Post by: farmin4u_98948 on August 20, 2018, 10:15:34 PM
Post by: farmin4u_98948 on August 20, 2018, 10:17:43 PM
Post by: X-Force on August 20, 2018, 10:53:13 PM
Yakama must have pretty good sheep numbers
Post by: cem3434 on August 20, 2018, 11:45:29 PM
Post by: PlateauNDN on August 21, 2018, 01:30:45 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on August 21, 2018, 05:17:28 AM
Post by: farmin4u_98948 on August 21, 2018, 08:55:51 AM
It used to be every 5 years but 2 years ago it dropped to 3 yrs. Success rates are low and I've been fortunate to draw twice in last decade.
Are you making it an archery hunt also..
Post by: PlateauNDN on August 21, 2018, 08:56:39 AM
Post by: PlateauNDN on August 21, 2018, 08:59:18 AM
It used to be every 5 years but 2 years ago it dropped to 3 yrs. Success rates are low and I've been fortunate to draw twice in last decade.
Are you making it an archery hunt also..
2nd time I did, but thru the towel in with a few days left.
Post by: huntnphool on August 21, 2018, 09:21:48 AM
Post by: meatwhack on August 21, 2018, 11:17:14 AM
Post by: jackelope on August 21, 2018, 11:51:50 AM
Not sure why that stands out to me.
Post by: ctwiggs1 on August 21, 2018, 11:56:17 AM
Lets see some PICS!It used to be every 5 years but 2 years ago it dropped to 3 yrs. Success rates are low and I've been fortunate to draw twice in last decade.
Are you making it an archery hunt also..
2nd time I did, but thru the towel in with a few days left.
Post by: X-Force on August 21, 2018, 12:37:45 PM
"Only eligible and serious hunters should apply"
Not sure why that stands out to me.
Maybe WDFW should put this on all permits.
Lots of permits have low participation.
Post by: MtnMuley on August 21, 2018, 12:39:26 PM
Seems to me a lot of hard work just got pissed away........ :dunno:
Post by: ctwiggs1 on August 21, 2018, 12:43:23 PM
This is as pathetic as it gets. Another benefit based on skin color? I thought we are pushing hard these days for racial equality, not segregation? Since when has the bighorn sheep ever been native to the Swakane? Also, how has the YN ever helped in manage or support these rams they now seem to be entitled to? Hopefully some WSF members chime in.
Seems to me a lot of hard work just got pissed away........ :dunno:
If you read the comments above, it sounds like this has been around for awhile.
If they're not native, I would think the push would be to eliminate them.
Many of the tribes at this point are partners in wildlife conservation, despite past transgressions from specific tribal members. Ex: There is no denying what members of the Muckleshoot have done in past decades, but their current wildlife bios are doing a great job identifying problems with local deer herds and helping to craft policy for their members to help out. Right now, the tribes are our best shot at predator management.
Lastly, I haven't heard anyone marching to eliminate current treaties with native tribes.
Post by: farmin4u_98948 on August 21, 2018, 01:02:19 PM
This is as pathetic as it gets. Another benefit based on skin color? I thought we are pushing hard these days for racial equality, not segregation? Since when has the bighorn sheep ever been native to the Swakane? Also, how has the YN ever helped in manage or support these rams they now seem to be entitled to? Hopefully some WSF members chime in.
Seems to me a lot of hard work just got pissed away........ :dunno:
Dude. Dial it down a bit. Life will never be fair. Relax and be happy that we have access to thousands of acres of public land.
Post by: ctwiggs1 on August 21, 2018, 01:04:52 PM
This is as pathetic as it gets. Another benefit based on skin color? I thought we are pushing hard these days for racial equality, not segregation? Since when has the bighorn sheep ever been native to the Swakane? Also, how has the YN ever helped in manage or support these rams they now seem to be entitled to? Hopefully some WSF members chime in.
Seems to me a lot of hard work just got pissed away........ :dunno:
Dude. Dial it down a bit. Life will never be fair. Relax and be happy that we have access tothousandsmillions of acres of public land.
Here, I'll fix that for ya :tup:
Post by: Woodchuck on August 21, 2018, 01:05:42 PM
Post by: westside bull on August 21, 2018, 01:07:14 PM
:yeah:This is as pathetic as it gets. Another benefit based on skin color? I thought we are pushing hard these days for racial equality, not segregation? Since when has the bighorn sheep ever been native to the Swakane? Also, how has the YN ever helped in manage or support these rams they now seem to be entitled to? Hopefully some WSF members chime in.
Seems to me a lot of hard work just got pissed away........ :dunno:
If you read the comments above, it sounds like this has been around for awhile.
If they're not native, I would think the push would be to eliminate them.
Many of the tribes at this point are partners in wildlife conservation, despite past transgressions from specific tribal members. Ex: There is no denying what members of the Muckleshoot have done in past decades, but their current wildlife bios are doing a great job identifying problems with local deer herds and helping to craft policy for their members to help out. Right now, the tribes are our best shot at predator management.
Lastly, I haven't heard anyone marching to eliminate current treaties with native tribes.
Post by: MtnMuley on August 21, 2018, 01:09:54 PM
Post by: ctwiggs1 on August 21, 2018, 01:12:02 PM
I'm baffled we have have any members of this forum who think this is okay and we should just move along and carry on.
I'm far more concerned about the nets on the west side, the predators on the east side, and the lack of judicial respect for wildlife laws statewide than the YN taking a few sheep that they're entitled to take.
Post by: MtnMuley on August 21, 2018, 01:15:56 PM
I'm baffled we have have any members of this forum who think this is okay and we should just move along and carry on.
I'm far more concerned about the nets on the west side, the predators on the east side, and the lack of judicial respect for wildlife laws statewide than the YN taking a few sheep that they're entitled to take.
Do you really know what you're even talking about? Since when have they been "entitled" to Swakane sheep and who from WDFW made this decision?
Post by: jackelope on August 21, 2018, 01:16:54 PM
I'm baffled we have have any members of this forum who think this is okay and we should just move along and carry on.
I'm far more concerned about the nets on the west side, the predators on the east side, and the lack of judicial respect for wildlife laws statewide than the YN taking a few sheep that they're entitled to take.
Do you really know what you're even talking about? Since when have they been "entitled" to Swakane sheep and who from WDFW made this decision?
Does WDFW have a say in the decision at all?
:dunno:
Post by: ctwiggs1 on August 21, 2018, 01:17:15 PM
Post by: X-Force on August 21, 2018, 01:21:38 PM
If WSF and WDFW introduced a new species, or species location on ceded land and that species is hunted, tribes have a right to that species equal to non-tribal.
Post by: MtnMuley on August 21, 2018, 01:28:55 PM
I'm baffled we have have any members of this forum who think this is okay and we should just move along and carry on.
I'm far more concerned about the nets on the west side, the predators on the east side, and the lack of judicial respect for wildlife laws statewide than the YN taking a few sheep that they're entitled to take.
Do you really know what you're even talking about? Since when have they been "entitled" to Swakane sheep and who from WDFW made this decision?
Does WDFW have a say in the decision at all?
:dunno:
I would surely hope they have some say beings they have managed the sheep there since their arrival. If this is in some treaty that you guys believe, then why are they just now introducing these sheep tags up north?
Post by: jackelope on August 21, 2018, 01:31:48 PM
I'm baffled we have have any members of this forum who think this is okay and we should just move along and carry on.
I'm far more concerned about the nets on the west side, the predators on the east side, and the lack of judicial respect for wildlife laws statewide than the YN taking a few sheep that they're entitled to take.
Do you really know what you're even talking about? Since when have they been "entitled" to Swakane sheep and who from WDFW made this decision?
Does WDFW have a say in the decision at all?
:dunno:
I would surely hope they have some say beings they have managed the sheep there since their arrival. If this is in some treaty that you guys believe, then why are they just now introducing these sheep tags up north?
Mine was a legit question. I have no idea if they have a say in anything the tribes do.
@PlateauNDN do you know?
Post by: MtnMuley on August 21, 2018, 01:36:03 PM
If I went down today and killed a Swak ram, a WDFW officer would arrest me. I think WDFW has some say on what gets killed.I'm baffled we have have any members of this forum who think this is okay and we should just move along and carry on.
I'm far more concerned about the nets on the west side, the predators on the east side, and the lack of judicial respect for wildlife laws statewide than the YN taking a few sheep that they're entitled to take.
Do you really know what you're even talking about? Since when have they been "entitled" to Swakane sheep and who from WDFW made this decision?
Does WDFW have a say in the decision at all?
:dunno:
I would surely hope they have some say beings they have managed the sheep there since their arrival. If this is in some treaty that you guys believe, then why are they just now introducing these sheep tags up north?
Mine was a legit question. I have no idea if they have a say in anything the tribes do.
@PlateauNDN do you know?
Post by: ctwiggs1 on August 21, 2018, 01:36:49 PM
Post by: X-Force on August 21, 2018, 01:39:54 PM
Where does it say they are just now offering the swakane tags?I'm baffled we have have any members of this forum who think this is okay and we should just move along and carry on.
I'm far more concerned about the nets on the west side, the predators on the east side, and the lack of judicial respect for wildlife laws statewide than the YN taking a few sheep that they're entitled to take.
Do you really know what you're even talking about? Since when have they been "entitled" to Swakane sheep and who from WDFW made this decision?
Does WDFW have a say in the decision at all?
:dunno:
I would surely hope they have some say beings they have managed the sheep there since their arrival. If this is in some treaty that you guys believe, then why are they just now introducing these sheep tags up north?
Post by: MtnMuley on August 21, 2018, 01:43:37 PM
But you’re not a tribal member.
So you're okay with skin color giving you special privileges that you've never had until now?
Post by: MtnMuley on August 21, 2018, 01:47:19 PM
Where does it say they are just now offering the swakane tags?I'm baffled we have have any members of this forum who think this is okay and we should just move along and carry on.
I'm far more concerned about the nets on the west side, the predators on the east side, and the lack of judicial respect for wildlife laws statewide than the YN taking a few sheep that they're entitled to take.
Do you really know what you're even talking about? Since when have they been "entitled" to Swakane sheep and who from WDFW made this decision?
Does WDFW have a say in the decision at all?
:dunno:
I would surely hope they have some say beings they have managed the sheep there since their arrival. If this is in some treaty that you guys believe, then why are they just now introducing these sheep tags up north?
It doesn't need to say it anywhere. A fact is a fact. Its new
Post by: huntnphool on August 21, 2018, 01:48:04 PM
Where does it say they are just now offering the swakane tags?I'm baffled we have have any members of this forum who think this is okay and we should just move along and carry on.
I'm far more concerned about the nets on the west side, the predators on the east side, and the lack of judicial respect for wildlife laws statewide than the YN taking a few sheep that they're entitled to take.
Do you really know what you're even talking about? Since when have they been "entitled" to Swakane sheep and who from WDFW made this decision?
Does WDFW have a say in the decision at all?
:dunno:
I would surely hope they have some say beings they have managed the sheep there since their arrival. If this is in some treaty that you guys believe, then why are they just now introducing these sheep tags up north?
It's new
Post by: jackelope on August 21, 2018, 01:48:22 PM
I don't know where it says it either, but it's new.
Post by: huntnphool on August 21, 2018, 01:51:58 PM
I wonder if WDFW shared this with those at the auction?
Nobody?
"Oh by the way, we neglected to tell you that you won't actually be hunting before everyone else......the Indians will be given two tags too.....but thanks for your money!" :chuckle:
Post by: Rainier10 on August 21, 2018, 01:54:02 PM
With this latest addition of two tags for the tribe I am just not sure that herd can take it.
What I think the WDFW can do is lower the general tag back to one. That would eliminate the unit from being open to the auction or raffle winner I believe.
And if all things are supposed to be equal the tribe should lower their harvest to one tag also.
Just my :twocents:
Post by: ctwiggs1 on August 21, 2018, 01:54:32 PM
But you’re not a tribal member.
So you're okay with skin color giving you special privileges that you've never had until now?
Skin color? :rolleyes:
Post by: MtnMuley on August 21, 2018, 01:57:48 PM
Post by: Rainier10 on August 21, 2018, 01:59:23 PM
I think they should have been told and I would hope that they were aware of the change.I wonder if WDFW shared this with those at the auction?
Nobody?
"Oh by the way, we neglected to tell you that you won't actually be hunting before everyone else......the Indians will be given two tags too.....but thanks for your money!" :chuckle:
Post by: huntnphool on August 21, 2018, 02:01:23 PM
So a couple of years ago they increased the permits in swakane from 1 to 2. I believe the WDFW thought the herd could take the extra permit. The byproduct of that change was it opened that unit up for the auction tag winner to be able to hunt. That also opened it up for the raffle tag winner. That put a possible 4 tags in that unit.
With this latest addition of two tags for the tribe I am just not sure that herd can take it.
What I think the WDFW can do is lower the general tag back to one. That would eliminate the unit from being open to the auction or raffle winner I believe.
And if all things are supposed to be equal the tribe should lower their harvest to one tag also.
Just my :twocents:
Raffle winners can not hunt Swakane, and there are 2 special permits to go with the auction. ;)
Post by: Rainier10 on August 21, 2018, 02:08:32 PM
Rainier -- it didnt have anything to do with giving another permit in the Swak. The auction tag has certain units he/she can hunt. So does raffle winner. If that was the case, then why can't the auction tag holder hunt Chelan Butte? They have 6 tags this year.....?So are you saying that when there was only one tag in Swakane that it was open to the auction and raffle tag holders? That's not how I remembered it but I could be wrong.
Post by: Rainier10 on August 21, 2018, 02:10:28 PM
So before the permit change from one permit to two permits, there were still auction tags that could be used in the unit? Let's say in 1998?So a couple of years ago they increased the permits in swakane from 1 to 2. I believe the WDFW thought the herd could take the extra permit. The byproduct of that change was it opened that unit up for the auction tag winner to be able to hunt. That also opened it up for the raffle tag winner. That put a possible 4 tags in that unit.
With this latest addition of two tags for the tribe I am just not sure that herd can take it.
What I think the WDFW can do is lower the general tag back to one. That would eliminate the unit from being open to the auction or raffle winner I believe.
And if all things are supposed to be equal the tribe should lower their harvest to one tag also.
Just my :twocents:
Raffle winners can not hunt Swakane, and there are 2 special permits to go with the auction. ;)
Post by: huntnphool on August 21, 2018, 02:41:46 PM
So before the permit change from one permit to two permits, there were still auction tags that could be used in the unit? Let's say in 1998?So a couple of years ago they increased the permits in swakane from 1 to 2. I believe the WDFW thought the herd could take the extra permit. The byproduct of that change was it opened that unit up for the auction tag winner to be able to hunt. That also opened it up for the raffle tag winner. That put a possible 4 tags in that unit.
With this latest addition of two tags for the tribe I am just not sure that herd can take it.
What I think the WDFW can do is lower the general tag back to one. That would eliminate the unit from being open to the auction or raffle winner I believe.
And if all things are supposed to be equal the tribe should lower their harvest to one tag also.
Just my :twocents:
Raffle winners can not hunt Swakane, and there are 2 special permits to go with the auction. ;)
No, auction winners were not allowed to hunt the unit until recently. Where they opened it up to the auction there was 1 draw tag. Then they added a additional draw tag after the auction addition, but maintained the "off limits" for raffle winners.
Post by: huntnphool on August 21, 2018, 02:49:19 PM
1) WDFW was complicit in withholding this info from the auction.....fraud.
2) WDFW is so powerless and has so much respect from the indians that the indians basically flipped WDFW the bird and did it on their own, leaving WDFW to find out about it today when they read this thread.
Neither sheds good light on WDFW. :twocents:
Post by: Rainier10 on August 21, 2018, 02:51:36 PM
:tup: Thanks. I'm not a sheep guy but I am trying to get up to speed. I'm kind of planning on drawing a sheep tag next year. That's actually been my plan for a few years now it just hasn't worked out.So before the permit change from one permit to two permits, there were still auction tags that could be used in the unit? Let's say in 1998?So a couple of years ago they increased the permits in swakane from 1 to 2. I believe the WDFW thought the herd could take the extra permit. The byproduct of that change was it opened that unit up for the auction tag winner to be able to hunt. That also opened it up for the raffle tag winner. That put a possible 4 tags in that unit.
With this latest addition of two tags for the tribe I am just not sure that herd can take it.
What I think the WDFW can do is lower the general tag back to one. That would eliminate the unit from being open to the auction or raffle winner I believe.
And if all things are supposed to be equal the tribe should lower their harvest to one tag also.
Just my :twocents:
Raffle winners can not hunt Swakane, and there are 2 special permits to go with the auction. ;)
No, auction winners were not allowed to hunt the unit until recently. Where they opened it up to the auction there was 1 draw tag. Then they added a additional draw tag after the auction addition, but maintained the "off limits" for raffle winners.
So there are two special permits that anyone can put in for and draw, one auction tag that you can buy if you have an extra $100,000 of disposable income and now two more tags if you are a card carrying member of the Yakama tribe and get drawn in their drawing, correct?
Yakama's and auction tag holders get to hunt starting Sept 1 and the two general permit guys get to start Sept 15th?
I will say if I dropped $100,000 to get to hunt for two weeks before the general sheep permits and then found out that there were going to be two other permits starting the same day as me I would be a little PO'd.
Post by: MtnMuley on August 21, 2018, 02:55:08 PM
Post by: huntnphool on August 21, 2018, 03:01:14 PM
:tup: Thanks. I'm not a sheep guy but I am trying to get up to speed. I'm kind of planning on drawing a sheep tag next year. That's actually been my plan for a few years now it just hasn't worked out.So before the permit change from one permit to two permits, there were still auction tags that could be used in the unit? Let's say in 1998?So a couple of years ago they increased the permits in swakane from 1 to 2. I believe the WDFW thought the herd could take the extra permit. The byproduct of that change was it opened that unit up for the auction tag winner to be able to hunt. That also opened it up for the raffle tag winner. That put a possible 4 tags in that unit.
With this latest addition of two tags for the tribe I am just not sure that herd can take it.
What I think the WDFW can do is lower the general tag back to one. That would eliminate the unit from being open to the auction or raffle winner I believe.
And if all things are supposed to be equal the tribe should lower their harvest to one tag also.
Just my :twocents:
Raffle winners can not hunt Swakane, and there are 2 special permits to go with the auction. ;)
No, auction winners were not allowed to hunt the unit until recently. Where they opened it up to the auction there was 1 draw tag. Then they added a additional draw tag after the auction addition, but maintained the "off limits" for raffle winners.
So there are two special permits that anyone can put in for and draw, one auction tag that you can buy if you have an extra $100,000 of disposable income and now two more tags if you are a card carrying member of the Yakama tribe and get drawn in their drawing, correct?
Yakama's and auction tag holders get to hunt starting Sept 1 and the two general permit guys get to start Sept 15th?
I will say if I dropped $100,000 to get to hunt for two weeks before the general sheep permits and then found out that there were going to be two other permits starting the same day as me I would be a little PO'd.
Pretty much nailed it.......although I wouldn't hold your breath. :chuckle:
Post by: idahohuntr on August 21, 2018, 03:30:00 PM
1. Who gives a damn about guys who buy auction tags? Agencies should not even offer auction tags; the money they provide is budget dust in the grand scheme of things and they are a net negative for the future of hunting...so I've got a real simple solution - stop managing wildlife in any way for the very wealthy or those willing to pay large sums for tags. Problem solved...you don't have to worry about the auction and the impact of 2 Yakama tags, because the state won't be selling any. However, if you happen to put in for a Swakane tag and draw, maybe a Tribal member or two will also be hunting there...what a tragedy to have to deal with.
2. Tribes rights have NOTHING to do with their skin color - those rights are based in Treaties with the United States and Treaties are the supreme law of the land (Article 6 of the US Constitution). Congress can abrogate treaty rights or treaties anytime they want to...but until then(*very unlikely to ever happen), it doesn't really matter what WDFW thinks about when/how/if the Tribe harvests game.
Post by: Rainier10 on August 21, 2018, 03:32:57 PM
A couple of points:Well you didn't have to sugar coat it, we can handle the truth, just cut to the chase next time. :chuckle:
1. Who gives a damn about guys who buy auction tags? Agencies should not even offer auction tags; the money they provide is budget dust in the grand scheme of things and they are a net negative for the future of hunting...so I've got a real simple solution - stop managing wildlife in any way for the very wealthy or those willing to pay large sums for tags. Problem solved...you don't have to worry about the auction and the impact of 2 Yakama tags, because the state won't be selling any. However, if you happen to put in for a Swakane tag and draw, maybe a Tribal member or two will also be hunting there...what a tragedy to have to deal with.
2. Tribes rights have NOTHING to do with their skin color - those rights are based in Treaties with the United States and Treaties are the supreme law of the land (Article 6 of the US Constitution). Congress can abrogate treaty rights or treaties anytime they want to...but until then(*very unlikely to ever happen), it doesn't really matter what WDFW thinks about when/how/if the Tribe harvests game.
Good points. :tup:
Post by: X-Force on August 21, 2018, 03:37:00 PM
A couple of points:Well you didn't have to sugar coat it, we can handle the truth, just cut to the chase next time. :chuckle:
1. Who gives a damn about guys who buy auction tags? Agencies should not even offer auction tags; the money they provide is budget dust in the grand scheme of things and they are a net negative for the future of hunting...so I've got a real simple solution - stop managing wildlife in any way for the very wealthy or those willing to pay large sums for tags. Problem solved...you don't have to worry about the auction and the impact of 2 Yakama tags, because the state won't be selling any. However, if you happen to put in for a Swakane tag and draw, maybe a Tribal member or two will also be hunting there...what a tragedy to have to deal with.
2. Tribes rights have NOTHING to do with their skin color - those rights are based in Treaties with the United States and Treaties are the supreme law of the land (Article 6 of the US Constitution). Congress can abrogate treaty rights or treaties anytime they want to...but until then(*very unlikely to ever happen), it doesn't really matter what WDFW thinks about when/how/if the Tribe harvests game.
Good points. :tup:
:chuckle: :tup:
Post by: idahohuntr on August 21, 2018, 03:40:44 PM
I like to make sure my favorability rating is in the single digits around here...Tribes, wolves, etc. keep me safely in that zone :chuckle:A couple of points:Well you didn't have to sugar coat it, we can handle the truth, just cut to the chase next time. :chuckle:
1. Who gives a damn about guys who buy auction tags? Agencies should not even offer auction tags; the money they provide is budget dust in the grand scheme of things and they are a net negative for the future of hunting...so I've got a real simple solution - stop managing wildlife in any way for the very wealthy or those willing to pay large sums for tags. Problem solved...you don't have to worry about the auction and the impact of 2 Yakama tags, because the state won't be selling any. However, if you happen to put in for a Swakane tag and draw, maybe a Tribal member or two will also be hunting there...what a tragedy to have to deal with.
2. Tribes rights have NOTHING to do with their skin color - those rights are based in Treaties with the United States and Treaties are the supreme law of the land (Article 6 of the US Constitution). Congress can abrogate treaty rights or treaties anytime they want to...but until then(*very unlikely to ever happen), it doesn't really matter what WDFW thinks about when/how/if the Tribe harvests game.
Good points. :tup:
Post by: MtnMuley on August 21, 2018, 05:43:33 PM
Post by: Whitpirate on August 21, 2018, 07:28:08 PM
Post by: PlateauNDN on August 21, 2018, 07:51:57 PM
Post by: shallowforks on August 21, 2018, 07:58:14 PM
A couple of points:
1 Agencies should not even offer auction tags; the money they provide is budget dust in the grand scheme of things and they are a net negative for the future of hunting...so I've got a real simple solution - stop managing wildlife in any way for the very wealthy or those willing to pay large sums for tags.
For me, this couldnt be more true.
Post by: shallowforks on August 21, 2018, 08:03:31 PM
Post by: MtnMuley on August 21, 2018, 08:06:41 PM
Native/Non-Native doesnt matter, we ALL need to work together to properly manage the game in our state, and while we may disagree on certain issues we need to come together to find solutions. No good can come of polarizing ourselves
Sadly that doesn't work or have any merit these days. Would be nice if it worked that way, but it never will again.
Post by: shallowforks on August 21, 2018, 08:12:27 PM
Post by: MtnMuley on August 21, 2018, 08:18:31 PM
Post by: shallowforks on August 21, 2018, 08:26:14 PM
Post by: Dan-o on August 21, 2018, 08:51:52 PM
I look at it like an inheritance. Some tribal members inherited a gift from their ancestors. Not much different than a rich guy leaving an inheritance for their kids......... unless you can explain why it's different.
Post by: idahohuntr on August 21, 2018, 08:58:51 PM
You should really broaden yourself on all the aspects of this specific topic before you tell guys like myself to suggest extending a hand.Based on your posts in this thread it's clear you need to do some reading and broadening yourself. While I think there are many challenges and wish there was greater collaboration between states and tribes on harvest...it is clear you don't even understand basic treaty rights. If you had a better grasp on this topic I think you would realize how ridiculous it is to whine about a couple sheep tags.
Post by: trophyhunt on August 21, 2018, 09:05:24 PM
Post by: MtnMuley on August 21, 2018, 09:06:56 PM
You should really broaden yourself on all the aspects of this specific topic before you tell guys like myself to suggest extending a hand.Based on your posts in this thread it's clear you need to do some reading and broadening yourself. While I think there are many challenges and wish there was greater collaboration between states and tribes on harvest...it is clear you don't even understand basic treaty rights. If you had a better grasp on this topic I think you would realize how ridiculous it is to whine about a couple sheep tags.
Based on every post I've ever read from you, you should take my last advice directed at you. :tup:
I've forgotten more about treaty rights than you've ever learned. What I haven't forgotten is how common sense and game management is out the window these days, there's too many die hard *censored*s in the hunting community, and why I even continue to argue with people I could care less who even exist. :hello:
Post by: idahohuntr on August 21, 2018, 09:24:32 PM
You don't know anything about treaty rights. You made that crystal clear when you suggested these rights were related to their skin color. That's not something you forget...its a clear sign you don't understand treaties at all. Instead of attacking tribes and their harvest, try learning about them.You should really broaden yourself on all the aspects of this specific topic before you tell guys like myself to suggest extending a hand.Based on your posts in this thread it's clear you need to do some reading and broadening yourself. While I think there are many challenges and wish there was greater collaboration between states and tribes on harvest...it is clear you don't even understand basic treaty rights. If you had a better grasp on this topic I think you would realize how ridiculous it is to whine about a couple sheep tags.
Based on every post I've ever read from you, you should take my last advice directed at you. :tup:
I've forgotten more about treaty rights than you've ever learned. What I haven't forgotten is how common sense and game management is out the window these days, there's too many die hard *censored*s in the hunting community, and why I even continue to argue with people I could care less who even exist. :hello:
Post by: shallowforks on August 21, 2018, 09:26:27 PM
If there were more members and elders like plat we would get somewhere with our issues between tribal and non tribal differences.
And the pathway to creating this is by fostering good relationships is it not?
MTNMULEY I too have concerns over how our game is managed between the state and tribal entities, And when a thread like this one comes about we can choose to use it as a stepping stone toward bridging a gap or as a hammer to drive the wedge between us deeper.
Post by: MtnMuley on August 21, 2018, 09:37:57 PM
You don't know anything about treaty rights. You made that crystal clear when you suggested these rights were related to their skin color. That's not something you forget...its a clear sign you don't understand treaties at all. Instead of attacking tribes and their harvest, try learning about them.You should really broaden yourself on all the aspects of this specific topic before you tell guys like myself to suggest extending a hand.Based on your posts in this thread it's clear you need to do some reading and broadening yourself. While I think there are many challenges and wish there was greater collaboration between states and tribes on harvest...it is clear you don't even understand basic treaty rights. If you had a better grasp on this topic I think you would realize how ridiculous it is to whine about a couple sheep tags.
Based on every post I've ever read from you, you should take my last advice directed at you. :tup:
I've forgotten more about treaty rights than you've ever learned. What I haven't forgotten is how common sense and game management is out the window these days, there's too many die hard *censored*s in the hunting community, and why I even continue to argue with people I could care less who even exist. :hello:
Are you not intelligent enough to realize my "skin" comment was directed at being an enrolled member? Seriously? That's where you're going to take this now? After all these years and now 2 sheep tags pop up in an area they've never had a tag before, and you're going to debate a "skin" reference comment I made. You clearly are a detriment to this hunting community and always have been as far as I'm concerned.
Post by: PlateauNDN on August 21, 2018, 09:49:40 PM
After all these years and now 2 sheep tags pop up in an area they've never had a tag before
@Jackelope theres the reference I was talking about earlier.
Post by: MtnMuley on August 21, 2018, 09:54:32 PM
Post by: PlateauNDN on August 21, 2018, 10:03:08 PM
Post by: MtnMuley on August 21, 2018, 10:04:13 PM
Post by: PlateauNDN on August 21, 2018, 10:04:32 PM
Post by: MtnMuley on August 21, 2018, 10:10:18 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on August 21, 2018, 10:11:47 PM
Backpedal and spin all you want. This is what you said and you very clearly equate race to "special privileges". Its not skin color and special anything...its a treaty and treaty rights.But you’re not a tribal member.
So you're okay with skin color giving you special privileges that you've never had until now?
Post by: MtnMuley on August 21, 2018, 10:18:50 PM
Backpedal and spin all you want. This is what you said and you very clearly equate race to "special privileges". Its not skin color and special anything...its a treaty and treaty rights.But you’re not a tribal member.
So you're okay with skin color giving you special privileges that you've never had until now?
Until right now, the Yakama's haven't had the "right" to kill 2 Swakane rams per year. That's what this whole topic is about. It's not about any swaying of meaning of or nick nack lingo that you get off on. Please let those of us who aren't trolls discuss this matter instead of playing the role of: TREATYMASTER. Seriously, beat it
Post by: idahohuntr on August 21, 2018, 10:32:09 PM
There you go again...demonstrating a complete lack of understanding regarding treaty rights. These rights were not a grant to tribes...the yakamas have always had the right to kill rams in swakane if it is within their ceded and open-unclaimed area...it appears they are choosing to exercise that right, possibly as plat said to ensure it's not lost on folks where they have hunted.Backpedal and spin all you want. This is what you said and you very clearly equate race to "special privileges". Its not skin color and special anything...its a treaty and treaty rights.But you’re not a tribal member.
So you're okay with skin color giving you special privileges that you've never had until now?
Until right now, the Yakama's haven't had the "right" to kill 2 Swakane rams per year. That's what this whole topic is about. It's not about any swaying of meaning of or nick nack lingo that you get off on. Please let those of us who aren't trolls discuss this matter instead of playing the role of: TREATYMASTER. Seriously, beat it
Post by: MtnMuley on August 21, 2018, 10:39:31 PM
There you go again...demonstrating a complete lack of understanding regarding treaty rights. These rights were not a grant to tribes...the yakamas have always had the right to kill rams in swakane if it is within their ceded and open-unclaimed area...it appears they are choosing to exercise that right, possibly as plat said to ensure it's not lost on folks where they have hunted.Backpedal and spin all you want. This is what you said and you very clearly equate race to "special privileges". Its not skin color and special anything...its a treaty and treaty rights.But you’re not a tribal member.
So you're okay with skin color giving you special privileges that you've never had until now?
Until right now, the Yakama's haven't had the "right" to kill 2 Swakane rams per year. That's what this whole topic is about. It's not about any swaying of meaning of or nick nack lingo that you get off on. Please let those of us who aren't trolls discuss this matter instead of playing the role of: TREATYMASTER. Seriously, beat it
Since there were never introduced California bighorn sheep whenever the treaty was signed in this area, how are they "ensuring its not lost on folks where they have hunted"?
Post by: huntnphool on August 21, 2018, 10:41:51 PM
There you go again...demonstrating a complete lack of understanding regarding treaty rights. These rights were not a grant to tribes...the yakamas have always had the right to kill rams in swakane if it is within their ceded and open-unclaimed area...it appears they are choosing to exercise that right, possibly as plat said to ensure it's not lost on folks where they have hunted.Backpedal and spin all you want. This is what you said and you very clearly equate race to "special privileges". Its not skin color and special anything...its a treaty and treaty rights.But you’re not a tribal member.
So you're okay with skin color giving you special privileges that you've never had until now?
Until right now, the Yakama's haven't had the "right" to kill 2 Swakane rams per year. That's what this whole topic is about. It's not about any swaying of meaning of or nick nack lingo that you get off on. Please let those of us who aren't trolls discuss this matter instead of playing the role of: TREATYMASTER. Seriously, beat it
Since there were never introduced California bighorn sheep whenever the treaty was signed in this area, how are they "ensuring its not lost on folks where they have hunted"?
You mean like elk in the blues? :rolleyes:
Post by: idahohuntr on August 21, 2018, 10:48:27 PM
Are elk in the blues and California bighorn sheep in swakane invasive species? Or were there numbers so low they were reintroduced to help rebuild populations? They are both native species that tribes have probably hunted for thousands of years....but I'm less familiar with sheep history, so correct me if I'm wrong.There you go again...demonstrating a complete lack of understanding regarding treaty rights. These rights were not a grant to tribes...the yakamas have always had the right to kill rams in swakane if it is within their ceded and open-unclaimed area...it appears they are choosing to exercise that right, possibly as plat said to ensure it's not lost on folks where they have hunted.Backpedal and spin all you want. This is what you said and you very clearly equate race to "special privileges". Its not skin color and special anything...its a treaty and treaty rights.But you’re not a tribal member.
So you're okay with skin color giving you special privileges that you've never had until now?
Until right now, the Yakama's haven't had the "right" to kill 2 Swakane rams per year. That's what this whole topic is about. It's not about any swaying of meaning of or nick nack lingo that you get off on. Please let those of us who aren't trolls discuss this matter instead of playing the role of: TREATYMASTER. Seriously, beat it
Since there were never introduced California bighorn sheep whenever the treaty was signed in this area, how are they "ensuring its not lost on folks where they have hunted"?
You mean like elk in the blues? :rolleyes:
Post by: MtnMuley on August 21, 2018, 10:55:45 PM
Are elk in the blues and California bighorn sheep in swakane invasive species? Or were there numbers so low they were reintroduced to help rebuild populations? They are both native species that tribes have probably hunted for thousands of years....but I'm less familiar with sheep history, so correct me if I'm wrong.There you go again...demonstrating a complete lack of understanding regarding treaty rights. These rights were not a grant to tribes...the yakamas have always had the right to kill rams in swakane if it is within their ceded and open-unclaimed area...it appears they are choosing to exercise that right, possibly as plat said to ensure it's not lost on folks where they have hunted.Backpedal and spin all you want. This is what you said and you very clearly equate race to "special privileges". Its not skin color and special anything...its a treaty and treaty rights.But you’re not a tribal member.
So you're okay with skin color giving you special privileges that you've never had until now?
Until right now, the Yakama's haven't had the "right" to kill 2 Swakane rams per year. That's what this whole topic is about. It's not about any swaying of meaning of or nick nack lingo that you get off on. Please let those of us who aren't trolls discuss this matter instead of playing the role of: TREATYMASTER. Seriously, beat it
Since there were never introduced California bighorn sheep whenever the treaty was signed in this area, how are they "ensuring its not lost on folks where they have hunted"?
You mean like elk in the blues? :rolleyes:
Yes, the sheep are so invasive that guys like me wait 20 plus years at the 1/1000 chance to get a tag and others spend $100K+ for ththe opportunity for a tag.
Also, the Yakama's never hunted sheep in the Swakane because there was never any there to start with.
Lastly, why so you keep finding ways to argue in support of these 2 tags?
Post by: huntnphool on August 21, 2018, 11:06:26 PM
Are elk in the blues and California bighorn sheep in swakane invasive species? Or were there numbers so low they were reintroduced to help rebuild populations? They are both native species that tribes have probably hunted for thousands of years....but I'm less familiar with sheep history, so correct me if I'm wrong.There you go again...demonstrating a complete lack of understanding regarding treaty rights. These rights were not a grant to tribes...the yakamas have always had the right to kill rams in swakane if it is within their ceded and open-unclaimed area...it appears they are choosing to exercise that right, possibly as plat said to ensure it's not lost on folks where they have hunted.Backpedal and spin all you want. This is what you said and you very clearly equate race to "special privileges". Its not skin color and special anything...its a treaty and treaty rights.But you’re not a tribal member.
So you're okay with skin color giving you special privileges that you've never had until now?
Until right now, the Yakama's haven't had the "right" to kill 2 Swakane rams per year. That's what this whole topic is about. It's not about any swaying of meaning of or nick nack lingo that you get off on. Please let those of us who aren't trolls discuss this matter instead of playing the role of: TREATYMASTER. Seriously, beat it
Since there were never introduced California bighorn sheep whenever the treaty was signed in this area, how are they "ensuring its not lost on folks where they have hunted"?
You mean like elk in the blues? :rolleyes:
Good question. Would the tribes be pushing the issue if not for the changes that have resulted in today's opportunities? :dunno:
The Bolt decision also gave the tribes half the shellfish harvest. Were the tribes hand pulling hemp rope lines attached to wood shrimp pots from 300+ feet in hood canal in 1800's?
I can understand your defense of the Indians, and Platt advocating for his opportunity to hunt without participating in the draw, but if you both want to be taken seriously, then call a spade a spade. ;)
Post by: idahohuntr on August 21, 2018, 11:24:11 PM
So no bighorn sheep ever occupied the swakane unit? Can you validate that with a credible source? That doesn't seem logical. Like many wildlife species that crashed to extreme lows in the early 1900s ( elk in the blues)I'm sure they were reintroduced by wdfw in the mid 1900s.
I'm not arguing in favor of these tags as much as I'm arguing the basis for these rights stems from treaties that should be honored by the United States. The Yakamas hunting in the swakane is simply the exercise of rights I would argue the tribe explicitly reserved when they ceded millions of acres to the US...lands you and I can hunt and recreate on.
To hps points...tribes endured those population crashes after their treaty...so I would guess in their view changes to provide these opportunities have been long overdue, and were plentiful in 1855.
As far as today's technology, whether salmon, shellfish, or elk...tribes reserves those rights to harvest, nothing in those treaties limits their technology use or tools in conducting said harvest. Just like my 2nd amendment rights are not limited to the firearms that existed in 1776.
Post by: PlateauNDN on August 21, 2018, 11:53:38 PM
You want it you got it. A spade is a spade. I do because I can. I do because it's my Reserved Right. My ancestors were better negotiators than the US gov't and now people are upset because we're sticking to the agreed upon stipulations.
We weren't given nothing, granted nothing, our Ancestors Reserved Our Rights during the negotiations. Our Treaty is apart of the US Constitution and the Supreme Law of the Land for us.
I will exercise my Rights as I exercise all my other Rights. If you dont like it then to bad.
I honestly thought this place was starting to turn a chapter but it seems nothing ceases to amaze me.
Post by: huntnphool on August 22, 2018, 12:16:19 AM
I just love how many try to interpret my culture and history as if they are tribal members.
You want it you got it. A spade is a spade. I do because I can. I do because it's my Reserved Right. My ancestors were better negotiators than the US gov't and now people are upset because we're sticking to the agreed upon stipulations.
We weren't given nothing, granted nothing, our Ancestors Reserved Our Rights during the negotiations. Our Treaty is apart of the US Constitution and the Supreme Law of the Land for us.
I will exercise my Rights as I exercise all my other Rights. If you dont like it then to bad.
I honestly thought this place was starting to turn a chapter but it seems nothing ceases to amaze me.
Thanks for admitting it. ;)
Post by: trophyhunt on August 22, 2018, 05:15:57 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on August 22, 2018, 05:17:14 AM
Post by: trophyhunt on August 22, 2018, 06:09:50 AM
Post by: birddogdad on August 22, 2018, 06:51:57 AM
I just love how many try to interpret my culture and history as if they are tribal members.your opening sentence speaks volumes why pages never turn my friend.... inequalities abound....culture or cultural differences have very little to do with any discussions posted here... i have had some very positive and very negative personal interactions with members of various groups in the PNW but i will say without hesitation that the negative overshadowed the few positives with how i was mistreated by those seeking to exercise rights.....food for thought....
You want it you got it. A spade is a spade. I do because I can. I do because it's my Reserved Right. My ancestors were better negotiators than the US gov't and now people are upset because we're sticking to the agreed upon stipulations.
We weren't given nothing, granted nothing, our Ancestors Reserved Our Rights during the negotiations. Our Treaty is apart of the US Constitution and the Supreme Law of the Land for us.
I will exercise my Rights as I exercise all my other Rights. If you dont like it then to bad.
I honestly thought this place was starting to turn a chapter but it seems nothing ceases to amaze me.
Post by: meatwhack on August 22, 2018, 07:43:35 AM
Post by: Rainier10 on August 22, 2018, 07:56:25 AM
How much Indian do you currently need to be to have hunting rights?Since this is Washington state I am currently trying to work the "I relate to being a native american" angle. I will be starting a "gofundme" page for my legal fees after I whack a sheep this year. :chuckle:
Post by: shallowforks on August 22, 2018, 07:58:19 AM
I just love how many try to interpret my culture and history as if they are tribal members.
You want it you got it. A spade is a spade. I do because I can. I do because it's my Reserved Right. My ancestors were better negotiators than the US gov't and now people are upset because we're sticking to the agreed upon stipulations.
We weren't given nothing, granted nothing, our Ancestors Reserved Our Rights during the negotiations. Our Treaty is apart of the US Constitution and the Supreme Law of the Land for us.
I will exercise my Rights as I exercise all my other Rights. If you dont like it then to bad.
I honestly thought this place was starting to turn a chapter but it seems nothing ceases to amaze me.
Thanks for admitting it. ;)
Can WE ADMIT to our own jealousy? In a time where many feel that opportunity is diminished and one group gets to play by a different set of rules? Can WE ADMIT that we too would exercise the right if we had it? can WE ADMIT that PLATEAUNDN said nothing other than facts. Can we let go of our jealousy in order to work for a better future. through my eyes whether a species was indigenous or not is irrelevant when a people has hunting rights to the land. If WE didn't want them to issue their own ram tags outside the WDFW system then WE should have negotiated that with them all those years ago BEFORE we spent the recources to put the rams there. We cannot place blame on them for our own shortsightedness :twocents:
Post by: Hoythunter on August 22, 2018, 08:02:54 AM
I just love how many try to interpret my culture and history as if they are tribal members.
You want it you got it. A spade is a spade. I do because I can. I do because it's my Reserved Right. My ancestors were better negotiators than the US gov't and now people are upset because we're sticking to the agreed upon stipulations.
We weren't given nothing, granted nothing, our Ancestors Reserved Our Rights during the negotiations. Our Treaty is apart of the US Constitution and the Supreme Law of the Land for us.
I will exercise my Rights as I exercise all my other Rights. If you dont like it then to bad.
I honestly thought this place was starting to turn a chapter but it seems nothing ceases to amaze me.
I respect everything you stated, but if the tables were turn would you not be a bit frustrated to the least? I think it’s our right to be frustrated with this specific case, just as much as it’s the tribes right to supposedly hunt these rams...
Post by: bobcat on August 22, 2018, 08:20:00 AM
Post by: baker5150 on August 22, 2018, 08:24:53 AM
I just love how many try to interpret my culture and history as if they are tribal members.
You want it you got it. A spade is a spade. I do because I can. I do because it's my Reserved Right. My ancestors were better negotiators than the US gov't and now people are upset because we're sticking to the agreed upon stipulations.
We weren't given nothing, granted nothing, our Ancestors Reserved Our Rights during the negotiations. Our Treaty is apart of the US Constitution and the Supreme Law of the Land for us.
I will exercise my Rights as I exercise all my other Rights. If you dont like it then to bad.
I honestly thought this place was starting to turn a chapter but it seems nothing ceases to amaze me.
Thanks for admitting it. ;)
Can WE ADMIT to our own jealousy? In a time where many feel that opportunity is diminished and one group gets to play by a different set of rules? Can WE ADMIT that we too would exercise the right if we had it? can WE ADMIT that PLATEAUNDN said nothing other than facts. Can we let go of our jealousy in order to work for a better future. through my eyes whether a species was indigenous or not is irrelevant when a people has hunting rights to the land. If WE didn't want them to issue their own ram tags outside the WDFW system then WE should have negotiated that with them all those years ago BEFORE we spent the recources to put the rams there. We cannot place blame on them for our own shortsightedness :twocents:
1st, Don't play the jealousy card, that's a cop out for a lack of an actual argument. It's about equal distribution of a resource, as well as responsible distribution, or lack there of if necessary. It's also about equality of opportunity for all, not those someone, at some time, saw fit to get a little more than the rest of us. Times change, resources change, NEED(s) change.
2nd, the ONLY way we can work together for a better solution, is through equality in opportunity, which will NEVER happen. There is no way the Tribes will willingly give up anything, and I don't blame them, but you will never end this argument otherwise.
3rd, WE didn't negotiate, those guys are long dead and gone. Post your blame on the proper heads.
Post by: jackelope on August 22, 2018, 08:31:24 AM
Post by: trophyhunt on August 22, 2018, 08:37:51 AM
:yeah: :yeah: :yeah:I just love how many try to interpret my culture and history as if they are tribal members.
You want it you got it. A spade is a spade. I do because I can. I do because it's my Reserved Right. My ancestors were better negotiators than the US gov't and now people are upset because we're sticking to the agreed upon stipulations.
We weren't given nothing, granted nothing, our Ancestors Reserved Our Rights during the negotiations. Our Treaty is apart of the US Constitution and the Supreme Law of the Land for us.
I will exercise my Rights as I exercise all my other Rights. If you dont like it then to bad.
I honestly thought this place was starting to turn a chapter but it seems nothing ceases to amaze me.
Thanks for admitting it. ;)
Can WE ADMIT to our own jealousy? In a time where many feel that opportunity is diminished and one group gets to play by a different set of rules? Can WE ADMIT that we too would exercise the right if we had it? can WE ADMIT that PLATEAUNDN said nothing other than facts. Can we let go of our jealousy in order to work for a better future. through my eyes whether a species was indigenous or not is irrelevant when a people has hunting rights to the land. If WE didn't want them to issue their own ram tags outside the WDFW system then WE should have negotiated that with them all those years ago BEFORE we spent the recources to put the rams there. We cannot place blame on them for our own shortsightedness :twocents:
1st, Don't play the jealousy card, that's a cop out for a lack of an actual argument. It's about equal distribution of a resource, as well as responsible distribution, or lack there of if necessary. It's also about equality of opportunity for all, not those someone, at some time, saw fit to get a little more than the rest of us. Times change, resources change, NEED(s) change.
2nd, the ONLY way we can work together for a better solution, is through equality in opportunity, which will NEVER happen. There is no way the Tribes will willingly give up anything, and I don't blame them, but you will never end this argument otherwise.
3rd, WE didn't negotiate, those guys are long dead and gone. Post your blame on the proper heads.
Post by: trophyhunt on August 22, 2018, 08:38:22 AM
This isn’t or shouldn’t be about jealousy or equal distribution to different user groups. . It should be about conservation. This should be about whether or not the herd can sustain 5 mature rams coming out of that unit in one year. If the tribe wants equal distribution, this may mean the state tag # gets dropped to one assuming the tribe would drop their number to one as well. That is what this “should” be about if you ask me. Although most of us will never get to hunt those sheep, that is a world class Cali sheep hunt where the world record cali Ram was taken and hopefully it’s not about to be ruined.:yeah: :yeah: :yeah:
Post by: shallowforks on August 22, 2018, 08:44:19 AM
Post by: grundy53 on August 22, 2018, 09:14:39 AM
your right, WE didn't personally create our own situation, but we did inherit it, just as the natives have inherited their hunting rights. I too believe in equal opportunity for all of us, and I agree that times and needs have changed. But I just wont buy into the idea that we will never be able to work together on this. There IS a way. There is ALWAYS a way. This IS about conservation. if two user groups want to properly conserve a shared resource its going to take a good relationship between the two in order to achieve that. Conservation STARTS with the working relationship between all usersHonestly, I don't see us ever working together when it comes to big game. Because frankly they don't have to.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: baker5150 on August 22, 2018, 09:21:54 AM
your right, WE didn't personally create our own situation, but we did inherit it, just as the natives have inherited their hunting rights. I too believe in equal opportunity for all of us, and I agree that times and needs have changed. But I just wont buy into the idea that we will never be able to work together on this. There IS a way. There is ALWAYS a way. This IS about conservation. if two user groups want to properly conserve a shared resource its going to take a good relationship between the two in order to achieve that. Conservation STARTS with the working relationship between all users
It's difficult to come together when one side is benefitting more than the other. They have little to gain and much to lose.
If I were in their shoes, I wouldn't budge one bit.
Post by: idahohuntr on August 22, 2018, 09:36:34 AM
First, while the State owns the wildlife within their borders, the only substantive measure or control the state has over harvest of wildlife in off reservation treaty hunting areas is if there is a "conservation concern". This gets a little murky, but if there is genuine concern about the species, possibly the state could limit harvest in a non-discriminatory manner (meaning they don't just target tribal harvest, but shut it down for everyone). The bar for "conservation concern" is high...it can't be "we want a world class ram hunt"...it has to be that continued hunting will cause an extinction or great harm to the species. For example, if the Yakamas issued 300 sheep tags - and the plan was to slaughter bighorns to the point the species would be imperiled, the State could probably step in and restrain such harvest. If the Yakamas issue 6 or 8 tags for Swakane each year - changing the age class of rams, but not harming the overall existence of the species...that state has no power to step in. Most Tribes have an interest in conserving species so it is unlikely they would ever sanction such unregulated harvest. However, the Tribe harvesting several rams or a bunch of trophy bucks and bulls that reduces the age class and frustrates trophy hunters is not a conservation concern as defined by the court rulings I'm aware of.
The more indirect control the state has IMO is to fight fire with fire...if the State is managing an area for trophies at the request of its citizens - and this makes it an attractive area for Tribal harvest...I don't see why the state doesn't stand up and say, "look - if you don't limit Tribal harvest to x tags, were just going to make this a general season hunt and there will be 5,000 hunters here hammering the woods all season". Again, whatever the state proposed would still have to be in accordance with conserving the species, but frankly we could kill off a ton of elk and deer and while hunting would be absolutely dismal - the species would not be threatened with extinction.
The second limit...The United States is also a sovereign nation. Congress can abrogate treaty rights or modify treaties at any time. If Tribal hunting became such an issue that there was overwhelming public outcry...treaties could be modified...but I would argue that is extremely unlikely to happen...however, it is a bit of a check on completely unrestrained harvest by Tribes. This is why in my view many Tribes do closely monitor and regulate harvest where there is substantial public interest (e.g., Yellowstone bison hunts).
Post by: trophyhunt on August 22, 2018, 09:59:32 AM
Post by: bobcat on August 22, 2018, 10:09:01 AM
No spike only elk season, no 3 point minimum on deer, no limits on number of animals harvested per hunter, and a year around season for bucks/bulls.
Post by: theleo on August 22, 2018, 10:19:18 AM
Sure it may be seen as a greedy and self centered point of view, but I don't support birth rites. Putting public funding to support hunting and recovery in an area where a minority has special rites above anyone else, is little more than a form of social welfare. I support my money going going to areas where everyone has equal opportunity. To say I do not care about the history or culture of the tribes may be insensitive but it's far from any kind of racism. I acknowledge the treaties exist and the tribes can exercise their rites as they see fit under those treaties. At this time though, I see no reason to support the tribes on anything that is not coordinated with WDFW, hand in hand, for equal opportunity for all citizens of this state.
Post by: trophyhunt on August 22, 2018, 10:36:42 AM
And I've said this before, but what we need to do is to adopt the Yakama tribe's hunting regulations for us, in the areas that they hunt. Problem solved.:yeah:
No spike only elk season, no 3 point minimum on deer, no limits on number of animals harvested per hunter, and a year around season for bucks/bulls.
Post by: meatwhack on August 22, 2018, 11:10:41 AM
Post by: baker5150 on August 22, 2018, 11:43:54 AM
They should at least be able to enforce hunting rights to those that are 100% Indian. Over the years it seems like they continually lower the amount Indian you have to be to get hunting privileges. If it was held to 100% I’d be willing to bet they’d breed themselves out of hunting rights.
They do?
The Nooksack Tribe is doing the opposite. Actively trying to remove members who aren't up to their "standards"
Post by: meatwhack on August 22, 2018, 11:56:52 AM
Post by: Woodchuck on August 22, 2018, 12:12:19 PM
I’m pretty sure none of the tribes require 100% to have hunting rights. I can’t remember the amount I last heard but it was substantially lower. I’d be curious to hear a tribe member let us know what the current requirement is.It varies per tribe. Different tribes also have different laws and required documentation.
Post by: Badhabit on August 22, 2018, 12:56:00 PM
Post by: jackson7 on August 22, 2018, 02:49:50 PM
Post by: shallowforks on August 22, 2018, 03:35:46 PM
Post by: meatwhack on August 22, 2018, 03:48:50 PM
Post by: shallowforks on August 22, 2018, 03:51:06 PM
Post by: shallowforks on August 22, 2018, 03:55:30 PM
Post by: Whitefoot on August 22, 2018, 03:58:22 PM
Post by: Time Immemorial 1855 on August 22, 2018, 04:01:41 PM
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :hello:And I've said this before, but what we need to do is to adopt the Yakama tribe's hunting regulations for us, in the areas that they hunt. Problem solved.:yeah:
No spike only elk season, no 3 point minimum on deer, no limits on number of animals harvested per hunter, and a year around season for bucks/bulls.
Post by: Time Immemorial 1855 on August 22, 2018, 04:02:36 PM
I put in for this exact unit.Just called and confirmed, I was drawn for one of the ram tags :IBCOOL:
Post by: Time Immemorial 1855 on August 22, 2018, 04:04:18 PM
I put in for this exact unit.Can you be my guide for this unit?
Post by: meatwhack on August 22, 2018, 04:10:08 PM
Also who cares about the stipulations on how much native one needs to be to get hunting rights. Thats their rules, their system, none of any non tribal members business. If they inducted someone who is zero native, its their tribe they can do what they want. Focus energy on the cards in ones hand instead of complaining about the other hands at the table.
The state should be able enforce that you have to be 100% native to get hunting rights off reservation lands. What’s done on reservation lands is up to them but when these treaties were signed it was for the current natives that were 100% not what’s being done now with the 25% in this case and even less with some other tribes.
Post by: Whitefoot on August 22, 2018, 04:10:43 PM
Post by: Whitefoot on August 22, 2018, 04:11:54 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on August 22, 2018, 04:14:19 PM
Post by: Woodchuck on August 22, 2018, 04:15:05 PM
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but even when these treaties were signed, not every person on every reservation was 100% Native blood.Also who cares about the stipulations on how much native one needs to be to get hunting rights. Thats their rules, their system, none of any non tribal members business. If they inducted someone who is zero native, its their tribe they can do what they want. Focus energy on the cards in ones hand instead of complaining about the other hands at the table.
The state should be able enforce that you have to be 100% native to get hunting rights off reservation lands. What’s done on reservation lands is up to them but when these treaties were signed it was for the current natives that were 100% not what’s being done now with the 25% in this case and even less with some other tribes.
Post by: h20hunter on August 22, 2018, 04:16:52 PM
Post by: Rainier10 on August 22, 2018, 04:20:15 PM
Just a quick lock so I can post. Comments made to bait and appearing to be made with the intent to wind things up will not be tolerated. This will stay civil and be open for discussion. Passions run high, be civil.:yeah:
There is good information that can be exchanged so both sides have a better understanding of the other.
Post by: meatwhack on August 22, 2018, 04:22:33 PM
Meatwack, look up ceded land. Maybe you will understand better.
I enderstand what ceded lands are.
Post by: jackelope on August 22, 2018, 04:22:43 PM
Just punching in.
Post by: Rainier10 on August 22, 2018, 04:24:55 PM
Post by: Time Immemorial 1855 on August 22, 2018, 04:33:55 PM
Oh boy, lock this thread now, time is here. Nothing but wise cracks from here on out.Missed you to trophyhunt
Post by: h20hunter on August 22, 2018, 04:37:30 PM
Post by: Whitefoot on August 22, 2018, 04:41:29 PM
Post by: Rainier10 on August 22, 2018, 04:58:10 PM
You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, name calling, belittling, threatening, unproven accusations, trashes topics or other members, trashes the forum, intentionally instigates trouble, obscene, profanity or intended profanity, sexually oriented, adult material, invasive of a person's privacy, or in violation of any International, State, or United States Federal law.
Post by: Time Immemorial 1855 on August 22, 2018, 05:37:17 PM
Just going to post this for all to see as a reminder.Geez where was these laws when I got a death threat?
You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, name calling, belittling, threatening, unproven accusations, trashes topics or other members, trashes the forum, intentionally instigates trouble, obscene, profanity or intended profanity, sexually oriented, adult material, invasive of a person's privacy, or in violation of any International, State, or United States Federal law.
Post by: shallowforks on August 22, 2018, 05:40:49 PM
Post by: 92xj on August 22, 2018, 05:49:57 PM
Just going to post this for all to see as a reminder.Geez where was these laws when I got a death threat?
You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, name calling, belittling, threatening, unproven accusations, trashes topics or other members, trashes the forum, intentionally instigates trouble, obscene, profanity or intended profanity, sexually oriented, adult material, invasive of a person's privacy, or in violation of any International, State, or United States Federal law.
Wait a second, you mean to tell me nothing changes from the past? These "laws" have evolved into something different than what they were in the past when you supposedly got a death threat?
Post by: Rainier10 on August 22, 2018, 06:24:17 PM
If you want to Send me a pm we can talk about that. I know you haven’t posted in the last 6 months but things have changed a bit. Just a friendly reminder of what the rules are for all to see.Just going to post this for all to see as a reminder.Geez where was these laws when I got a death threat?
You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, name calling, belittling, threatening, unproven accusations, trashes topics or other members, trashes the forum, intentionally instigates trouble, obscene, profanity or intended profanity, sexually oriented, adult material, invasive of a person's privacy, or in violation of any International, State, or United States Federal law.
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on August 22, 2018, 06:51:49 PM
My opinions on tribal hunting don't matter. As noted it is the law of the land. I used to tell people when I worked for WDFW that I was happy to listen to them about tribal hunting, but they would be equally productive going to WA DOT or any other state agency to voice those concerns, as WDFW had no more ability to regulate treaty tribal hunting than any other state agency, the state legislature, or the governor. That's also truth, not opinion.
Lots of things kill sheep and other big game besides tribal and nontribal hunters. Poachers, bumpers, predators, disease, winter stress, starvation. Some can be regulated and some cannot. Where big game are overexploited by humans, and it is my opinion that definitely occurs in some locations, I am a big advocate for further limiting motorized access. It is the best conservation tool by far, and makes big game really robust to poaching, tribal and nontribal hunting. Some nontribal hunters and nonhunters support motorized closures to protect big game, but enough of us are selfish that most of our wildlife areas are open year round to motorized access, despite the illegal and legal kill levels that result. Same goes for most federal lands, which is why most of the deer and sheep winter ranges in Swakane, Entiat, Yakima, Colockum, Methow, Okanogan, etc. etc. on Forest Service continues to be high density open roads for wheeled vehicles and snowmobiles in winter.
If it's really about the resource, hunters would support seasonal motorized closures everywhere deer, elk, sheep, etc. are vulnerable; and not hunting them under those conditions either. As a group we do not. Whether it's a coveted permit, late season during the rut or on wintering grounds, we don't want to be limited; our actions show our hypocrisy, we only want the other guy limited to have an advantage ourselves. It's not really about the resource, we are selfish and just want the better opportunity for ourself. It's not just tribal hunting, it's pimping out auction tags to benefit the wealthy; special hunt points to screw the young hunters to benefit us older guys at their expense; and resource allocation to pit archery, muzzleloader, and modern tag holders against each other for more and better opportunities, and multiseason tags that allow those of us willing to fork out a ridiculous additional amount of money to have more than most. Not to mention nonresident hunting license fees to allow those of us in the "middle elite" more and better opportunities out of state. It ALL comes down selfishness and greed and wanting more than the next guy can afford. Many of us only care about the resource to the extent we personally benefit from it.
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on August 22, 2018, 07:02:41 PM
On the discussion of what legal limits there are to Tribal harvest, I am only aware of two:This is accurate and factual
First, while the State owns the wildlife within their borders, the only substantive measure or control the state has over harvest of wildlife in off reservation treaty hunting areas is if there is a "conservation concern". This gets a little murky, but if there is genuine concern about the species, possibly the state could limit harvest in a non-discriminatory manner (meaning they don't just target tribal harvest, but shut it down for everyone). The bar for "conservation concern" is high...it can't be "we want a world class ram hunt"...it has to be that continued hunting will cause an extinction or great harm to the species. For example, if the Yakamas issued 300 sheep tags - and the plan was to slaughter bighorns to the point the species would be imperiled, the State could probably step in and restrain such harvest. If the Yakamas issue 6 or 8 tags for Swakane each year - changing the age class of rams, but not harming the overall existence of the species...that state has no power to step in. Most Tribes have an interest in conserving species so it is unlikely they would ever sanction such unregulated harvest. However, the Tribe harvesting several rams or a bunch of trophy bucks and bulls that reduces the age class and frustrates trophy hunters is not a conservation concern as defined by the court rulings I'm aware of.
The more indirect control the state has IMO is to fight fire with fire...if the State is managing an area for trophies at the request of its citizens - and this makes it an attractive area for Tribal harvest...I don't see why the state doesn't stand up and say, "look - if you don't limit Tribal harvest to x tags, were just going to make this a general season hunt and there will be 5,000 hunters here hammering the woods all season". Again, whatever the state proposed would still have to be in accordance with conserving the species, but frankly we could kill off a ton of elk and deer and while hunting would be absolutely dismal - the species would not be threatened with extinction.
The second limit...The United States is also a sovereign nation. Congress can abrogate treaty rights or modify treaties at any time. If Tribal hunting became such an issue that there was overwhelming public outcry...treaties could be modified...but I would argue that is extremely unlikely to happen...however, it is a bit of a check on completely unrestrained harvest by Tribes. This is why in my view many Tribes do closely monitor and regulate harvest where there is substantial public interest (e.g., Yellowstone bison hunts).
Post by: Rainier10 on August 22, 2018, 07:10:06 PM
Great post DL.
Post by: PlateauNDN on August 22, 2018, 07:17:03 PM
Between you and Idaho Idahohunter you guys came out guns ablazing. :tup:
Post by: huntnphool on August 22, 2018, 07:23:47 PM
California bighorn sheep were native to the Columbia River drainage from at least the Okanogan River to the Columbia Gorge. They were extirpated by the 1930s due to primarily overhunting and disease introduced along with domestic sheep and goats. By the 1960s they had been successfully reintroduced. Pre-European archaeology sites document that Indians/Native Americans hunted and consumed bighorns, elk, deer, bison and pronghorn in this area. These aren't opinions, they are facts.
My opinions on tribal hunting don't matter. As noted it is the law of the land. I used to tell people when I worked for WDFW that I was happy to listen to them about tribal hunting, but they would be equally productive going to WA DOT or any other state agency to voice those concerns, as WDFW had no more ability to regulate treaty tribal hunting than any other state agency, the state legislature, or the governor. That's also truth, not opinion.
Lots of things kill sheep and other big game besides tribal and nontribal hunters. Poachers, bumpers, predators, disease, winter stress, starvation. Some can be regulated and some cannot. Where big game are overexploited by humans, and it is my opinion that definitely occurs in some locations, I am a big advocate for further limiting motorized access. It is the best conservation tool by far, and makes big game really robust to poaching, tribal and nontribal hunting. Some nontribal hunters and nonhunters support motorized closures to protect big game, but enough of us are selfish that most of our wildlife areas are open year round to motorized access, despite the illegal and legal kill levels that result. Same goes for most federal lands, which is why most of the deer and sheep winter ranges in Swakane, Entiat, Yakima, Colockum, Methow, Okanogan, etc. etc. on Forest Service continues to be high density open roads for wheeled vehicles and snowmobiles in winter.
If it's really about the resource, hunters would support seasonal motorized closures everywhere deer, elk, sheep, etc. are vulnerable; and not hunting them under those conditions either. As a group we do not. Whether it's a coveted permit, late season during the rut or on wintering grounds, we don't want to be limited; our actions show our hypocrisy, we only want the other guy limited to have an advantage ourselves. It's not really about the resource, we are selfish and just want the better opportunity for ourself. It's not just tribal hunting, it's pimping out auction tags to benefit the wealthy; special hunt points to screw the young hunters to benefit us older guys at their expense; and resource allocation to pit archery, muzzleloader, and modern tag holders against each other for more and better opportunities, and multiseason tags that allow those of us willing to fork out a ridiculous additional amount of money to have more than most. Not to mention nonresident hunting license fees to allow those of us in the "middle elite" more and better opportunities out of state. It ALL comes down selfishness and greed and wanting more than the next guy can afford. Many of us only care about the resource to the extent we personally benefit from it.
:brew:
Post by: shallowforks on August 22, 2018, 08:41:32 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on August 22, 2018, 08:59:58 PM
Post by: shallowforks on August 22, 2018, 09:07:18 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on August 22, 2018, 09:11:22 PM
Post by: shallowforks on August 22, 2018, 09:27:17 PM
Post by: Time Immemorial 1855 on August 22, 2018, 10:06:22 PM
I hear ya. But dont forget to walk a mile. It probably gets old for them too. Anyways this has been a good thread all in all. I know Ive learned a lot. Thanks to those who have contributed good info and those who have shared their frustrations respectfully.:yeah:
Post by: huntnphool on August 22, 2018, 10:26:34 PM
I hear ya. But dont forget to walk a mile. It probably gets old for them too. Anyways this has been a good thread all in all. I know Ive learned a lot. Thanks to those who have contributed good info and those who have shared their frustrations respectfully.
Agreed, good discussion.
I'd still like to know when WDFW knew though.
Post by: PlateauNDN on August 22, 2018, 10:38:27 PM
Some on here remind me very much like what's going on right now in this country. Liberal, tree hugging bunny lover social justice warrior snowflakes telling another group that the rights on an old document from hundreds of years ago should be done with, it's not needed and therefore should not have that right anymore and heres the ones affected by it that support it saying yes we do, because it's our right as written and agreed upon.
What's the difference? If I cant have my rights as agreed upon by an old piece of paper by old guys not here anymore then why should you have yours?
Now, dont let that confuse you about me personally, I'm not a Democrat nor do I want to see my 2A rights taken away either.
Post by: sled on August 22, 2018, 11:01:14 PM
But you’re not a tribal member.unlucky for everyone. I now identify myself as a native tribal member. Stay tuned.
Post by: sled on August 22, 2018, 11:07:16 PM
hairtrigger is still here!I hear ya. But dont forget to walk a mile. It probably gets old for them too. Anyways this has been a good thread all in all. I know Ive learned a lot. Thanks to those who have contributed good info and those who have shared their frustrations respectfully.:yeah:
Post by: sled on August 22, 2018, 11:10:33 PM
Im sure all non native hunters would love equality but thats not the law.this is one of the best examples of non white privalge taunting. Well done.
Post by: tlbradford on August 22, 2018, 11:25:22 PM
They probably didnt until the decision was made. We dont have to ask nor are we required to ask.
Some on here remind me very much like what's going on right now in this country. Liberal, tree hugging bunny lover social justice warrior snowflakes telling another group that the rights on an old document from hundreds of years ago should be done with, it's not needed and therefore should not have that right anymore and heres the ones affected by it that support it saying yes we do, because it's our right as written and agreed upon.
What's the difference? If I cant have my rights as agreed upon by an old piece of paper by old guys not here anymore then why should you have yours?
Now, dont let that confuse you about me personally, I'm not a Democrat nor do I want to see my 2A rights taken away either.
Most of us could care less about the "rights" argument. Where we get pissed off is overhunting of a limited resource that results in a loss of opportunity for all groups. What biologist from the tribe determined this harvest number is sustainable and ethical? Your whole "rights" argument is *censored*. There is not a limited number of guns, speech, voting, etc. This is about ethical and responsible management of our fish and wildlife and that is why there is anger towards the decisions being made by tribes.
Post by: PlateauNDN on August 22, 2018, 11:33:41 PM
My right that's outdated is not as important as everyone else's on a much older document. Yeah I get it. Guys dont like the abuse but when you're calling for rights to be taken away and done with because they're old and nobody was here when they were agreed upon is not any different then the 2A argument.
Some want to take my rights just like the libs want to take theirs.........
Post by: huntnfmly on August 23, 2018, 01:21:48 AM
:yeah:They probably didnt until the decision was made. We dont have to ask nor are we required to ask.
Some on here remind me very much like what's going on right now in this country. Liberal, tree hugging bunny lover social justice warrior snowflakes telling another group that the rights on an old document from hundreds of years ago should be done with, it's not needed and therefore should not have that right anymore and heres the ones affected by it that support it saying yes we do, because it's our right as written and agreed upon.
What's the difference? If I cant have my rights as agreed upon by an old piece of paper by old guys not here anymore then why should you have yours?
Now, dont let that confuse you about me personally, I'm not a Democrat nor do I want to see my 2A rights taken away either.
Most of us could care less about the "rights" argument. Where we get pissed off is overhunting of a limited resource that results in a loss of opportunity for all groups. What biologist from the tribe determined this harvest number is sustainable and ethical? Your whole "rights" argument is *censored*. There is not a limited number of guns, speech, voting, etc. This is about ethical and responsible management of our fish and wildlife and that is why there is anger towards the decisions being made by tribes.
Post by: PlateauNDN on August 23, 2018, 02:14:21 AM
Sounds like the same argument that the left is pushing. Take the right because a small user group is ruining it for the rest.
Post by: grundy53 on August 23, 2018, 04:50:18 AM
So the argument now is the small group of those that abuse the right, take advantage of the right and exploit the right and you choose to take it out on the rest of us that follow the laws, follow the rights and dont cause the pain and anguish that the small user group does to the whole group?
Sounds like the same argument that the left is pushing. Take the right because a small user group is ruining it for the rest.
Your analogy is weak. Yes we enjoy our 2A rights. However it's not a free for all. There are still laws pertaining to it. I can't just go down to the gas station and buy a fully automatic rifle. Also, if I abuse my god given second ammendment rights they take them away. Do they take away the hunting rights of the few in your tribe who abuse them? Didn't think so. We want you to actually police your own.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: trophyhunt on August 23, 2018, 05:31:50 AM
Post by: meatwhack on August 23, 2018, 06:41:50 AM
Post by: nwhunter on August 23, 2018, 06:44:59 AM
There are multiple problems that are leading to the demise of our wildlife but the biggest in my mind is that as times change and human population grows and technology continues to put fish and wildlife at a huge disadvantage we all must show restraint and make change whether its our right or not. Lastly don't even think about saying I don't understand or I'm a racist or I will post a pic of my family of adopted kids of all colors even one that is native enough to have a card but doesn't :tup:
Post by: grundy53 on August 23, 2018, 06:52:50 AM
Everytime one of these hunting/tribal subjects that highlights the inequality of the situation shows up on here its page after page of this never ending argument. I read it and don't say much because it turns into a race issue and while most or none of us are racists just passionant outdoorsman that want our kids and grandkids to be able to enjoy the outdoors like we do. As a mature non native man I understand not all things are fair and equal never has been never will be. Things change over time. Our history doesn't lie and we used to have the right to own slaves and kill unlimited numbers of buffalo and wild game to mention just a couple.. Heck a dispute could be settled in the street with a gunfight and one guy could be dead and the other could go home and not to jail... Times change and a civilization that realizes that and wants to sustain what they have or do better makes change either by law or self restraint and judgement. I am not jealous one bit of what native hunters and fisherman get to do because I see the result of non restraint when given basically an open season. I see it where I live on the Olympic Peninsula , the Blue Mountains and now this sheep hunt in the Swakane. There are plenty of native sportsman I know and are very good people and I respect but times change and we need to protect our wildlife and our opportunity to enjoy what we do. If all the tags(native and non native draw and auction) are filled on mature rams in the Swakane I predict there won't be any tags next year , how does that sound?Well said
There are multiple problems that are leading to the demise of our wildlife but the biggest in my mind is that as times change and human population grows and technology continues to put fish and wildlife at a huge disadvantage we all must show restraint and make change whether its our right or not. Lastly don't even think about saying I don't understand or I'm a racist or I will post a pic of my family of adopted kids of all colors even one that is native enough to have a card but doesn't :tup:
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: trophyhunt on August 23, 2018, 07:08:54 AM
Everytime one of these hunting/tribal subjects that highlights the inequality of the situation shows up on here its page after page of this never ending argument. I read it and don't say much because it turns into a race issue and while most or none of us are racists just passionant outdoorsman that want our kids and grandkids to be able to enjoy the outdoors like we do. As a mature non native man I understand not all things are fair and equal never has been never will be. Things change over time. Our history doesn't lie and we used to have the right to own slaves and kill unlimited numbers of buffalo and wild game to mention just a couple.. Heck a dispute could be settled in the street with a gunfight and one guy could be dead and the other could go home and not to jail... Times change and a civilization that realizes that and wants to sustain what they have or do better makes change either by law or self restraint and judgement. I am not jealous one bit of what native hunters and fisherman get to do because I see the result of non restraint when given basically an open season. I see it where I live on the Olympic Peninsula , the Blue Mountains and now this sheep hunt in the Swakane. There are plenty of native sportsman I know and are very good people and I respect but times change and we need to protect our wildlife and our opportunity to enjoy what we do. If all the tags(native and non native draw and auction) are filled on mature rams in the Swakane I predict there won't be any tags next year , how does that sound?Amen brother!! Best post about this issue ever, now the mic can drop!
There are multiple problems that are leading to the demise of our wildlife but the biggest in my mind is that as times change and human population grows and technology continues to put fish and wildlife at a huge disadvantage we all must show restraint and make change whether its our right or not. Lastly don't even think about saying I don't understand or I'm a racist or I will post a pic of my family of adopted kids of all colors even one that is native enough to have a card but doesn't :tup:
Post by: theleo on August 23, 2018, 07:17:17 AM
Probably in committee waiting on final approval of the legislature.Just going to post this for all to see as a reminder.Geez where was these laws when I got a death threat?
You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, name calling, belittling, threatening, unproven accusations, trashes topics or other members, trashes the forum, intentionally instigates trouble, obscene, profanity or intended profanity, sexually oriented, adult material, invasive of a person's privacy, or in violation of any International, State, or United States Federal law.
Post by: shallowforks on August 23, 2018, 07:30:00 AM
Im sure all non native hunters would love equality but thats not the law.this is one of the best examples of non white privalge taunting. Well done.
…….But im white. No tribe, No privilege, No taunting
Post by: shallowforks on August 23, 2018, 07:48:53 AM
Post by: Jpmiller on August 23, 2018, 10:01:36 AM
Post by: Rainier10 on August 23, 2018, 10:13:11 AM
How come we are assuming the auction and raffle tags will be used in the swakane unit? I'm not trying to be a smart ass, is this the premier sheep unit available? The tag allows them to go elsewhere as well as I understand it.First let me say that I am not a sheep guy but hope to be some day. :chuckle:
I muddied the waters earlier saying that there was a raffle winner that could hunt the Swakane unit, that is not true. Swakane is not open to the raffle winner.
I think the reason it is assumed that the auction tag holder will be hunting in there is that Swakane has California big horn sheep and those are tougher to get then the rocky mountain sheep that are in the other units. Just my :twocents: coming from a guy that isn't really a sheep guy....yet.
Post by: grundy53 on August 23, 2018, 10:45:53 AM
How come we are assuming the auction and raffle tags will be used in the swakane unit? I'm not trying to be a smart ass, is this the premier sheep unit available? The tag allows them to go elsewhere as well as I understand it.It's where the world record California bighorn was killed.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: PlateauNDN on August 23, 2018, 10:50:50 AM
I know the talking points of checks and balances, why this and that but sitting there and telling me or any other tribal member we dont deserve nor need a right that guaranteed by our "Constitution" is exactly the same and if you cant swallow that pill then choke on it.
Yes, I agree that the abuses are a big issue as I've stated time and time again, theres no argument there with me on that issue and it's one that will balance itself out as proven with history by checks and balances. Something will come along and check that issue.
Does it suck that eventually will come at a price, a cost and take awhile, hell yes.
As I say with my 2A, you can have it when you pry it from my cold dead hands because that's exactly what it's going to take.
Post by: huntnphool on August 23, 2018, 11:13:17 AM
Bringing the 2nd Amendment into this as a comparison is BS and totally unrelated. The 2nd Amendment was put in place as a check and balance to keep the government from getting out of control
You would think someone of his ancestry would understand this, "Wounded Knee" ring a bell?
Post by: baker5150 on August 23, 2018, 11:35:25 AM
Weak, non-comparison and unrelated is at best the same thing. If we're going to discuss taking away rights then let's start a dialog of what right you're going to allow to be stripped away.
I know the talking points of checks and balances, why this and that but sitting there and telling me or any other tribal member we dont deserve nor need a right that guaranteed by our "Constitution" is exactly the same and if you cant swallow that pill then choke on it.
Yes, I agree that the abuses are a big issue as I've stated time and time again, theres no argument there with me on that issue and it's one that will balance itself out as proven with history by checks and balances. Something will come along and check that issue.
Does it suck that eventually will come at a price, a cost and take awhile, hell yes.
As I say with my 2A, you can have it when you pry it from my cold dead hands because that's exactly what it's going to take.
Does the Yakima Tribe have an adopted constitution?
Post by: ctwiggs1 on August 23, 2018, 11:43:03 AM
Seriously man, you need to work on your priorities.
I requested pics on page 1, why are we still talking about anything else?? PICS!! :chuckle:
Post by: shallowforks on August 23, 2018, 11:44:19 AM
Post by: shallowforks on August 23, 2018, 11:48:48 AM
@PlateauNDN
Seriously man, you need to work on your priorities.
I requested pics on page 1, why are we still talking about anything else?? PICS!! :chuckle:
:yeah:
Post by: B4noon on August 23, 2018, 12:21:03 PM
The majority of units are California subspecies the swakane just tends to create high quality onesHow come we are assuming the auction and raffle tags will be used in the swakane unit? I'm not trying to be a smart ass, is this the premier sheep unit available? The tag allows them to go elsewhere as well as I understand it.First let me say that I am not a sheep guy but hope to be some day. :chuckle:
I muddied the waters earlier saying that there was a raffle winner that could hunt the Swakane unit, that is not true. Swakane is not open to the raffle winner.
I think the reason it is assumed that the auction tag holder will be hunting in there is that Swakane has California big horn sheep and those are tougher to get then the rocky mountain sheep that are in the other units. Just my :twocents: coming from a guy that isn't really a sheep guy....yet.
Post by: huntnphool on August 23, 2018, 12:22:13 PM
I think it unwise and in poor taste to nonchalantly and sarcastically reference something such as wounded knee in that way. I don't understand why some are calling BS on Plat's comparison to the way he reacts toward talks of stripping his constitutional/treaty rights to the way people react toward talks of stripping constitutional 2A rights. I think I get what hes saying and it seems logical. cold dead hands/cold dead hands. I don't think hes comparing the writing of the laws themselves as much as how strongly we all feel about those laws, is that right Plat? In that regard then I see your point.
Poor taste to reference a lesson we all should learn from?
Post by: shallowforks on August 23, 2018, 12:45:47 PM
Poor taste to reference a lesson we all should learn from?
I probably shouldnt have singled you out, as there have been lots of remarks made by both sides that are unnecessary and dont contribute to the substance of this thread. This topic is extremely sensitive and full of landmines for both sides but to me is an absolutely worthwhile and relevant topic for us all to be discussing and weighing in on. Theres been a lot of good insight thus far and we can keep the conversation going as long as we all remain civil and respectful to eachother. So my apologies for singling you out especially if no sarcasm was meant on your behalf.
Post by: X-Force on August 23, 2018, 12:47:59 PM
only 1 group in this thread has actual hunting and fishing rights... the Yakama Nation.
If you don't like it tough... hunters and fisherman have to build a bridge with natives because in the end, if we don't, non natives wont have hunting or fishing because of a lack of popular support and a shrinking demographic, meanwhile a native peoples will still be enjoying the outdoors because they have their rights in writing.
So complain about a different user group getting permits just realize native peoples will have permits forever and your grandkids or great grandkids wont have any prospective of what you are arguing about today because in your lifetime you worried about what someone else has instead of preserving our future.
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on August 23, 2018, 12:48:58 PM
I’ll be the one to disagree, if I’m reading dL’s post correctly. Us non natives are not being selfish at all when it comes to tribal issues, that’s BS. How is it selfish when we just want equality?? Answer that please! WE WANT EQUALILY, that’s it, simple. Your post was deep, but it says non natives are jealous and selfish, if I read it wrong, I apologize.No apology needed TH. I tried to separate facts from my own opinion. The only recourse for what you want is through court interpretation of the treaties or voluntary restrictions implemented by treaty tribes on their members: neither of those is likely. The only other recourse is through congressional action, which I also believe is unlikely. I totally understand your position, and share it to some degree, but we have to face reality.
Where overharvest occurs, regardless of who is doing it, under current legal constraints the answer is reducing vulnerability of the resource. The state can only regulate state licensed hunters, but reducing vulnerability affects all hunters.
Post by: baker5150 on August 23, 2018, 01:00:54 PM
Watching this thread is killing me.
only 1 group in this thread has actual hunting and fishing rights... the Yakama Nation.
If you don't like it tough... hunters and fisherman have to build a bridge with natives because in the end, if we don't, non natives wont have hunting or fishing because of a lack of popular support and a shrinking demographic, meanwhile a native peoples will still be enjoying the outdoors because they have their rights in writing.
So complain about a different user group getting permits just realize native peoples will have permits forever and your grandkids or great grandkids wont have any prospective of what you are arguing about today because in your lifetime you worried about what someone else has instead of preserving our future.
We can argue conservation and equality of rights without hindering rights, it's a discussion, not a fight to the death.
To ignore issues and "just deal with it" is about the biggest mistake we can make, par for the course is good for nobody
Open dialogue is key to education and forward progress.
Post by: jackelope on August 23, 2018, 01:00:56 PM
They probably didnt until the decision was made. We dont have to ask nor are we required to ask.
Some on here remind me very much like what's going on right now in this country. Liberal, tree hugging bunny lover social justice warrior snowflakes telling another group that the rights on an old document from hundreds of years ago should be done with, it's not needed and therefore should not have that right anymore and heres the ones affected by it that support it saying yes we do, because it's our right as written and agreed upon.
What's the difference? If I cant have my rights as agreed upon by an old piece of paper by old guys not here anymore then why should you have yours?
Now, dont let that confuse you about me personally, I'm not a Democrat nor do I want to see my 2A rights taken away either.
I would have liked to see the tribe go to the state and say something to the effect of “hey, we’d like to have a sheep tag in the swakane.” And then hopefully or maybe the state would say “ok, you can have your tag and we’ll reduce ours to 1.” And then overharvest of a precious resource would be a non issue. But that didn’t happen. The state, who manages our wildlife(and yours) probably didn’t know anything about it. That sucks. And that’s my one and only argument. Work together to preserve the resource. Times are changing. We need compromise from both sides.
Post by: huntnphool on August 23, 2018, 01:08:53 PM
Poor taste to reference a lesson we all should learn from?
I probably shouldnt have singled you out, as there have been lots of remarks made by both sides that are unnecessary and dont contribute to the substance of this thread. This topic is extremely sensitive and full of landmines for both sides but to me is an absolutely worthwhile and relevant topic for us all to be discussing and weighing in on. Theres been a lot of good insight thus far and we can keep the conversation going as long as we all remain civil and respectful to eachother. So my apologies for singling you out especially if no sarcasm was meant on your behalf.
;)
Post by: Rainier10 on August 23, 2018, 01:12:07 PM
I would have hoped that a conversation like this would have happened as well.They probably didnt until the decision was made. We dont have to ask nor are we required to ask.
Some on here remind me very much like what's going on right now in this country. Liberal, tree hugging bunny lover social justice warrior snowflakes telling another group that the rights on an old document from hundreds of years ago should be done with, it's not needed and therefore should not have that right anymore and heres the ones affected by it that support it saying yes we do, because it's our right as written and agreed upon.
What's the difference? If I cant have my rights as agreed upon by an old piece of paper by old guys not here anymore then why should you have yours?
Now, dont let that confuse you about me personally, I'm not a Democrat nor do I want to see my 2A rights taken away either.
I would have liked to see the tribe go to the state and say something to the effect of “hey, we’d like to have a sheep tag in the swakane.” And then hopefully or maybe the state would say “ok, you can have your tag and we’ll reduce ours to 1.” And then overharvest of a precious resource would be a non issue. But that didn’t happen. The state, who manages our wildlife(and yours) probably didn’t know anything about it. That sucks. And that’s my one and only argument. Work together to preserve the resource. Times are changing. We need compromise from both sides.
Post by: huntnphool on August 23, 2018, 01:15:47 PM
They probably didnt until the decision was made. We dont have to ask nor are we required to ask.
Some on here remind me very much like what's going on right now in this country. Liberal, tree hugging bunny lover social justice warrior snowflakes telling another group that the rights on an old document from hundreds of years ago should be done with, it's not needed and therefore should not have that right anymore and heres the ones affected by it that support it saying yes we do, because it's our right as written and agreed upon.
What's the difference? If I cant have my rights as agreed upon by an old piece of paper by old guys not here anymore then why should you have yours?
Now, dont let that confuse you about me personally, I'm not a Democrat nor do I want to see my 2A rights taken away either.
I would have liked to see the tribe go to the state and say something to the effect of “hey, we’d like to have a sheep tag in the swakane.” And then hopefully or maybe the state would say “ok, you can have your tag and we’ll reduce ours to 1.” And then overharvest of a precious resource would be a non issue. But that didn’t happen. The state, who manages our wildlife(and yours) probably didn’t know anything about it. That sucks. And that’s my one and only argument. Work together to preserve the resource. Times are changing. We need compromise from both sides.
:tup:
WDFW should never have increased from the one tag IMO. I was hoping they would have gone back to one tag on Chelan Butte, after the ear tag hunts were finished. Adding one tag in Swakane for the tribe wouldn't have been a big deal then......eliminate the auction tag first!
Post by: X-Force on August 23, 2018, 01:30:32 PM
Watching this thread is killing me.
only 1 group in this thread has actual hunting and fishing rights... the Yakama Nation.
If you don't like it tough... hunters and fisherman have to build a bridge with natives because in the end, if we don't, non natives wont have hunting or fishing because of a lack of popular support and a shrinking demographic, meanwhile a native peoples will still be enjoying the outdoors because they have their rights in writing.
So complain about a different user group getting permits just realize native peoples will have permits forever and your grandkids or great grandkids wont have any prospective of what you are arguing about today because in your lifetime you worried about what someone else has instead of preserving our future.
We can argue conservation and equality of rights without hindering rights, it's a discussion, not a fight to the death.
To ignore issues and "just deal with it" is about the biggest mistake we can make, par for the course is good for nobody
Open dialogue is key to education and forward progress.
There are no non native rights to hunting... so equal rights is a non issue.
We can argue conservation, harvests etc. but complaining about treaty quotas that wont change without litigation and belittling people because of their birth, heritage or ethnicity is dumb.
This doesn't seem like a just deal with it issue. There is only an assumption that the herd cant handle the additional permits. If that is the case next year biologist will review the data and make that correction. I could be wrong but Sheep harvests are supposed to be limited to 4% of population. The last survey showed 155-165 animals if there 6 permits (2 OILS, 2 Native, 2 Raffle or other) used in the unit WDFW is still at harvest objectives.
I'm trying to figure out the objective of this thread.
Post by: shallowforks on August 23, 2018, 01:34:56 PM
Post by: jackelope on August 23, 2018, 01:58:46 PM
Post by: baker5150 on August 23, 2018, 02:22:48 PM
Watching this thread is killing me.
only 1 group in this thread has actual hunting and fishing rights... the Yakama Nation.
If you don't like it tough... hunters and fisherman have to build a bridge with natives because in the end, if we don't, non natives wont have hunting or fishing because of a lack of popular support and a shrinking demographic, meanwhile a native peoples will still be enjoying the outdoors because they have their rights in writing.
So complain about a different user group getting permits just realize native peoples will have permits forever and your grandkids or great grandkids wont have any prospective of what you are arguing about today because in your lifetime you worried about what someone else has instead of preserving our future.
We can argue conservation and equality of rights without hindering rights, it's a discussion, not a fight to the death.
To ignore issues and "just deal with it" is about the biggest mistake we can make, par for the course is good for nobody
Open dialogue is key to education and forward progress.
There are no non native rights to hunting... so equal rights is a non issue.
We can argue conservation, harvests etc. but complaining about treaty quotas that wont change without litigation and belittling people because of their birth, heritage or ethnicity is dumb.
This doesn't seem like a just deal with it issue. There is only an assumption that the herd cant handle the additional permits. If that is the case next year biologist will review the data and make that correction. I could be wrong but Sheep harvests are supposed to be limited to 4% of population. The last survey showed 155-165 animals if there 6 permits (2 OILS, 2 Native, 2 Raffle or other) used in the unit WDFW is still at harvest objectives.OpenConstructive dialogue is the key but in order to have constructive dialogue there needs to be a frame work, objectives, etc.
I'm trying to figure out the objective of this thread.
You have missed the point.
And there are no treaty quotas. The treaty says nothing about quotas whatsoever.
In fact, it says nothing about Hunting rights either,
"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"
The Wa Supreme Court decided that words don't matter, and interpreted it for us.
"The Washington State Supreme Court has ruled that there is no legal distinction between a tribal “right” or “privilege” regarding hunting."
https://nwifc.org/about-us/wildlife/treaty-hunting-rights-faq/
You see the issue? Rights, Privilege, same, only if Native, and hunting. Makes sense. :rolleyes:
Post by: grundy53 on August 23, 2018, 02:32:13 PM
Well, on the bright side. It looks like we have precedence if they (liberal Washington voters) ever try to outlaw hunting. We can say our hunting privileges are actually rights. Look at this case law...Watching this thread is killing me.
only 1 group in this thread has actual hunting and fishing rights... the Yakama Nation.
If you don't like it tough... hunters and fisherman have to build a bridge with natives because in the end, if we don't, non natives wont have hunting or fishing because of a lack of popular support and a shrinking demographic, meanwhile a native peoples will still be enjoying the outdoors because they have their rights in writing.
So complain about a different user group getting permits just realize native peoples will have permits forever and your grandkids or great grandkids wont have any prospective of what you are arguing about today because in your lifetime you worried about what someone else has instead of preserving our future.
We can argue conservation and equality of rights without hindering rights, it's a discussion, not a fight to the death.
To ignore issues and "just deal with it" is about the biggest mistake we can make, par for the course is good for nobody
Open dialogue is key to education and forward progress.
There are no non native rights to hunting... so equal rights is a non issue.
We can argue conservation, harvests etc. but complaining about treaty quotas that wont change without litigation and belittling people because of their birth, heritage or ethnicity is dumb.
This doesn't seem like a just deal with it issue. There is only an assumption that the herd cant handle the additional permits. If that is the case next year biologist will review the data and make that correction. I could be wrong but Sheep harvests are supposed to be limited to 4% of population. The last survey showed 155-165 animals if there 6 permits (2 OILS, 2 Native, 2 Raffle or other) used in the unit WDFW is still at harvest objectives.OpenConstructive dialogue is the key but in order to have constructive dialogue there needs to be a frame work, objectives, etc.
I'm trying to figure out the objective of this thread.
You have missed the point.
And there are no treaty quotas. The treaty says nothing about quotas whatsoever.
In fact, it says nothing about Hunting rights either,
"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"
The Wa Supreme Court decided that words don't matter, and interpreted it for us.
"The Washington State Supreme Court has ruled that there is no legal distinction between a tribal “right” or “privilege” regarding hunting."
https://nwifc.org/about-us/wildlife/treaty-hunting-rights-faq/
You see the issue? Rights, Privilege, same, only if Native, and hunting. Makes sense. :rolleyes:
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: trophyhunt on August 23, 2018, 02:41:17 PM
Post by: huntnfmly on August 23, 2018, 03:24:46 PM
“In common with”, love that part...... :bash: seems limits would go along with “In common with”!That's the part that always gets me I would think that means what it says as in the same with limits
Post by: X-Force on August 23, 2018, 03:32:22 PM
Watching this thread is killing me.
only 1 group in this thread has actual hunting and fishing rights... the Yakama Nation.
If you don't like it tough... hunters and fisherman have to build a bridge with natives because in the end, if we don't, non natives wont have hunting or fishing because of a lack of popular support and a shrinking demographic, meanwhile a native peoples will still be enjoying the outdoors because they have their rights in writing.
So complain about a different user group getting permits just realize native peoples will have permits forever and your grandkids or great grandkids wont have any prospective of what you are arguing about today because in your lifetime you worried about what someone else has instead of preserving our future.
We can argue conservation and equality of rights without hindering rights, it's a discussion, not a fight to the death.
To ignore issues and "just deal with it" is about the biggest mistake we can make, par for the course is good for nobody
Open dialogue is key to education and forward progress.
There are no non native rights to hunting... so equal rights is a non issue.
We can argue conservation, harvests etc. but complaining about treaty quotas that wont change without litigation and belittling people because of their birth, heritage or ethnicity is dumb.
This doesn't seem like a just deal with it issue. There is only an assumption that the herd cant handle the additional permits. If that is the case next year biologist will review the data and make that correction. I could be wrong but Sheep harvests are supposed to be limited to 4% of population. The last survey showed 155-165 animals if there 6 permits (2 OILS, 2 Native, 2 Raffle or other) used in the unit WDFW is still at harvest objectives.OpenConstructive dialogue is the key but in order to have constructive dialogue there needs to be a frame work, objectives, etc.
I'm trying to figure out the objective of this thread.
You have missed the point.
And there are no treaty quotas. The treaty says nothing about quotas whatsoever.
In fact, it says nothing about Hunting rights either,
"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"
The Wa Supreme Court decided that words don't matter, and interpreted it for us.
"The Washington State Supreme Court has ruled that there is no legal distinction between a tribal “right” or “privilege” regarding hunting."
https://nwifc.org/about-us/wildlife/treaty-hunting-rights-faq/
You see the issue? Rights, Privilege, same, only if Native, and hunting. Makes sense. :rolleyes:
I am trying to understand how the interpretation of the treaty is Native's have hunting rights and the same court says they are allowed equal quantity of take but that doesn't equate to hunting rights or a quota?
Post by: baker5150 on August 23, 2018, 04:09:04 PM
Watching this thread is killing me.
only 1 group in this thread has actual hunting and fishing rights... the Yakama Nation.
If you don't like it tough... hunters and fisherman have to build a bridge with natives because in the end, if we don't, non natives wont have hunting or fishing because of a lack of popular support and a shrinking demographic, meanwhile a native peoples will still be enjoying the outdoors because they have their rights in writing.
So complain about a different user group getting permits just realize native peoples will have permits forever and your grandkids or great grandkids wont have any prospective of what you are arguing about today because in your lifetime you worried about what someone else has instead of preserving our future.
We can argue conservation and equality of rights without hindering rights, it's a discussion, not a fight to the death.
To ignore issues and "just deal with it" is about the biggest mistake we can make, par for the course is good for nobody
Open dialogue is key to education and forward progress.
There are no non native rights to hunting... so equal rights is a non issue.
We can argue conservation, harvests etc. but complaining about treaty quotas that wont change without litigation and belittling people because of their birth, heritage or ethnicity is dumb.
This doesn't seem like a just deal with it issue. There is only an assumption that the herd cant handle the additional permits. If that is the case next year biologist will review the data and make that correction. I could be wrong but Sheep harvests are supposed to be limited to 4% of population. The last survey showed 155-165 animals if there 6 permits (2 OILS, 2 Native, 2 Raffle or other) used in the unit WDFW is still at harvest objectives.OpenConstructive dialogue is the key but in order to have constructive dialogue there needs to be a frame work, objectives, etc.
I'm trying to figure out the objective of this thread.
You have missed the point.
And there are no treaty quotas. The treaty says nothing about quotas whatsoever.
In fact, it says nothing about Hunting rights either,
"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"
The Wa Supreme Court decided that words don't matter, and interpreted it for us.
"The Washington State Supreme Court has ruled that there is no legal distinction between a tribal “right” or “privilege” regarding hunting."
https://nwifc.org/about-us/wildlife/treaty-hunting-rights-faq/
You see the issue? Rights, Privilege, same, only if Native, and hunting. Makes sense. :rolleyes:
I am trying to understand how the interpretation of the treaty is Native's have hunting rights and the same court says they are allowed equal quantity of take but that doesn't equate to hunting rights or a quota?
It wasn't the same court, but I see what you are asking.
The Boldt decision "interpreted" that "in common with" meant an equal share. But both the treaty, and Boldt only state that for Fishing, not hunting. There was no allocation by the court for hunting. Therefore no quota. Yet here we are.
Post by: Whitenuckles on August 23, 2018, 05:45:53 PM
But.... and here it comes... they should do it without "white man" influence. Do it as they did in the old days!
No guns
No trucks
No horses
No modern bows
No hunting boots
No steel blades
No modern clothing
No modern tents
No anything "white man" has introduced
Then and only then, I think we would agree they are doing it for traditional rights. Because as of now, nothing they are doing is traditional! If the natives want there ancestral rights, they should do it in the way their ancestors did it. Before they got the "white man" advantages!!! Just my :twocents:
Like I said. I'm all for their rights! But i feel they need to do it as their ancestors did.
Post by: Alchase on August 23, 2018, 06:13:07 PM
Post by: Time Immemorial 1855 on August 23, 2018, 06:14:10 PM
I'm all for natives to hunt. They should keep their traditions and practice their God given rights as they please.They have been hunting here before "white man" came here.ft.
But.... and here it comes... they should do it without "white man" influence. Do it as they did in the old days!
No guns
No trucks
No horses
No modern bows
No hunting boots
No steel blades
No modern clothing
No modern tents
No anything "white man" has introduced
Then and only then, I think we would agree they are doing it for traditional rights. Because as of now, nothing they are doing is traditional! If the natives want there ancestral rights, they should do it in the way their ancestors did it. Before they got the "white man" advantages!!! Just my :twocents:
Like I said. I'm all for their rights! But i feel they need to do it as their ancestors did.
I'm all for natives to hunt. They should keep their traditions and practice their God given rights as they please.They have been hunting here before "white man" came here.Lol you're describing a caveman
But.... and here it comes... they should do it without "white man" influence. Do it as they did in the old days!
No guns
No trucks
No horses
No modern bows
No hunting boots
No steel blades
No modern clothing
No modern tents
No anything "white man" has introduced
Then and only then, I think we would agree they are doing it for traditional rights. Because as of now, nothing they are doing is traditional! If the natives want there ancestral rights, they should do it in the way their ancestors did it. Before they got the "white man" advantages!!! Just my :twocents:
Like I said. I'm all for their rights! But i feel they need to do it as their ancestors did.
Post by: 180-GRAIN on August 23, 2018, 06:23:51 PM
Post by: Time Immemorial 1855 on August 23, 2018, 06:24:45 PM
Watching this thread is killing me.Exactly, you guys refer to yourselves as SPORTSMEN, as us we are hunter and gatherers, you all take all the hate out on a few that come here to defend ourselves, when I first joined the bashing was terrible, you want to help with the ones over harvesting take pictures of them, call Tribal wardens, help us help you, just remember we define ourselves as HUNTERS AN GATHERERS NOT SPORTSMEN, we dont do it for sport, we do it to PROVIDE
only 1 group in this thread has actual hunting and fishing rights... the Yakama Nation.
If you don't like it tough... hunters and fisherman have to build a bridge with natives because in the end, if we don't, non natives wont have hunting or fishing because of a lack of popular support and a shrinking demographic, meanwhile a native peoples will still be enjoying the outdoors because they have their rights in writing.
So complain about a different user group getting permits just realize native peoples will have permits forever and your grandkids or great grandkids wont have any prospective of what you are arguing about today because in your lifetime you worried about what someone else has instead of preserving our future.
Post by: Time Immemorial 1855 on August 23, 2018, 06:26:14 PM
Maybe this has been asked before but I will ask again. Can tribal members apply for the general public sheep tags as well as the tribal tags?Yes we can, if we go purchase tags build our points and apply for them like you guys do, maybe we should to help the odds out....
Post by: Whitefoot on August 23, 2018, 06:41:44 PM
Post by: Time Immemorial 1855 on August 23, 2018, 06:42:48 PM
I'm all for not having sportsmen not hunt on our ceded land. I promote it all the time.WORRRD
Post by: grundy53 on August 23, 2018, 07:20:16 PM
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: trophyhunt on August 23, 2018, 07:25:23 PM
Time, all the pictures in the world won’t make a difference on over harvest, there isn’t an over harvest for the yakama’s. Your elders know about a tribal member who sells elk jerky and they don’t care that it’s against your laws. Really there is nothing we can do about a guy killing 24+ bulls a year because the tribe lets him, all we can do is get frustrated when our permits go down and the management isn’t there. This will never change, same old crap, pass me the bottle!Watching this thread is killing me.Exactly, you guys refer to yourselves as SPORTSMEN, as us we are hunter and gatherers, you all take all the hate out on a few that come here to defend ourselves, when I first joined the bashing was terrible, you want to help with the ones over harvesting take pictures of them, call Tribal wardens, help us help you, just remember we define ourselves as HUNTERS AN GATHERERS NOT SPORTSMEN, we dont do it for sport, we do it to PROVIDE
only 1 group in this thread has actual hunting and fishing rights... the Yakama Nation.
If you don't like it tough... hunters and fisherman have to build a bridge with natives because in the end, if we don't, non natives wont have hunting or fishing because of a lack of popular support and a shrinking demographic, meanwhile a native peoples will still be enjoying the outdoors because they have their rights in writing.
So complain about a different user group getting permits just realize native peoples will have permits forever and your grandkids or great grandkids wont have any prospective of what you are arguing about today because in your lifetime you worried about what someone else has instead of preserving our future.
Post by: Whitenuckles on August 23, 2018, 07:31:09 PM
I'm all for natives to hunt. They should keep their traditions and practice their God given rights as they please.They have been hunting here before "white man" came here.ft.
But.... and here it comes... they should do it without "white man" influence. Do it as they did in the old days!
No guns
No trucks
No horses
No modern bows
No hunting boots
No steel blades
No modern clothing
No modern tents
No anything "white man" has introduced
Then and only then, I think we would agree they are doing it for traditional rights. Because as of now, nothing they are doing is traditional! If the natives want there ancestral rights, they should do it in the way their ancestors did it. Before they got the "white man" advantages!!! Just my :twocents:
Like I said. I'm all for their rights! But i feel they need to do it as their ancestors did.I'm all for natives to hunt. They should keep their traditions and practice their God given rights as they please.They have been hunting here before "white man" came here.Lol you're describing a caveman
But.... and here it comes... they should do it without "white man" influence. Do it as they did in the old days!
No guns
No trucks
No horses
No modern bows
No hunting boots
No steel blades
No modern clothing
No modern tents
No anything "white man" has introduced
Then and only then, I think we would agree they are doing it for traditional rights. Because as of now, nothing they are doing is traditional! If the natives want there ancestral rights, they should do it in the way their ancestors did it. Before they got the "white man" advantages!!! Just my :twocents:
Like I said. I'm all for their rights! But i feel they need to do it as their ancestors did.
Lol..... No! I'm describing the Native American before "white man". Dont get me wrong, I'm not hating on natives. I, myself, am a first generation American.
But from my eyes, what the natives do outside their reservation, is not fair with the rest. From what I understand, you have ancestral rights to land, fish and game. But you use modern technology to harvest you bounty, not what your ancestors did. You can't hate the "white man", but then turn around and use all his gifts! That's not right.
As I said before and listed above. Those things were all introduced to the Americas by European influence. I am all for your rights!!!! I hope natives continue their heritage forever!!! But I think natives should continue "their heritage" absent of others influences. You can't say you want your past, then turn around and use the future's technology :twocents:
Post by: meatwhack on August 23, 2018, 07:33:29 PM
Post by: Time Immemorial 1855 on August 23, 2018, 07:37:20 PM
Post by: Time Immemorial 1855 on August 23, 2018, 07:40:22 PM
The part that always boggles my mind is how some tribes are able to manage excellent herds within their reservation which creates much better hunting opportunity and no need to leave the reservation while others have slaughtered everything within the reservation boundaries so they are then required to hunt areas that the state has managed for herd health.Holy I did not know the rez was hunted to extinction? New one to me lol, our people have hunted within the entire ceded area and more, its documented by your people, the land was ceded but my ancestors made sure we retained the rights to hunt and gather within them ceded land, want us to stop hunting them areas, give the land back, simple as that lol come on think about it......
Post by: bobcat on August 23, 2018, 07:40:50 PM
Exactly, you guys refer to yourselves as SPORTSMEN, as us we are hunter and gatherers, you all take all the hate out on a few that come here to defend ourselves, when I first joined the bashing was terrible, you want to help with the ones over harvesting take pictures of them, call Tribal wardens, help us help you, just remember we define ourselves as HUNTERS AN GATHERERS NOT SPORTSMEN, we dont do it for sport, we do it to PROVIDE
First, none of us "hate" any of your people. We simply don't like the fact that you guys are allowed to hunt with no limits, and no seasons. It's as if it's an unlimited resource, the way your laws are set up. Even the laws you do have, are not enforced.
Certain people kill many trophy bull elk every year, just for the heads. Then they sell the heads. It's a business. Then there are those in the business of selling meat. At least one guy has a jerky business. He advertises on Craigslist. These things are against Yakama tribal law, I believe, yet members of the Yakama tribe do these things openly and nobody cares.
I'm sure this is the reason the deer around the Yakima area are on the verge of being entirely wiped out. Look at the success rates for those GMU's. They run around 1% to 5%. Pathetic. The state blames the lack of deer on hair loss disease. But I think it's pretty obvious what the real reason is.
Post by: Time Immemorial 1855 on August 23, 2018, 07:41:38 PM
This just proves you do not fully understand our laws, an what's up with the bottle comment? :bdid:Time, all the pictures in the world won’t make a difference on over harvest, there isn’t an over harvest for the yakama’s. Your elders know about a tribal member who sells elk jerky and they don’t care that it’s against your laws. Really there is nothing we can do about a guy killing 24+ bulls a year because the tribe lets him, all we can do is get frustrated when our permits go down and the management isn’t there. This will never change, same old crap, pass me the bottle!Watching this thread is killing me.Exactly, you guys refer to yourselves as SPORTSMEN, as us we are hunter and gatherers, you all take all the hate out on a few that come here to defend ourselves, when I first joined the bashing was terrible, you want to help with the ones over harvesting take pictures of them, call Tribal wardens, help us help you, just remember we define ourselves as HUNTERS AN GATHERERS NOT SPORTSMEN, we dont do it for sport, we do it to PROVIDE
only 1 group in this thread has actual hunting and fishing rights... the Yakama Nation.
If you don't like it tough... hunters and fisherman have to build a bridge with natives because in the end, if we don't, non natives wont have hunting or fishing because of a lack of popular support and a shrinking demographic, meanwhile a native peoples will still be enjoying the outdoors because they have their rights in writing.
So complain about a different user group getting permits just realize native peoples will have permits forever and your grandkids or great grandkids wont have any prospective of what you are arguing about today because in your lifetime you worried about what someone else has instead of preserving our future.
Post by: meatwhack on August 23, 2018, 07:48:36 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on August 23, 2018, 07:49:33 PM
I don’t know all your laws, I admit that. If we were sitting around a camp fire having this discussion, I was saying, pass the bottle, I’m thirsty! But as far as tribal members killing multiple bulls to sell jerky, are you saying that doesn’t happen? We both know the answer to that, and isn’t that against your own laws? Again, I don’t know or keep up w changing laws with your tribe.This just proves you do not fully understand our laws, an what's up with the bottle comment? :bdid:Time, all the pictures in the world won’t make a difference on over harvest, there isn’t an over harvest for the yakama’s. Your elders know about a tribal member who sells elk jerky and they don’t care that it’s against your laws. Really there is nothing we can do about a guy killing 24+ bulls a year because the tribe lets him, all we can do is get frustrated when our permits go down and the management isn’t there. This will never change, same old crap, pass me the bottle!Watching this thread is killing me.Exactly, you guys refer to yourselves as SPORTSMEN, as us we are hunter and gatherers, you all take all the hate out on a few that come here to defend ourselves, when I first joined the bashing was terrible, you want to help with the ones over harvesting take pictures of them, call Tribal wardens, help us help you, just remember we define ourselves as HUNTERS AN GATHERERS NOT SPORTSMEN, we dont do it for sport, we do it to PROVIDE
only 1 group in this thread has actual hunting and fishing rights... the Yakama Nation.
If you don't like it tough... hunters and fisherman have to build a bridge with natives because in the end, if we don't, non natives wont have hunting or fishing because of a lack of popular support and a shrinking demographic, meanwhile a native peoples will still be enjoying the outdoors because they have their rights in writing.
So complain about a different user group getting permits just realize native peoples will have permits forever and your grandkids or great grandkids wont have any prospective of what you are arguing about today because in your lifetime you worried about what someone else has instead of preserving our future.
Post by: jackelope on August 23, 2018, 09:10:33 PM
Post by: Vine Maples and Cottonwoo on August 23, 2018, 09:30:12 PM
We are here because the WDFW gave the tribes the hunting rights they have, rather than go to court over this. It was to avoid court cost/save money. As I recall, it was in the early/mid 80's.
Based on what I was told by a former WDFW Enforcement Agent, now retired: If, at anytime, the State determines that the Tribes are abusing their "Rights" to the detriment of the Wildlife Resource, specifically, that the Tribes are harming the resource, the State has the legal authority to step in and close down tribal use of the resource. The tribes would forfeit their use of the resource. As it was explained to me, both sides know about this. It was also explained to me that this would never come to pass, that it is a political hot potato, that no one wants to touch.
I think the reality is that fish and game are merely a bribe. Its the other "rights" that are more contentious and valuable.
Post by: Special T on August 23, 2018, 09:40:19 PM
Probably the most pointed discussion on the disagreementWatching this thread is killing me.
only 1 group in this thread has actual hunting and fishing rights... the Yakama Nation.
If you don't like it tough... hunters and fisherman have to build a bridge with natives because in the end, if we don't, non natives wont have hunting or fishing because of a lack of popular support and a shrinking demographic, meanwhile a native peoples will still be enjoying the outdoors because they have their rights in writing.
So complain about a different user group getting permits just realize native peoples will have permits forever and your grandkids or great grandkids wont have any prospective of what you are arguing about today because in your lifetime you worried about what someone else has instead of preserving our future.
We can argue conservation and equality of rights without hindering rights, it's a discussion, not a fight to the death.
To ignore issues and "just deal with it" is about the biggest mistake we can make, par for the course is good for nobody
Open dialogue is key to education and forward progress.
There are no non native rights to hunting... so equal rights is a non issue.
We can argue conservation, harvests etc. but complaining about treaty quotas that wont change without litigation and belittling people because of their birth, heritage or ethnicity is dumb.
This doesn't seem like a just deal with it issue. There is only an assumption that the herd cant handle the additional permits. If that is the case next year biologist will review the data and make that correction. I could be wrong but Sheep harvests are supposed to be limited to 4% of population. The last survey showed 155-165 animals if there 6 permits (2 OILS, 2 Native, 2 Raffle or other) used in the unit WDFW is still at harvest objectives.OpenConstructive dialogue is the key but in order to have constructive dialogue there needs to be a frame work, objectives, etc.
I'm trying to figure out the objective of this thread.
You have missed the point.
And there are no treaty quotas. The treaty says nothing about quotas whatsoever.
In fact, it says nothing about Hunting rights either,
"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"
The Wa Supreme Court decided that words don't matter, and interpreted it for us.
"The Washington State Supreme Court has ruled that there is no legal distinction between a tribal “right” or “privilege” regarding hunting."
https://nwifc.org/about-us/wildlife/treaty-hunting-rights-faq/
You see the issue? Rights, Privilege, same, only if Native, and hunting. Makes sense. :rolleyes:
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: grundy53 on August 23, 2018, 10:23:41 PM
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: baker5150 on August 24, 2018, 01:48:14 PM
There was no allocation by the court for hunting. Therefore no quota. Yet here we are.
We are here because the WDFW gave the tribes the hunting rights they have, rather than go to court over this. It was to avoid court cost/save money. As I recall, it was in the early/mid 80's.
Based on what I was told by a former WDFW Enforcement Agent, now retired: If, at anytime, the State determines that the Tribes are abusing their "Rights" to the detriment of the Wildlife Resource, specifically, that the Tribes are harming the resource, the State has the legal authority to step in and close down tribal use of the resource. The tribes would forfeit their use of the resource. As it was explained to me, both sides know about this. It was also explained to me that this would never come to pass, that it is a political hot potato, that no one wants to touch.
I think the reality is that fish and game are merely a bribe. Its the other "rights" that are more contentious and valuable.
The WDFW did not give any rights to anyone, they don't have that authority. I fact, the WDFW resisted the court order.
The abuse of rights issue is only listed for Fishing (there is no wording at all about hunting) and has to come from a conservation stand point, it also limits non-tribal hunting first.
"Furthermore, the court also held the state could regulate the Indians' exercise of their treaty rights, but only to ensure the "perpetuation of a run or of a species of fish". To regulate the Indians, the state must be able to show that conservation could not be achieved by regulating only the non-Indians, must not discriminate against the Indians, and must use appropriate due process."
Post by: trophyhunt on August 24, 2018, 02:45:50 PM
sounds like we are just a couple good lawyers away from a law suit to force the Wdfw to enforce harvest numbers allowed? I’m NOT talking about taking away any treaty rights at all, all I’m saying is force the tribes to be on the same page as Wdfw when it comes to management of fish and game. I will also say this, some tribes are doing a good job already, I just wish other tribes would follow good examples. I truly believe most people on this site are good people, it’s completly wrong to label each other as haters or racist just because we want some changes.There was no allocation by the court for hunting. Therefore no quota. Yet here we are.
We are here because the WDFW gave the tribes the hunting rights they have, rather than go to court over this. It was to avoid court cost/save money. As I recall, it was in the early/mid 80's.
Based on what I was told by a former WDFW Enforcement Agent, now retired: If, at anytime, the State determines that the Tribes are abusing their "Rights" to the detriment of the Wildlife Resource, specifically, that the Tribes are harming the resource, the State has the legal authority to step in and close down tribal use of the resource. The tribes would forfeit their use of the resource. As it was explained to me, both sides know about this. It was also explained to me that this would never come to pass, that it is a political hot potato, that no one wants to touch.
I think the reality is that fish and game are merely a bribe. Its the other "rights" that are more contentious and valuable.
The WDFW did not give any rights to anyone, they don't have that authority. I fact, the WDFW resisted the court order.
The abuse of rights issue is only listed for Fishing (there is no wording at all about hunting) and has to come from a conservation stand point, it also limits non-tribal hunting first.
"Furthermore, the court also held the state could regulate the Indians' exercise of their treaty rights, but only to ensure the "perpetuation of a run or of a species of fish". To regulate the Indians, the state must be able to show that conservation could not be achieved by regulating only the non-Indians, must not discriminate against the Indians, and must use appropriate due process."
Post by: tlbradford on August 24, 2018, 05:32:58 PM
So you're saying 1 right should be held to a higher standard then another? Oh okay. That sounds about right.
My right that's outdated is not as important as everyone else's on a much older document. Yeah I get it. Guys dont like the abuse but when you're calling for rights to be taken away and done with because they're old and nobody was here when they were agreed upon is not any different then the 2A argument.
Some want to take my rights just like the libs want to take theirs.........
A couple of pages has passed but I had work obligations, so I apologize for the delay. I am not saying to take away your rights at all. I am not applying a scale on what rights are more important than others. I am speaking to the moral and scientific responsibility to managing our wildlife resources. Acting selfishly (and that is what this is by putting your "rights" over the best practices of managing a healthy population of game in cooperation with WDFW) goes against logic and my belief system. Speaking for myself, I put the well being of others before my own. Those are the rose-colored glasses I look through on a daily basis. I don't want to take rights away, but I do want cooperation to manage our game animals.
Post by: trophyhunt on August 24, 2018, 05:35:27 PM
very well put.So you're saying 1 right should be held to a higher standard then another? Oh okay. That sounds about right.
My right that's outdated is not as important as everyone else's on a much older document. Yeah I get it. Guys dont like the abuse but when you're calling for rights to be taken away and done with because they're old and nobody was here when they were agreed upon is not any different then the 2A argument.
Some want to take my rights just like the libs want to take theirs.........
A couple of pages has passed but I had work obligations, so I apologize for the delay. I am not saying to take away your rights at all. I am not applying a scale on what rights are more important than others. I am speaking to the moral and scientific responsibility to managing our wildlife resources. Acting selfishly (and that is what this is by putting your "rights" over the best practices of managing a healthy population of game in cooperation with WDFW) goes against logic and my belief system. Speaking for myself, I put the well being of others before my own. Those are the rose-colored glasses I look through on a daily basis. I don't want to take rights away, but I do want cooperation to manage our game animals.
Post by: huntnfmly on August 24, 2018, 05:48:46 PM
X2very well put.So you're saying 1 right should be held to a higher standard then another? Oh okay. That sounds about right.
My right that's outdated is not as important as everyone else's on a much older document. Yeah I get it. Guys dont like the abuse but when you're calling for rights to be taken away and done with because they're old and nobody was here when they were agreed upon is not any different then the 2A argument.
Some want to take my rights just like the libs want to take theirs.........
A couple of pages has passed but I had work obligations, so I apologize for the delay. I am not saying to take away your rights at all. I am not applying a scale on what rights are more important than others. I am speaking to the moral and scientific responsibility to managing our wildlife resources. Acting selfishly (and that is what this is by putting your "rights" over the best practices of managing a healthy population of game in cooperation with WDFW) goes against logic and my belief system. Speaking for myself, I put the well being of others before my own. Those are the rose-colored glasses I look through on a daily basis. I don't want to take rights away, but I do want cooperation to manage our game animals.
Post by: shallowforks on August 24, 2018, 06:00:46 PM
A couple of pages has passed but I had work obligations, so I apologize for the delay. I am not saying to take away your rights at all. I am not applying a scale on what rights are more important than others. I am speaking to the moral and scientific responsibility to managing our wildlife resources. Acting selfishly (and that is what this is by putting your "rights" over the best practices of managing a healthy population of game in cooperation with WDFW) goes against logic and my belief system. Speaking for myself, I put the well being of others before my own. Those are the rose-colored glasses I look through on a daily basis. I don't want to take rights away, but I do want cooperation to manage our game animals.
Cooperation, yes!
Post by: Gringo31 on August 24, 2018, 07:17:54 PM
Complaining on a forum doesn't chance much.....
Post by: trophyhunt on August 24, 2018, 08:14:27 PM
Post by: sled on August 24, 2018, 08:18:17 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on August 24, 2018, 08:21:15 PM
Post by: sled on August 24, 2018, 08:26:18 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on August 24, 2018, 08:45:21 PM
Use to be a great place to come and exchange info but it’s great to see that certain people are still allowed to taunt people because of their skin color. I’ll take another year or so off and check back. Carry on.....Still is a great place, are you saying I’m taunting people or being racist?
Post by: farmin4u_98948 on August 24, 2018, 08:49:08 PM
Post by: Special T on August 24, 2018, 08:54:45 PM
Gringo, so should we just forget about it? You and I know it’s not as simple as calling our senator or the news. Even if I was a rich guy and devoted my life to investigating guys who kills multiple elk to sell as jerky or guys who kill deer to bait eagles to kill to sell the feathers, you honestly think it will make a difference? You are sick of us complaining?, how do you think we feel about more important stuff than complaining? Like over harvest for compensation rather than substance or ceremony. Yeah I agree this topic gets real old, it’s the definition of beating a dead horse. But if you come up with a solution we are all ears, until then, all we can do is bitch to each other about our frustrations.You eat an elephant one bite at a time. Take one small part of a hunting issue and attack it. A HUGE part is just learning how the system works. Most of this is transferable to many issues. You never learn about the devil in the details until you submerge your self in them. 2c
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: trophyhunt on August 24, 2018, 08:55:13 PM
Post by: Oh Mah on August 24, 2018, 08:57:34 PM
This is almost spot on,Add in the point that all of the Constitution is for all not just a group.Our Constitution made these unalienable rights equal for all citizens.HUGE DIFFERENCE!Without the Constitution these treaties would have never been made so quit trying to use it in an UNAMERICAN WAY.So the argument now is the small group of those that abuse the right, take advantage of the right and exploit the right and you choose to take it out on the rest of us that follow the laws, follow the rights and dont cause the pain and anguish that the small user group does to the whole group?
Sounds like the same argument that the left is pushing. Take the right because a small user group is ruining it for the rest.
Your analogy is weak. Yes we enjoy our 2A rights. However it's not a free for all. There are still laws pertaining to it. I can't just go down to the gas station and buy a fully automatic rifle. Also, if I abuse my god given second ammendment rights they take them away. Do they take away the hunting rights of the few in your tribe who abuse them? Didn't think so. We want you to actually police your own.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: Naches Sportsman on August 24, 2018, 09:01:37 PM
I guess that I should have pondered the opening question and kept it to myself. Life has never and will never be fair. Some people are born into privilege and some people will envy people of privilege. Get over it Be thankful. and live a good life.
Only thing I'm gonna say is your OP sounded like you wanted to do some trolling which you successfully pulled off.
Post by: Oh Mah on August 24, 2018, 09:07:37 PM
:yeah: Exactly,The lack of un wanted drama was getting nice and then wham this thread pops up.I guess that I should have pondered the opening question and kept it to myself. Life has never and will never be fair. Some people are born into privilege and some people will envy people of privilege. Get over it Be thankful. and live a good life.
Only thing I'm gonna say is your OP sounded like you wanted to do some trolling which you successfully pulled off.
Post by: trophyhunt on August 24, 2018, 09:14:15 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on August 24, 2018, 09:17:03 PM
Everytime one of these hunting/tribal subjects that highlights the inequality of the situation shows up on here its page after page of this never ending argument. I read it and don't say much because it turns into a race issue and while most or none of us are racists just passionant outdoorsman that want our kids and grandkids to be able to enjoy the outdoors like we do. As a mature non native man I understand not all things are fair and equal never has been never will be. Things change over time. Our history doesn't lie and we used to have the right to own slaves and kill unlimited numbers of buffalo and wild game to mention just a couple.. Heck a dispute could be settled in the street with a gunfight and one guy could be dead and the other could go home and not to jail... Times change and a civilization that realizes that and wants to sustain what they have or do better makes change either by law or self restraint and judgement. I am not jealous one bit of what native hunters and fisherman get to do because I see the result of non restraint when given basically an open season. I see it where I live on the Olympic Peninsula , the Blue Mountains and now this sheep hunt in the Swakane. There are plenty of native sportsman I know and are very good people and I respect but times change and we need to protect our wildlife and our opportunity to enjoy what we do. If all the tags(native and non native draw and auction) are filled on mature rams in the Swakane I predict there won't be any tags next year , how does that sound?just want to repost Scott’s post, read it and you might learn something.
There are multiple problems that are leading to the demise of our wildlife but the biggest in my mind is that as times change and human population grows and technology continues to put fish and wildlife at a huge disadvantage we all must show restraint and make change whether its our right or not. Lastly don't even think about saying I don't understand or I'm a racist or I will post a pic of my family of adopted kids of all colors even one that is native enough to have a card but doesn't :tup:
Post by: Oh Mah on August 24, 2018, 09:23:56 PM
I’m glad he started the thread, as a life time wild Sheep member I find it interesting that Wdfw had no say or awareness that this hunt evolved. It has been informative and frustrating at the same time.I'm sorry but since you're a lifetime member shouldn't the foundation have informed you of this instead of on here?Maybe they did not because it is a nothing burger to begin with.
Post by: trophyhunt on August 24, 2018, 09:29:48 PM
wdfw didn’t even know about this.I’m glad he started the thread, as a life time wild Sheep member I find it interesting that Wdfw had no say or awareness that this hunt evolved. It has been informative and frustrating at the same time.I'm sorry but since you're a lifetime member shouldn't the foundation have informed you of this instead of on here?Maybe they did not because it is a nothing burger to begin with.
Post by: cem3434 on August 24, 2018, 09:36:02 PM
I’m glad he started the thread, as a life time wild Sheep member I find it interesting that Wdfw had no say or awareness that this hunt evolved. It has been informative and frustrating at the same time.I'm sorry but since you're a lifetime member shouldn't the foundation have informed you of this instead of on here?Maybe they did not because it is a nothing burger to begin with.
If WDFW didn't know, how or why would the WSF know? There are many of us that are WSF lifetime members and I'm guessing this was news to most of not all of the members. IMHO the WSF is one of the best conservation groups out there and I don't think they would intentionally withhold this type of information from its members.
Post by: Oh Mah on August 24, 2018, 09:36:41 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on August 24, 2018, 09:41:28 PM
Post by: grundy53 on August 24, 2018, 09:42:37 PM
Sorry but exactly how do you lnow that others did not know?Just because they are not talking about it piblically doesn;t mean they don't know about it.As for the foundation and the WDFW it's none of their business to know or talk about it.It is only up to the courts to rule on what is going on as per the tribes.The state and fed. gov. has authority here whether they admit it or not,They can and should come in and have these talks get it on the ballots and go from there. SCOTUS NEEDS TO RULE ON THESE ISSUES.....................AGAIN AS THEY HAVE ON OTHER ISSUES OF LATE.What are you talking about. WDFW definitely needs to know. So they can manage that sheep herd accordingly. Whether that means shutting that unit down to the auction tag holder or reducing the amount of tags given out in the draw.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: Oh Mah on August 24, 2018, 09:46:41 PM
And they probably did know.Sorry but exactly how do you lnow that others did not know?Just because they are not talking about it piblically doesn;t mean they don't know about it.As for the foundation and the WDFW it's none of their business to know or talk about it.It is only up to the courts to rule on what is going on as per the tribes.The state and fed. gov. has authority here whether they admit it or not,They can and should come in and have these talks get it on the ballots and go from there. SCOTUS NEEDS TO RULE ON THESE ISSUES.....................AGAIN AS THEY HAVE ON OTHER ISSUES OF LATE.What are you talking about. WDFW definitely needs to know. So they can manage that sheep herd accordingly. Whether that means shutting that unit down to the auction tag holder or reducing the amount of tags given out in the draw.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
How is it that farmin4u knew but a gov. agency as large as WDFW did not?
Post by: cem3434 on August 24, 2018, 09:46:58 PM
Plat said they didn’t know, and I trust his word.
:yeah: no reason to distrust Plat as he has always seemed like a straight shooter to me.
Why wouldn't it be their responsibility to know or discuss it? WDFW supposedly manages game and WSF is a conservation focused on the health and expansion of wild sheep populations throughout the west, so yeah it is kind of their place to know and discuss issues like this.
Post by: Oh Mah on August 24, 2018, 09:51:51 PM
Post by: Oh Mah on August 24, 2018, 09:52:54 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on August 24, 2018, 10:07:04 PM
Post by: MADMAX on August 24, 2018, 10:08:33 PM
Post by: PlateauNDN on August 24, 2018, 10:16:57 PM
This is almost spot on,Add in the point that all of the Constitution is for all not just a group.Our Constitution made these unalienable rights equal for all citizens.HUGE DIFFERENCE!Without the Constitution these treaties would have never been made so quit trying to use it in an UNAMERICAN WAY.So the argument now is the small group of those that abuse the right, take advantage of the right and exploit the right and you choose to take it out on the rest of us that follow the laws, follow the rights and dont cause the pain and anguish that the small user group does to the whole group?
Sounds like the same argument that the left is pushing. Take the right because a small user group is ruining it for the rest.
Your analogy is weak. Yes we enjoy our 2A rights. However it's not a free for all. There are still laws pertaining to it. I can't just go down to the gas station and buy a fully automatic rifle. Also, if I abuse my god given second ammendment rights they take them away. Do they take away the hunting rights of the few in your tribe who abuse them? Didn't think so. We want you to actually police your own.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Says you. The Constitution didnt apply to my people when the Treaties were negotiated and they didnt apply until long after. We weren't considered citizens until the mid-1920's.
You dont know nor understand the issues involving my size of the fence. Our people, not just Yakamas but all Tribes have been 2nd rate citizens living in 3rd world settings and now you just decide what I can or cannot do or say?
Yes, it s a choice. A very hard choice and most aren't able to succeed with the choices they made. Generation after generation grew up knowing the lifestyle of the previous generation while being raised by the family 2 generations back.
You think its UNAMERICAN the way I made a comparison? Why? The Constitution isn't the reason why we as Tribes have Treaties. If you noticed the Treaties said we'd remain Sovereign as separate nations on our reservations, not as Americans, but as tribes. We stay on the sh... hole dirt laden dump of land called Reservations we would be left alone to continue our lives, not as Americans.
We've been considered and allowed to be called American Citizens what 3 generations now and its expected that we drop our culture, traditions and way of life that we have lived by since before the Americans came out here and began their attempt to exterminate and/or assimilate us?
Post by: Oh Mah on August 24, 2018, 10:35:53 PM
Post by: PlateauNDN on August 25, 2018, 12:52:11 AM
They wanted the land and they wanted it now. Our Treaties are what made us Sovereign Nations. We weren't Americans.
It was negotiate Treaties or death. I ve read the Treaty minutes and anything I could find pertaining to that period in time and in the its stated to the Chiefs that either their blood or their Mark's would be on the paper.
So again, tell me how it was the Constitution that gave us the Treaties?
Post by: Oh Mah on August 25, 2018, 01:15:53 AM
Post by: Romulus1297 on August 25, 2018, 01:35:57 AM
Post by: PlateauNDN on August 25, 2018, 04:35:59 AM
The Constitution provided protection and kept us from being exterminated? Really? And i suppose everything that happened after was just for our own good and protection?
As I can recall through many textbooks many US soldiers were awarded the M.O.H. for their atrocities, war crimes committed against Tribal Members. I suppose the Indian Removal policy which led to the Trail of Tears was for our own good and we were protected right?
I recall many soldiers were celebrated and awarded this nations highest honor for that or how about the Massacre of Wounded Knee?
I recall awards being handed out left and right and I dont recall them being protected and those committing the atrocity being punished?
You keep your opinions and I'll keep mine. My views and opinions have always been mine and if you believe the Constitution was adaopted for us then I assume the text calling us merciless savages was for our protection as well.
Oh well, we could go back and forth all day, but in the end you know what you know and I know what I know and nothing's going to change that so why keep up the banter and take this thread even further into a rabbit hole.
Best of luck to all those this upcoming season.
Post by: jackelope on August 25, 2018, 06:02:33 AM
Post by: Time Immemorial 1855 on August 25, 2018, 09:50:58 AM
keep trying to spin that bull,The Constitution specifically said All men were created equal so wrong again plat.The Constitution is and always has been more than a piece of paper,It was the way of America to be.It meant that we were to have morals,character and most of all compassion for fellow man.That included the natives and all others from all other lands.Soldiers broke laws when they invaded tribal communities some were even hung for doing so.So i will repeat what i said again,Without the Constitution and what it stood for the natives would have been completely wiped out.It is what kept the soldiers from being able to eradicate the tribes.The Constitution did not protect the tribal land any more than non tribal from gov. remember R.R co. were able to kill,steel do whatever it took to get the land they wanted no matter the color of the land owner. So plat wrong again.You're not very good with history for someone trying to teach it to others.Plat is giving you facts, lessons in history are not always taught the right way
Post by: Oh Mah on August 25, 2018, 10:14:29 AM
Oh Mah.... Are you Native American?@jackelope: YEP (NOT YAKAMA AND ONLY ABOUT 1/4 Cherokee).Plat nowhere in any post did i say the Constitution was adapted for Natives.It is and always has been(even slaves) used to fight for the rights of all.Even though at times(even now)There were and are those that don't follow the laws in it.
Yakama: Trail of tears?
Yakama: Wounded knee?
Post by: Time Immemorial 1855 on August 25, 2018, 10:41:12 AM
There was Yakama's at Wounded KneeOh Mah.... Are you Native American?@jackelope: YEP (NOT YAKAMA AND ONLY ABOUT 1/4 Cherokee).Plat nowhere in any post did i say the Constitution was adapted for Natives.It is and always has been(even slaves) used to fight for the rights of all.Even though at times(even now)There were and are those that don't follow the laws in it.
Yakama: Trail of tears?
Yakama: Wounded knee?
Post by: Oh Mah on August 25, 2018, 10:50:28 AM
Post by: Dan-o on August 25, 2018, 11:14:55 AM
keep trying to spin that bull,The Constitution specifically said All men were created equal so wrong again plat.The Constitution is and always has been more than a piece of paper,It was the way of America to be.It meant that we were to have morals,character and most of all compassion for fellow man.That included the natives and all others from all other lands.Soldiers broke laws when they invaded tribal communities some were even hung for doing so.So i will repeat what i said again,Without the Constitution and what it stood for the natives would have been completely wiped out.It is what kept the soldiers from being able to eradicate the tribes.The Constitution did not protect the tribal land any more than non tribal from gov. remember R.R co. were able to kill,steel do whatever it took to get the land they wanted no matter the color of the land owner. So plat wrong again.You're not very good with history for someone trying to teach it to others.Plat is giving you facts, lessons in history are not always taught the right way
:yeah:
PLat has proven his knowledge on this more than a few times.
I, for one, really appreciate Plat's contributions of both fact and perspective.
Time Immemorial, thanks for chiming in and trying to be a positive influence. :tup:
Post by: Oh Mah on August 25, 2018, 11:19:05 AM
If you think im wrong about the Constitution Dano,Please explain.
Post by: Dan-o on August 25, 2018, 11:30:16 AM
I also appreciate plats perspective. :tup: Are you saying that i am somehow being negative?I thought i was neutral and stating facts as well.
If you think im wrong about the Constitution Dano,Please explain.
Well, since you asked:
I simply think that you try to be argumentative. It seems like you have a deep seated need to try to show people how smart you are........ while not appearing to be all that smart.
I would bet big money that Plat knows a whole lot more about how their treaties work and relate to the US constitution than you do.
But that is just my opinion...... since you asked.
Post by: Oh Mah on August 25, 2018, 11:52:16 AM
Post by: meatwhack on August 25, 2018, 12:46:17 PM
1. Do you think the tribe does a good job at managing wildlife?
2. Do you feel a majority of members respect their rights or abuse them?
3. How many animals per family do you think it takes to meet the sustainment portion of the treaty?
Post by: farmin4u_98948 on August 25, 2018, 03:53:16 PM
Envy, fair, race, you are missing the point farmin. There are a few good points on this thread you didn’t bother to read. Seriously, you sound like a liberal who doesn’t have anything to say so you throw out the race card, doesn’t work anymore.....
TrouphyHunt. In the world of assumptions. You are very wrong. Check my zip code. My exposure to Yakama Nation is extensive. Raised on the Rez as were my parents and grandparents. I have leased farm and range land from Yakama Nation that were transfered down to me from them. Education to the history of how we are where we are takes work. Accusations are the easy way. Chose education and be happy
Post by: farmin4u_98948 on August 25, 2018, 04:21:01 PM
There was Yakama's at Wounded KneeOh Mah.... Are you Native American?@jackelope: YEP (NOT YAKAMA AND ONLY ABOUT 1/4 Cherokee).Plat nowhere in any post did i say the Constitution was adapted for Natives.It is and always has been(even slaves) used to fight for the rights of all.Even though at times(even now)There were and are those that don't follow the laws in it.
Yakama: Trail of tears?
Yakama: Wounded knee?
Yes there was. I’m sorry I don’t remember his name. I met him at the Satus Mission maybe 10 years ago. He was there with the Pastor Jerry McNew.
Post by: PlateauNDN on August 25, 2018, 07:22:56 PM
I know Jerry McNew well. I 1st met him when I was a toddler attending McKinley Indian Mission and Tom Blackeagle. I also attended the Satus Indian Mission when it was reopened.
But, I'm not here to teach history because my history isnt text book history per someone's standards and im not going to go back and forth trying to explain.
Meatwhack, I've expressed my opinions on almost every thread regarding these issues when these types of argument threads were started and it gets old repeating.
My family alone, my goal is 2 elk (male/female), 2 deer (male/female) and as of recent 2 free range Treaty Bison from Montana.
We rarely have beef nowadays that's not to say I dont buy it on occasion as it does have flavor but we're eating what I provide. That's also not including salmon.
Post by: Oh Mah on August 25, 2018, 07:30:24 PM
now i'm not arguing period,i showed facts which you ignored.You said what you said about the Constitution what do you say now after my link?Do you disagree with it because it doesn't match what you were told?
Post by: treefarmer on August 25, 2018, 08:13:05 PM
Post by: meatwhack on August 25, 2018, 08:35:59 PM
Post by: hunter399 on August 25, 2018, 08:42:10 PM
I'm confused,who is this Jerry McNew,and where does he fit in this conversation?I learned most of what i know from my grandfather not schools,No diff from what you say.I've heard enough oh mah the only thing the constitution did was made Indian affairs a federal matter , and gave money to the department of war to slaughter as many natives as they could .Set aside money for treaty afterwards.
now i'm not arguing period,i showed facts which you ignored.You said what you said about the Constitution what do you say now after my link?Do you disagree with it because it doesn't match what you were told?
There is a place for history in books and internet links,but then there's the truth which never gets told.Just get over it already .This tread has went way off topic of sheep tags to native American history.Stop your ranting and cry me a river on the world smallest 🎻 already. :twocents:
Post by: Oh Mah on August 25, 2018, 08:49:22 PM
Post by: Oh Mah on August 25, 2018, 08:55:13 PM
since you skipped around and didnt read this is where the Constitution derailment started.This is almost spot on,Add in the point that all of the Constitution is for all not just a group.Our Constitution made these unalienable rights equal for all citizens.HUGE DIFFERENCE!Without the Constitution these treaties would have never been made so quit trying to use it in an UNAMERICAN WAY.So the argument now is the small group of those that abuse the right, take advantage of the right and exploit the right and you choose to take it out on the rest of us that follow the laws, follow the rights and dont cause the pain and anguish that the small user group does to the whole group?
Sounds like the same argument that the left is pushing. Take the right because a small user group is ruining it for the rest.
Your analogy is weak. Yes we enjoy our 2A rights. However it's not a free for all. There are still laws pertaining to it. I can't just go down to the gas station and buy a fully automatic rifle. Also, if I abuse my god given second ammendment rights they take them away. Do they take away the hunting rights of the few in your tribe who abuse them? Didn't think so. We want you to actually police your own.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Says you. The Constitution didnt apply to my people when the Treaties were negotiated and they didnt apply until long after. We weren't considered citizens until the mid-1920's.
You dont know nor understand the issues involving my size of the fence. Our people, not just Yakamas but all Tribes have been 2nd rate citizens living in 3rd world settings and now you just decide what I can or cannot do or say?
Yes, it s a choice. A very hard choice and most aren't able to succeed with the choices they made. Generation after generation grew up knowing the lifestyle of the previous generation while being raised by the family 2 generations back.
You think its UNAMERICAN the way I made a comparison? Why? The Constitution isn't the reason why we as Tribes have Treaties. If you noticed the Treaties said we'd remain Sovereign as separate nations on our reservations, not as Americans, but as tribes. We stay on the sh... hole dirt laden dump of land called Reservations we would be left alone to continue our lives, not as Americans.
We've been considered and allowed to be called American Citizens what 3 generations now and its expected that we drop our culture, traditions and way of life that we have lived by since before the Americans came out here and began their attempt to exterminate and/or assimilate us?
Post by: PlateauNDN on August 26, 2018, 12:24:07 AM
Post by: PlateauNDN on August 26, 2018, 12:28:45 AM
Post by: Oh Mah on August 26, 2018, 07:53:51 PM
http://www.flashpointmag.com/amindus.htm
I DID!
Post by: shallowforks on August 26, 2018, 09:36:34 PM
Best of luck to all those this upcoming season.
Yes best of luck to all!
Post by: nwhunter on August 26, 2018, 10:16:41 PM
Post by: Chiefbigbul on August 27, 2018, 12:36:13 AM
Post by: Chiefbigbul on August 27, 2018, 12:41:19 AM
Post by: Romulus1297 on August 27, 2018, 12:43:27 AM
Post by: Chiefbigbul on August 27, 2018, 12:48:50 AM
Post by: nwhunter on August 27, 2018, 07:14:14 AM
Post by: Oh Mah on August 27, 2018, 07:28:15 AM
oh and the answer to your constitution question is on my footnotes. Been there.Yep.
Post by: shallowforks on August 27, 2018, 07:45:47 AM
Just wondering, If you knew a Yakama that drew the Swakane Tag would you help him scout if asked or would you want no part of it? Just seems like a good opportunity for someone to go at least look at some beautiful animals in there. Or would you not help a tribal member simply because he's a tribal member? Just a question.
I like this question. My answer would be this: I may have frustrations about a lack of cooperation between the entity which grants your tags, and the entity which grants my tags, but if you hold a lawful tag Id be happy to help a fellow man!
Post by: Oh Mah on August 27, 2018, 08:21:19 AM
Post by: baker5150 on August 27, 2018, 08:33:40 AM
Just wondering, If you knew a Yakama that drew the Swakane Tag would you help him scout if asked or would you want no part of it? Just seems like a good opportunity for someone to go at least look at some beautiful animals in there. Or would you not help a tribal member simply because he's a tribal member? Just a question.
I like this question. My answer would be this: I may have frustrations about a lack of cooperation between the entity which grants your tags, and the entity which grants my tags, but if you hold a lawful tag Id be happy to help a fellow man!
:yeah:
I would certainly never do, or not do something "simply because he's a tribal member"
Disagreement on policy, or interpretation of policy, isn't congruent with hatred, or racism. Although it can easily, and understandably be perceived that way.
Post by: jackelope on August 27, 2018, 09:16:35 AM
If it was a state draw tag that was drawn I might consider helping someone regardless of who they were if I was asked.... However a tag like this that there was no input from the wdfw or regard for the welfare of the sheep herd and the effect it will have on the rest of us hopeful sheep hunters that would like to draw a swakane sheep tag someday….no I would not.. Not about it being a Yakama hunter but the process that was used to give out those tags that I don't agree with..
I'm with this guy.
Post by: Chiefbigbul on August 27, 2018, 09:18:04 AM
Post by: jackelope on August 27, 2018, 09:19:34 AM
Well thanks for the input, I'm being told both guys that got drew have very busy schedules and they would prob want to know the answer to a question like that. So thank you guys.
They should have no trouble finding a legal sheep to shoot assuming they're willing to put forth a little effort.
Post by: Chiefbigbul on August 27, 2018, 09:22:54 AM
Post by: Oh Mah on August 27, 2018, 09:28:09 AM
Post by: jackelope on August 27, 2018, 10:05:26 AM
It sucks but i'm gonna throw this out anyway,Realize this.If they wanted to they could have just made it open season on the herd with no draw.It sucks but it could be worse.
I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking when I say I'm just looking for some willingness to collaborate with the state to help preserve our big game animals...especially animals like the sheep in the Swakane that are vulnerable and high profile.
I'm genuinely curious to know if the 2 guys that drew the tags are interested in shooting the first legal sheep they see to fill the freezer or if they're going to hunt for a trophy sized ram.
I'm also curious to know if the tribe can sell these tags.
Post by: Oh Mah on August 27, 2018, 10:10:07 AM
Post by: Chiefbigbul on August 27, 2018, 10:13:52 AM
Post by: Chiefbigbul on August 27, 2018, 10:15:51 AM
Post by: Jpmiller on August 27, 2018, 10:43:25 AM
Post by: Chiefbigbul on August 27, 2018, 11:00:58 AM
Post by: Chiefbigbul on August 27, 2018, 11:05:55 AM
Post by: Tbar on August 27, 2018, 11:09:04 AM
So at this point in time, is it safe to say you are anti tribal hunting (or sugar coat it and say you don't agree).If it was a state draw tag that was drawn I might consider helping someone regardless of who they were if I was asked.... However a tag like this that there was no input from the wdfw or regard for the welfare of the sheep herd and the effect it will have on the rest of us hopeful sheep hunters that would like to draw a swakane sheep tag someday….no I would not.. Not about it being a Yakama hunter but the process that was used to give out those tags that I don't agree with..
I'm with this guy.
Post by: jackelope on August 27, 2018, 11:13:50 AM
No I think how it goes is If a Native shoots an animal with big antlers he is no longer a hunter he's a savage, But if a non native shoots a 350 plus with a State Tag he is a Sportsman, And if you buy fuel and Tobacco from a Native the State calls that illegal, but if you drive across the border Oregon and Idaho and get it for cheaper your also a Sportsman or Law abiding citizen. IDK as long as you keep the Native poor on this reservation you did your job. And I think "filling the freezer" means with huckleberry's and roots.
My question comes from what I thought was the reasoning for these hunts. The need to fill the freezer...provide sustenance. Provide meat for a ceremony. There's a lot of good reasons for these hunts... I totally get that and respect it fully when it happens the way it's supposed to. Mostly my concern stems from the tribal members who are out shooting multiple, some might even say "Several", large branch antlered bull elk per year and then say that they are putting meat together for a ceremony or something along those lines. Then you see the heads entered for scoring at the local outdoor expo's for scoring, we hear about them selling the heads to taxidermists and then you see them advertising elk jerky for sale on Facebook or on Craigslist. For some reason these guys can't shoot cow elk to supply the meat for the ceremonies. There seems to be a need for them to shoot trophy bulls. I'm not trying to lump you all together and place the blame on the entire tribe. I know there's a few bad eggs, but those bad eggs are what cause me to wonder and ask the question. Do you blame me for wondering?
Post by: jackelope on August 27, 2018, 11:14:49 AM
So at this point in time, is it safe to say you are anti tribal hunting (or sugar coat it and say you don't agree).If it was a state draw tag that was drawn I might consider helping someone regardless of who they were if I was asked.... However a tag like this that there was no input from the wdfw or regard for the welfare of the sheep herd and the effect it will have on the rest of us hopeful sheep hunters that would like to draw a swakane sheep tag someday….no I would not.. Not about it being a Yakama hunter but the process that was used to give out those tags that I don't agree with..
I'm with this guy.
I'm not anti tribal hunting. Per the question asked:
Quote
I would not be interested in helping a tribal Swakane sheep hunter.Just wondering, If you knew a Yakama that drew the Swakane Tag would you help him scout if asked or would you want no part of it? Just seems like a good opportunity for someone to go at least look at some beautiful animals in there. Or would you not help a tribal member simply because he's a tribal member? Just a question.
Post by: jackelope on August 27, 2018, 11:16:27 AM
LOL sorry seen an opening had to take it. But I agree with you on big antlers, don't really know how to answer you question without getting attacked. I'm pretty sure if a warrior had a big woman back when buffalo were around He prob shot a big bull so he could cover her butt up with a Buffalo robe. Thats bout the best I can help with that one. lol
I don't mean my questions to come across as an attack. Sorry if they did. I'm not here to attack anyone. I do have questions though, and they've been asked before and don't ever seem to get answered.
Post by: Chiefbigbul on August 27, 2018, 11:33:05 AM
Post by: jackelope on August 27, 2018, 11:45:29 AM
Well it would be like me saying why would we answer you question cause we don't know if you guys are involved with the "kill'em all boys" in anyway. The state already grants you guys 10 times more tags for Elk and Deer than we kill in 10yrs of hunting. Yes I understand you mean no harm by your question, but i've had to kill a bull before cause he was wounded during your guys seasons and wasn't going to live anyway, or a cow elk with it's jaw shot off and couldn't eat. And yes I understand you question, why not shoot cows if your going to sell jerkey, IDK I don't sell jerkey and couldn't answer that question. But remember, the same people frustrating you are most likely the same people frustrating us on the Rez, cause they follow you or hear where your shot your animal an their there the next day. They just go your way cause the Bulls on the rez are 10x smarter (cause there pressured all year).
I guess my biggest question is why does the tribe not do anything about it if it's frustrating? Or maybe it's only frustrating to folks like you and Plat and not to the folks in charge of tribal hunting. Do you guys ever hear of the tribe wanting or trying to do anything about it?
I guess I don't expect you to have all the answers and I appreciate you participating in the discussion. Your forum handle says you're the chief though so...I asked
:chuckle:
Post by: jackelope on August 27, 2018, 11:46:13 AM
@TbarSo at this point in time, is it safe to say you are anti tribal hunting (or sugar coat it and say you don't agree).If it was a state draw tag that was drawn I might consider helping someone regardless of who they were if I was asked.... However a tag like this that there was no input from the wdfw or regard for the welfare of the sheep herd and the effect it will have on the rest of us hopeful sheep hunters that would like to draw a swakane sheep tag someday….no I would not.. Not about it being a Yakama hunter but the process that was used to give out those tags that I don't agree with..
I'm with this guy.
Are you willing to assist a Yakama tribal hunter in the Swakane on a sheep hunt?
Here's the original question.
Just wondering, If you knew a Yakama that drew the Swakane Tag would you help him scout if asked or would you want no part of it? Just seems like a good opportunity for someone to go at least look at some beautiful animals in there. Or would you not help a tribal member simply because he's a tribal member? Just a question.
Post by: Chiefbigbul on August 27, 2018, 12:17:04 PM
Post by: Chiefbigbul on August 27, 2018, 12:18:47 PM
Post by: Chiefbigbul on August 27, 2018, 12:21:16 PM
Post by: Oh Mah on August 27, 2018, 12:23:27 PM
HYPOCRITE,I THINK NOT.
Post by: Rainier10 on August 27, 2018, 12:26:07 PM
Okay Jackelope, What if I said I had the SWAKANE TAG and am willing to compensate you to find me the biggest bighorn on Swakane Canyon what would you say?That would be a ton of sheep tags represented here. Time said he drew a ram tag and Whitefoot said he drew ewe tag. If you drew the Swakane tag that would be the trifecta.
Post by: Chiefbigbul on August 27, 2018, 12:27:24 PM
Post by: Chiefbigbul on August 27, 2018, 12:29:09 PM
Post by: Rainier10 on August 27, 2018, 12:32:42 PM
That doesnt really answer his question.Yes it is All of the tribes land to hunt,It is also all of the tribes game to hunt and if a few are abusing it then ALL of the tribe suffers.The tribe has it's own gov. The question is why doesnt the tribal gov. do something about this abuse by its members so that ALL of the tribe doesn't lose it's game animals.The tribe is a huge part of the conservation of game nation wide,This seems like a very important question and should be answered if not to us non tribal then to the tribal members themselves.I am guessing that the tribe has the same struggles with their abusers as WDFW has with the non native abusers, the "kill'em all boys" and those like them. I would be willing to be there is just as much overharvest going on by non natives as there is by natives. Just last fall 7 cows and calves were shot and left to rot in the colockum and there was likely more that ran off wounded to die.
HYPOCRITE,I THINK NOT.
Post by: Rainier10 on August 27, 2018, 12:36:10 PM
ewe tags are all on the reservation, idk the last time somebody has even seen that heard. lol. Nobody shoots them i know that.I don't think either Time or Whitefoot said where their tags were good for, they just said that they each had one, Time a ram tag and Whitefoot a ewe tag I believe. It's farther back at the beginning of this thread.
So do you have the swakane tag?
If so you should have no problem filling the tag. There are a few really big sheep in there and a bunch of big sheep in there. I personally would be happy with a big sheep and since I am not a sheep guy I am not sure I would be able to tell if one was really big or just big if it was alone on the hillside.
Post by: jackelope on August 27, 2018, 12:36:45 PM
Okay Jackelope, What if I said I had the SWAKANE TAG and am willing to compensate you to find me the biggest bighorn on Swakane Canyon what would you say?
Negative, sir. This isn't about money for me.
Post by: Chiefbigbul on August 27, 2018, 12:39:35 PM
Post by: Chiefbigbul on August 27, 2018, 12:41:18 PM
Post by: jackelope on August 27, 2018, 12:48:14 PM
Post by: baker5150 on August 27, 2018, 12:50:48 PM
I don't have the TAG but was interested to know. I would help anybody who asked me, because they will never get the opportunity again.
It the tribe issued tag an OIL tag?
Plat said he has filled it more than once.
Post by: huntnphool on August 27, 2018, 12:52:38 PM
Post by: Oh Mah on August 27, 2018, 12:53:23 PM
Post by: huntnphool on August 27, 2018, 12:54:04 PM
I don't have the TAG but was interested to know. I would help anybody who asked me, because they will never get the opportunity again.
It the tribe issued tag an OIL tag?
Plat said he has filled it more than once.
Another great question.
Post by: Oh Mah on August 27, 2018, 12:54:33 PM
It used to be every 5 years but 2 years ago it dropped to 3 yrs. Success rates are low and I've been fortunate to draw twice in last decade.
Post by: jackelope on August 27, 2018, 12:55:19 PM
I don't have the TAG but was interested to know. I would help anybody who asked me, because they will never get the opportunity again.
It the tribe issued tag an OIL tag?
Plat said he has filled it more than once.
They can apply every 3 years. It's posted in the opening thread on the flyer.
Post by: Chiefbigbul on August 27, 2018, 01:06:59 PM
Post by: Chiefbigbul on August 27, 2018, 01:08:46 PM
Post by: huntnphool on August 27, 2018, 01:11:17 PM
Ya, well you helping a Native with zero resentment would have been a great start and maybe that Native had a lot of family and could have helped you come to your conclusion with tribal counsel. But obviously your a person who only wants things his way and you only see it your way, like I stated before why would the Yakama Nation ever work with the State of Washington? We are their scapegoat to mismanage funds in their government, then people jump on forums and believe the stuff. And your state game department cares? They sold 93,167 elk tags just during General Season state wide. Thats crazy! with a 7.8% success rate, thats more animals that the Yakama will take in 8-10years. It's amazing the amount of shame you send our way, and thats with zero poaching rates included. So really instead of being part of the answer you would choose to keep blaming us? or our management of animals. Don't really know what to tell you sir.
You are serious? :DOH:
Post by: jackelope on August 27, 2018, 01:24:27 PM
Ya, well you helping a Native with zero resentment would have been a great start and maybe that Native had a lot of family and could have helped you come to your conclusion with tribal counsel. But obviously your a person who only wants things his way and you only see it your way, like I stated before why would the Yakama Nation ever work with the State of Washington? We are their scapegoat to mismanage funds in their government, then people jump on forums and believe the stuff. And your state game department cares? They sold 93,167 elk tags just during General Season state wide. Thats crazy! with a 7.8% success rate, thats more animals that the Yakama will take in 8-10years. It's amazing the amount of shame you send our way, and thats with zero poaching rates included. So really instead of being part of the answer you would choose to keep blaming us? or our management of animals. Don't really know what to tell you sir.
Wow. Not the kind of response I was expecting. I think you either totally missed what I was trying to say or maybe you read it wrong or something. No shame was intended. My thought process was that maybe the tribe would care enough about sheep to consider the herds and not just what comes across as the tribe not giving a crap about the herd.
Please explain how me helping a tribal hunter find a ram to shoot would be a step towards anything changing in the tribe?
I'm not thinking about me at all, hence the suggestion/idea that the state would drop their tag numbers to accommodate for your tribal tags if you had offered up any collaboration. I'd love to kill a sheep some day.
I've applied 7years and still haven't got one. In any unit. can hunt an ewe on the rez.I'm at 10 years and no tag and I can't just go shoot a ewe anywhere. I wouldn't do that though either, because I don't agree that it's good for the herd unless there's an overpopulation issue somewhere. With all the sheep flu issues and other wild sheep health issues there have been in the past, I'll commit to leaving the ewes alone.
Post by: meatwhack on August 27, 2018, 01:28:56 PM
Ya, well you helping a Native with zero resentment would have been a great start and maybe that Native had a lot of family and could have helped you come to your conclusion with tribal counsel. But obviously your a person who only wants things his way and you only see it your way, like I stated before why would the Yakama Nation ever work with the State of Washington? We are their scapegoat to mismanage funds in their government, then people jump on forums and believe the stuff. And your state game department cares? They sold 93,167 elk tags just during General Season state wide. Thats crazy! with a 7.8% success rate, thats more animals that the Yakama will take in 8-10years. It's amazing the amount of shame you send our way, and thats with zero poaching rates included. So really instead of being part of the answer you would choose to keep blaming us? or our management of animals. Don't really know what to tell you sir.
If you want to compare apples to apples you have to look at hunter numbers and harvest rates in the ceded lands that the Yakama tribe can hunt not the entire state. If you just compared what most would consider trophy deer and elk in a few units I’d venture to bet the kill numbers would be similar for native vs non native. I believe the reason for this would be the season and weapon restriction differences between the two. I’m not sure how anyone can justify having an unregulated open season on elk in September with a rifle or mule deer in November and December other than the desire for trophy hunting. I wouldn’t say there’s anything wrong with trophy hunting but it’s definitely a far cry from the subsistence hunting that was in the treaties in my opinion.
Post by: idahohuntr on August 27, 2018, 01:36:19 PM
Also, per an earlier question the Yakamas cannot sell a swakane tag to a non tribal member or any other off reservation hunt. They could sell hunts and tags to non members on reservation lands if they so choose.
As far as all the questions about non tribal help on a sheep hunt...is that legal under Yakama rule/law? I know the Nez Perce have a law that prohibits non members from accompanying or assisting on hunts unless the non member season is also open and they have a tag.
Post by: meatwhack on August 27, 2018, 01:47:20 PM
Treaties don't limit harvest by what kind of animal is taken or how the animal will be used...if at all.
Also, per an earlier question the Yakamas cannot sell a swakane tag to a non tribal member or any other off reservation hunt. They could sell hunts and tags to non members on reservation lands if they so choose.
As far as all the questions about non tribal help on a sheep hunt...is that legal under Yakama rule/law? I know the Nez Perce have a law that prohibits non members from accompanying or assisting on hunts unless the non member season is also open and they have a tag.
You’re correct in that treaties don’t limit harvest but I believe where the rub comes from most people is the subsistence hunting portion. I guess my interpretation of what is required for subsistence is vastly different than some. The other issue is that the harvest rate has been controlled in some areas by WDFW to create what most would say better hunting if you can draw a permit and a more diversified age structure in the herds. That has also created exceptional hunting for tribal members which is great but for it to continue I really feel it should be managed and somewhat limited but I’m sure that’ll never happen.
Post by: huntnphool on August 27, 2018, 01:48:23 PM
Treaties don't limit harvest by what kind of animal is taken or how the animal will be used...if at all.
IIRC, the original context to which this has been spun away from was the numerous threads in the past, where the excuse for several of these "hunts" posted by tribe members was "ceremonial" or "sustenance". The question asked by a few here have been why not cows, ewes or doe rather than head gear?
Valid questions that "never really" ;) get answered directly, but conveniently spun.
Post by: PlateauNDN on August 27, 2018, 01:50:01 PM
Post by: B4noon on August 27, 2018, 02:01:04 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on August 27, 2018, 02:01:42 PM
They don't need an "Excuse". They have a treaty right to hunt on all open and unclaimed lands. The tribe may have wastage rules and other limitations...but there is no need for a tribe to explain their harvest or motivation to anyone. It could be they enjoy killing 400" bulls more than cows...its their right as guaranteed by treaty. I don't understand why people care about their motivations.Treaties don't limit harvest by what kind of animal is taken or how the animal will be used...if at all.
IIRC, the original context to which this has been spun away from was the numerous threads in the past, where the excuse for several of these "hunts" posted by tribe members was "ceremonial" or "sustenance". The question asked by a few here have been why not cows, ewes or doe rather than head gear?
Valid questions that "never really" ;) get answered directly, but conveniently spun.
Post by: Oh Mah on August 27, 2018, 02:05:49 PM
Do you agree that the tribes were thought of and were protected by the U.S CONSTITUTION or do you still think i'm just some uneducated person looking for an argument?Just for the record Dano,Only the person that is wrong is arguing.
Post by: meatwhack on August 27, 2018, 02:18:30 PM
Regardless of where you stand on this topic one thing we can all agree on is the greedy Jack's that are robbing all of us of resources on both tribal and non tribal side all have one thing in common their lazy opportunist and take the easy prize. Rather then continue to try and figure a comanagment that neither side will be happy with simply gate roads. If the abusers on either side want to decimate herds they can work for it instead of easy access and opportunity. Most poachers and abusers aren't going to hike 500 yds much less a mile or 2 and certainly will have a hard time sneaking out multiple animals in a single trip. Push for road closure everyone wins except the greedy lazy ones. All species will benefit and opportunity will continue to improve for. All that choose to hunt and gather from a subsistence or sporting lifestyle. I am non tribal and my family identifies as sporting subsistence we hunt for fun family and food
For hunting purposes the idea of gating roads and limiting access is great. From a recreational standpoint I’d say it’s not so great. Public land is used for a lot more than hunting so I’m not sure limiting or restricting access to it would be the best move.
Post by: Chiefbigbul on August 27, 2018, 02:47:31 PM
Post by: Oh Mah on August 27, 2018, 02:50:47 PM
WHAT SAY YOU CHIEFBIGBULL?
Post by: jackelope on August 27, 2018, 02:55:16 PM
I don't have the question.I gave the answer.It was said that the Constitution of the United States had nothing to do with Native Americans or the protection of Native Americans and their rights.
WHAT SAY YOU CHIEFBIGBULL?
(read his signature line)
Post by: Oh Mah on August 27, 2018, 02:56:26 PM
I don't have the question.I gave the answer.It was said that the Constitution of the United States had nothing to do with Native Americans or the protection of Native Americans and their rights.:chuckle: Yes sir,That's why i said it.
WHAT SAY YOU CHIEFBIGBULL?
(read his signature line)
Post by: Odell on August 27, 2018, 02:56:35 PM
. Push for road closure everyone wins except the greedy lazy ones.
Except old people, disabled people, kids, new hunters...etc. Fit and dedicated hunters might win. But that's a small percentage of who actually hunts and we can't afford to lose the majority of the few remaining hunters there are.
Close the roads in the winter I would agree with that.
Post by: Chiefbigbul on August 27, 2018, 03:08:28 PM
Post by: Oh Mah on August 27, 2018, 03:11:29 PM
Post by: Chiefbigbul on August 27, 2018, 03:13:14 PM
Post by: Oh Mah on August 27, 2018, 03:14:57 PM
i just like reading different views, but i agree with B4noons post you can tell he see's it like hunters should look at it.:DOH:
Post by: Oh Mah on August 27, 2018, 03:18:20 PM
Ya, well you helping a Native with zero resentment would have been a great start and maybe that Native had a lot of family and could have helped you come to your conclusion with tribal counsel. But obviously your a person who only wants things his way and you only see it your way, like I stated before why would the Yakama Nation ever work with the State of Washington? We are their scapegoat to mismanage funds in their government, then people jump on forums and believe the stuff. And your state game department cares? They sold 93,167 elk tags just during General Season state wide. Thats crazy! with a 7.8% success rate, thats more animals that the Yakama will take in 8-10years. It's amazing the amount of shame you send our way, and thats with zero poaching rates included. So really instead of being part of the answer you would choose to keep blaming us? or our management of animals. Don't really know what to tell you sir.This is not just reading different views,This is engaging in conversation.Now were you taught that the Constitution had nothing to do with Native Americans or not?
Post by: PlateauNDN on August 27, 2018, 03:22:15 PM
I never heard of anything from you plat or Dano on the link i posted about the Constitution.Whats up? :chuckle: I mean you were both able to ridicule me even after(neither read it) but no response now?Plat you even asked for a source.
Do you agree that the tribes were thought of and were protected by the U.S CONSTITUTION or do you still think i'm just some uneducated person looking for an argument?Just for the record Dano,Only the person that is wrong is arguing.
Oh my bad, I forgot I'm supposed to be on your schedule when replying.
I read it and it does provide insight into the methodology of the US Govts plans for indoctrination, assimilation and a lack of extermination on the Govts part.
I got a public education and thru that education and thru that as well as learning from my elders that the goal is and has continued to be our assimilation and eradication.
The supreme law of the land? Fed govt exclusivity? If that were the case then the State should drop its cases against our business on our reservation.
But it continues to bring case after case and continues to exert jurisdiction on issues that are our business.
I will say I was taught that yes, I was taught the US govt has and will continue to push assimilation and will continue its pursuit of that fact.
Post by: Chiefbigbul on August 27, 2018, 03:22:45 PM
Post by: Oh Mah on August 27, 2018, 03:34:05 PM
lol that's funny,your schedule :chuckle: you replied 4 times twice to me 1 time about sources all after i put the link in place. Deflect much?Chiefbigbull_As stated earlier by another your signature says it all my question to you was actually rhetorical.I never heard of anything from you plat or Dano on the link i posted about the Constitution.Whats up? :chuckle: I mean you were both able to ridicule me even after(neither read it) but no response now?Plat you even asked for a source.
Do you agree that the tribes were thought of and were protected by the U.S CONSTITUTION or do you still think i'm just some uneducated person looking for an argument?Just for the record Dano,Only the person that is wrong is arguing.
Oh my bad, I forgot I'm supposed to be on your schedule when replying.
I read it and it does provide insight into the methodology of the US Govts plans for indoctrination, assimilation and a lack of extermination on the Govts part.
I got a public education and thru that education and thru that as well as learning from my elders that the goal is and has continued to be our assimilation and eradication.
The supreme law of the land? Fed govt exclusivity? If that were the case then the State should drop its cases against our business on our reservation.
But it continues to bring case after case and continues to exert jurisdiction on issues that are our business.
I will say I was taught that yes, I was taught the US govt has and will continue to push assimilation and will continue its pursuit of that fact.
Why use it as a signature if its not your idea of what was meant.
Post by: Chiefbigbul on August 27, 2018, 03:48:30 PM
Post by: PlateauNDN on August 27, 2018, 04:29:58 PM
I grew up learning in school how great the US treated us Tribes and how great it was that we were saved. As i grew older and started listening and learning from my elders I began to understand what had occurred in generations past.
I would listen to the stories and understand from their point of view the history we have had here.
So believe what you want because no amount of opinion will change my point of view.
Post by: jackelope on August 27, 2018, 05:49:33 PM
Thanks.
Post by: Oh Mah on August 27, 2018, 05:57:56 PM
Post by: h20hunter on August 27, 2018, 06:33:45 PM
Removed
Post by: jackelope on August 27, 2018, 06:39:29 PM
Post by: Tbar on August 27, 2018, 07:01:23 PM
In a heartbeat!@TbarSo at this point in time, is it safe to say you are anti tribal hunting (or sugar coat it and say you don't agree).If it was a state draw tag that was drawn I might consider helping someone regardless of who they were if I was asked.... However a tag like this that there was no input from the wdfw or regard for the welfare of the sheep herd and the effect it will have on the rest of us hopeful sheep hunters that would like to draw a swakane sheep tag someday….no I would not.. Not about it being a Yakama hunter but the process that was used to give out those tags that I don't agree with..
I'm with this guy.
Are you willing to assist a Yakama tribal hunter in the Swakane on a sheep hunt?
Here's the original question.Just wondering, If you knew a Yakama that drew the Swakane Tag would you help him scout if asked or would you want no part of it? Just seems like a good opportunity for someone to go at least look at some beautiful animals in there. Or would you not help a tribal member simply because he's a tribal member? Just a question.
Post by: Dan-o on August 27, 2018, 07:03:25 PM
Just wondering, If you knew a Yakama that drew the Swakane Tag would you help him scout if asked or would you want no part of it? Just seems like a good opportunity for someone to go at least look at some beautiful animals in there. Or would you not help a tribal member simply because he's a tribal member? Just a question.
My answer: If a Yakama drew a legal tag (and tribal tags ARE absolutely legal), I'd be as likely to help them as a nontribal person who drew a tag.
At least 2 tribal members have given me help on past tags.
There are a lot of great people on this site, and I've tried to help many. Just as many (including some Tribal members) have helped me.
Post by: Tbar on August 27, 2018, 07:04:21 PM
Post by: PlateauNDN on August 27, 2018, 07:04:55 PM
In a heartbeat!@TbarSo at this point in time, is it safe to say you are anti tribal hunting (or sugar coat it and say you don't agree).If it was a state draw tag that was drawn I might consider helping someone regardless of who they were if I was asked.... However a tag like this that there was no input from the wdfw or regard for the welfare of the sheep herd and the effect it will have on the rest of us hopeful sheep hunters that would like to draw a swakane sheep tag someday….no I would not.. Not about it being a Yakama hunter but the process that was used to give out those tags that I don't agree with..
I'm with this guy.
Are you willing to assist a Yakama tribal hunter in the Swakane on a sheep hunt?
Here's the original question.Just wondering, If you knew a Yakama that drew the Swakane Tag would you help him scout if asked or would you want no part of it? Just seems like a good opportunity for someone to go at least look at some beautiful animals in there. Or would you not help a tribal member simply because he's a tribal member? Just a question.
@Chiefbigbul I may provide info, tactics or assistance if I knew who drew the Swakane permits? Not saying in a sheep expert but I do have a ton of experience. :chuckle:
Post by: Oh Mah on August 27, 2018, 07:09:55 PM
Sustenance can be anything that a person needs to survive in this world and meat, hides, horn art etc. are all bartering tools for other things needed like milk,bread,eggs and most important clothing.So it should not be injected in these topics. :twocents:
Post by: baker5150 on August 27, 2018, 07:30:32 PM
Yes i was taught all of these things, we actually lived our life through the treaty, also we were forced to read the treaty articles along with the treaty notes. the notes tell a different story, i have actually seen the original treaty in WASHINGTON DC. But do I believe the United States meant to include us- definitely not. Do I belive we had great chiefs and people that helped negotiate the treaty of 1855, yes I do. There had to be people at the treaty negotaitions that new this and were on our side.
Are the treaty articles and notes available online for me to read?
Or do you know where I could find them?
Post by: meatwhack on August 27, 2018, 07:34:03 PM
Do you think it would be beneficial or detrimental to the wildlife if WDFW adopted the tribes rules and regulations as it pertains to hunting for all GMU’s on ceded lands?
Post by: meatwhack on August 27, 2018, 07:56:14 PM
But is it known where the money from sales go?I mean it could be funding 30 peoples needs (sustenance) for the year.Toiletry,clothes,milk,bread who knows?
Just curious what your definition of sustenance is. The way I understand the definition wouldn’t have anything to do with selling or bartering items.
Post by: jackelope on August 27, 2018, 07:58:10 PM
Post by: Timberstalker on August 27, 2018, 08:01:46 PM
Post by: sagerat on August 27, 2018, 08:18:43 PM
Not only would I help, I would use all the tools in my toolbox to find the animal that humbles us. Which usually equates to at the minimum a mature representation of the species.
Tbar, are you Native American?
Post by: sagerat on August 27, 2018, 08:19:26 PM
I’ve got a hypothetical question for a tribal member if they care to answer.
Do you think it would be beneficial or detrimental to the wildlife if WDFW adopted the tribes rules and regulations as it pertains to hunting for all GMU’s on ceded lands?
Good question
Post by: baker5150 on August 27, 2018, 08:42:57 PM
I’ve got a hypothetical question for a tribal member if they care to answer.
Do you think it would be beneficial or detrimental to the wildlife if WDFW adopted the tribes rules and regulations as it pertains to hunting for all GMU’s on ceded lands?
Good question
:rolleyes:
We’ve been here. This isn’t progress, this is repetition and therefore pointless and uncivil.
Having a civil and factual conversation is more important than trying to prove a point we all know the answer to.
Post by: Whitenuckles on August 27, 2018, 08:52:35 PM
Let's work together and figure out a better way! If we dont, our kids won't be able to hunt with their kids. Hunting privileges will be locked up in courts. No one wants that!
One day, maybe a far distant day, we will all be the same and have the same rights to our natural resources. Buy it's not coming soon! We should work for a solution now before it's to late :twocents:
Post by: meatwhack on August 27, 2018, 09:03:07 PM
I’ve got a hypothetical question for a tribal member if they care to answer.
Do you think it would be beneficial or detrimental to the wildlife if WDFW adopted the tribes rules and regulations as it pertains to hunting for all GMU’s on ceded lands?
Good question
I’m confused how asking a question like that is uncivil or unfactual. I’m trying to better understand the logic and reasoning behind the management practices other than because it’s our right so we hunt and kill what we want.
:rolleyes:
We’ve been here. This isn’t progress, this is repetition and therefore pointless and uncivil.
Having a civil and factual conversation is more important than trying to prove a point we all know the answer to.
Post by: Chiefbigbul on August 27, 2018, 09:42:51 PM
Post by: sled on August 27, 2018, 09:52:00 PM
Come on guys.... let's not hate. Tribes have their say in this world as do we. The real question is how do we all get on the same page? Hating each other us not going to do any good. We all agree that tribes kill too much, but on the other hand "white man" poaches too.you are wrong. I have lots of hate. Not against people but regulations. Only way we will be on the same page is to start following the same regulations for all. At this point I’m all in with the yakama regs for everyone!
Let's work together and figure out a better way! If we dont, our kids won't be able to hunt with their kids. Hunting privileges will be locked up in courts. No one wants that!
One day, maybe a far distant day, we will all be the same and have the same rights to our natural resources. Buy it's not coming soon! We should work for a solution now before it's to late :twocents:
Post by: sled on August 27, 2018, 09:53:45 PM
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: Meatwhack thats not a hypothetical question!!! You know what would happen, look what happened to the Buffalo. That question is almost like oh mah asking me if I believe the United States meant to protect all Native treaty's through the Constitution. The Constitution was signed in 1789 and the Treaty's were signed all post 1850's :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :IBCOOL:legalized poaching doesn’t count.
Post by: Chiefbigbul on August 27, 2018, 10:09:06 PM
Post by: Romulus1297 on August 27, 2018, 10:14:27 PM
Post by: tlbradford on August 28, 2018, 07:00:40 AM
Back to the sheep - In my opinion, and it is just mine, the tribes need to be partners with WDFW on the establishment, maintenance, and growth of the herds, or they should not have a right to any of the harvest of those animals. Tribes are taking active rolls in fisheries and for the most part cooperating with WDFW, so why can't they do the same where hunting is concerned.
Post by: baker5150 on August 28, 2018, 08:11:43 AM
Yes i was taught all of these things, we actually lived our life through the treaty, also we were forced to read the treaty articles along with the treaty notes. the notes tell a different story, i have actually seen the original treaty in WASHINGTON DC. But do I believe the United States meant to include us- definitely not. Do I belive we had great chiefs and people that helped negotiate the treaty of 1855, yes I do. There had to be people at the treaty negotaitions that new this and were on our side.
Are the treaty articles and notes available online for me to read?
Or do you know where I could find them?
Any takers?
Post by: Oh Mah on August 28, 2018, 08:26:37 AM
https://www.fws.gov/pacific/ea/tribal/treaties/Yakima.pdf
Post by: Rainier10 on August 28, 2018, 08:30:35 AM
Post by: Oh Mah on August 28, 2018, 08:37:14 AM
https://www.ynwildlife.org/tribalhunting.php
Post by: jackelope on August 28, 2018, 08:38:31 AM
Post by: baker5150 on August 28, 2018, 12:50:22 PM
the treaty:
https://www.fws.gov/pacific/ea/tribal/treaties/Yakima.pdf
Ive read the treaty, I’m looking for the notes and minutes.
Post by: Bob33 on August 28, 2018, 01:06:45 PM
More fair warning. If your posts are not directly related to the tribal sheep permits, don't post it.
Post by: jackelope on August 28, 2018, 01:44:43 PM
It really doesn't get much more fairer.
Post by: meatwhack on August 28, 2018, 04:58:04 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on August 28, 2018, 05:11:32 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on August 28, 2018, 05:26:40 PM
On the bright side, maybe these tribal tags will drive auction tag prices down so low wdfw will stop selling wildlife to the high bidder.
Post by: baker5150 on August 28, 2018, 06:14:30 PM
Is the concern that 2 additional sheep tags in the swakane will put the herd at great risk? Or is the concern that trophy quality might slip, or someone who paid big money for a tag might have a little more competition? The only reason wdfw should get involved is if it's a legitimate risk to the herd.
On the bright side, maybe these tribal tags will drive auction tag prices down so low wdfw will stop selling wildlife to the high bidder.
WDFW should be involved regardless. It’s their job to manage the wildlife of this state, not just when there is risk to the herd.
Post by: jmscon on August 28, 2018, 06:21:06 PM
It seems that the Yakima tribe is getting the same number of tags as the ordinary citizens. Each user group is being treated the same.
Does anyone know for sure that WDFW was not consulted about this?
Post by: jackelope on August 28, 2018, 06:23:06 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on August 28, 2018, 06:33:01 PM
How should they be involved?Is the concern that 2 additional sheep tags in the swakane will put the herd at great risk? Or is the concern that trophy quality might slip, or someone who paid big money for a tag might have a little more competition? The only reason wdfw should get involved is if it's a legitimate risk to the herd.
On the bright side, maybe these tribal tags will drive auction tag prices down so low wdfw will stop selling wildlife to the high bidder.
WDFW should be involved regardless. It’s their job to manage the wildlife of this state, not just when there is risk to the herd.
Post by: jackelope on August 28, 2018, 06:44:51 PM
How should they be involved?Is the concern that 2 additional sheep tags in the swakane will put the herd at great risk? Or is the concern that trophy quality might slip, or someone who paid big money for a tag might have a little more competition? The only reason wdfw should get involved is if it's a legitimate risk to the herd.
On the bright side, maybe these tribal tags will drive auction tag prices down so low wdfw will stop selling wildlife to the high bidder.
WDFW should be involved regardless. It’s their job to manage the wildlife of this state, not just when there is risk to the herd.
Biology. Conservation. Management.
Maybe rather that should the WDFW be involved, a better question may be ... should there be some cooperation between the 2 agencies?
If I’m off base, please explain why. Or do you feel there is not a conservation aspect to it. Is there no risk for overharvest? If you don’t believe so, I’d like to understand your logic. Maybe your credentials that allow you to make that decision. You seem very sure and confident in that.
Otherwise you just look like you’re saying it’s ok to shoot 5 rams in there just because.
Post by: PlateauNDN on August 28, 2018, 06:52:05 PM
Post by: jackelope on August 28, 2018, 06:52:43 PM
I thought the State issued 2 tags? If so, it would be a total of 4 correct?
Auction tag makes 5.
Post by: jackelope on August 28, 2018, 06:53:41 PM
I thought the State issued 2 tags? If so, it would be a total of 4 correct?
Auction tag makes 5.
And to add to that, if we dropped to 1 tag, I think that eliminates the swakane from the auction tag hunts. So we drop to 1, you drop to 1 and everything is right in the world.
Post by: jackelope on August 28, 2018, 06:55:00 PM
(Insert passive aggressive sarcasm here)
Post by: PlateauNDN on August 28, 2018, 06:55:54 PM
I'd advocate for cooperation if the State would keep its nose out of the other major issues its sticking its nose in.
Post by: jackelope on August 28, 2018, 06:57:41 PM
My biggest issue goes beyond just the animals. I understand the conservation discussion and its importance, but compared to the politics involved between the State and Tribe this is menial.
I'd advocate for cooperation if the State would keep its nose out of the other major issues its sticking its nose in.
What are those other major issues?
Post by: MtnMuley on August 28, 2018, 07:28:13 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on August 28, 2018, 09:51:09 PM
I agree, cooperation between the state and tribe would be a positive. However, unless it is a conservation concern the state has no ability to intervene or engage the Yakamas on their sheep hunts. Sure, they can offer up what they know about sheep management, but I would also ask if the state has given the yakamas a seat at the table when planning the state sheep hunts and permit levels?How should they be involved?Is the concern that 2 additional sheep tags in the swakane will put the herd at great risk? Or is the concern that trophy quality might slip, or someone who paid big money for a tag might have a little more competition? The only reason wdfw should get involved is if it's a legitimate risk to the herd.
On the bright side, maybe these tribal tags will drive auction tag prices down so low wdfw will stop selling wildlife to the high bidder.
WDFW should be involved regardless. It’s their job to manage the wildlife of this state, not just when there is risk to the herd.
Biology. Conservation. Management.
Maybe rather that should the WDFW be involved, a better question may be ... should there be some cooperation between the 2 agencies?
If I’m off base, please explain why. Or do you feel there is not a conservation aspect to it. Is there no risk for overharvest? If you don’t believe so, I’d like to understand your logic. Maybe your credentials that allow you to make that decision. You seem very sure and confident in that.
Otherwise you just look like you’re saying it’s ok to shoot 5 rams in there just because.
Your concern about losing auction money is not justified imo. WDFW doesn't have a revenue problem, they have a spending problem. But your overall concern seems to be in regards to trophy quality and auction revenue...both of which are irrelevant (and insignificant) when stacked up to a tribe exercising a treaty right.
Post by: jackelope on August 28, 2018, 10:02:32 PM
I’m not sure how you can say “unless it’s a conservation concern.” What else would it be?I agree, cooperation between the state and tribe would be a positive. However, unless it is a conservation concern the state has no ability to intervene or engage the Yakamas on their sheep hunts. Sure, they can offer up what they know about sheep management, but I would also ask if the state has given the yakamas a seat at the table when planning the state sheep hunts and permit levels?How should they be involved?Is the concern that 2 additional sheep tags in the swakane will put the herd at great risk? Or is the concern that trophy quality might slip, or someone who paid big money for a tag might have a little more competition? The only reason wdfw should get involved is if it's a legitimate risk to the herd.
On the bright side, maybe these tribal tags will drive auction tag prices down so low wdfw will stop selling wildlife to the high bidder.
WDFW should be involved regardless. It’s their job to manage the wildlife of this state, not just when there is risk to the herd.
Biology. Conservation. Management.
Maybe rather that should the WDFW be involved, a better question may be ... should there be some cooperation between the 2 agencies?
If I’m off base, please explain why. Or do you feel there is not a conservation aspect to it. Is there no risk for overharvest? If you don’t believe so, I’d like to understand your logic. Maybe your credentials that allow you to make that decision. You seem very sure and confident in that.
Otherwise you just look like you’re saying it’s ok to shoot 5 rams in there just because.
Your concern about losing auction money is not justified imo. WDFW doesn't have a revenue problem, they have a spending problem. But your overall concern seems to be in regards to trophy quality and auction revenue...both of which are irrelevant (and insignificant) when stacked up to a tribe exercising a treaty right.
It’s time that both sides try to work together with seats at the table.
My overall concern has literally zero, zilch, nada to do with auction revenue. It has literally everything to do with preserving an amazing resource that is hard to come by anywhere else.
Post by: Oh Mah on August 28, 2018, 10:11:00 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on August 28, 2018, 10:13:15 PM
Only downside is we lose all that auction money that goes back to wild sheep. Which I guess is ok, because wdfw is overflowing with money to be spent on management.This is where I assumed your auction concern :dunno:
(Insert passive aggressive sarcasm here)
When I use the term conservation concern, I'm using it roughly the way I've read court rulings. The action must put the species in great peril for the state to have jurisdiction over a treaty tribe exercising a hunting right. Preserving a unique resource, such as trophy rams, is not a conservation concern that warrants or has the ability to impede a treaty right. If the sheep population will go extinct because of the 2 yakama tags, then it is a conservation concern...and if that's the case, the state can't discriminate against Indians in their regulation...meaning they would need to cut the state tags as well.
Post by: PlateauNDN on August 28, 2018, 10:28:11 PM
Only downside is we lose all that auction money that goes back to wild sheep. Which I guess is ok, because wdfw is overflowing with money to be spent on management.This is where I assumed your auction concern :dunno:
(Insert passive aggressive sarcasm here)
When I use the term conservation concern, I'm using it roughly the way I've read court rulings. The action must put the species in great peril for the state to have jurisdiction over a treaty tribe exercising a hunting right. Preserving a unique resource, such as trophy rams, is not a conservation concern that warrants or has the ability to impede a treaty right. If the sheep population will go extinct because of the 2 yakama tags, then it is a conservation concern...and if that's the case, the state can't discriminate against Indians in their regulation...meaning they would need to cut the state tags as well.
The only case that could be referenced is the green river watershed and the Mucks.
Unregulated over hunting of elk in that particular area led to the demise and almost complete extermination of the herd in there and the state won that case.
The difference is we are only distributing 2 permits. Theres no unregulated hunting of the sheep and if taking 1 without a permit is poaching for us. Penalties for that means losing hunting rights and not many hunters I know would risk that.
And I doubt wdfw would be ecstatic with opening a seat to the table. Heck, a hw member on here can speak about the attitudes of wdfw and tribal representatives.
Post by: Oh Mah on August 28, 2018, 11:15:51 PM
In your opinion why?
Post by: huntnphool on August 28, 2018, 11:26:34 PM
Only downside is we lose all that auction money that goes back to wild sheep. Which I guess is ok, because wdfw is overflowing with money to be spent on management.
(Insert passive aggressive sarcasm here)
Perfect time to announce the 15% price increase right?
https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,230156.msg3073459.html#msg3073459
Post by: jackson7 on August 29, 2018, 01:10:41 AM
I think you all deserve Kudos on keeping it together... :brew: Best, Jackson
Post by: grundy53 on August 29, 2018, 04:15:06 AM
I don't think he's saying he wants WDFW to take jurisdiction over the tribal hunt. He wants the tribe to voluntarily work with the WDFW or at least let them know their plans so the WDFW can adjust their numbers.Only downside is we lose all that auction money that goes back to wild sheep. Which I guess is ok, because wdfw is overflowing with money to be spent on management.This is where I assumed your auction concern :dunno:
(Insert passive aggressive sarcasm here)
When I use the term conservation concern, I'm using it roughly the way I've read court rulings. The action must put the species in great peril for the state to have jurisdiction over a treaty tribe exercising a hunting right. Preserving a unique resource, such as trophy rams, is not a conservation concern that warrants or has the ability to impede a treaty right. If the sheep population will go extinct because of the 2 yakama tags, then it is a conservation concern...and if that's the case, the state can't discriminate against Indians in their regulation...meaning they would need to cut the state tags as well.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: Time Immemorial 1855 on August 29, 2018, 06:11:19 AM
Post by: jackelope on August 29, 2018, 06:41:21 AM
How do you all know the state did not know about this? Seems like someone would've known
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180829/1719841182075f7250d5b797bca701fd.png)
Because the head guy that manages bighorn sheep, moose, Mountain goats and pronghorn antelope for the state told me so.
Post by: baker5150 on August 29, 2018, 07:21:30 AM
Only downside is we lose all that auction money that goes back to wild sheep. Which I guess is ok, because wdfw is overflowing with money to be spent on management.This is where I assumed your auction concern :dunno:
(Insert passive aggressive sarcasm here)
When I use the term conservation concern, I'm using it roughly the way I've read court rulings. The action must put the species in great peril for the state to have jurisdiction over a treaty tribe exercising a hunting right. Preserving a unique resource, such as trophy rams, is not a conservation concern that warrants or has the ability to impede a treaty right. If the sheep population will go extinct because of the 2 yakama tags, then it is a conservation concern...and if that's the case, the state can't discriminate against Indians in their regulation...meaning they would need to cut the state tags as well.
The state doesn't need to intervene, the two sides should have been working together on this.
If the tribe didn't give the state a heads up on this (which seams to be the case) then it's fairly obvious they don't care about the resource as much as they say they do. They only want "in common with" tag numbers.
Post by: baker5150 on August 29, 2018, 07:23:12 AM
My biggest issue goes beyond just the animals. I understand the conservation discussion and its importance, but compared to the politics involved between the State and Tribe this is menial.
I'd advocate for cooperation if the State would keep its nose out of the other major issues its sticking its nose in.
A separate agency or the WDFW?
Post by: jackelope on August 29, 2018, 07:59:09 AM
Only downside is we lose all that auction money that goes back to wild sheep. Which I guess is ok, because wdfw is overflowing with money to be spent on management.This is where I assumed your auction concern :dunno:
(Insert passive aggressive sarcasm here)
When I use the term conservation concern, I'm using it roughly the way I've read court rulings. The action must put the species in great peril for the state to have jurisdiction over a treaty tribe exercising a hunting right. Preserving a unique resource, such as trophy rams, is not a conservation concern that warrants or has the ability to impede a treaty right. If the sheep population will go extinct because of the 2 yakama tags, then it is a conservation concern...and if that's the case, the state can't discriminate against Indians in their regulation...meaning they would need to cut the state tags as well.
Sure there is a concern about the revenue that would be lost, but it's definitely not one of my overall, or top concerns. Regardless of what kind of revenue or spending problem the state has, the money generated by auctions and raffles is significant and without it, those specific species would be losing money.
My idea of a conservation concern and your idea of a conservation concern are 2 totally different things clearly. I'd rather not wait until the last minute to save or attempt to preserve a herd. Also, this isn't about regulations for me either. My comments on that topic are pretty much all angled at getting the tribe and the state to sit down and work together. I'm 99.9% sure little old me isn't going to make a difference there, but 100 little old me's or a thousand might. Hopefully one day, the 2 sides see the light and are able to work together.
Post by: jackelope on August 29, 2018, 08:19:15 AM
I don't think he's saying he wants WDFW to take jurisdiction over the tribal hunt. He wants the tribe to voluntarily work with the WDFW or at least let them know their plans so the WDFW can adjust their numbers.Only downside is we lose all that auction money that goes back to wild sheep. Which I guess is ok, because wdfw is overflowing with money to be spent on management.This is where I assumed your auction concern :dunno:
(Insert passive aggressive sarcasm here)
When I use the term conservation concern, I'm using it roughly the way I've read court rulings. The action must put the species in great peril for the state to have jurisdiction over a treaty tribe exercising a hunting right. Preserving a unique resource, such as trophy rams, is not a conservation concern that warrants or has the ability to impede a treaty right. If the sheep population will go extinct because of the 2 yakama tags, then it is a conservation concern...and if that's the case, the state can't discriminate against Indians in their regulation...meaning they would need to cut the state tags as well.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Thank you Grundy. I was beginning to think I was typing in some foreign language.
Post by: Rainier10 on August 29, 2018, 08:29:50 AM
I would like to think had the tribe told WDFW that they would be issuing two additional tags in that area that WDFW would have adjusted their tags down and hopefully the tribe would have also.
Taking out 4 of the biggest sheep this year is going to put a hurt on that herd and if the same number of tags are given out next year that is really going to lower the average age of rams. I just don't see that the herd can take the loss of 4 rams a year especially if you toss in the auction tag and loss from vehicle impacts. The fence is helping but isn't complete. Sheep still get lost to impacts with vehicles.
Post by: jackelope on August 29, 2018, 08:38:51 AM
:yeah:
I would like to think had the tribe told WDFW that they would be issuing two additional tags in that area that WDFW would have adjusted their tags down and hopefully the tribe would have also.
Taking out 4 of the biggest sheep this year is going to put a hurt on that herd and if the same number of tags are given out next year that is really going to lower the average age of rams. I just don't see that the herd can take the loss of 4 rams a year especially if you toss in the auction tag and loss from vehicle impacts. The fence is helping but isn't complete. Sheep still get lost to impacts with vehicles.
Lots of things to be considered here that aren't being considered...not just hunting permits. Road kill, winter kill, etc. There's a list...
Post by: idahohuntr on August 29, 2018, 08:40:06 AM
Has your buddy that is the head of sheep, moose, and goats ever proactively sat down with the Yakamas to discuss increases or changes in state harvest levels? That would have been a good way to get to the collaboration most of us would like to see. My point is, wdfw has no upper hand to force yakamas to the table.Only downside is we lose all that auction money that goes back to wild sheep. Which I guess is ok, because wdfw is overflowing with money to be spent on management.This is where I assumed your auction concern :dunno:
(Insert passive aggressive sarcasm here)
When I use the term conservation concern, I'm using it roughly the way I've read court rulings. The action must put the species in great peril for the state to have jurisdiction over a treaty tribe exercising a hunting right. Preserving a unique resource, such as trophy rams, is not a conservation concern that warrants or has the ability to impede a treaty right. If the sheep population will go extinct because of the 2 yakama tags, then it is a conservation concern...and if that's the case, the state can't discriminate against Indians in their regulation...meaning they would need to cut the state tags as well.
Sure there is a concern about the revenue that would be lost, but it's definitely not one of my overall, or top concerns. Regardless of what kind of revenue or spending problem the state has, the money generated by auctions and raffles is significant and without it, those specific species would be losing money.
My idea of a conservation concern and your idea of a conservation concern are 2 totally different things clearly. I'd rather not wait until the last minute to save or attempt to preserve a herd. Also, this isn't about regulations for me either. My comments on that topic are pretty much all angled at getting the tribe and the state to sit down and work together. I'm 99.9% sure little old me isn't going to make a difference there, but 100 little old me's or a thousand might. Hopefully one day, the 2 sides see the light and are able to work together.
Also, I'm not advocating we all wait until the sheep herd is on the brink of extinction in describing "conservation concern", I'm merely explaining the point at which wdfw has the ability to step in...that's just a fact supported by case law.
Once the wyoming crow tribe hunting case is settled in the Supreme Court next session I would predict more western states will start seeing the value of collaborating with tribes on harvest.
Post by: jackelope on August 29, 2018, 08:46:07 AM
Has your buddy that is the head of sheep, moose, and goats ever proactively sat down with the Yakamas to discuss increases or changes in state harvest levels? That would have been a good way to get to the collaboration most of us would like to see. My point is, wdfw has no upper hand to force yakamas to the table.Only downside is we lose all that auction money that goes back to wild sheep. Which I guess is ok, because wdfw is overflowing with money to be spent on management.This is where I assumed your auction concern :dunno:
(Insert passive aggressive sarcasm here)
When I use the term conservation concern, I'm using it roughly the way I've read court rulings. The action must put the species in great peril for the state to have jurisdiction over a treaty tribe exercising a hunting right. Preserving a unique resource, such as trophy rams, is not a conservation concern that warrants or has the ability to impede a treaty right. If the sheep population will go extinct because of the 2 yakama tags, then it is a conservation concern...and if that's the case, the state can't discriminate against Indians in their regulation...meaning they would need to cut the state tags as well.
Sure there is a concern about the revenue that would be lost, but it's definitely not one of my overall, or top concerns. Regardless of what kind of revenue or spending problem the state has, the money generated by auctions and raffles is significant and without it, those specific species would be losing money.
My idea of a conservation concern and your idea of a conservation concern are 2 totally different things clearly. I'd rather not wait until the last minute to save or attempt to preserve a herd. Also, this isn't about regulations for me either. My comments on that topic are pretty much all angled at getting the tribe and the state to sit down and work together. I'm 99.9% sure little old me isn't going to make a difference there, but 100 little old me's or a thousand might. Hopefully one day, the 2 sides see the light and are able to work together.
Also, I'm not advocating we all wait until the sheep herd is on the brink of extinction in describing "conservation concern", I'm merely explaining the point at which wdfw has the ability to step in...that's just a fact supported by case law.
Once the wyoming crow tribe hunting case is settled in the Supreme Court next session I would predict more western states will start seeing the value of collaborating with tribes on harvest.
He's not a buddy. He's just a guy who works for the WDFW. I went to their website, figured out who would know if anyone would know, and sent him an email.
I've never once insinuated or said anything to the effect that anyone should step in, take over, force anything. I've been suggesting over and over that it would be cool if the tribe and the state worked together. That is all. I could rephrase that and say it would be cool if the state and the tribe worked together...maybe by putting the word "tribe" in front of "state" in my sentence made it sound like I was saying the tribe should take the lead.
Post by: Rainier10 on August 29, 2018, 09:08:49 AM
I am not sure why in the past twenty years the WDFW would have talked to the Yakama's about sheep tags numbers or adjustments in the swakane unit. Why would they, the Yakama's haven't been sheep hunting there?
It seems fair to think that if the Yakama's decided that all of a sudden they are going to hunt a herd that the WDFW biologists think can only allow 2-3 rams to be harvested from they would say "hey, by the way we are going to double the number of sheep taken in that herd."
I would also like to think that if the WDFW decided to double the sheep tags in I don't know, let's say Clemen's mountain or the Quilomene that they would let them know that they were adjusting numbers.
Maybe the WDFW doesn't share with the tribe what their plan is for those herds but I would like to think they do.
Post by: boneaddict on August 29, 2018, 09:22:17 AM
Sure would be easier if one cohesive group made the decisions for wildlife in this state.
Post by: jackelope on August 29, 2018, 09:42:50 AM
Post by: PlateauNDN on August 29, 2018, 11:41:44 AM
Maybe if the state looked at the Tribe as a possible beneficial partner and not a hindrance or enemy and treated the Tribe as a governmental entity and not adversary then the possibility of cooperative management might be possible.
When an approach is equally and respectably done things can begin on a good footing, but when no approach is made and contempt or hostile attitudes are given why would anyone want to work with said agencies?
Post by: PlateauNDN on August 29, 2018, 11:43:10 AM
Post by: boneaddict on August 29, 2018, 11:45:12 AM
I've seen some wins such as the antelope, and sheep from Clemans to good habitat on the Colville.....so maybe there is hope.
Post by: jackelope on August 29, 2018, 11:49:42 AM
It does make sense, it does sound logical and that would be the right thing to do, buttttttt. Again, when does the State pick up the phone and make those introductions? They have not in the past and to my knowledge barely make efforts currently.
Maybe if the state looked at the Tribe as a possible beneficial partner and not a hindrance or enemy and treated the Tribe as a governmental entity and not adversary then the possibility of cooperative management might be possible.
When an approach is equally and respectably done things can begin on a good footing, but when no approach is made and contempt or hostile attitudes are given why would anyone want to work with said agencies?
@PlateauNDN
So I know you don't speak for the tribe, but do you think in your gut that if a WDFW biologist or species manager reached out to the tribe, the tribal game managers or bio's or whoever would be responsible for this kind of thing on your end would be willing to talk?
Post by: baker5150 on August 29, 2018, 11:54:34 AM
We've had successful cooperative management with other states and other groups involving animals but not this state or its agencies.
Does the Tribe have a Sheep biologist of some sort?
Post by: huntnphool on August 29, 2018, 12:03:46 PM
It does make sense, it does sound logical and that would be the right thing to do, buttttttt. Again, when does the State pick up the phone and make those introductions? They have not in the past and to my knowledge barely make efforts currently.
Here is the problem with this logic and why the tribe gets a black eye on this move. Clearly this was not a spur of the moment decision on the tribes part, they have been working on this for a while, yet didn't reach out to WDFW and let them know what they were going to do.....why?
WDFW clearly had no idea it was going to happen, and why would they? As previously posted, the tribes have not hunted sheep there in the past, so how would they know this was a issue?
IMO this is nothing more than the tribes giving WDFW and the citizens of this state the finger, "because they can".........but go ahead and point the blame at WDFW for not asking if this was going to happen before hand........again, how were they supposed to know? :twocents:
Post by: PlateauNDN on August 29, 2018, 12:10:52 PM
Yes
And correct. It had been in the making even before I made inquiries into it. Take it as you want. If it's a finger to the state then so be it. This state has given us more than a finger for nearly a century and still continues to do so. So why should we be the ones to initiate the dialog when we dont have to.
Post by: huntnphool on August 29, 2018, 12:12:49 PM
why should we be the ones to initiate the dialog when we dont have to.
And there it is in a nutshell!
Post by: grundy53 on August 29, 2018, 12:15:47 PM
YesFor the good of the sheep herd...
Yes
And correct. It had been in the making even before I made inquiries into it. Take it as you want. If it's a finger to the state then so be it. This state has given us more than a finger for nearly a century and still continues to do so. So why should we be the ones to initiate the dialog when we dont have to.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: PlateauNDN on August 29, 2018, 12:22:41 PM
Treat others how you want to be treated, guess the State never heard of that.
Post by: huntnphool on August 29, 2018, 12:26:04 PM
YesFor the good of the sheep herd...
Yes
And correct. It had been in the making even before I made inquiries into it. Take it as you want. If it's a finger to the state then so be it. This state has given us more than a finger for nearly a century and still continues to do so. So why should we be the ones to initiate the dialog when we dont have to.
Be damned!
Again, this was nothing more than the tribe telling WDFW and all of us to #>£€ off!
All the tribe had to do was let WDFW know what they wanted and planned to do if WDFW didn't cooperate with them. Then if WDFW chose to do nothing, and the tribe announced this, it would make WDFW look like the bad guys. Instead the tribe decided to flip everyone the bird, again......"because we don't have to".
Clearly they're not interested in any COopperative measures and don't give a rats backside about anybody but themselves.
Post by: PlateauNDN on August 29, 2018, 12:26:15 PM
No questions, warnings or explanation.
Post by: b0bbyg on August 29, 2018, 12:33:23 PM
why should we be the ones to initiate the dialog when we dont have to.
And there it is in a nutshell!
If neither side is reaching out neither has the moral high ground. :twocents:
My ignorant outside opinion is 2 sides wanted to hunt sheep and/or sell tags. Both did.
Would it be great if both sides started from a big picture conservation standpoint before setting limits - sure
Would it be great if everyone worked together and gets everything right the first time - you bet.
But that is not where we are, both sides have some bad apples lets quit trashing entire groups because of that.
Lots of good dialog and questions in this thread, lots more crap that the Mods have to keep warning us about.
So here we are almost no one is happy, what is a good path forward? What can we as a group or individuals do to help cause a better outcome.
I am not a sheep guy so don't understand the biology to give any suggestion other than I think you have to fix the problem from where you are currently at, not by bemoaning the fact we don't like how we got here.
Sorry for the ramble that kind of bounced around. Thanks to the ones from both sides that kept it civil so far, and to the Mods for letting it stay open and cleaning up where needed.
No on a side note.
From genealogy that a relative did I was told I am 1/16 Cherokee and 1/16 Blackfoot so that would be 1/8 native American. So I know this does not give me any full hunting rights but how about just a turkey :chuckle: They are less that 1/8 the size of an elk!
Post by: baker5150 on August 29, 2018, 12:35:45 PM
We've had successful cooperative management with other states and other groups involving animals but not this state or its agencies.
Does the Tribe have a Sheep biologist of some sort?
:dunno:
Post by: grundy53 on August 29, 2018, 12:39:28 PM
Let's see a show of hands of how many would just let the state show up and do what they want, when they want and how they want on your property.First of all. No one is suggesting that. Not even close. So quit building straw men. Second of all. It's not your property. It's ceded land not the reservation.
No questions, warnings or explanation.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: grundy53 on August 29, 2018, 12:41:39 PM
Let's see a show of hands of how many would just let the state show up and do what they want, when they want and how they want on your property.
No questions, warnings or explanation.
After thinking about this some more this is exactly what the Yakamas are doing.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: huntnphool on August 29, 2018, 12:42:50 PM
why should we be the ones to initiate the dialog when we dont have to.
And there it is in a nutshell!
If neither side is reaching out neither has the moral high ground. :twocents:
My ignorant outside opinion is 2 sides wanted to hunt sheep and/or sell tags. Both did.
Would it be great if both sides started from a big picture conservation standpoint before setting limits - sure
Would it be great if everyone worked together and gets everything right the first time - you bet.
But that is not where we are, both sides have some bad apples lets quit trashing entire groups because of that.
Lots of good dialog and questions in this thread, lots more crap that the Mods have to keep warning us about.
So here we are almost no one is happy, what is a good path forward? What can we as a group or individuals do to help cause a better outcome.
I am not a sheep guy so don't understand the biology to give any suggestion other than I think you have to fix the problem from where you are currently at, not by bemoaning the fact we don't like how we got here.
Sorry for the ramble that kind of bounced around. Thanks to the ones from both sides that kept it civil so far, and to the Mods for letting it stay open and cleaning up where needed.
No on a side note.
From genealogy that a relative did I was told I am 1/16 Cherokee and 1/16 Blackfoot so that would be 1/8 native American. So I know this does not give me any full hunting rights but how about just a turkey :chuckle: They are less that 1/8 the size of an elk!
So your wife has you served with divorce papers and tells you to pack your stuff and get out. You had no idea she was going to do it, and it never occurred to you to ask about such a thing, after all you thought everything was fine.....that's okay in your mind?
Would it not be better if she explained what she wanted and asked you to work with her? Then if you don't, it's on you.
Post by: PlateauNDN on August 29, 2018, 12:43:27 PM
No, it's not our property anymore, but we retained rights on all of our Ceded land and U & A areas.
You are correct, nobody is suggesting that here but do you have the experience and history of the state and how they handle Tribes?
Post by: idahohuntr on August 29, 2018, 12:44:25 PM
There it is indeed. Again, when this state decides it has another government to deal with and treats it as such and not the ugly step child then maybe they will get better treatment.Completely agree...I put most blame on the state for less than desirable cooperation. I've personally witnessed the condescension from wdfw towards tribes on hunting issues...their ignorance is astounding.
Treat others how you want to be treated, guess the State never heard of that.
This hysteria over 2 additional sheep tags seems ridiculous. Is harvesting 2 more rams going to imperil the herd? Combined with the state tags how many rams are we talking per year? It seems more like people are whining that the swakane wont be a trophy unit like it has been...not that the sheep will be on the brink of extinction.
Post by: baker5150 on August 29, 2018, 12:46:20 PM
Baker, yes we have our own bios.
No, it's not our property anymore, but we retained rights on all of our Ceded land and U & A areas.
You are correct, nobody is suggesting that here but do you have the experience and history of the state and how they handle Tribes?
Thank You for the response.
Post by: bobcat on August 29, 2018, 01:11:30 PM
My issue with the Yakama tribe is their year round deer and elk seasons with no limit per person. I really couldn't care less about the two sheep tags in the Swakane.
Although I do agree communication between the Yakamas and the WDFW on this issue should happen. It apparently didn't, but oh well. Again, it's only two tags. That many rams, or more, likely are killed by cars on the highway each year.
Post by: Rainier10 on August 29, 2018, 01:17:00 PM
Hopefully my 15% cost to hunt increase will go towards a box of donuts and a gallon of coffee for the WDFW and tribes to sit down and have a discussion.
Post by: Rainier10 on August 29, 2018, 01:25:21 PM
The number of settlers was increasing in
Washington by the mid-1800s At that time
the United States government negotiated
treaties with Washington Indian tribes for
the peaceful settlement of the territory
The treaties established reservations for
the exclusive use of the tribes In addition,
the treaty tribes kept their right to hunt,
fish, and gather on lands off of the
reservations All treaties contain similar
language reserving the right to hunt, fish,
and conduct other traditional activities on
lands off of the reservations: “The right of
taking fish, at all usual accustomed grounds
and stations, if further secured to said
Indians in common with the citizens of the
territory…together with the privilege of
hunting…on open and unclaimed lands ”
Treaties are formal contracts between
nations Treaty rights belong to tribes
They are not the property of any individual
tribal member Only tribal members may
exercise treaty hunting rights Members of
one tribe cannot exercise the treaty rights of
another tribe Treaty tribes in Washington
establish hunting regulations through their
own government process Federal and
state courts have ruled that public land is
“open and unclaimed” unless it is being
put to a use that is inconsistent with tribal
hunting Private property is not considered
to be “open and unclaimed,” but it must be
obvious that someone owns the property
There are 24 tribes that have off-reservation
hunting rights within Washington State
There are also many tribes in Washington
that do not have treaties or rights to
hunt off of their reservations Both tribal
and state-licensed hunters hunt game
animals across the state It is important
that Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife and tribes work together to
manage wildlife This can be complicated
because tribal ceremonial and subsistence
hunting and state recreational hunting are
based on different cultural heritages and
legal frameworks
Many tribal governments take an active role
in the management of wildlife resources
Most tribes with off-reservation hunting
rights develop their own regulations and
management strategies In recent years,
WDFW and various tribes have worked
together to develop management plans for
wildlife populations and to re-build game
populations For more information about
tribal hunting, please see the Department
website at: wdfw wa gov/hunting/tribal.
Interesting and sounds good but I am not sure how much working together to manage game is really going on.
Post by: trophyhunt on August 29, 2018, 02:11:33 PM
Post by: b0bbyg on August 29, 2018, 02:20:04 PM
why should we be the ones to initiate the dialog when we dont have to.
And there it is in a nutshell!
If neither side is reaching out neither has the moral high ground. :twocents:
My ignorant outside opinion is 2 sides wanted to hunt sheep and/or sell tags. Both did.
Would it be great if both sides started from a big picture conservation standpoint before setting limits - sure
Would it be great if everyone worked together and gets everything right the first time - you bet.
But that is not where we are, both sides have some bad apples lets quit trashing entire groups because of that.
Lots of good dialog and questions in this thread, lots more crap that the Mods have to keep warning us about.
So here we are almost no one is happy, what is a good path forward? What can we as a group or individuals do to help cause a better outcome.
I am not a sheep guy so don't understand the biology to give any suggestion other than I think you have to fix the problem from where you are currently at, not by bemoaning the fact we don't like how we got here.
Sorry for the ramble that kind of bounced around. Thanks to the ones from both sides that kept it civil so far, and to the Mods for letting it stay open and cleaning up where needed.
No on a side note.
From genealogy that a relative did I was told I am 1/16 Cherokee and 1/16 Blackfoot so that would be 1/8 native American. So I know this does not give me any full hunting rights but how about just a turkey :chuckle: They are less that 1/8 the size of an elk!
So your wife has you served with divorce papers and tells you to pack your stuff and get out. You had no idea she was going to do it, and it never occurred to you to ask about such a thing, after all you thought everything was fine.....that's okay in your mind?
Would it not be better if she explained what she wanted and asked you to work with her? Then if you don't, it's on you.
Yes it would be better if there was a discussion before action is taken, That is what I thought I said.
I also agree if one group reaches out and is ignored then the blame falls more on the group who did not want to work together.
I just don't feel like there is any evidence either side reached out and we should not pin the blame on just one party in this case.
From what I understand ( mostly from the discussion in this thread ) Non-tribal hunters with a proper tag can hunt the area/herd in question and a tribal member who holds a proper tag can also legally hunt the area/herd. Neither group ever went to the other and said hey guys there is one group of sheep living over on that hill, how many tags is reasonable to make available?
If there is any species goat/sheep/Moose that 2 groups have legal ability to harvest then both groups should work together. Just because one sets a limit first does not make their decision better. I think both management groups have failed in not reaching out to the other often enough.
I am not defending the way these 2 tags were decided upon, just saying they are not more in the wrong than the WDFW.
Both groups could be do better.
Post by: jackelope on August 29, 2018, 02:27:30 PM
There it is indeed. Again, when this state decides it has another government to deal with and treats it as such and not the ugly step child then maybe they will get better treatment.Completely agree...I put most blame on the state for less than desirable cooperation. I've personally witnessed the condescension from wdfw towards tribes on hunting issues...their ignorance is astounding.
Treat others how you want to be treated, guess the State never heard of that.
This hysteria over 2 additional sheep tags seems ridiculous. Is harvesting 2 more rams going to imperil the herd? Combined with the state tags how many rams are we talking per year? It seems more like people are whining that the swakane wont be a trophy unit like it has been...not that the sheep will be on the brink of extinction.
How many sheep are in the Swakane unit?
How many rams can the herd handle losing per year?
You seem to think you know what you're talking about. Throw down the data that makes you believe the herd can handle 5 tags and 5 rams killed annually for the next few years.
Rather than continuing to say what you think the angle is that everyone else is working, lets hear your data that makes you believe there is nothing to worry about. Show us that the herd will be fine.
Post by: trophyhunt on August 29, 2018, 02:52:55 PM
:bash: :bash: The state bows down to the tribes, c’mon man!! The state had no idea about the yakamas adding these 2 tags, how can you put blame on them for this? I feel like you don’t have a clue about the swakane sheep herd, am I right?There it is indeed. Again, when this state decides it has another government to deal with and treats it as such and not the ugly step child then maybe they will get better treatment.Completely agree...I put most blame on the state for less than desirable cooperation. I've personally witnessed the condescension from wdfw towards tribes on hunting issues...their ignorance is astounding.
Treat others how you want to be treated, guess the State never heard of that.
This hysteria over 2 additional sheep tags seems ridiculous. Is harvesting 2 more rams going to imperil the herd? Combined with the state tags how many rams are we talking per year? It seems more like people are whining that the swakane wont be a trophy unit like it has been...not that the sheep will be on the brink of extinction.
Post by: idahohuntr on August 29, 2018, 03:07:46 PM
The 2017 game report says 150-160 sheep in Swakane. Population has doubled from 10 years ago.There it is indeed. Again, when this state decides it has another government to deal with and treats it as such and not the ugly step child then maybe they will get better treatment.Completely agree...I put most blame on the state for less than desirable cooperation. I've personally witnessed the condescension from wdfw towards tribes on hunting issues...their ignorance is astounding.
Treat others how you want to be treated, guess the State never heard of that.
This hysteria over 2 additional sheep tags seems ridiculous. Is harvesting 2 more rams going to imperil the herd? Combined with the state tags how many rams are we talking per year? It seems more like people are whining that the swakane wont be a trophy unit like it has been...not that the sheep will be on the brink of extinction.
How many sheep are in the Swakane unit?
How many rams can the herd handle losing per year?
You seem to think you know what you're talking about. Throw down the data that makes you believe the herd can handle 5 tags and 5 rams killed annually for the next few years.
Rather than continuing to say what you think the angle is that everyone else is working, lets hear your data that makes you believe there is nothing to worry about. Show us that the herd will be fine.
Looking at population levels and harvest in other units, yes it would seem 5 rams per year under current conditions is very sustainable.
The game report noted that they have had conservative harvest in part because these sheep are easily accessible for viewing by the public, and viewing large rams is desirable to the public.
Now, with those facts, can we all agree these two tags are not going to harm the population? And that the whining is about a lower age class ram and fewer pictures to take? Both of which pale in comparison to upholding a treaty.
Post by: baker5150 on August 29, 2018, 03:16:33 PM
The 2017 game report says 150-160 sheep in Swakane. Population has doubled from 10 years ago.There it is indeed. Again, when this state decides it has another government to deal with and treats it as such and not the ugly step child then maybe they will get better treatment.Completely agree...I put most blame on the state for less than desirable cooperation. I've personally witnessed the condescension from wdfw towards tribes on hunting issues...their ignorance is astounding.
Treat others how you want to be treated, guess the State never heard of that.
This hysteria over 2 additional sheep tags seems ridiculous. Is harvesting 2 more rams going to imperil the herd? Combined with the state tags how many rams are we talking per year? It seems more like people are whining that the swakane wont be a trophy unit like it has been...not that the sheep will be on the brink of extinction.
How many sheep are in the Swakane unit?
How many rams can the herd handle losing per year?
You seem to think you know what you're talking about. Throw down the data that makes you believe the herd can handle 5 tags and 5 rams killed annually for the next few years.
Rather than continuing to say what you think the angle is that everyone else is working, lets hear your data that makes you believe there is nothing to worry about. Show us that the herd will be fine.
Looking at population levels and harvest in other units, yes it would seem 5 rams per year under current conditions is very sustainable.
The game report noted that they have had conservative harvest in part because these sheep are easily accessible for viewing by the public, and viewing large rams is desirable to the public.
Now, with those facts, can we all agree these two tags are not going to harm the population? And that the whining is about a lower age class ram and fewer pictures to take? Both of which pale in comparison to upholding a treaty.
Arm chair herd biology is not something I tend to agree with.
If the bio says it's ok, then I'll agree with it. I'll then also ask why the WDFW didn't increase their tag quota.
Post by: Rainier10 on August 29, 2018, 03:18:52 PM
I’m sure Wdfw would have loved to sit down and talk about these important 2 tags, if they had a clue as to what was going to happen. It’s ridiculous that they were not involved.I'm not sold on that just yet. If the state and tribes aren't talking about the other areas that they both hunt sheep on why would the state all of a sudden be so eager to talk to the tribes about this one unit and 2 sheep. There are multiple other units that harvest of 19 tribal sheep and 27 general sheep tags. If they aren't talking about the harvest impacts of those 46 sheep why would they talk about 2 more in Swakane?
Post by: jackelope on August 29, 2018, 03:40:45 PM
The 2017 game report says 150-160 sheep in Swakane. Population has doubled from 10 years ago.There it is indeed. Again, when this state decides it has another government to deal with and treats it as such and not the ugly step child then maybe they will get better treatment.Completely agree...I put most blame on the state for less than desirable cooperation. I've personally witnessed the condescension from wdfw towards tribes on hunting issues...their ignorance is astounding.
Treat others how you want to be treated, guess the State never heard of that.
This hysteria over 2 additional sheep tags seems ridiculous. Is harvesting 2 more rams going to imperil the herd? Combined with the state tags how many rams are we talking per year? It seems more like people are whining that the swakane wont be a trophy unit like it has been...not that the sheep will be on the brink of extinction.
How many sheep are in the Swakane unit?
How many rams can the herd handle losing per year?
You seem to think you know what you're talking about. Throw down the data that makes you believe the herd can handle 5 tags and 5 rams killed annually for the next few years.
Rather than continuing to say what you think the angle is that everyone else is working, lets hear your data that makes you believe there is nothing to worry about. Show us that the herd will be fine.
Looking at population levels and harvest in other units, yes it would seem 5 rams per year under current conditions is very sustainable.
The game report noted that they have had conservative harvest in part because these sheep are easily accessible for viewing by the public, and viewing large rams is desirable to the public.
Now, with those facts, can we all agree these two tags are not going to harm the population? And that the whining is about a lower age class ram and fewer pictures to take? Both of which pale in comparison to upholding a treaty.
No.
Post by: idahohuntr on August 29, 2018, 03:50:38 PM
Well then, by all means...those who do not agree two more tags wont harm the population please show your math. 3 rams is ok, 5 is not... :chuckle:The 2017 game report says 150-160 sheep in Swakane. Population has doubled from 10 years ago.There it is indeed. Again, when this state decides it has another government to deal with and treats it as such and not the ugly step child then maybe they will get better treatment.Completely agree...I put most blame on the state for less than desirable cooperation. I've personally witnessed the condescension from wdfw towards tribes on hunting issues...their ignorance is astounding.
Treat others how you want to be treated, guess the State never heard of that.
This hysteria over 2 additional sheep tags seems ridiculous. Is harvesting 2 more rams going to imperil the herd? Combined with the state tags how many rams are we talking per year? It seems more like people are whining that the swakane wont be a trophy unit like it has been...not that the sheep will be on the brink of extinction.
How many sheep are in the Swakane unit?
How many rams can the herd handle losing per year?
You seem to think you know what you're talking about. Throw down the data that makes you believe the herd can handle 5 tags and 5 rams killed annually for the next few years.
Rather than continuing to say what you think the angle is that everyone else is working, lets hear your data that makes you believe there is nothing to worry about. Show us that the herd will be fine.
Looking at population levels and harvest in other units, yes it would seem 5 rams per year under current conditions is very sustainable.
The game report noted that they have had conservative harvest in part because these sheep are easily accessible for viewing by the public, and viewing large rams is desirable to the public.
Now, with those facts, can we all agree these two tags are not going to harm the population? And that the whining is about a lower age class ram and fewer pictures to take? Both of which pale in comparison to upholding a treaty.
No.
Post by: trophyhunt on August 29, 2018, 04:00:16 PM
Post by: baker5150 on August 29, 2018, 04:20:53 PM
Well then, by all means...those who do not agree two more tags wont harm the population please show your math. 3 rams is ok, 5 is not... :chuckle:The 2017 game report says 150-160 sheep in Swakane. Population has doubled from 10 years ago.There it is indeed. Again, when this state decides it has another government to deal with and treats it as such and not the ugly step child then maybe they will get better treatment.Completely agree...I put most blame on the state for less than desirable cooperation. I've personally witnessed the condescension from wdfw towards tribes on hunting issues...their ignorance is astounding.
Treat others how you want to be treated, guess the State never heard of that.
This hysteria over 2 additional sheep tags seems ridiculous. Is harvesting 2 more rams going to imperil the herd? Combined with the state tags how many rams are we talking per year? It seems more like people are whining that the swakane wont be a trophy unit like it has been...not that the sheep will be on the brink of extinction.
How many sheep are in the Swakane unit?
How many rams can the herd handle losing per year?
You seem to think you know what you're talking about. Throw down the data that makes you believe the herd can handle 5 tags and 5 rams killed annually for the next few years.
Rather than continuing to say what you think the angle is that everyone else is working, lets hear your data that makes you believe there is nothing to worry about. Show us that the herd will be fine.
Looking at population levels and harvest in other units, yes it would seem 5 rams per year under current conditions is very sustainable.
The game report noted that they have had conservative harvest in part because these sheep are easily accessible for viewing by the public, and viewing large rams is desirable to the public.
Now, with those facts, can we all agree these two tags are not going to harm the population? And that the whining is about a lower age class ram and fewer pictures to take? Both of which pale in comparison to upholding a treaty.
No.
Take that over a 10 year span. 30 animals or 50. Is that sustainable?
If it is, why didn't the WDFW increasing their tag quota???
Post by: jackelope on August 29, 2018, 04:21:15 PM
Well then, by all means...those who do not agree two more tags wont harm the population please show your math. 3 rams is ok, 5 is not... :chuckle:The 2017 game report says 150-160 sheep in Swakane. Population has doubled from 10 years ago.There it is indeed. Again, when this state decides it has another government to deal with and treats it as such and not the ugly step child then maybe they will get better treatment.Completely agree...I put most blame on the state for less than desirable cooperation. I've personally witnessed the condescension from wdfw towards tribes on hunting issues...their ignorance is astounding.
Treat others how you want to be treated, guess the State never heard of that.
This hysteria over 2 additional sheep tags seems ridiculous. Is harvesting 2 more rams going to imperil the herd? Combined with the state tags how many rams are we talking per year? It seems more like people are whining that the swakane wont be a trophy unit like it has been...not that the sheep will be on the brink of extinction.
How many sheep are in the Swakane unit?
How many rams can the herd handle losing per year?
You seem to think you know what you're talking about. Throw down the data that makes you believe the herd can handle 5 tags and 5 rams killed annually for the next few years.
Rather than continuing to say what you think the angle is that everyone else is working, lets hear your data that makes you believe there is nothing to worry about. Show us that the herd will be fine.
Looking at population levels and harvest in other units, yes it would seem 5 rams per year under current conditions is very sustainable.
The game report noted that they have had conservative harvest in part because these sheep are easily accessible for viewing by the public, and viewing large rams is desirable to the public.
Now, with those facts, can we all agree these two tags are not going to harm the population? And that the whining is about a lower age class ram and fewer pictures to take? Both of which pale in comparison to upholding a treaty.
No.
I'd be more ok with this if the 2 entities worked together at all, and I'd be more ok with it if I knew we won't lose opportunity with less tags in the future because of overharvest.
If there were 150-160 sheep in the unit, how many of those are rams? What is the ideal ram/ewe ratio for a healthy herd?
What effect does this have long term if 5 rams a year are killed for the foreseeable future? It's a very high success rate hunt.
Post by: vandeman17 on August 29, 2018, 04:44:27 PM
Post by: B4noon on August 29, 2018, 04:52:13 PM
The game report noted that they have had conservative harvest in part because these sheep are easily accessible for viewing by the public, and viewing large rams is desirable to the public.
I can't believe that the tribe nor WDFW consulted with the wildlife viewing public who according to WDFW contributes more financially to the economy and resource then license buyers do if they keep this up they will be lucky to get enough votes to pass the fee increase bill for the wildlife watcher group cant remember what percentage they were going to raise those guys up
Post by: MtnMuley on August 29, 2018, 06:32:02 PM
More than 5 rams are die each year in there between predators, old age, and vehicles.
How in the hell do you know this?
Post by: NOCK NOCK on August 29, 2018, 08:02:43 PM
There it is indeed. Again, when this state decides it has another government to deal with and treats it as such and not the ugly step child then maybe they will get better treatment.
Treat others how you want to be treated, guess the State never heard of that.
Don't hate the messenger but...…..This goes both directions
Post by: PlateauNDN on August 29, 2018, 08:17:42 PM
Post by: Time Immemorial 1855 on August 30, 2018, 03:54:32 AM
:chuckle: :chuckle:Let's see a show of hands of how many would just let the state show up and do what they want, when they want and how they want on your property.First of all. No one is suggesting that. Not even close. So quit building straw men. Second of all. It's not your property. It's ceded land not the reservation.
No questions, warnings or explanation.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
You are misinformed
Post by: Time Immemorial 1855 on August 30, 2018, 03:58:31 AM
Exactly, thank you sirThere it is indeed. Again, when this state decides it has another government to deal with and treats it as such and not the ugly step child then maybe they will get better treatment.Completely agree...I put most blame on the state for less than desirable cooperation. I've personally witnessed the condescension from wdfw towards tribes on hunting issues...their ignorance is astounding.
Treat others how you want to be treated, guess the State never heard of that.
This hysteria over 2 additional sheep tags seems ridiculous. Is harvesting 2 more rams going to imperil the herd? Combined with the state tags how many rams are we talking per year? It seems more like people are whining that the swakane wont be a trophy unit like it has been...not that the sheep will be on the brink of extinction.
Post by: grundy53 on August 30, 2018, 04:33:35 AM
No, I'm not.:chuckle: :chuckle:Let's see a show of hands of how many would just let the state show up and do what they want, when they want and how they want on your property.First of all. No one is suggesting that. Not even close. So quit building straw men. Second of all. It's not your property. It's ceded land not the reservation.
No questions, warnings or explanation.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
You are misinformed
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: NOCK NOCK on August 30, 2018, 06:06:17 AM
More than 5 rams are die each year in there between predators, old age, and vehicles.
How in the hell do you know this?
I drive that hwy 3 times a day, for the last several years, have only ever seen 2 sheep hit by vehicles, both ewes. FWIW
Post by: MtnMuley on August 30, 2018, 06:19:32 AM
More than 5 rams are die each year in there between predators, old age, and vehicles.
How in the hell do you know this?
I drive that hwy 3 times a day, for the last several years, have only ever seen 2 sheep hit by vehicles, both ewes. FWIW
The thousands of dollars the Wenatchee Sportsmans Association and others donated towards the 97A fence project to save the sheep vs car accidents years ago has been a godsend for those sheep.
Post by: Slamadoo on August 30, 2018, 08:07:29 AM
Post by: huntnphool on August 30, 2018, 10:35:00 AM
More than 5 rams are die each year in there between predators, old age, and vehicles.
How in the hell do you know this?
I drive that hwy 3 times a day, for the last several years, have only ever seen 2 sheep hit by vehicles, both ewes. FWIW
The tens of thousands of dollars the Wenatchee Sportsmans Association and others donated towards the 97A fence project to save the sheep vs car accidents years ago has been a godsend for those sheep.
+1
Post by: Tbar on August 30, 2018, 01:36:11 PM
I love it! You are disagreeing/ commenting based off of what? Are you being puppeted by special interest? Or is sheep manager one of your hobbies? Unbelievable!The 2017 game report says 150-160 sheep in Swakane. Population has doubled from 10 years ago.There it is indeed. Again, when this state decides it has another government to deal with and treats it as such and not the ugly step child then maybe they will get better treatment.Completely agree...I put most blame on the state for less than desirable cooperation. I've personally witnessed the condescension from wdfw towards tribes on hunting issues...their ignorance is astounding.
Treat others how you want to be treated, guess the State never heard of that.
This hysteria over 2 additional sheep tags seems ridiculous. Is harvesting 2 more rams going to imperil the herd? Combined with the state tags how many rams are we talking per year? It seems more like people are whining that the swakane wont be a trophy unit like it has been...not that the sheep will be on the brink of extinction.
How many sheep are in the Swakane unit?
How many rams can the herd handle losing per year?
You seem to think you know what you're talking about. Throw down the data that makes you believe the herd can handle 5 tags and 5 rams killed annually for the next few years.
Rather than continuing to say what you think the angle is that everyone else is working, lets hear your data that makes you believe there is nothing to worry about. Show us that the herd will be fine.
Looking at population levels and harvest in other units, yes it would seem 5 rams per year under current conditions is very sustainable.
The game report noted that they have had conservative harvest in part because these sheep are easily accessible for viewing by the public, and viewing large rams is desirable to the public.
Now, with those facts, can we all agree these two tags are not going to harm the population? And that the whining is about a lower age class ram and fewer pictures to take? Both of which pale in comparison to upholding a treaty.
No.
Post by: jackelope on August 30, 2018, 01:37:30 PM
I love it! You are disagreeing/ commenting based off of what? Are you being puppeted by special interest? Or is sheep manager one of your hobbies? Unbelievable!The 2017 game report says 150-160 sheep in Swakane. Population has doubled from 10 years ago.There it is indeed. Again, when this state decides it has another government to deal with and treats it as such and not the ugly step child then maybe they will get better treatment.Completely agree...I put most blame on the state for less than desirable cooperation. I've personally witnessed the condescension from wdfw towards tribes on hunting issues...their ignorance is astounding.
Treat others how you want to be treated, guess the State never heard of that.
This hysteria over 2 additional sheep tags seems ridiculous. Is harvesting 2 more rams going to imperil the herd? Combined with the state tags how many rams are we talking per year? It seems more like people are whining that the swakane wont be a trophy unit like it has been...not that the sheep will be on the brink of extinction.
How many sheep are in the Swakane unit?
How many rams can the herd handle losing per year?
You seem to think you know what you're talking about. Throw down the data that makes you believe the herd can handle 5 tags and 5 rams killed annually for the next few years.
Rather than continuing to say what you think the angle is that everyone else is working, lets hear your data that makes you believe there is nothing to worry about. Show us that the herd will be fine.
Looking at population levels and harvest in other units, yes it would seem 5 rams per year under current conditions is very sustainable.
The game report noted that they have had conservative harvest in part because these sheep are easily accessible for viewing by the public, and viewing large rams is desirable to the public.
Now, with those facts, can we all agree these two tags are not going to harm the population? And that the whining is about a lower age class ram and fewer pictures to take? Both of which pale in comparison to upholding a treaty.
No.
This goes both ways. I don't belong to any of the wild sheep org's. Just a guy asking questions. I'm truly interested in learning.
What's interesting is that none of you guys who have seemingly opposing views from me can't seem to answer any of my questions. Only criticize them.
Post by: Tbar on August 30, 2018, 01:41:12 PM
There has been some more input than questions. Quite a bit more.I love it! You are disagreeing/ commenting based off of what? Are you being puppeted by special interest? Or is sheep manager one of your hobbies? Unbelievable!The 2017 game report says 150-160 sheep in Swakane. Population has doubled from 10 years ago.There it is indeed. Again, when this state decides it has another government to deal with and treats it as such and not the ugly step child then maybe they will get better treatment.Completely agree...I put most blame on the state for less than desirable cooperation. I've personally witnessed the condescension from wdfw towards tribes on hunting issues...their ignorance is astounding.
Treat others how you want to be treated, guess the State never heard of that.
This hysteria over 2 additional sheep tags seems ridiculous. Is harvesting 2 more rams going to imperil the herd? Combined with the state tags how many rams are we talking per year? It seems more like people are whining that the swakane wont be a trophy unit like it has been...not that the sheep will be on the brink of extinction.
How many sheep are in the Swakane unit?
How many rams can the herd handle losing per year?
You seem to think you know what you're talking about. Throw down the data that makes you believe the herd can handle 5 tags and 5 rams killed annually for the next few years.
Rather than continuing to say what you think the angle is that everyone else is working, lets hear your data that makes you believe there is nothing to worry about. Show us that the herd will be fine.
Looking at population levels and harvest in other units, yes it would seem 5 rams per year under current conditions is very sustainable.
The game report noted that they have had conservative harvest in part because these sheep are easily accessible for viewing by the public, and viewing large rams is desirable to the public.
Now, with those facts, can we all agree these two tags are not going to harm the population? And that the whining is about a lower age class ram and fewer pictures to take? Both of which pale in comparison to upholding a treaty.
No.
This goes both ways. I don't belong to any of the wild sheep org's. Just a guy asking questions. I'm truly interested in learning.
Post by: jackelope on August 30, 2018, 01:45:41 PM
There has been some more input than questions. Quite a bit more.I love it! You are disagreeing/ commenting based off of what? Are you being puppeted by special interest? Or is sheep manager one of your hobbies? Unbelievable!The 2017 game report says 150-160 sheep in Swakane. Population has doubled from 10 years ago.There it is indeed. Again, when this state decides it has another government to deal with and treats it as such and not the ugly step child then maybe they will get better treatment.Completely agree...I put most blame on the state for less than desirable cooperation. I've personally witnessed the condescension from wdfw towards tribes on hunting issues...their ignorance is astounding.
Treat others how you want to be treated, guess the State never heard of that.
This hysteria over 2 additional sheep tags seems ridiculous. Is harvesting 2 more rams going to imperil the herd? Combined with the state tags how many rams are we talking per year? It seems more like people are whining that the swakane wont be a trophy unit like it has been...not that the sheep will be on the brink of extinction.
How many sheep are in the Swakane unit?
How many rams can the herd handle losing per year?
You seem to think you know what you're talking about. Throw down the data that makes you believe the herd can handle 5 tags and 5 rams killed annually for the next few years.
Rather than continuing to say what you think the angle is that everyone else is working, lets hear your data that makes you believe there is nothing to worry about. Show us that the herd will be fine.
Looking at population levels and harvest in other units, yes it would seem 5 rams per year under current conditions is very sustainable.
The game report noted that they have had conservative harvest in part because these sheep are easily accessible for viewing by the public, and viewing large rams is desirable to the public.
Now, with those facts, can we all agree these two tags are not going to harm the population? And that the whining is about a lower age class ram and fewer pictures to take? Both of which pale in comparison to upholding a treaty.
No.
This goes both ways. I don't belong to any of the wild sheep org's. Just a guy asking questions. I'm truly interested in learning.
It would be neat if idahohntr answered the specific question I posted that you're currently riding me about. The "it would seem" stuff doesn't really fly. Especially with all the flack he's handing out.
Post by: Tbar on August 30, 2018, 01:49:12 PM
Post by: jackelope on August 30, 2018, 01:55:07 PM
You want to know what is sustainable harvest on Swakane? Or the fiscal impact if a certain ram is harvested (possibly by Yakama).
As I've mentioned multiple times in this thread and elsewhere... I couldn't care less about an auction hunt. I really have no idea why you seem to constantly feel the need to give me crap about that. I've never even bought a raffle ticket in my life, nevermind do I give a hoot about auction permits. Sometimes I feel like you think I'm someone I am not.
I'm genuinely curious what wildlife managers would think is a reasonable ram harvest in the Swakane, since we're talking about that unit. If there is 150-160 sheep in there, how many are rams and what's a good ram/ewe ratio to maintain a healthy herd. Everyone seems to have an opinion yet nobody has scientific info...me included.
Post by: idahohuntr on August 30, 2018, 01:58:47 PM
I'm not a sheep bio and I'm not the one crying wolf. I provided some basic numbers...its not up to me to justify your hysteria. Tell us what about 5 vs 3 permits is a problem in your view. In a herd of 150, I don't see 5 rams as a population concern. Particularly given wdfw acknowledges conservative harvest management for viewing opportunity in the swakane. Combine that with the fact Yakamas have bios too and know the state permit levels...and I simply fail to see a herd level concern, so if you want to be credible on this topic provide some supporting evidence...I've laid out plenty on why I think it's a non issue.There has been some more input than questions. Quite a bit more.I love it! You are disagreeing/ commenting based off of what? Are you being puppeted by special interest? Or is sheep manager one of your hobbies? Unbelievable!The 2017 game report says 150-160 sheep in Swakane. Population has doubled from 10 years ago.There it is indeed. Again, when this state decides it has another government to deal with and treats it as such and not the ugly step child then maybe they will get better treatment.Completely agree...I put most blame on the state for less than desirable cooperation. I've personally witnessed the condescension from wdfw towards tribes on hunting issues...their ignorance is astounding.
Treat others how you want to be treated, guess the State never heard of that.
This hysteria over 2 additional sheep tags seems ridiculous. Is harvesting 2 more rams going to imperil the herd? Combined with the state tags how many rams are we talking per year? It seems more like people are whining that the swakane wont be a trophy unit like it has been...not that the sheep will be on the brink of extinction.
How many sheep are in the Swakane unit?
How many rams can the herd handle losing per year?
You seem to think you know what you're talking about. Throw down the data that makes you believe the herd can handle 5 tags and 5 rams killed annually for the next few years.
Rather than continuing to say what you think the angle is that everyone else is working, lets hear your data that makes you believe there is nothing to worry about. Show us that the herd will be fine.
Looking at population levels and harvest in other units, yes it would seem 5 rams per year under current conditions is very sustainable.
The game report noted that they have had conservative harvest in part because these sheep are easily accessible for viewing by the public, and viewing large rams is desirable to the public.
Now, with those facts, can we all agree these two tags are not going to harm the population? And that the whining is about a lower age class ram and fewer pictures to take? Both of which pale in comparison to upholding a treaty.
No.
This goes both ways. I don't belong to any of the wild sheep org's. Just a guy asking questions. I'm truly interested in learning.
It would be neat if idahohntr answered the specific question I posted that you're currently riding me about. The "it would seem" stuff doesn't really fly. Especially with all the flack he's handing out.
Post by: Rainier10 on August 30, 2018, 02:04:28 PM
In 1999, the first ram permit was offered for the Swakane herd, followed by one permit per year
from 2000-2008. The only additional Swakane harvest was by the 2002 auction tag winner (Table
4). Currently, the bighorn season in the Swakane runs September 15-October 10. All hunters have
been successful at killing a mature ram (>3/4 curl). No bighorn permit was offered in the Swakane
in 2009 due to the high number of vehicle collision mortalities along SR 97A in 2008. Highway
mortalities were effectively stopped with the construction of a wildlife fence along SR 97A. A
drawing permit for the harvest of one bighorn ram was reinstated for the 2010 hunting season. The
ram harvested in 2010 is the new Washington State record and SCI World record California
Bighorn Sheep.
Post by: jackelope on August 30, 2018, 02:05:52 PM
I'm not a sheep bio and I'm not the one crying wolf. I provided some basic numbers...its not up to me to justify your hysteria. Tell us what about 5 vs 3 permits is a problem in your view. In a herd of 150, I don't see 5 rams as a population concern. Particularly given wdfw acknowledges conservative harvest management for viewing opportunity in the swakane. Combine that with the fact Yakamas have bios too and know the state permit levels...and I simply fail to see a herd level concern, so if you want to be credible on this topic provide some supporting evidence...I've laid out plenty on why I think it's a non issue.There has been some more input than questions. Quite a bit more.I love it! You are disagreeing/ commenting based off of what? Are you being puppeted by special interest? Or is sheep manager one of your hobbies? Unbelievable!The 2017 game report says 150-160 sheep in Swakane. Population has doubled from 10 years ago.There it is indeed. Again, when this state decides it has another government to deal with and treats it as such and not the ugly step child then maybe they will get better treatment.Completely agree...I put most blame on the state for less than desirable cooperation. I've personally witnessed the condescension from wdfw towards tribes on hunting issues...their ignorance is astounding.
Treat others how you want to be treated, guess the State never heard of that.
This hysteria over 2 additional sheep tags seems ridiculous. Is harvesting 2 more rams going to imperil the herd? Combined with the state tags how many rams are we talking per year? It seems more like people are whining that the swakane wont be a trophy unit like it has been...not that the sheep will be on the brink of extinction.
How many sheep are in the Swakane unit?
How many rams can the herd handle losing per year?
You seem to think you know what you're talking about. Throw down the data that makes you believe the herd can handle 5 tags and 5 rams killed annually for the next few years.
Rather than continuing to say what you think the angle is that everyone else is working, lets hear your data that makes you believe there is nothing to worry about. Show us that the herd will be fine.
Looking at population levels and harvest in other units, yes it would seem 5 rams per year under current conditions is very sustainable.
The game report noted that they have had conservative harvest in part because these sheep are easily accessible for viewing by the public, and viewing large rams is desirable to the public.
Now, with those facts, can we all agree these two tags are not going to harm the population? And that the whining is about a lower age class ram and fewer pictures to take? Both of which pale in comparison to upholding a treaty.
No.
This goes both ways. I don't belong to any of the wild sheep org's. Just a guy asking questions. I'm truly interested in learning.
It would be neat if idahohntr answered the specific question I posted that you're currently riding me about. The "it would seem" stuff doesn't really fly. Especially with all the flack he's handing out.
I'm asking questions. Not crying wolf. So I'm not qualified to know. You're not qualified to know. The WDFW sheep bio's weren't involved and it doesn't seem like the Yakama tribal biologists were involved but I don't know.
Post by: Rainier10 on August 30, 2018, 02:07:49 PM
From 1996 to 2000, the Swakane bighorn population increased slowly (Table 1). In 2001, the
population was estimated at 51 sheep, representing a 46 percent increase from the 1992-2000
average. The increased count in 2001 resulted after Swakane bands began using the cliffs/breaks
along the Columbia River and SR 97A, allowing for better monitoring. The proliferation of
residential developments and their associated ornamental plantings along the west shore of the
Rocky Reach pool may have enticed bighorns to cross Highway 97A with increasing frequency.
For over 30 years, no bighorn mortalities were attributed to vehicle collisions. However, 44
Swakane bighorns have been killed by vehicles on SR 97A (18 rams, 21 ewes, 5 lambs) since
2002. The most recent ground count for the Swakane herd documented a minimum of 156 animals.
In response to these events, multiple agencies and conservation groups including Washington
Department of Transportation, State Patrol, WDFW, and the Wenatchee Sportsmen’s Association
convened a working group to address deer and bighorn sheep vehicle collisions on SR 97A, and
developed plans for a wildlife fence to reduce wildlife-vehicle collisions. Phase One of the fence
was 4 miles long and extends from mile marker 212 on the north end to mile marker 208 on the
south, the section where most collisions have occurred. Construction of this first section was
completed 2009. Phase Two, completed in 2010, extended the fence roughly two miles to the
south. The remaining 3.3 mile section (Phase Three) was completed in 2011. Vehicle collision
mortalities have continued since completion of the fence mainly due to sheep finding vulnerable
areas during the rut. Collision rates have dropped significantly, with only 2 vehicle collisions in
the previous 12 month period.
Post by: Rainier10 on August 30, 2018, 02:14:52 PM
The Swakane bighorn population is highly accessible for viewing during the winter months.
Viewing opportunities, in particular large adult rams, are highly valued by the public. Harvest
management should be conservative to maintain this viewing opportunity.
Post by: jackelope on August 30, 2018, 02:19:48 PM
Post by: PlateauNDN on August 30, 2018, 02:23:57 PM
Going with the lowest number provided (150) that would show an increase of 7.5 sheep per year for the last 10 years. With a continuance of that trend it would reduce by 4 possibly 5 if the auction tag holder chooses to hunt there so the rate of increase would likely be 3.5 sheep per year.
With those numbers it would reflect an increase in the herd by 30% every 10 years. So that appears to be the same rate in other areas that have multiple user groups.
It lowers the trophy quality, but not the quantity and it reduces the amount of trophy quality rams in the herd meaning some would rather fill the tag with a mediocre ram then hold out for the exceptional ram.
That's just my scientific opinion. :chuckle:
Post by: Rainier10 on August 30, 2018, 02:29:05 PM
Post by: baker5150 on August 30, 2018, 02:41:14 PM
So crunching numbers based off of what was provided here says wdfw said the population has doubled from 2007 to 2017 with estimated numbers of 150 to 160 currently (2017).
Going with the lowest number provided (150) that would show an increase of 7.5 sheep per year for the last 10 years. With a continuance of that trend it would reduce by 4 possibly 5 if the auction tag holder chooses to hunt there so the rate of increase would likely be 3.5 sheep per year.
With those numbers it would reflect an increase in the herd by 30% every 10 years. So that appears to be the same rate in other areas that have multiple user groups.
It lowers the trophy quality, but not the quantity and it reduces the amount of trophy quality rams in the herd meaning some would rather fill the tag with a mediocre ram then hold out for the exceptional ram.
That's just my scientific opinion. :chuckle:
This seams pretty good. What I would like to know to further it, would be the total number, and ratio, the Bio's believe is a healthy herd for this area.
Also, that 30% in 10 years, sounds great, but the current 10 year herd growth is 100% (1996 to 2006 to 2016). Bit of a drop off, no? :dunno: Maybe that's ok and exactly what the herd needs, or maybe it's not, I don't know, but a 70% drop seams like a lot to me.
All this seam like a good reason for both sides to be talking about tag quota and herd health
Post by: PlateauNDN on August 30, 2018, 02:42:12 PM
Post by: PlateauNDN on August 30, 2018, 02:45:46 PM
Post by: Rainier10 on August 30, 2018, 02:48:23 PM
Post by: Rainier10 on August 30, 2018, 02:56:51 PM
https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01961/wdfw01961.pdf
Post by: jackelope on August 30, 2018, 02:59:57 PM
Post by: B4noon on August 30, 2018, 03:00:28 PM
Post by: jackelope on August 30, 2018, 03:02:28 PM
Post by: PlateauNDN on August 30, 2018, 03:11:27 PM
Post by: Rainier10 on August 30, 2018, 03:53:48 PM
I'm not a sheep guy, these are real questions and not meant to be inflammatory. I have Plat's number I can text him direct and piss him off if I want. :chuckle:
Post by: NOCK NOCK on August 30, 2018, 04:05:08 PM
I'm sure an adjustment will be made after this season and the quota will likely drop. Again, my opinion.
IMO, this is where a lot of the beef stems from. I don't feel folks are as worried about losing trophy quality, as they are about having an even lesser opportunity at hunting sheep ONCE in their lifetime.
Most cannot afford to buy a hunt, so their only chance is a draw.
This has been #1 on my bucket list for as long as the Swakane herd has been around. I hope to have that chance just ONCE, Some folks get that chance more than once without having to fork out the big bucks.
Personally I would love to have more than one sheep hunt in WA, BUT, my morals also tell me that is not fair to others with the same desires, so I would never hunt them a 2nd time knowing that I am effectively squashing another hunters dream. :twocents:
Post by: trophyhunt on August 30, 2018, 04:07:04 PM
:tup:I'm sure an adjustment will be made after this season and the quota will likely drop. Again, my opinion.
IMO, this is where a lot of the beef stems from. I don't feel folks are as worried about losing trophy quality, as they are about having an even lesser opportunity at hunting sheep ONCE in their lifetime.
Most cannot afford to buy a hunt, so their only chance is a draw.
This has been #1 on my bucket list for as long as the Swakane herd has been around. I hope to have that chance just ONCE, Some folks get that chance more than once without having to fork out the big bucks.
Personally I would love to have more than one sheep hunt in WA, BUT, my morals also tell me that is not fair to others with the same desires, so I would never hunt them a 2nd time knowing that I am effectively squashing another hunters dream. :twocents:
Post by: Oh Mah on August 30, 2018, 04:07:16 PM
Post by: PlateauNDN on August 30, 2018, 04:14:44 PM
Post by: Rainier10 on August 30, 2018, 04:19:17 PM
Isn't this the 1st year it went to 2 tags? The state could expand to include the Asotin herd? Or open up other areas?2016 was the year they changed it to two tags. So the last two it has been two tags. This year was going to be two tags until the Yakama introduced two more tags.
The auction tag is the wild card and and up until the world record was shot in Swakane most of the auction tags were filled in the Manson unit I believe.
Again I am not a sheep guy but trying to be.
Post by: MtnMuley on August 30, 2018, 04:21:50 PM
Isn't this the 1st year it went to 2 tags? The state could expand to include the Asotin herd? Or open up other areas?2016 was the year they changed it to two tags. So the last two it has been two tags. This year was going to be two tags until the Yakama introduced two more tags.
The auction tag is the wild card and and up until the world record was shot in Swakane most of the auction tags were filled in the Manson unit I believe.
Again I am not a sheep guy but trying to be.
Most of the auction tags weren't filled in Manson, but that's a mute point.
Post by: meatwhack on August 30, 2018, 04:23:24 PM
Post by: Timberstalker on August 30, 2018, 04:24:48 PM
Isn't this the 1st year it went to 2 tags? The state could expand to include the Asotin herd? Or open up other areas?
The Asotin herd is in shambles, from overharvest.
Haven't had general permit in there for years, maybe 5 now.
Post by: Time Immemorial 1855 on August 30, 2018, 04:30:17 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on August 30, 2018, 04:31:17 PM
By looking at the herd count numbers provided the ram population has only marginally increased over the last 20 years so I’m guessing doubling the harvest will not be sustainable.You are not reading the table correctly. The composition data is not a total estimate of rams.
Post by: idahohuntr on August 30, 2018, 04:34:06 PM
Jesus there wasn't this much controversy over the state killing the entire Tieton herd.:chuckle:
I hope the people so terrified of 2 tribal tags are actively fighting domestic sheep grazing on public lands near bighorn habitat...there's a real threat.
Post by: tlbradford on August 30, 2018, 04:35:29 PM
Jesus there wasn't this much controversy over the state killing the entire Tieton herd.
Yes there was.
Post by: PlateauNDN on August 30, 2018, 04:42:59 PM
Isn't this the 1st year it went to 2 tags? The state could expand to include the Asotin herd? Or open up other areas?
The Asotin herd is in shambles, from overharvest.
Haven't had general permit in there for years, maybe 5 now.
Isn't the raffle tag for there?
Post by: tlbradford on August 30, 2018, 04:46:14 PM
Jesus there wasn't this much controversy over the state killing the entire Tieton herd.:chuckle:
I hope the people so terrified of 2 tribal tags are actively fighting domestic sheep grazing on public lands near bighorn habitat...there's a real threat.
Nobody has answered Bakers question, and it was the best question posed to everyone offering their :twocents:
The WDFW biologist set the tag number of 2 based on current data, and WITHOUT knowledge that another user group would be taking Rams out of this unit. So that means that a biologist with access to more info than all of us here, thought 2 rams was what the herd could lose and still allow for growth and continued health. If he thought more could be harvested he would have set the tag number at a higher amount. Since he did not raise the tag numbers, it is not that big of a leap to assume he felt a harvest of 2 rams would meet the wildlife plan for this herd.
So, do I agree that a single year taking 4 to 5 rams is going to hurt the herd. No, it probably won't. But, I sure as hell am way less qualified to make that call, and so is everyone else in this chat room, than a wildlife bio who's job is to manage this species.
Post by: Timberstalker on August 30, 2018, 04:49:04 PM
Isn't this the 1st year it went to 2 tags? The state could expand to include the Asotin herd? Or open up other areas?
The Asotin herd is in shambles, from overharvest.
Haven't had general permit in there for years, maybe 5 now.
Isn't the raffle tag for there?
Raffle is for 169 - Wenaha. Out of the Asotin area.
And Hall Mtn.
Post by: idahohuntr on August 30, 2018, 04:50:54 PM
The question was answered...the status report clearly acknowledges harvest is set conservatively to maintain non consumptive viewing opportunities. WDFW was intentionally not maximizing sustainable harvest...so any inference that 3 tags was a max safe harvest level is incorrect.Jesus there wasn't this much controversy over the state killing the entire Tieton herd.:chuckle:
I hope the people so terrified of 2 tribal tags are actively fighting domestic sheep grazing on public lands near bighorn habitat...there's a real threat.
Nobody has answered Bakers question, and it was the best question posed to everyone offering their :twocents:
The WDFW biologist set the tag number of 2 based on current data, and WITHOUT knowledge that another user group would be taking Rams out of this unit. So that means that a biologist with access to more info than all of us here, thought 2 rams was what the herd could lose and still allow for growth and continued health. If he thought more could be harvested he would have set the tag number at a higher amount. Since he did not raise the tag numbers, it is not that big of a leap to assume he felt a harvest of 2 rams would meet the wildlife plan for this herd.
So, do I agree that a single year taking 4 to 5 rams is going to hurt the herd. No, it probably won't. But, I sure as hell am way less qualified to make that call, and so is everyone else in this chat room, than a wildlife bio who's job is to manage this species.
Post by: meatwhack on August 30, 2018, 04:51:36 PM
By looking at the herd count numbers provided the ram population has only marginally increased over the last 20 years so I’m guessing doubling the harvest will not be sustainable.You are not reading the table correctly. The composition data is not a total estimate of rams.
OK I looked at it again and it appears they haven’t got good counts so from the last good count it appears the ram population has been growing by about 1.33/year.
Post by: Oh Mah on August 30, 2018, 04:53:22 PM
Does WDFW and their experts do what you want for conservation or not. If they are then quit complaining about them,and if not quit praising them on this. :twocents:
Post by: tlbradford on August 30, 2018, 05:04:33 PM
WOW,All the complaining about wdfw band the state experts they listen too through the years and then boom just like that the tribes do this then all of a sudden the experts that do so good for our hunting opportunities in this state are the shining experts and deserve this much praise. :bash:
Does WDFW and their experts do what you want for conservation or not. If they are then quit complaining about them,and if not quit praising them on this. :twocents:
It isn't all about conservation. They manage the herd for hunting opportunities, viewing opportunities, etc. Tag limits are set accordingly.
Quote
The question was answered...the status report clearly acknowledges harvest is set conservatively to maintain non consumptive viewing opportunities. WDFW was intentionally not maximizing sustainable harvest...so any inference that 3 tags was a max safe harvest level is incorrect.
Read your two sentences and try to find how they contradict one another. If you need help I am here.
Post by: idahohuntr on August 30, 2018, 05:15:31 PM
They don't. Harvest levels were conservative, 3 tags is not the upper limit. Pretty straightforward.WOW,All the complaining about wdfw band the state experts they listen too through the years and then boom just like that the tribes do this then all of a sudden the experts that do so good for our hunting opportunities in this state are the shining experts and deserve this much praise. :bash:
Does WDFW and their experts do what you want for conservation or not. If they are then quit complaining about them,and if not quit praising them on this. :twocents:
It isn't all about conservation. They manage the herd for hunting opportunities, viewing opportunities, etc. Tag limits are set accordingly.QuoteThe question was answered...the status report clearly acknowledges harvest is set conservatively to maintain non consumptive viewing opportunities. WDFW was intentionally not maximizing sustainable harvest...so any inference that 3 tags was a max safe harvest level is incorrect.
Read your two sentences and try to find how they contradict one another. If you need help I am here.
Post by: PlateauNDN on August 30, 2018, 05:17:09 PM
Post by: buggy on August 30, 2018, 05:23:41 PM
As I was following along I began to wonder, If the the tribe can issue two ram tags why can't they start issuing wolf tags and/or hunt predators with dogs? There is probably a million reasons why this cant happen (or maybe they already do) but I am not educated on the subject. I have no idea if this is even possible but it would greatly contribute to conservation IMO.
Post by: Badhabit on August 30, 2018, 05:25:23 PM
This is interesting.
https://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/tribal/treaty_history.html
Found it.
https://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/tribal/wdfw_nez_perce_mou.pdf
Post by: Oh Mah on August 30, 2018, 05:25:50 PM
hunting opportunities?you have got to be kidding.With all the complaining of lack if hunting opportunity in this state by a large percent of members on this site with this state you throw that out. WOW.WOW,All the complaining about wdfw band the state experts they listen too through the years and then boom just like that the tribes do this then all of a sudden the experts that do so good for our hunting opportunities in this state are the shining experts and deserve this much praise. :bash:
Does WDFW and their experts do what you want for conservation or not. If they are then quit complaining about them,and if not quit praising them on this. :twocents:
It isn't all about conservation. They manage the herd for hunting opportunities, viewing opportunities, etc. Tag limits are set accordingly.QuoteThe question was answered...the status report clearly acknowledges harvest is set conservatively to maintain non consumptive viewing opportunities. WDFW was intentionally not maximizing sustainable harvest...so any inference that 3 tags was a max safe harvest level is incorrect.
Read your two sentences and try to find how they contradict one another. If you need help I am here.
Post by: Oh Mah on August 30, 2018, 05:27:36 PM
Very interesting thread. I've learned a lot.This has been brought up,they can and maybe they would..A LOT if we could all play nice.
As I was following along I began to wonder, If the the tribe can issue two ram tags why can't they start issuing wolf tags and/or hunt predators with dogs? There is probably a million reasons why this cant happen (or maybe they already do) but I am not educated on the subject. I have no idea if this is even possible but it would greatly contribute to conservation IMO.
Post by: buggy on August 30, 2018, 05:31:23 PM
Very interesting thread. I've learned a lot.This has been brought up,they can and maybe they would..A LOT if we could all play nice.
As I was following along I began to wonder, If the the tribe can issue two ram tags why can't they start issuing wolf tags and/or hunt predators with dogs? There is probably a million reasons why this cant happen (or maybe they already do) but I am not educated on the subject. I have no idea if this is even possible but it would greatly contribute to conservation IMO.
Sorry if I missed it when it was brought up earlier. I would love to hear Plat's thoughts on the subject.
Post by: Oh Mah on August 30, 2018, 05:34:02 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on August 30, 2018, 05:40:57 PM
idaho, which tribe do you hunt with anyway? And as far as domestic sheep go, the yakamas could definetly help us out with trying to get those domestic sheep out of the swakane area. :tup:Jesus there wasn't this much controversy over the state killing the entire Tieton herd.:chuckle:
I hope the people so terrified of 2 tribal tags are actively fighting domestic sheep grazing on public lands near bighorn habitat...there's a real threat.
Post by: idahohuntr on August 30, 2018, 05:51:30 PM
:chuckle: I'm as caucasian as they come...no tribal connection or hunting for me. I just have an understanding of treaties and tribes in the northwest.idaho, which tribe do you hunt with anyway? And as far as domestic sheep go, the yakamas could definetly help us out with trying to get those domestic sheep out of the swakane area. :tup:Jesus there wasn't this much controversy over the state killing the entire Tieton herd.:chuckle:
I hope the people so terrified of 2 tribal tags are actively fighting domestic sheep grazing on public lands near bighorn habitat...there's a real threat.
Post by: jackelope on August 30, 2018, 05:53:28 PM
Jesus there wasn't this much controversy over the state killing the entire Tieton herd.:chuckle:
I hope the people so terrified of 2 tribal tags are actively fighting domestic sheep grazing on public lands near bighorn habitat...there's a real threat.
Are you familiar with who apparently the biggest player was in handling the domestic sheep grazing in Hell’s Canyon?
Post by: Rainier10 on August 30, 2018, 06:26:51 PM
So where do you think they were harvested @MtnMuley ? The trend report says the auction/raffle tags were harvested in Swakane in 2002&2016, in Chelan Butte in 2015&2015 and in Manson in 2006,2010,2011,2012&2014.Isn't this the 1st year it went to 2 tags? The state could expand to include the Asotin herd? Or open up other areas?2016 was the year they changed it to two tags. So the last two it has been two tags. This year was going to be two tags until the Yakama introduced two more tags.
The auction tag is the wild card and and up until the world record was shot in Swakane most of the auction tags were filled in the Manson unit I believe.
Again I am not a sheep guy but trying to be.
Most of the auction tags weren't filled in Manson, but that's a mute point.
Are you saying the report is wrong or people are false reporting where they harvest the sheep?
I’m not a sheep guy and just going off what the report says. If the report is wrong about that then I don’t know if we can trust any of the statistics in it.
Please help me understand your denial of where the sheep were taken.
Post by: PlateauNDN on August 30, 2018, 06:58:13 PM
As far as Nez Perce and their ram management, I dont know, I'm not Nez Perce.
Post by: Oh Mah on August 30, 2018, 07:03:08 PM
Post by: tlbradford on August 30, 2018, 09:56:09 PM
They don't. Harvest levels were conservative, 3 tags is not the upper limit. Pretty straightforward.WOW,All the complaining about wdfw band the state experts they listen too through the years and then boom just like that the tribes do this then all of a sudden the experts that do so good for our hunting opportunities in this state are the shining experts and deserve this much praise. :bash:
Does WDFW and their experts do what you want for conservation or not. If they are then quit complaining about them,and if not quit praising them on this. :twocents:
It isn't all about conservation. They manage the herd for hunting opportunities, viewing opportunities, etc. Tag limits are set accordingly.QuoteThe question was answered...the status report clearly acknowledges harvest is set conservatively to maintain non consumptive viewing opportunities. WDFW was intentionally not maximizing sustainable harvest...so any inference that 3 tags was a max safe harvest level is incorrect.
Read your two sentences and try to find how they contradict one another. If you need help I am here.
First sentence is about what the plan is and how tags are set. Second is a different plan strictly based on harvest and invented by you.
Post by: tlbradford on August 30, 2018, 10:00:03 PM
hunting opportunities?you have got to be kidding.With all the complaining of lack if hunting opportunity in this state by a large percent of members on this site with this state you throw that out. WOW.WOW,All the complaining about wdfw band the state experts they listen too through the years and then boom just like that the tribes do this then all of a sudden the experts that do so good for our hunting opportunities in this state are the shining experts and deserve this much praise. :bash:
Does WDFW and their experts do what you want for conservation or not. If they are then quit complaining about them,and if not quit praising them on this. :twocents:
It isn't all about conservation. They manage the herd for hunting opportunities, viewing opportunities, etc. Tag limits are set accordingly.QuoteThe question was answered...the status report clearly acknowledges harvest is set conservatively to maintain non consumptive viewing opportunities. WDFW was intentionally not maximizing sustainable harvest...so any inference that 3 tags was a max safe harvest level is incorrect.
Read your two sentences and try to find how they contradict one another. If you need help I am here.
There aren't many states with this many OTC tags where you get to hunt every year. We have often debated on this site, if the state should go to draw only to manage the number of hunters to make it a more enjoyable experience, and manage for more trophy animals.
Post by: idahohuntr on August 30, 2018, 10:33:29 PM
:rolleyes:They don't. Harvest levels were conservative, 3 tags is not the upper limit. Pretty straightforward.WOW,All the complaining about wdfw band the state experts they listen too through the years and then boom just like that the tribes do this then all of a sudden the experts that do so good for our hunting opportunities in this state are the shining experts and deserve this much praise. :bash:
Does WDFW and their experts do what you want for conservation or not. If they are then quit complaining about them,and if not quit praising them on this. :twocents:
It isn't all about conservation. They manage the herd for hunting opportunities, viewing opportunities, etc. Tag limits are set accordingly.QuoteThe question was answered...the status report clearly acknowledges harvest is set conservatively to maintain non consumptive viewing opportunities. WDFW was intentionally not maximizing sustainable harvest...so any inference that 3 tags was a max safe harvest level is incorrect.
Read your two sentences and try to find how they contradict one another. If you need help I am here.
First sentence is about what the plan is and how tags are set. Second is a different plan strictly based on harvest and invented by you.
Lookup the word conservative. There is no contradiction. Wdfw managed conservatively with 3 tags. If the plan said bios had set maximum sustainable harvest at 3, then we could assume 5 tags might be too high. That's not what the report says. Words mean things. :tup:
Post by: tlbradford on August 31, 2018, 12:28:26 AM
Post by: NOCK NOCK on August 31, 2018, 05:37:24 AM
Post by: X-Force on August 31, 2018, 07:14:23 AM
A lot of talk about only 2 (more/extra) tags for this year.....what if that is the new norm? 2 extra kills this year shouldn’t put the herd in a nose dive, but, 5 a year is prolly to many I would guess.
The herd is at the high end of its population objectives and the total number of harvests discussed are 4% if the total population.
Post by: baker5150 on August 31, 2018, 07:18:59 AM
A lot of talk about only 2 (more/extra) tags for this year.....what if that is the new norm? 2 extra kills this year shouldn’t put the herd in a nose dive, but, 5 a year is prolly to many I would guess.
The herd is at the high end of its population objectives and the total number of harvests discussed are 4% if the total population.
Source please.
I have been unable to find data on what the bio's believe is the max objective and ratio.
I'd also like to know what the Tribe bio believes is the max objective and ratio.
Post by: baker5150 on August 31, 2018, 07:19:12 AM
:rolleyes:They don't. Harvest levels were conservative, 3 tags is not the upper limit. Pretty straightforward.WOW,All the complaining about wdfw band the state experts they listen too through the years and then boom just like that the tribes do this then all of a sudden the experts that do so good for our hunting opportunities in this state are the shining experts and deserve this much praise. :bash:
Does WDFW and their experts do what you want for conservation or not. If they are then quit complaining about them,and if not quit praising them on this. :twocents:
It isn't all about conservation. They manage the herd for hunting opportunities, viewing opportunities, etc. Tag limits are set accordingly.QuoteThe question was answered...the status report clearly acknowledges harvest is set conservatively to maintain non consumptive viewing opportunities. WDFW was intentionally not maximizing sustainable harvest...so any inference that 3 tags was a max safe harvest level is incorrect.
Read your two sentences and try to find how they contradict one another. If you need help I am here.
First sentence is about what the plan is and how tags are set. Second is a different plan strictly based on harvest and invented by you.
Lookup the word conservative. There is no contradiction. Wdfw managed conservatively with 3 tags. If the plan said bios had set maximum sustainable harvest at 3, then we could assume 5 tags might be too high. That's not what the report says. Words mean things. :tup:
Post by: baker5150 on August 31, 2018, 07:25:04 AM
:rolleyes:They don't. Harvest levels were conservative, 3 tags is not the upper limit. Pretty straightforward.WOW,All the complaining about wdfw band the state experts they listen too through the years and then boom just like that the tribes do this then all of a sudden the experts that do so good for our hunting opportunities in this state are the shining experts and deserve this much praise. :bash:
Does WDFW and their experts do what you want for conservation or not. If they are then quit complaining about them,and if not quit praising them on this. :twocents:
It isn't all about conservation. They manage the herd for hunting opportunities, viewing opportunities, etc. Tag limits are set accordingly.QuoteThe question was answered...the status report clearly acknowledges harvest is set conservatively to maintain non consumptive viewing opportunities. WDFW was intentionally not maximizing sustainable harvest...so any inference that 3 tags was a max safe harvest level is incorrect.
Read your two sentences and try to find how they contradict one another. If you need help I am here.
First sentence is about what the plan is and how tags are set. Second is a different plan strictly based on harvest and invented by you.
Lookup the word conservative. There is no contradiction. Wdfw managed conservatively with 3 tags. If the plan said bios had set maximum sustainable harvest at 3, then we could assume 5 tags might be too high. That's not what the report says. Words mean things. :tup:
It is your opinion that because they listed their quota as conservative, that 2 more tags is *censored* dory.
That isn't from the State's mouth, it's from yours.
I've emailed the state bio, if they approve, i'll post the response.
Post by: idahohuntr on August 31, 2018, 08:26:31 AM
Concerns with 5 rams being harvested are social/political...not biological.
Post by: Tbar on August 31, 2018, 08:32:03 AM
And why do you think they set conservative tag numbers? Probably for unknowns that could happen, such as vehicle kills, predator kills, weather related kills? Conservative should be the norm. Again, if they thought you could take 4 sheep, they would have issued more tags.Seriously? The conservative tag numbers are set for a couple reasons and it does not revolve around opportunities to the general pool of hunters.
Post by: Tbar on August 31, 2018, 08:36:15 AM
Post by: X-Force on August 31, 2018, 09:02:08 AM
A lot of talk about only 2 (more/extra) tags for this year.....what if that is the new norm? 2 extra kills this year shouldn’t put the herd in a nose dive, but, 5 a year is prolly to many I would guess.
The herd is at the high end of its population objectives and the total number of harvests discussed are 4% if the total population.
Source please.
I have been unable to find data on what the bio's believe is the max objective and ratio.
I'd also like to know what the Tribe bio believes is the max objective and ratio.
I have been under the belief that 4% was the max harvest objective for sheep and goat but I cant find where Sheep are included in that percentage. It would make sense that with a 4% harvest is set for goat and goat harvests are either sex that a Ram only hunt at 4% population would have even less effect on the overall population.
Survival and Mortality
From 1996 to 2000, the Swakane bighorn population increased slowly (Table 1). In 2001, the population was estimated at 51 sheep, representing a 46 percent increase from the 1992-2000 average. The increased count in 2001 resulted after Swakane bands began using the cliffs/breaks along the Columbia River and SR 97A, allowing for better monitoring. The proliferation of residential developments and their associated ornamental plantings along the west shore of the Rocky Reach pool may have enticed bighorns to cross Highway 97A with increasing frequency. For over 30 years, no bighorn mortalities were attributed to vehicle collisions. However, 44 Swakane bighorns have been killed by vehicles on SR 97A (18 rams, 21 ewes, 5 lambs) since 2002. The most recent ground count for the Swakane herd documented a minimum of 156 animals.
https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01961/wdfw01961.pdf (https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01961/wdfw01961.pdf)
There were an estimated 155-165 bighorn sheep in the Swakane herd as of autumn 2016. The short-term objective for the Swakane herd is to maintain a population size of 130-170 animals (http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/game/); long-term, we estimate the habitat could support 150-180 animals.
The current 2016 counts are based on multiple opportunistic aerial and ground based surveys, but we suspect animals were missed.
The risk of disease transmission from domestic sheep is substantial for both the Swakane and Chelan Butte herds. Domestic sheep were documented 6 times within the core habitat of Swakane bighorns from 2000-2007. Domestic sheep were euthanized by WDFW (with permission from owners) in 2003 and 2007.
Post by: jackelope on August 31, 2018, 09:04:41 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on August 31, 2018, 09:17:33 AM
I'm really truly all for the tribes exercising their rights. I just want to know that there's more behind the permits than just throwing some out there simply because the tribe can. And I don't just mean from the tribe. I mean a joint effort between the state and the tribe by qualified people working together and set a reasonable harvest number. I know that is not an easy egg to crack, but I/we can hope I guess.The social and political desires behind those numbers might not be aligned. Maintaining a trophy class hunt and maximizing sustainable harvest are very, very different numbers. So how do you decide what the harvest should be?
Post by: jackelope on August 31, 2018, 09:30:46 AM
I'm really truly all for the tribes exercising their rights. I just want to know that there's more behind the permits than just throwing some out there simply because the tribe can. And I don't just mean from the tribe. I mean a joint effort between the state and the tribe by qualified people working together and set a reasonable harvest number. I know that is not an easy egg to crack, but I/we can hope I guess.The social and political desires behind those numbers might not be aligned. Maintaining a trophy class hunt and maximizing sustainable harvest are very, very different numbers. So how do you decide what the harvest should be?
No clue. I'm not qualified to make those decisions. I can tell you what services are due on your Ford truck though if you have one.
Are you a biologist? If so, perhaps you could shed some light on how those numbers are reached.
Post by: PlateauNDN on August 31, 2018, 10:01:05 AM
If both user groups came together and took into account each others concerns, short and long term management goals and any other issues I think it could benefit everybody.
But until the day that the State recognizes and treats Tribes with the same level of respect as it does with the other governmanetal group, I.e. Federal Government then there will co tongue to be issues amongst the groups.
Post by: PlateauNDN on August 31, 2018, 10:02:33 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on August 31, 2018, 10:08:04 AM
Managing for trophies v. Max sustainable harvest is not a biological question, it's a values question. As a co-owner of this states wildlife your opinion is just as important as anyone elses...whether you're a mechanic or a biologist.I'm really truly all for the tribes exercising their rights. I just want to know that there's more behind the permits than just throwing some out there simply because the tribe can. And I don't just mean from the tribe. I mean a joint effort between the state and the tribe by qualified people working together and set a reasonable harvest number. I know that is not an easy egg to crack, but I/we can hope I guess.The social and political desires behind those numbers might not be aligned. Maintaining a trophy class hunt and maximizing sustainable harvest are very, very different numbers. So how do you decide what the harvest should be?
No clue. I'm not qualified to make those decisions. I can tell you what services are due on your Ford truck though if you have one.
Are you a biologist? If so, perhaps you could shed some light on how those numbers are reached.
This question could be the barrier to successful comanagement...do the tribes values align with the states? Maybe plat or others have some insight on the tribal side...do the yakamas want to maintain this as a trophy unit? Or do they just want to have some additional harvest?
Post by: jackelope on August 31, 2018, 10:23:39 AM
Another thing, did the clemans, tieton, Yakima canyon (umtanum & selah butte) and quilomene sheep herds tank after we began issuing permits for those areas?
Pretty sure a couple of them tanked, but not for the reasons you questioned.
Post by: jackelope on August 31, 2018, 10:25:17 AM
Managing for trophies v. Max sustainable harvest is not a biological question, it's a values question. As a co-owner of this states wildlife your opinion is just as important as anyone elses...whether you're a mechanic or a biologist.I'm really truly all for the tribes exercising their rights. I just want to know that there's more behind the permits than just throwing some out there simply because the tribe can. And I don't just mean from the tribe. I mean a joint effort between the state and the tribe by qualified people working together and set a reasonable harvest number. I know that is not an easy egg to crack, but I/we can hope I guess.The social and political desires behind those numbers might not be aligned. Maintaining a trophy class hunt and maximizing sustainable harvest are very, very different numbers. So how do you decide what the harvest should be?
No clue. I'm not qualified to make those decisions. I can tell you what services are due on your Ford truck though if you have one.
Are you a biologist? If so, perhaps you could shed some light on how those numbers are reached.
This question could be the barrier to successful comanagement...do the tribes values align with the states? Maybe plat or others have some insight on the tribal side...do the yakamas want to maintain this as a trophy unit? Or do they just want to have some additional harvest?
You keep bringing up trophy potential. How's about lets first address not tanking the herd. Then we can talk about trophy potential.
It seems as though the herd count is right in the middle of the range that the state wants it at, but the overall goal is for a higher sheep count in the Swakane. Hopefully it will at least maintain.
Post by: Rainier10 on August 31, 2018, 10:35:25 AM
Another thing, did the clemans, tieton, Yakima canyon (umtanum & selah butte) and quilomene sheep herds tank after we began issuing permits for those areas?I am not sure about that but I had mentioned in an earlier post that the herds that have been hunted by both user groups in the past show both groups harvest numbers in the survey so there is some sort of communication between the two groups about harvest at least.
Post by: Rainier10 on August 31, 2018, 10:37:57 AM
Post by: PlateauNDN on August 31, 2018, 10:38:09 AM
Post by: X-Force on August 31, 2018, 10:39:26 AM
Managing for trophies v. Max sustainable harvest is not a biological question, it's a values question. As a co-owner of this states wildlife your opinion is just as important as anyone elses...whether you're a mechanic or a biologist.I'm really truly all for the tribes exercising their rights. I just want to know that there's more behind the permits than just throwing some out there simply because the tribe can. And I don't just mean from the tribe. I mean a joint effort between the state and the tribe by qualified people working together and set a reasonable harvest number. I know that is not an easy egg to crack, but I/we can hope I guess.The social and political desires behind those numbers might not be aligned. Maintaining a trophy class hunt and maximizing sustainable harvest are very, very different numbers. So how do you decide what the harvest should be?
No clue. I'm not qualified to make those decisions. I can tell you what services are due on your Ford truck though if you have one.
Are you a biologist? If so, perhaps you could shed some light on how those numbers are reached.
This question could be the barrier to successful comanagement...do the tribes values align with the states? Maybe plat or others have some insight on the tribal side...do the yakamas want to maintain this as a trophy unit? Or do they just want to have some additional harvest?
You keep bringing up trophy potential. How's about lets first address not tanking the herd. Then we can talk about trophy potential.
It seems as though the herd count is right in the middle of the range that the state wants it at, but the overall goal is for a higher sheep count in the Swakane. Hopefully it will at least maintain.
The graph you provided is a 2014 herd count and a 2015 report. The herd has maintained a population of 130-150 animals since 2012 and the most recent report (2016) estimated, "There were an estimated 155-165 bighorn sheep in the Swakane herd as of autumn 2016."
Vehicle deaths were and the threat of domestic sheep are a FAR bigger issue than the harvest of 4-6 rams taken this year.
Post by: Rainier10 on August 31, 2018, 10:39:41 AM
@jackelope they didnt have numbers for the umtanum & selah Butte herds?Yes on page 220, I just asked him to post that chart. I am not as tech savvy as he is. He is a year younger than me so he is better at that stuff. I'm old school. 8)
Post by: X-Force on August 31, 2018, 10:47:08 AM
@jackelope they didnt have numbers for the umtanum & selah Butte herds?Yes on page 220, I just asked him to post that chart. I am not as tech savvy as he is. He is a year younger than me so he is better at that stuff. I'm old school. 8)
Post by: jackelope on August 31, 2018, 10:52:35 AM
There's a crap ton of info here. Not sure if this is what you're after, but page 220 of it is ram harvest in the Swakane for the last several years.
The chart I posted a screen shot of was from a different 4 page report. I'll find that one too.
Post by: Rainier10 on August 31, 2018, 10:53:29 AM
So as you can see there must be some sort of communication between WDFW and the tribes to get those numbers.
Post by: Rainier10 on August 31, 2018, 10:58:24 AM
https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01961/wdfw01961.pdfIt's actually page # 220 in the report, page number at the bottom of the page. It a different page of the entire document because there is an unnumbered cover page and index and stuff like that, maybe page 226 or something of the document.
There's a crap ton of info here. Not sure if this is what you're after, but page 220 of it is ram harvest in the Swakane for the last several years.
The chart I posted a screen shot of was from a different 4 page report. I'll find that one too.
X Force posted the chart I was looking for. It was just to show that the two groups talk. That's what I am most concerned about, as long as they are talking and hopefully working towards a common goal of maintaining a healthy herd I am happy.
I am not sure if that chart confirms all that but it at least shows they are communicating a little.
Post by: B4noon on August 31, 2018, 11:21:15 AM
Post by: PlateauNDN on August 31, 2018, 11:27:16 AM
Post by: jackelope on August 31, 2018, 11:43:05 AM
Post by: X-Force on August 31, 2018, 12:04:15 PM
"For the Blue Mountains herds in aggregate then, the short-term objective would be to have 340-440 animals, but we estimate that ideally the area could ultimately support approximately 1,360 if disease and landowner tolerance issues were resolved." pg. 180
Post by: B4noon on August 31, 2018, 12:10:30 PM
Post by: X-Force on August 31, 2018, 12:28:07 PM
What about the tieton if I recall they had originally proposed reintroduction in 2016-17
"The Tieton herd was eliminated and current plans call for holding off on reintroduction until the risk of contact with domestic sheep or goats is substantially reduced." pg 219
Post by: meatwhack on August 31, 2018, 02:53:29 PM
Post by: X-Force on August 31, 2018, 03:10:43 PM
All the talk about trophy potential vs max sustainable harvest is a little funny. I’d like to hear from some guys who’ve waited a lifetime to draw a sheep tag and would be excited to go out and shoot a 1/2 curl ram. Some may not like to hear this but most people that get a sheep tag are trophy hunting.
"Harvest objectives for bighorn sheep are to maintain a harvest success that averages >85% over a 3-year period, while at the same time bighorn population size remains stable or increasing. Strategies and harvest thresholds to obtain these objectives are described in the WDFW’s Game Management Plan (2014)" pg 175
Looking at WDFW's plan it looks like population growth is the top priority and the limited harvests to sustain growth keep trophy potential high.
Many areas aren't near population objectives... and not because of habitat or over-hunting its because of domestic livestock.
Post by: B4noon on August 31, 2018, 03:23:24 PM
Post by: Tbar on August 31, 2018, 03:25:15 PM
And because decisions are influenced by people in Seattle, battleground, snoqualmie, and Tri-cities. Specific people.All the talk about trophy potential vs max sustainable harvest is a little funny. I’d like to hear from some guys who’ve waited a lifetime to draw a sheep tag and would be excited to go out and shoot a 1/2 curl ram. Some may not like to hear this but most people that get a sheep tag are trophy hunting.
"Harvest objectives for bighorn sheep are to maintain a harvest success that averages >85% over a 3-year period, while at the same time bighorn population size remains stable or increasing. Strategies and harvest thresholds to obtain these objectives are described in the WDFW’s Game Management Plan (2014)" pg 175
Looking at WDFW's plan it looks like population growth is the top priority and the limited harvests to sustain growth keep trophy potential high.
Many areas aren't near population objectives... and not because of habitat or over-hunting its because of domestic livestock.
Post by: tlbradford on September 04, 2018, 06:32:57 PM
http://www.themeateater.com/podcasts/ep-132-sheep-on-the-mountain/ (http://www.themeateater.com/podcasts/ep-132-sheep-on-the-mountain/)
Post by: running_bull on October 14, 2018, 12:44:58 AM
Post by: jackelope on October 14, 2018, 10:03:07 AM
Any one hear of the sheep that was harvested up there yet?
Have any of the tribal sheep tags been filled at all yet?
Post by: running_bull on October 17, 2018, 10:49:03 PM
Post by: jackelope on October 18, 2018, 05:27:16 PM
I heard of one that was supposed to go over 180 but haven’t seen pics yet@running_bull
That one of the tribal hunters killed? I've heard neither of them have even hunted yet...who knows though. Could be bad gossip.
None of the state hunters killed a ram over 180" as far as I know.
Post by: running_bull on October 19, 2018, 01:54:19 AM
Post by: jackelope on October 19, 2018, 09:30:33 AM
Ok must of been gossip I gess it was a state hunter was claiming he shot a 186 but unknown. Oh well and no I haven’t heard anything about the tribal guys. But I did hear of a over 400 inch bull taking about 2 weeks ago from a tribal guy@running_bull
I heard about one killed by a tribal guy in the Colockum. Is that the one you're talking about?
Post by: Chiefbigbul on October 20, 2018, 09:54:01 PM
Post by: running_bull on October 20, 2018, 10:46:52 PM
Post by: jackelope on October 21, 2018, 04:57:21 PM
Yes that’s the one I seen a pic of had two guys behind a nice ram . Guy said it was a 186 but was waiting to see if any one else had a pic of it
You guys talking about this ram? Fairly confident he was 179”
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181021/15d82754eafa68f9e1723a948ac68ef5.jpg)
Post by: huntnfmly on October 21, 2018, 05:01:34 PM
Smyth or something
Post by: PlateauNDN on October 21, 2018, 05:03:37 PM
Post by: huntnfmly on October 21, 2018, 05:10:22 PM
Post by: PlateauNDN on October 21, 2018, 05:15:19 PM
Hopefully the 2 lucky permit holders will make a good effort and get a good representative of this unit. :tup:
Post by: trophyhunt on October 21, 2018, 05:21:15 PM
Post by: elkrack on October 21, 2018, 05:28:47 PM
Great ram!
:yeah:
Stud!
Post by: huntnfmly on October 21, 2018, 06:26:44 PM
Rugged hunting adventures
Post by: jackelope on October 21, 2018, 08:29:50 PM
Post by: Katmai Guy on October 21, 2018, 08:44:39 PM
J. Alain SmithWA resident?
Rugged hunting adventures
Post by: huntnphool on October 21, 2018, 10:51:20 PM
With what's in there I'd say that's right in the middle for size.
The guy on the left knows his sh!t, I seriously doubt he would have recommended Alain shoot a "in the middle" ram. :twocents:
Post by: PlateauNDN on October 21, 2018, 11:56:29 PM
With what's in there I'd say that's right in the middle for size.
The guy on the left knows his sh!t, I seriously doubt he would have recommended Alain shoot a "in the middle" ram. :twocents:
I know he knows his stuff I was just saying that some pics I've seen of rams in there recently I'm sure there was a couple that are bigger. It's a beautiful ram and bigger than what I've taken. :tup:
From what I've heard they definitely put in the time and work for that ram and any ram they took out of that unit.
Post by: Falcon on October 22, 2018, 06:21:10 AM
With what's in there I'd say that's right in the middle for size.
The guy on the left knows his sh!t, I seriously doubt he would have recommended Alain shoot a "in the middle" ram. :twocents:
[/quote]
:yeah:
Post by: nwhunter on October 23, 2018, 08:13:28 AM
Post by: PlateauNDN on October 23, 2018, 08:41:50 AM
Like I said, they did that tag justice, put in time and effort and got a beautiful ram.
And yes, hopefully the 2 tribal permit holders can appreciate the opportunity they have and put forth a good effort and get a good representative of this unit and not waste it on a banana ram or the 1st 1 they see just to end the hunt.
Post by: shallowforks on October 23, 2018, 08:49:50 AM
Post by: PlateauNDN on October 23, 2018, 02:46:54 PM
Good luck to all the remaining tag holders. @PlateauNDN im dying at your avatar, thats awesome!
My 1/2024th cherokee traditional buckskin blouse and headband with mystical and enchanted feathers is not a laughing matter... >:(
Post by: Ellensburg on December 05, 2018, 10:48:28 AM
So is he a Yakima Tribal member?
Post by: Rainier10 on December 05, 2018, 12:07:48 PM
I know of 4 sheep taken for sure, 1 auction tag, 2 tribal tags, one regular tag and don't know about the 5 tag/ regular tag and if it was filled.
Post by: NOCK NOCK on December 05, 2018, 03:17:44 PM
Just one thing I did not care for, near the end he stated how cool it was to take the sheep right in "my backyard"
Nothing against westside folks or him, but this IS MY BACKYARD. When you live on the other side of the cascades, it is far from his backyard.
Post by: 2MANY on December 05, 2018, 03:20:24 PM
Post by: Timberstalker on December 05, 2018, 03:21:15 PM
@jackelope
JK!
Post by: Timberstalker on December 05, 2018, 03:21:59 PM
Post by: 2MANY on December 05, 2018, 03:22:29 PM
Post by: NOCK NOCK on December 05, 2018, 03:44:07 PM
Flame away. :hello:
Post by: huntnfmly on December 05, 2018, 06:41:03 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on December 05, 2018, 07:07:09 PM
Post by: jackelope on December 05, 2018, 07:34:12 PM
That one dude looks like Ol' Starbailey.
Multiple hunt-wa celebs from both sides of the state partook in that hunt.
Post by: jackelope on December 05, 2018, 07:35:45 PM
Nice video and Ram.
Just one thing I did not care for, near the end he stated how cool it was to take the sheep right in "my backyard"
Nothing against westside folks or him, but this IS MY BACKYARD. When you live on the other side of the cascades, it is far from his backyard.
I think what he’s talking about is relative to other places he would have to go to hunt sheep. Relatively speaking, it’s in his backyard. I’d say the same thing.
Post by: bowhunterforever on December 05, 2018, 07:42:51 PM
Post by: Oh Mah on December 05, 2018, 07:44:41 PM
Post by: NOCK NOCK on December 05, 2018, 07:55:52 PM
Post by: jackelope on December 05, 2018, 08:21:39 PM
dumb question:If he is not tribal and he is hunting with a tribal tag does that mean he purchased said tag from the tribal member that got it?
He purchased the tag through the auction system. Same thing as the elk or deer auction tags we have..
Post by: huntnphool on December 05, 2018, 10:51:05 PM
dumb question:If he is not tribal and he is hunting with a tribal tag does that mean he purchased said tag from the tribal member that got it?
He purchased the tag through the auction system. Same thing as the elk or deer auction tags we have..
Pretty sure it was north of $130k as well. ;)
Post by: Caseyd on December 05, 2018, 11:21:10 PM
dumb question:If he is not tribal and he is hunting with a tribal tag does that mean he purchased said tag from the tribal member that got it?
He purchased the tag through the auction system. Same thing as the elk or deer auction tags we have..
Pretty sure it was north of $130k as well. ;)
Which he could of spent in someone else’s yard but he choose his own yard “backyard”.
Post by: huntnphool on December 05, 2018, 11:28:59 PM
dumb question:If he is not tribal and he is hunting with a tribal tag does that mean he purchased said tag from the tribal member that got it?
He purchased the tag through the auction system. Same thing as the elk or deer auction tags we have..
Pretty sure it was north of $130k as well. ;)
Which he could of spent in someone else’s yard but he choose his own yard “backyard”.
Yeah I'm in agreement with Jack, relative to other sheep areas, this really is his backyard, as well as the rest of us that live in the PacNW.
Congrats to him and his guides, fantastic ram! :tup:
Post by: Skyvalhunter on December 06, 2018, 05:19:11 AM
Post by: NOCK NOCK on December 06, 2018, 05:50:50 AM
dumb question:If he is not tribal and he is hunting with a tribal tag does that mean he purchased said tag from the tribal member that got it?
He purchased the tag through the auction system. Same thing as the elk or deer auction tags we have..
Pretty sure it was north of $130k as well. ;)
Which he could of spent in someone else’s yard but he choose his own yard “backyard”.
Yeah I'm in agreement with Jack, relative to other sheep areas, this really is his backyard, as well as the rest of us that live in the PacNW.
Congrats to him and his guides, fantastic ram! :tup:
So some of my neighbors in the Seattle area have trees that are so tall I can’t see the ocean from my backyard, could you folks trim them down a bit ? Lol
It’s a joke, settle down.
Post by: Rainier10 on December 06, 2018, 07:45:59 AM
Post by: jackelope on December 06, 2018, 01:07:24 PM
dumb question:If he is not tribal and he is hunting with a tribal tag does that mean he purchased said tag from the tribal member that got it?
He purchased the tag through the auction system. Same thing as the elk or deer auction tags we have..
Pretty sure it was north of $130k as well. ;)
Which he could of spent in someone else’s yard but he choose his own yard “backyard”.
Yeah I'm in agreement with Jack, relative to other sheep areas, this really is his backyard, as well as the rest of us that live in the PacNW.
Congrats to him and his guides, fantastic ram! :tup:
So some of my neighbors in the Seattle area have trees that are so tall I can’t see the ocean from my backyard, could you folks trim them down a bit ? Lol
It’s a joke, settle down.
Nock....
You totally can't just go making eastside/westside jokes without the Timberstalker getting all fired up and throwing me into the foray.
Post by: Timberstalker on December 06, 2018, 02:38:37 PM
Foray! I love it.
I think it's awesome that he put that money forward, had a bit of fun and helped wild sheep.
Good for him. :tup:
Post by: Rainier10 on December 06, 2018, 03:18:59 PM
:chuckle:Josh and J Alain are neighbors.
Foray! I love it.
I think it's awesome that he put that money forward, had a bit of fun and helped wild sheep.
Good for him. :tup:
:peep:
Post by: PlateauNDN on December 06, 2018, 03:20:40 PM
Heard the stories from 1st handers and they put the time and effort in so cograts to both.
Post by: Rainier10 on December 06, 2018, 03:25:00 PM
Heck yeah, that's the way I would love to do it. I would have a buddy packing a rifle or a muzzy as backup for me to use if needed.
Congrats to those tribal hunters. I would be more than happy with a 170" sheep. That would be the biggest sheep on my wall by a long shot.
FYI there are no sheep on my wall.
Post by: benhuntin on December 06, 2018, 03:42:19 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: BKMFR on December 06, 2018, 03:54:29 PM
Post by: PlateauNDN on December 06, 2018, 03:54:50 PM
Post by: NOCK NOCK on December 06, 2018, 04:50:02 PM
:chuckle:Josh and J Alain are neighbors.
Foray! I love it.
I think it's awesome that he put that money forward, had a bit of fun and helped wild sheep.
Good for him. :tup:
:peep:
More hands make quick work, I'll even bring over my chainsaws and some beer, I'll have a great view in no time.
:chuckle:
Post by: MtnMuley on December 06, 2018, 05:25:09 PM
Post by: HighCountryHunter88 on December 06, 2018, 05:57:58 PM
Post by: elkrack on December 07, 2018, 07:09:20 AM
Funny how the guy called it a “Once in a lifetime” tag. If your gonna buy the governors tag it can be an annual tag. Just sayin.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
:yeah:
Post by: Dan-o on December 07, 2018, 07:53:19 AM
Funny how the guy called it a “Once in a lifetime” tag. If your gonna buy the governors tag it can be an annual tag. Just sayin.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
:yeah:
Great hunt. Glad he had such an adventure.
I don't understand your comment, though. i don't know the guy. Maybe it is like loose change to him. Maybe not.
My wife and I have been saving for our "Trip of a Lifetime". We hope to go in 2020. that doesn't mean we can go every year. Just sayin'.
Post by: PlateauNDN on December 07, 2018, 07:58:41 AM
Post by: BULLBLASTER on December 07, 2018, 08:05:43 AM
Funny how the guy called it a “Once in a lifetime” tag. If your gonna buy the governors tag it can be an annual tag. Just sayin.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
:yeah:
I thought I heard him say once in a lifetime sheep not once in a lifetime tag..
Post by: jackelope on December 07, 2018, 08:17:55 AM
:chuckle:
Foray! I love it.
I think it's awesome that he put that money forward, had a bit of fun and helped wild sheep.
Good for him. :tup:
It's a westside word.
Post by: jackelope on December 07, 2018, 08:19:43 AM
:chuckle:Josh and J Alain are neighbors.
Foray! I love it.
I think it's awesome that he put that money forward, had a bit of fun and helped wild sheep.
Good for him. :tup:
:peep:
More hands make quick work, I'll even bring over my chainsaws and some beer, I'll have a great view in no time.
:chuckle:
Now you're going to take our westside trees to use for your business?
:yike:
Post by: NOCK NOCK on December 07, 2018, 04:09:38 PM
West trees are all :cryriver:...…………………….wet
East trees over here are :fire.:...……………….burnt up
I'm gonna have to find some benchleg pine Josh.
Post by: Timberstalker on December 07, 2018, 04:46:52 PM
:chuckle:
Foray! I love it.
I think it's awesome that he put that money forward, had a bit of fun and helped wild sheep.
Good for him. :tup:
It's a westside word.
Hifalutin west side lingo!