Post by: bigtex on January 08, 2024, 05:26:43 PM
What this essentially means is if a Muckleshoot (example) tribal member wanted to go turkey hunting in Colville under state seasons/limits they would get a free state hunting license, currently they would have to pay for the license.
Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
Post by: storyteller on January 08, 2024, 05:36:07 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 08, 2024, 05:43:47 PM
Bigtex, what do you think is the motive for rep maycumber proposing this?Her district includes the Colville reservation, so this would benefit her constituents.
Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
Post by: Bullkllr on January 08, 2024, 06:01:16 PM
I'd like to hear why this is considered necessary.
https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=2107&Year=2023&Initiative=false (https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=2107&Year=2023&Initiative=false)
Actual text:
https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2023-24/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/2107.pdf?q=20240108175736 (https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2023-24/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/2107.pdf?q=20240108175736)
Post by: ducks4days on January 08, 2024, 06:50:58 PM
This seems bass-ackwards
Post by: MADMAX on January 08, 2024, 07:09:01 PM
Post by: HUNTIN4SIX on January 08, 2024, 07:56:11 PM
Post by: wags on January 08, 2024, 09:46:20 PM
Post by: JohnVH on January 09, 2024, 08:41:23 AM
Post by: hunter399 on January 09, 2024, 09:36:30 AM
Are they gonna require hunter education for younger folks?
Safety is important in the pumpkin patch.
Other than that ,I don't have a problem with it.
As long as they meet safety requirements.
Post by: Bone collector 13 on January 09, 2024, 09:54:25 AM
Post by: luvmystang67 on January 09, 2024, 10:00:21 AM
:hello:
Post by: boneaddict on January 09, 2024, 10:21:21 AM
Post by: Whitefoot on January 09, 2024, 10:32:55 AM
They should have to go through the same systems we do.Why? Enlighten me!
Post by: Whitefoot on January 09, 2024, 10:35:10 AM
They have an actual right to hunt and fish, while most simply have a privilege. I am super comfortable with any tribal member hunting and fishing outside of their negotiated legal rights, as long as they pay the same as anybody else exercising a privilege.To be honest we can hunt anywhere with out a license or fish. We would have to set a precedence like our Buffalo hunt in Gardiner an Hanford.
This seems bass-ackwards
Post by: ducks4days on January 09, 2024, 10:58:35 AM
They should have to go through the same systems we do.Why? Enlighten me!
Their hunting rights were enshrined by treaty to close out wars and settle land disputes. They outline places they have the rights, and anywhere not covered in that treaty is not covered by that right.
A seattle cop can run a red light when responding to a call, they have that exception carved out. That doesnt give them an exception to run red lights in Miami because they are about to miss a plane coming back from vacation. That would be absurd.
Tribal members who have a right to hunt and fish in specific areas should not be limited to hunting and fishing ONLY in those areas. But they do so without the right to, and therefore, should do so through the same system everybody without a right to do it does.
Post by: Bullkllr on January 09, 2024, 11:02:36 AM
Post by: hunter399 on January 09, 2024, 11:11:57 AM
How about OIL tags. Does this mean they can put in for or double dip?They already can do that I believe.
They just won't have to pay for license now.
Most likely have to pay for permits.
But yes I think the cost of the licence has always kinda deterred them from double dipping. But I believe they always have had the ability to double dip if they wanted to buy a license and permit.
I've actually encouraged a few friends before,but don't believe they ever did.
Just like anybody,nobody wants to give money to the state, unless necessary. Free license,will most likely mean double dipping.
Moose draws from the tribe,our moose draws as well.
Which they always have had the ability. Just a lot easier if this goes through.
Post by: elkslayer069 on January 09, 2024, 11:57:03 AM
Post by: luvmystang67 on January 09, 2024, 11:59:14 AM
I read an opinion piece that commented that this was to help out the tribes that do not have established treaty rights. That seems more noble I guess, but there's nothing in the official bill language that hints at that.
Here's the thing. I'm a member of a tribe without treaty rights. Without treaty rights, you don't have the ability to hunt off-reservation, except for as a standard citizen.
This text in the bill An enrolled member of a federally recognized Indian tribe with off-reservation hunting rights in Washington would indicate that non-treaty tribes would NOT be included in this, because non-treaty tribes (at least most/mine) do not have any off-reservation hunting rights.
I am not suggesting that anybody "deserves" anything, but it have always found it surprising that this state was so willing to acknowledge treaty tribes, while keeping non-treaty tribes in a pretty tight box. Providing free licenses to non-treaty tribes is one thing the state could do to help level the playing field a little... It isn't like the non-treaty tribes were treated better somehow. Their land was still taken, they just don't have a treaty to fall back on.
Post by: Bullkllr on January 09, 2024, 12:49:31 PM
I read an opinion piece that commented that this was to help out the tribes that do not have established treaty rights. That seems more noble I guess, but there's nothing in the official bill language that hints at that.
Here's the thing. I'm a member of a tribe without treaty rights. Without treaty rights, you don't have the ability to hunt off-reservation, except for as a standard citizen.
This text in the bill An enrolled member of a federally recognized Indian tribe with off-reservation hunting rights in Washington would indicate that non-treaty tribes would NOT be included in this, because non-treaty tribes (at least most/mine) do not have any off-reservation hunting rights.
I am not suggesting that anybody "deserves" anything, but it have always found it surprising that this state was so willing to acknowledge treaty tribes, while keeping non-treaty tribes in a pretty tight box. Providing free licenses to non-treaty tribes is one thing the state could do to help level the playing field a little... It isn't like the non-treaty tribes were treated better somehow. Their land was still taken, they just don't have a treaty to fall back on.
Thanks for this. I thought something was amiss when I read the text in the bill as far as the bill supporting non-treaty tribes. I sent an email to see if I can get any clarification , but what you are saying seems to make sense.
Post by: bigtex on January 09, 2024, 03:54:38 PM
My thought is, would this potentially open them up to enforcement actions? If this goes thru will WDFW now be able to stop and “check” licenses? If not then whats the point of giving a free license.If a tribal member hunts outside of their ceded area they are already subject to WDFW jurisdiction/enforcement.
Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
Post by: Bullkllr on January 10, 2024, 12:30:57 PM
I read an opinion piece that commented that this was to help out the tribes that do not have established treaty rights. That seems more noble I guess, but there's nothing in the official bill language that hints at that.
Here's the thing. I'm a member of a tribe without treaty rights. Without treaty rights, you don't have the ability to hunt off-reservation, except for as a standard citizen.
This text in the bill An enrolled member of a federally recognized Indian tribe with off-reservation hunting rights in Washington would indicate that non-treaty tribes would NOT be included in this, because non-treaty tribes (at least most/mine) do not have any off-reservation hunting rights.
I am not suggesting that anybody "deserves" anything, but it have always found it surprising that this state was so willing to acknowledge treaty tribes, while keeping non-treaty tribes in a pretty tight box. Providing free licenses to non-treaty tribes is one thing the state could do to help level the playing field a little... It isn't like the non-treaty tribes were treated better somehow. Their land was still taken, they just don't have a treaty to fall back on.
Here are some insights from a reply I received from a "legislative insider" that provide info about the motivation and progress of this bill:
"Some tribes contacted Maycumber with some concerns about the bill language, and that the bill got pulled from today's hearing, I'm guessing that this bill will be abandoned and that Maycumber will drop an improved bill to cover the concerns. There were others who thought the bill allowed tribes to hunt on private property, which was just a misunderstanding of the bill language. However this type of input helps to improve and refine laws... it's part of the process.
The Colvilles have hunting rights both on and off the reservation in Ferry County, and we are VERY grateful that they do. We have a horrible wolf problem, and the ranchers cannot protect their stock. However, the Colville tribal members can and do help their neighbors. It's good for them, they get to preserve their hunting culture and pass on skills, and they get to support their non-tribal friends and neighbors.
The tribes are good allies in the struggle with the state to preserve hunting rights.
The Ds don't even want to allow the tribes to hunt, and the governor's natural resource board is poised to ban all hunting of predators.
If we can preserve hunting for the tribes NOW, later we can preserve hunting culture for everyone. "
I'll make an effort to get further clarification from Maycumber. If they clean up the language and coverage of tribes without off-res rights it makes more sense to me at least.
Post by: luvmystang67 on January 10, 2024, 12:38:32 PM
I read an opinion piece that commented that this was to help out the tribes that do not have established treaty rights. That seems more noble I guess, but there's nothing in the official bill language that hints at that.
Here's the thing. I'm a member of a tribe without treaty rights. Without treaty rights, you don't have the ability to hunt off-reservation, except for as a standard citizen.
This text in the bill An enrolled member of a federally recognized Indian tribe with off-reservation hunting rights in Washington would indicate that non-treaty tribes would NOT be included in this, because non-treaty tribes (at least most/mine) do not have any off-reservation hunting rights.
I am not suggesting that anybody "deserves" anything, but it have always found it surprising that this state was so willing to acknowledge treaty tribes, while keeping non-treaty tribes in a pretty tight box. Providing free licenses to non-treaty tribes is one thing the state could do to help level the playing field a little... It isn't like the non-treaty tribes were treated better somehow. Their land was still taken, they just don't have a treaty to fall back on.
Here are some insights from a reply I received from a "legislative insider" that provide info about the motivation and progress of this bill:
"Some tribes contacted Maycumber with some concerns about the bill language, and that the bill got pulled from today's hearing, I'm guessing that this bill will be abandoned and that Maycumber will drop an improved bill to cover the concerns. There were others who thought the bill allowed tribes to hunt on private property, which was just a misunderstanding of the bill language. However this type of input helps to improve and refine laws... it's part of the process.
The Colvilles have hunting rights both on and off the reservation in Ferry County, and we are VERY grateful that they do. We have a horrible wolf problem, and the ranchers cannot protect their stock. However, the Colville tribal members can and do help their neighbors. It's good for them, they get to preserve their hunting culture and pass on skills, and they get to support their non-tribal friends and neighbors.
The tribes are good allies in the struggle with the state to preserve hunting rights.
The Ds don't even want to allow the tribes to hunt, and the governor's natural resource board is poised to ban all hunting of predators.
If we can preserve hunting for the tribes NOW, later we can preserve hunting culture for everyone. "
I'll make an effort to get further clarification from Maycumber. If they clean up the language and coverage of tribes without off-res rights it makes more sense to me at least.
Not that this will make you feel better, but selfishly it'd help out a guy like me. Appreciate the update.
Post by: bigtex on January 10, 2024, 02:21:25 PM
I read an opinion piece that commented that this was to help out the tribes that do not have established treaty rights. That seems more noble I guess, but there's nothing in the official bill language that hints at that.
Here's the thing. I'm a member of a tribe without treaty rights. Without treaty rights, you don't have the ability to hunt off-reservation, except for as a standard citizen.
This text in the bill An enrolled member of a federally recognized Indian tribe with off-reservation hunting rights in Washington would indicate that non-treaty tribes would NOT be included in this, because non-treaty tribes (at least most/mine) do not have any off-reservation hunting rights.
I am not suggesting that anybody "deserves" anything, but it have always found it surprising that this state was so willing to acknowledge treaty tribes, while keeping non-treaty tribes in a pretty tight box. Providing free licenses to non-treaty tribes is one thing the state could do to help level the playing field a little... It isn't like the non-treaty tribes were treated better somehow. Their land was still taken, they just don't have a treaty to fall back on.
Here are some insights from a reply I received from a "legislative insider" that provide info about the motivation and progress of this bill:
"Some tribes contacted Maycumber with some concerns about the bill language, and that the bill got pulled from today's hearing, I'm guessing that this bill will be abandoned and that Maycumber will drop an improved bill to cover the concerns. There were others who thought the bill allowed tribes to hunt on private property, which was just a misunderstanding of the bill language. However this type of input helps to improve and refine laws... it's part of the process.
The Colvilles have hunting rights both on and off the reservation in Ferry County, and we are VERY grateful that they do. We have a horrible wolf problem, and the ranchers cannot protect their stock. However, the Colville tribal members can and do help their neighbors. It's good for them, they get to preserve their hunting culture and pass on skills, and they get to support their non-tribal friends and neighbors.
The tribes are good allies in the struggle with the state to preserve hunting rights.
The Ds don't even want to allow the tribes to hunt, and the governor's natural resource board is poised to ban all hunting of predators.
If we can preserve hunting for the tribes NOW, later we can preserve hunting culture for everyone. "
I'll make an effort to get further clarification from Maycumber. If they clean up the language and coverage of tribes without off-res rights it makes more sense to me at least.
So essentially because the Colville's help with the wolf problem in a small part of WA now all tribal members with off-reservation hunting rights will get free state licenses for anywhere in the state?
Sorry all this sounds like is just giving freebies to constituents. If a guy volunteers 1,000 hours at a fish hatchery should he get a free fishing license??
Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
Post by: vandeman17 on January 10, 2024, 02:25:44 PM
Post by: GOcougsHunter on January 10, 2024, 02:37:56 PM
Also, does the proposed language also include all big game species (OIL)?
Will follow along this thread
Post by: Pegasus on January 10, 2024, 03:24:34 PM
Post by: Bullkllr on January 10, 2024, 04:32:25 PM
Why would it be for free...???
That's my biggest question.
Post by: WWC on January 10, 2024, 08:39:01 PM
Sportsmen no longer need to flood her phones on this issue.
Post by: bigtex on January 10, 2024, 08:48:34 PM
After consulting wiith Hunters Heritage Council's President, Represenative Maycumber will be killing her own bill. She mistakenly thought this would help hunters.Awesome
Sportsmen no longer need to flood her phones on this issue.
However, my fear with this is that this "idea" is now in the ears/minds of legislators. As proof, the sponsor/co-sponsor list has grown from 3 to 9. Any legislator can draft a similar bill and try and push it thru the legislature.
Honestly, pretty disappointed Maycumber even thought this would be a good idea/supported by the hunting community.
Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
Post by: Bushcraft on January 10, 2024, 08:50:00 PM
After consulting wiith Hunters Heritage Council's President, Represenative Maycumber will be killing her own bill. She mistakenly thought this would help hunters.
Sportsmen no longer need to flood her phones on this issue.
Good.
Post by: ducks4days on January 11, 2024, 08:21:40 AM
After consulting wiith Hunters Heritage Council's President, Represenative Maycumber will be killing her own bill. She mistakenly thought this would help hunters.Awesome
Sportsmen no longer need to flood her phones on this issue.
However, my fear with this is that this "idea" is now in the ears/minds of legislators. As proof, the sponsor/co-sponsor list has grown from 3 to 9. Any legislator can draft a similar bill and try and push it thru the legislature.
Honestly, pretty disappointed Maycumber even thought this would be a good idea/supported by the hunting community.
Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
Its pretty awesome that the reps are still responding to public feedback. Its a good sign that the system may still be working.
Post by: buckfvr on January 11, 2024, 04:51:44 PM