Post by: yelp on November 21, 2009, 08:53:29 AM
“North Half” hunting rights
Published: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 10:28 AM PST
The Colville Confederated Tribes Thursday filed suit in federal court to defend tribal hunting rights in its “North Half” territory, the chairman of the Tribes announced.
“This case defends our members’ right to hunt on the North Half, free of illegal state regulation,” CBC Chairman Michael Finley said. “Tribal members hunting there should not be prosecuted under Washington’s firearms law for engaging in conduct that is both safe and allowed by Tribal law.”
The Tribes’ filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. It concerns a citation issued to a tribal hunter in the “North Half,” a part of the Colville Reservation as it was established in1872, when it extended to the Canadian border.
The Tribes ceded the North Half to the United States in an 1891 agreement, but members retained their rights to hunt and fish there, on public lands, free of state conservation laws.
“We don’t dispute the state’s authority to regulate tribal hunting on the North Half, when necessary to protect public safety,” Finley said. “But this is not the case here. A tribal hunter was cited by the state even though he posed no safety risk and was fully compliant with Tribal law.”
Finley said the tribal hunter had a bullet in his gun’s magazine, but not in the chamber, as allowed by tribal regulations. He said the Colville Tribes’ hunting regulations are at least as strict, or stricter, than many other states’ firearms laws.
State law does not allow a hunter’s rifle in a vehicle to be loaded at all.
“The enforcement of this Washington firearms law against Colville Tribal members is unnecessary and contrary to federal court decisions on these matters,” Finley said.
He said that the courts have limited state authority to regulate tribal hunting outside reservations to situations where tribal regulations are inadequate to provide for conservation of game resources or to protect public safety.
The Colville Tribe has attempted to negotiate a solution to this issue, but the state was unwilling to resolve it, the tribes stated in a press release.
“We were hoping we could convince the state that it cannot, and need not, attempt to assert its jurisdiction in this matter,” Finley said. “But in the end, we’ve been forced to take this matter to federal court to protect our rights.”
Post by: boneaddict on November 21, 2009, 08:56:44 AM
Post by: yelp on November 21, 2009, 09:01:05 AM
Post by: bobcat on November 21, 2009, 09:01:18 AM
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on November 21, 2009, 09:01:25 AM
Post by: PolarBear on November 21, 2009, 09:04:49 AM
Post by: PolarBear on November 21, 2009, 09:07:37 AM
I think this one is a loser for the Colvilles. I see the state prevailing ...Unfortunately or moron State Legislature and Governor has been bought off by the tribes. It would not surprise me if they just hand it over to them along with more stimulus money just to ease the pain of all the years that they had to suffer without this land.
Post by: boneaddict on November 21, 2009, 09:09:52 AM
Post by: yelp on November 21, 2009, 09:32:33 AM
Post by: LongTatLaw on November 21, 2009, 09:44:16 AM
Hunting and fishing rights shouldnt allow what basically every state in the nation has deemed unsafe...
-high powered rifles at night
-loaded gun in a car
-shooting from a road
ect
They break these laws a lot and they are not HUNTING REGULATIONS they are safety restriction...
Ya dont have to be hunting nor have a hunting license to get in trouble for one of these laws...
hard to say a semi-auto rifle loaded in a pickup truck was "nromal & acceptable" hunting practice before 1900 :dunno:
If we hammered them for all thses type violations to the point that they stopped doing them...many people would be more likely to no hate them for the hunting they do..
:twocents:
Post by: WARHORSE on November 21, 2009, 11:39:39 AM
Post by: Grizzly95 on November 21, 2009, 03:41:13 PM
Post by: sako223 on November 21, 2009, 04:59:53 PM
Quote
Hunting and fishing rights shouldnt allow what basically every state in the nation has deemed unsafe...
-high powered rifles at night
-loaded gun in a car
-shooting from a road
Although part of this is illegal here, I am quite sure there are several states that allow all or part of these during hunting season.
Post by: shawnrdavies on November 25, 2009, 05:23:06 PM
Post by: Birdguy on November 29, 2009, 07:55:56 PM
And the same goes for fishing >:( >:( >:(
Post by: tazz on November 29, 2009, 08:20:42 PM
Post by: bearpaw on November 29, 2009, 09:01:01 PM
There are two sides to every story. While no one likes seeing deer hunted 6 months of the year, the fact remains that legally the tribe has hunting rights on the north half and can manage their hunting rights under tribal law. :twocents:
I would like to here Pope's take on this, but I think the state will lose. I think it was a big mistake for the state to challenge the tribe on this, seems pretty cut and dried to me.
Playing Devil's Advocate:
If I was a tribal member I would take this to the supreme court if needed. The tribe has hunting rights on the north half in writing and their law says they can have catriges in the magazine. If they do not challenge this, they could be faced with many other challenges to their tribal laws. That's the way I would look at it if I was a tribal member.
Like I said, I don't like seeing the deer hunted for 6 months, but a deal is a deal, and the tribe really does have rights on the north half. The north half was all reservation at one time. The tribe ceded it back to the state but retained their hunting rights and that was the deal.
I know most people have strong feelings about this and I am sorry I don't agree with all of you, but honestly they have written rights to hunt the north half. I think the state is playing the wrong card on this one and will almost certainly lose.
Another thought I have about the tribe hunting the north half is that they may hunt wolves much sooner than the state will and that could actually be a plus for everyone. :twocents:
I'm really sorry I have to disagree on this one.....but I think the tribe will prevail.
Post by: duckmen1 on December 03, 2009, 07:50:22 PM
everyone stop being afraid to affend them and maybe we can regulate better laws against them
indians :pee:
Post by: Brooks on December 06, 2009, 04:15:53 PM
Post by: carpsniperg2 on December 06, 2009, 04:17:24 PM
i can give a simple solution to all the problems
everyone stop being afraid to affend them and maybe we can regulate better laws against them
indians :pee:
:chuckle:
Post by: flintlocker on December 07, 2009, 10:05:31 AM
You do know that the tribes will get 50 percent of the game in this state if we push them to seek it, don't you?
The WDFW made this mistake with fish, after the tribes had already offered to settle for a much smaller percentage of the fish, and look what happened.
Post by: mountainman1 on December 11, 2009, 12:15:52 AM
You that have that bad feeling should get to know the Native American tribes around where you live before you start with the bad attitude towards them. Some of them could be your ancestors. I have seen hunter and tourists alike come to the mountains and leave fires burning and there garbage strewn about the forest, that hurts me a whole lot more than the Hunting and Fishing Rights of our Friends the Native Americans !!!!!!!!
Post by: bonkellekter on December 19, 2009, 01:09:23 PM
Washington is one of the few western states that does not allow catridges in the magazine. Many western states allow catridges in the magazine in the vehicle. I know for a fact that it's perfectly legal in Idaho, Montana, and Utah. The law that the tribe has, is right in line with many other states. :twocents:
There are two sides to every story. While no one likes seeing deer hunted 6 months of the year, the fact remains that legally the tribe has hunting rights on the north half and can manage their hunting rights under tribal law. :twocents:
I would like to here Pope's take on this, but I think the state will lose. I think it was a big mistake for the state to challenge the tribe on this, seems pretty cut and dried to me.
Playing Devil's Advocate:
If I was a tribal member I would take this to the supreme court if needed. The tribe has hunting rights on the north half in writing and their law says they can have catriges in the magazine. If they do not challenge this, they could be faced with many other challenges to their tribal laws. That's the way I would look at it if I was a tribal member.
Like I said, I don't like seeing the deer hunted for 6 months, but a deal is a deal, and the tribe really does have rights on the north half. The north half was all reservation at one time. The tribe ceded it back to the state but retained their hunting rights and that was the deal.
I know most people have strong feelings about this and I am sorry I don't agree with all of you, but honestly they have written rights to hunt the north half. I think the state is playing the wrong card on this one and will almost certainly lose.
Another thought I have about the tribe hunting the north half is that they may hunt wolves much sooner than the state will and that could actually be a plus for everyone. :twocents:
I'm really sorry I have to disagree on this one.....but I think the tribe will prevail.
Well bearpaw not sure you are right either - I am all for equal rights but not special rights. If it is allowed in Montana, Idaho and Utah than tribes in those states should be allowed the same rights. However that is not the law in WA and should not be allowed for WA tribes IMO. But like you say as far as what the current law says the state will likely lose - It is just a bunch of B.S. :bash: >:(