'm not a racist hater, I just can't stand the nations being treated differently in our USA. This wedge between tribes and non natives will always continue, atleast until we are all treated the same. Which you guys will never allow.
We want our agreement to continue to be honored, you want it to be nullified. Which is the party that is unwilling to compromise in that scenario?...given that the treaties are already a result of compromise.
Given what the founders of this country were trying to accomplish, what other scenario would've been acceptable as the foundation of this country's history other than reaching some form of peace with its current inhabitants? Would the US be able to stand behind its principles if its first order of business was to commit genocide during colonization? I understand there is a history of civilizations doing just that, but few if any had the same mission as the founders of this country. You should be proud and thankful of the outcome.
Post by: westsidehntr on January 13, 2015, 10:42:12 AM
Post by: longwalker on January 13, 2015, 10:49:14 AM
Quote from: Coastal_native link=topic=168294.msg2226161#msg2226161 date=
, what other scenario would've been acceptable
[/quote
, what other scenario would've been acceptable
[/quote
Assimilationist into the United States of America would have been best for all parties. All the reservations and treaties have done is hold the Indian back. With the history of segrigation and poverty on the reservations can you honestly say it wouldn't have been better to just become part of most powerful prosperous nation on Earth as apposed to creating hundred of small impoverished ones where gambling,gill netting and un regulated hunting is legal ? Think Ida wanted to rip he bandaid off fast and be done with back then. But enjoy your treaty ....
Post by: Coastal_native on January 13, 2015, 11:45:56 AM
[/Quote from: Coastal_native link=topic=168294.msg2226161#msg2226161 date=
, what other scenario would've been acceptable
[/quote
Assimilationist into the United States of America would have been best for all parties. All the reservations and treaties have done is hold the Indian back. With the history of segrigation and poverty on the reservations can you honestly say it wouldn't have been better to just become part of most powerful prosperous nation on Earth as apposed to creating hundred of small impoverished ones where gambling,gill netting and un regulated hunting is legal ? Think Ida wanted to rip he bandaid off fast and be done with back then. But enjoy your treaty ....
I can honestly say that allowing Indians to preserve some semblance of culture through treaties (of which land and resources are at the center) is a better route than assimilation. The US government obviously agrees, Indians agree, and a large majority of Americans agree. Maybe its the fact that I don't agree with your depiction of the state of Indian tribes.
Post by: westsidehntr on January 13, 2015, 11:51:00 AM
[/Quote from: Coastal_native link=topic=168294.msg2226161#msg2226161 date=
, what other scenario would've been acceptable
[/quote
Assimilationist into the United States of America would have been best for all parties. All the reservations and treaties have done is hold the Indian back. With the history of segrigation and poverty on the reservations can you honestly say it wouldn't have been better to just become part of most powerful prosperous nation on Earth as apposed to creating hundred of small impoverished ones where gambling,gill netting and un regulated hunting is legal ? Think Ida wanted to rip he bandaid off fast and be done with back then. But enjoy your treaty ....
I can honestly say that allowing Indians to preserve some semblance of culture through treaties (of which land and resources are at the center) is a better route than assimilation. The US government obviously agrees, Indians agree, and a large majority of Americans agree. Maybe its the fact that I don't agree with your depiction of the state of Indian tribes.
Some semblance of culture sure, but the unlimited hunting and fishing is way out of line. I can honestly say lots of Americans would agree with that!
i CA
Post by: X-Force on January 13, 2015, 12:04:41 PM
[/Quote from: Coastal_native link=topic=168294.msg2226161#msg2226161 date=
, what other scenario would've been acceptable
[/quote
Assimilationist into the United States of America would have been best for all parties. All the reservations and treaties have done is hold the Indian back. With the history of segrigation and poverty on the reservations can you honestly say it wouldn't have been better to just become part of most powerful prosperous nation on Earth as apposed to creating hundred of small impoverished ones where gambling,gill netting and un regulated hunting is legal ? Think Ida wanted to rip he bandaid off fast and be done with back then. But enjoy your treaty ....
I can honestly say that allowing Indians to preserve some semblance of culture through treaties (of which land and resources are at the center) is a better route than assimilation. The US government obviously agrees, Indians agree, and a large majority of Americans agree. Maybe its the fact that I don't agree with your depiction of the state of Indian tribes.
I would think that the history of Native American problems since treaty ratification has proven you wrong. I wont and do not need to list them.
Treaties were written because they expedited US exploitation of whatever area the treaty covered, it had nothing to do with what was a better route for Native Peoples.
Assimilation has been the singularly important movement for productive minority populations in the US. Assimilation doesn't mean losing "some semblance of a culture," most assimilated peoples have and partake in culturally significant rituals, foods, and celebrations.
Post by: longwalker on January 13, 2015, 12:09:05 PM
Post by: Coastal_native on January 13, 2015, 12:29:22 PM
This is a pointless, never ending debate. How can I respond to something that isn't even true, e.g. "unlimited hunting and fishing". That is entirely a false statement. It's no wonder you can't get more people in this country and this state on your side.
Post by: trophyhunt on January 13, 2015, 05:13:58 PM
You guys lack a fundamental understanding of what was (and is) very unique about Indian culture...the importance of place. Take a look at all the various regions and tribes across the country and realize how much the culture embodies the land that they inhabit.What was unique then (200+ years ago), was unique because it meant feeding your tribe for the winter or gathering things for trade or for use in everyday life. It isn't necessary for today's life for survival or wealth. Hell the mucks could eat prime rib every night because of their casino. So the traditions of old are what you are all proud of but the new traditions like casinos, smoke shops and expensive high quality hunts in certain states are newer traditions you welcome with open arms. So you get the best of both worlds. You get to embrace the new and keep the old for old time sake and for some Indians, rub your hunting rights in our face for no other reason but to sell the meat and antlers and to piss us off. Yes, a few bad apples, but nothing happens to those few that make a living off killing more than their share to spite us. You don't have to give up your rights to stop natives from over killing, I believe there has to be a way to police your own. Your right though about this crap never ending, I think it will get worse if us non natives end up having a permit only draw someday in our state.
This is a pointless, never ending debate. How can I respond to something that isn't even true, e.g. "unlimited hunting and fishing". That is entirely a false statement. It's no wonder you can't get more people in this country and this state on your side.
Post by: longwalker on January 13, 2015, 05:28:43 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on January 13, 2015, 05:48:51 PM
Permit only would actually make things much better all around but that's getting kinda off topicWouldn't you get more frustrated when you couldn't hunt for deer or elk otc in your own state, then to still see the natives hunting just like normal? I know it's off topic, but just had to ask.
Post by: justyhntr on January 13, 2015, 06:03:37 PM
Post by: longwalker on January 13, 2015, 06:50:44 PM
Permit only would actually make things much better all around but that's getting kinda off topicWouldn't you get more frustrated when you couldn't hunt for deer or elk otc in your own state, then to still see the natives hunting just like normal? I know it's off topic, but just had to ask.
You'd always be able to hunt in your own state . There's lots of examples out there of stAtes with garanteed draws if your a resident . One, it would create an environment where people actually have to decide where there going to hunt rather than your deer tag being good for high, east, west ,early and late seasons and two it may add more ammo to restrcitng natives hunting "rights" since there would be a state wide all inclusive management plan. The whole things a pipe dream but can you blame me?
Post by: trophyhunt on January 13, 2015, 06:58:27 PM
Can't blame you at all, I'd be willing to accept most anything to change the tribes rights of hunting and fishing. I hope I'm still alive to see the day when we are equal.Permit only would actually make things much better all around but that's getting kinda off topicWouldn't you get more frustrated when you couldn't hunt for deer or elk otc in your own state, then to still see the natives hunting just like normal? I know it's off topic, but just had to ask.
You'd always be able to hunt in your own state . There's lots of examples out there of stAtes with garanteed draws if your a resident . One, it would create an environment where people actually have to decide where there going to hunt rather than your deer tag being good for high, east, west ,early and late seasons and two it may add more ammo to restrcitng natives hunting "rights" since there would be a state wide all inclusive management plan. The whole things a pipe dream but can you blame me?
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 13, 2015, 07:00:29 PM