Post by: demontang on July 09, 2016, 05:42:19 PM
Post by: Timberstalker on July 09, 2016, 05:46:44 PM
Post by: demontang on July 09, 2016, 05:48:33 PM
Post by: BNAElkhntr on July 09, 2016, 06:04:40 PM
Post by: Naches Sportsman on July 09, 2016, 06:08:34 PM
Post by: Curly on July 09, 2016, 08:01:18 PM
Post by: demontang on July 09, 2016, 08:05:07 PM
Post by: demontang on July 09, 2016, 08:21:00 PM
Post by: bobcat on July 09, 2016, 08:27:48 PM
Post by: demontang on July 09, 2016, 09:35:07 PM
Post by: JDHasty on July 09, 2016, 10:09:59 PM
Post by: PlateauNDN on July 10, 2016, 12:16:20 AM
Post by: haus on July 10, 2016, 08:10:02 AM
Post by: trophyhunt on July 10, 2016, 08:21:38 AM
No elk on the rez eh?That's a question I've always asked myself, the yakama rez is huge, you'd think there would be plenty of game to hunt on it. The colville tribe seem to be in a class all by themselves when it comes to managing their own land. And does it have to be a bull?
Post by: HHPro on July 10, 2016, 08:42:59 AM
Post by: trophyhunt on July 10, 2016, 08:47:16 AM
The colville tribe is far greater and more responsible withe their game management,they don't need to come off the rez to poach.The animals they have are simply unreal, yes, the yakama's could learn a lot from them.
Post by: coachcw on July 10, 2016, 09:40:26 AM
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on July 10, 2016, 10:25:40 AM
The colville tribe is far greater and more responsible withe their game management,they don't need to come off the rez to poach.
:yeah:
Post by: HUNTaHOLIC5 on July 10, 2016, 10:48:48 AM
No elk on the rez eh?Beside Bigfoot and horses there's no animals on the Rez ;)
Post by: j_h_nimrod on July 10, 2016, 11:06:02 AM
Post by: bowhunterforever on July 10, 2016, 02:49:04 PM
The colville tribe is far greater and more responsible withe their game management,they don't need to come off the rez to poach.:yeah:
Post by: PlateauNDN on July 10, 2016, 06:24:27 PM
The colville tribe is far greater and more responsible withe their game management,they don't need to come off the rez to poach.
They do have a very good management plan for wildlife but to say they don't have their own bad apples that do venture off the rez is absurd. Isn't the north half off rez?
Post by: couesbitten on July 10, 2016, 06:36:05 PM
Beside Bigfoot and horses there's no animals on the Rez ;)
Even the majority of the Pronghorn left immediately after release!
Post by: gonehuntin68 on July 10, 2016, 07:16:59 PM
Post by: Britt-dog on July 10, 2016, 09:15:25 PM
The colville tribe is far greater and more responsible withe their game management,they don't need to come off the rez to poach.
They do have a very good management plan for wildlife but to say they don't have their own bad apples that do venture off the rez is absurd. Isn't the north half off rez?
The north half in disputed ground. most of the tribe considers it rez, when it comes to hunting.
Post by: shootem on July 10, 2016, 11:21:13 PM
Post by: haus on July 11, 2016, 04:56:22 AM
So saw a guy driving from bethel Ridge today with a velvet bull rack in the bed of his truck :bash:. Do the Indians have a season going now?Did you end up calling it in?
Post by: JDHasty on July 11, 2016, 05:45:25 AM
The colville tribe is far greater and more responsible withe their game management,they don't need to come off the rez to poach.
They do have a very good management plan for wildlife but to say they don't have their own bad apples that do venture off the rez is absurd. Isn't the north half off rez?
:yeah: They do do a better job than almost all others at managing game though.
Post by: dis_pat_ on July 11, 2016, 09:40:00 AM
Its poaching in my eyes.
This. Time to start DNA sampling. This remnant of reservation racism needs to end.
Post by: gonehuntin68 on July 11, 2016, 10:36:07 AM
WhateverIts poaching in my eyes.
This. Time to start DNA sampling. This remnant of reservation racism needs to end.
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 11, 2016, 11:46:58 AM
Its poaching in my eyes.
This. Time to start DNA sampling. This remnant of reservation racism needs to end.
It's called a treaty and it was ratified by mostly white male senators. If you have a problem with the treaty, take it to the US Senate. There's nothing you can do otherwise. You can't impose new restrictions. You can't require DNA stamping. You can't come up with arbitrary limits. It has to be changed by the Federal government in conjunction with the affected tribes. You'd better get started. It'll likely take forever.
Post by: gonehuntin68 on July 11, 2016, 05:53:01 PM
Post by: Sakko300wsm on July 11, 2016, 06:16:15 PM
Post by: Coastal_native on July 11, 2016, 08:04:17 PM
Post by: PlateauNDN on July 11, 2016, 09:35:14 PM
Changing the Declaration of Independence? Wait, wait, wait. Are we going back under the rule of Great Britain?
I think Britain is taking a page from us and Declaring their Independence. :dunno:
Post by: Coastal_native on July 11, 2016, 09:43:21 PM
Post by: PlateauNDN on July 11, 2016, 10:53:09 PM
Heck, Hillary needs to get in - line because this has precedent. And it is almost barely nearly closely as >:( the BF thread. >:(
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 12, 2016, 06:32:18 AM
Well our so called government is changing the Declaration of Independence without an issue , should be able to change some treaty rights haha!! First thing we need to do is change the government imo!
The Declaration of Independence has remained unchanged since July 4th, 1776. Maybe you mean the Constitution. In that case, the Constitution has only been changed when Amendments have been ratified by 2/3s of the states. The last time was on May 7th, 1992, when the 27th Amendment was passed. It makes Congressional salary changes voted in by Congress not take effect until the next election.
The fact that some seek to limit our existing rights doesn't mean the Constitution has been changed. It means those people don't understand what it says.
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 12, 2016, 06:40:30 AM
Yeah 200 years ago. I think times are a little different now. Things won't change as long as natives keep the senitors pockets full.
Most of the treaties that exist now for us in the West are less than 100 years old. Regardless of how old, they've been passed by Congress and signed by the President. Treaties are a promise by the US to the other party(s) that we'll keep our word on an agreement. My point is that getting mad at the Indians for acting within the limits of treaties that whites passed is like getting mad at a cop because he caught you breaking the law.
Post by: gonehuntin68 on July 12, 2016, 07:09:55 AM
Post by: gonehuntin68 on July 12, 2016, 07:21:38 AM
Post by: Coastal_native on July 12, 2016, 07:25:35 AM
I just don't think it's right that a person can hunt and another cant because of the color of there skin.
It definitely seems contrary to other U.S. policy when taken at face value, but if you consider the fact that there are plenty of fair skinned, blonde haired, blue eye, descendents of treaty signers out hunting under the authority of treaty tribes, you'll realize that this has little to do with race.
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 12, 2016, 07:39:07 AM
Post by: arees on July 12, 2016, 07:50:25 AM
Don't forget that when we signed these perpetual treaties, the US government was getting the better deal. We manipulated the Tribes so we could control them without having to use the military and have them govern themselves. The US government wasn't giving anything away without getting more in return. And regardless of the fact that none of us were there when we signed them, we're still bound to honor them, just like the treaties we signed with Mexico, Canada, England, France, and dozens of others that were signed hundreds of years ago.:yeah:
I never thought that going back on your word was an American value that we aspire to. The country has done it before, but it is not something we are supposed to be proud of. Our country signed a treaty. We can argue about what the treaty says, but we shouldn't just say "too bad, I don't care what our forefathers said, we are canceling the deal." How long after you give your word is it ok to break your word?
Post by: gonehuntin68 on July 12, 2016, 08:08:33 AM
Post by: trophyhunt on July 12, 2016, 08:20:41 AM
Post by: PlateauNDN on July 12, 2016, 08:26:06 AM
I will say it's not rights that people don't agree with or like, it's the unregulated and unrestricted abuse of them.
Post by: PlateauNDN on July 12, 2016, 08:30:25 AM
Huh, I guess I'm the only one who is bothered by it.
You're not. It's been heavily debated since before I became a member. It's a very sensitive and emotional subject that at times gets the best of some people.
Post by: JDHasty on July 12, 2016, 08:31:12 AM
Your not the only one bothered by it, most guys on this forum hate the treaty rights. Even respected guys on here, but they choose to stay away from this topic for the most part anymore and save it for the real campfire! The biggest problem is a few bad apples that the tribal council won't discipline, these certain members take more than their share to sell illegally, nothing is done. This causes distain between tribal and non tribal, yet the council sits on their hands. Some members like plat, would love to and try to get change, but it seems to me it's a battle he can't win. The rights are just plain wrong but they are not going anywhere.
There are certain tribes in which this behavior is a way of life and there are others wherein it is not tolerated. Unfortunately I can count the latter on one hand and have fingers left over if you count the Coleville tribes as a single entity.
Post by: JDHasty on July 12, 2016, 08:33:27 AM
I respect a person for being open and honest and though I don't always agree with members on here those that are upfront and honest about their position at least have my respect.
I will say it's not rights that people don't agree with or like, it's the unregulated and unrestricted abuse of them.
:tup:
Post by: trophyhunt on July 12, 2016, 08:53:57 AM
:yeah: that my friend is the root of the problem! And I truly respect the efforts you put forth for change! And I'm not talking about Obummer type change! :chuckle:
I will say it's not rights that people don't agree with or like, it's the unregulated and unrestricted abuse of them.
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 12, 2016, 09:02:33 AM
Huh, I guess I'm the only one who is bothered by it.
You're not the only one bothered by it. I'm absolutely bothered by it, as are many others on this forum, including some of the Indians. But I suggest that if you'd like to accomplish something other than complaining, you should direct your ire in a direction which will have a chance of solving the problems caused by the treaties. You might consider a well thought out approach and start with tribal councils of the tribes which you see as having the least responsibility regarding harvest practices and quotas. Typing out your dissatisfaction on Hunt-WA does nothing but create divides between our members. There have been dozens of these discussion with exactly the same result each time. Nothing gets done in a positive way.
Post by: trophyhunt on July 12, 2016, 09:10:26 AM
Post by: Waycott15 on July 14, 2016, 06:28:38 PM
Post by: brew on July 14, 2016, 06:57:35 PM
Yeah 200 years ago. I think times are a little different now. Things won't change as long as natives keep the senitors pockets full.YAWN...nobody will really take your tirades seriously until you find spell check