Post by: bigmonster on September 29, 2010, 05:53:50 PM
Post by: gasman on September 29, 2010, 05:55:49 PM
Post by: ICEMAN on September 29, 2010, 05:58:30 PM
Post by: TheHunt on September 29, 2010, 05:59:06 PM
Post by: 400out on September 29, 2010, 06:03:52 PM
Post by: washingtonmuley on September 29, 2010, 06:04:35 PM
Post by: bearhunter99 on September 29, 2010, 06:05:42 PM
:bdid:
I just don't get it? :dunno:
Post by: ICEMAN on September 29, 2010, 06:06:17 PM
Post by: 6x6rack on September 29, 2010, 06:09:02 PM
Post by: bigmonster on September 29, 2010, 06:10:11 PM
Post by: npaull on September 29, 2010, 06:10:32 PM
Post by: 6x6rack on September 29, 2010, 06:21:29 PM
Post by: smitty8202 on September 29, 2010, 06:29:15 PM
Post by: bigmonster on September 29, 2010, 06:35:25 PM
Post by: Backstraps on September 29, 2010, 06:36:47 PM
Post by: tshoote30 on September 29, 2010, 06:43:01 PM
Post by: HardCorpsHuntr on September 29, 2010, 06:44:17 PM
i would of slashed there tires. that's some BS. they have free roam to kill what they want and as much as they want. Its getting really old and that B***H just sits in her office in Olympia and does nothing about it, cause that's the right thing to do cause its there heritage F**K there heritage. just my :twocents:
Smitty. You sound (write) like you just got out of the corps :chuckle: Semper Fi brother.
Oh, and the Indian thing.... :dunno: :bash: :tdown: :DOH: :bs: :nono: :violent1: and :pee:
Post by: Practical Approach on September 29, 2010, 07:26:17 PM
looks like a good day for the tribe!! buy buy clockum bullsWhich Tribe?
Post by: whiteeyes on September 29, 2010, 07:30:26 PM
Another case of he said she said .
Post by: bigmonster on September 29, 2010, 07:33:57 PM
Post by: grundy53 on September 29, 2010, 07:39:35 PM
Post by: runamuk on September 29, 2010, 08:03:26 PM
looks like a good day for the tribe!! buy buy clockum bullsWhich Tribe?
coming out of the colockum likely to be the yakima or yakama or however the heck it is PC to say it now :dunno:
and thats exactly it not only getting special rights and harvesting needed bulls (we have spike rules for a reason) then parading around leaving a lovely impression for the non hunters ...whole situation blows
Post by: 3dsheetmetal on September 29, 2010, 08:06:09 PM
Post by: bowhunterty on September 29, 2010, 08:22:33 PM
Post by: CSOUTFITTERS on September 29, 2010, 08:38:14 PM
Post by: chevysquid on September 29, 2010, 08:45:30 PM
Post by: bullcanyon on September 29, 2010, 08:46:02 PM
Post by: GEARHEAD on September 29, 2010, 09:14:51 PM
Post by: bigtex on September 29, 2010, 09:58:05 PM
The state don't want to stop this or maybe they can't. But can't they lock these areas down as mentioned? Obviously the slobs that do this won't go in there and the ones that do are probably going to be the honest ones that want to do it right. Wouldn't be stopping the hunting so to speak. Just limiting access. Every group has a bad egg:(
The state can't do anything, it's a treaty right. I think you bring up a good point, nobody wants to see this and everyone always complains about how much tribal members road hunt and how they think roads should be shut. But then when landowners close gates people start bitching about areas they've hunted for 40 years is now behind a locked gate. :o
Post by: time2hunt on September 29, 2010, 10:06:22 PM
Post by: bullcanyon on September 30, 2010, 05:08:30 AM
I still say lock these primo areas up. They will only improve with the limited access.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on September 30, 2010, 05:22:23 AM
I think if the tribe has a casino they need to give up all their fishing and hunting rights!
If not that would make a great billboard on the main vein to their casino!
Post by: Gutpile on September 30, 2010, 05:28:24 AM
Post by: wildmanoutdoors on September 30, 2010, 05:36:38 AM
The state don't want to stop this or maybe they can't. But can't they lock these areas down as mentioned? Obviously the slobs that do this won't go in there and the ones that do are probably going to be the honest ones that want to do it right. Wouldn't be stopping the hunting so to speak. Just limiting access. Every group has a bad egg:(
The state can't do anything, it's a treaty right. I think you bring up a good point, nobody wants to see this and everyone always complains about how much tribal members road hunt and how they think roads should be shut. But then when landowners close gates people start bitching about areas they've hunted for 40 years is now behind a locked gate. :o
This cant be a more true statement. If the WDFW steps in or the state the tribe threatens fed law suit. At a state level they cant touch them. And wont because of the money it would cost to go federal. Plus the state would loose.
The ONLY way this can be stopped is if Wash DC steps up and overthrows the treaty. Our little Elk herd isnt a big enough problem to be seen on a federal level. This is the case with all tribes, be it gill netting or hunting. Its time to do something. But we need help on a Federal Level. Our Govener isnt going to get in the middle of this. They work with, I mean for, and get support from the tribes. As long as they do what the tribes want. Period!
Post by: yelp on September 30, 2010, 06:49:57 AM
http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/tribal/treaty_history.html (http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/tribal/treaty_history.html)
Post by: trophyhunt on September 30, 2010, 06:55:53 AM
Post by: C-Money on September 30, 2010, 07:01:27 AM
Post by: yakimarcher on September 30, 2010, 08:15:39 AM
With all due respect to the incredible injustices they have suffered in the past - in this day and age, special treatment for tribes with regards to wildlife resources is completely ridiculous, and at times at least seems very destructive both to wildlife and to relationships between tribes and all other citizens.
They suffered injustices several generations ago!!! I dont know why we're still kissing their asses 130 years later. it's 2010, get you're sh*t together and quit crying because you're Great Great Grampa(who would be ashamed of you) was given a raw deal.
Post by: Special T on September 30, 2010, 08:30:45 AM
Post by: haugenna on September 30, 2010, 08:35:37 AM
Post by: Practical Approach on September 30, 2010, 08:53:52 AM
This is one opportunity that i think we haven't discussed before.. I think the wolves gould be a blessing in disguise... I believe that Hunting and fishing must crash in order to re negotiate with the tribes... If there are no big bulls or easy elk to kill, they would have to come back to the table for the "betterment of the herd" ? any thoughts? If they have seen wolves up in Chelan how long do you think its gona be till they are up in the Coluckum?The wolves will not bring tribes to the table. The wolves will just further reduce state hunting. The tribes will continue to hunt while the state cuts back.
Post by: Practical Approach on September 30, 2010, 08:57:15 AM
When were Elk introduced to Washington?? :dunno:They have been reintroduced several times, but elk have always been in Washington.
Post by: coachcw on September 30, 2010, 09:14:17 AM
Post by: bigpaw 77 on September 30, 2010, 09:25:07 AM
Post by: bearhunter99 on September 30, 2010, 09:32:42 AM
no f nnnnnnn wonder why the bull ratio sucks there .I'd be ok if the used wood arrows , long bow and a horse.
My sentiments exactly, let them hunt year round but they have to hunt AS THEIR ANCESTORS did. No high powered rifles, scopes, pickups, atvs etc. I would not have a problem with that
Post by: Practical Approach on September 30, 2010, 09:39:06 AM
Post by: wastickslinger on September 30, 2010, 09:45:38 AM
I keep going back to that picture and wonder where it came from? It today's media age you can photoshop or take pictures out of context. Sure is a nice truck, not like most tribal rigs I see. The small picture is such poor quality that I can't even tell if those are whole elk or just someone hauling two shoulder mounts from a taxidermy shop. I get so sick of people getting all fired up about what could be? Do we have a tribal name yet. Do we have an exact location? Whether its politics or some other BS floation around my email, most of it is that exactly BS designed to get people all pissed off jumping to conclusions. This picture might be a tribal hunter, however I have my doubts without more info to go off of.
You are right, this may not be a tribal member but its very well known that the tribal memebers take more than their share of trophy bulls out of the Clockum every year. That is the point.
Post by: Practical Approach on September 30, 2010, 10:07:34 AM
I don't doubt that? Which tribes hunt that area?I keep going back to that picture and wonder where it came from? It today's media age you can photoshop or take pictures out of context. Sure is a nice truck, not like most tribal rigs I see. The small picture is such poor quality that I can't even tell if those are whole elk or just someone hauling two shoulder mounts from a taxidermy shop. I get so sick of people getting all fired up about what could be? Do we have a tribal name yet. Do we have an exact location? Whether its politics or some other BS floation around my email, most of it is that exactly BS designed to get people all pissed off jumping to conclusions. This picture might be a tribal hunter, however I have my doubts without more info to go off of.
You are right, this may not be a tribal member but its very well known that the tribal memebers take more than their share of trophy bulls out of the Clockum every year. That is the point.
Post by: shedcrazy on September 30, 2010, 10:22:21 AM
Post by: WSU on September 30, 2010, 11:10:29 AM
Post by: whacker1 on September 30, 2010, 11:13:00 AM
Post by: Practical Approach on September 30, 2010, 11:22:11 AM
Post by: whacker1 on September 30, 2010, 11:41:48 AM
OK, I didn't know if any of the Oregon tribes hunted that area.
I can't say that they do or don't. All I can say is that most of the conversations that come up regarding the Clockum have to do with allegations toward the Yakima tribe or factual claims regardign the Yakima tribe's members. The Clockum is in their Ceded lands when you look over the treaty map, but I don't know if there are other tribes allowed to hunt that portion of the state or not.
Post by: huntindork on September 30, 2010, 12:24:42 PM
Post by: yakimarcher on September 30, 2010, 12:27:32 PM
Gate all the roads and make it a limited access, so everyone is on an equal field. I doubt a lazy road hunting indian will pack his beer in and his elk out :twocents:
:yeah:
Post by: smitty8202 on September 30, 2010, 12:35:06 PM
i would of slashed there tires. that's some BS. they have free roam to kill what they want and as much as they want. Its getting really old and that B***H just sits in her office in Olympia and does nothing about it, cause that's the right thing to do cause its there heritage F**K there heritage. just my :twocents:
Smitty. You sound (write) like you just got out of the corps :chuckle: Semper Fi brother.
Oh, and the Indian thing.... :dunno: :bash: :tdown: :DOH: :bs: :nono: :violent1: and :pee:
i'm still in. recruiter in silverdale
Post by: Gutpile on September 30, 2010, 02:34:15 PM
I keep going back to that picture and wonder where it came from? It today's media age you can photoshop or take pictures out of context. Sure is a nice truck, not like most tribal rigs I see. The small picture is such poor quality that I can't even tell if those are whole elk or just someone hauling two shoulder mounts from a taxidermy shop. I get so sick of people getting all fired up about what could be? Do we have a tribal name yet. Do we have an exact location? Whether its politics or some other BS floation around my email, most of it is that exactly BS designed to get people all pissed off jumping to conclusions. This picture might be a tribal hunter, however I have my doubts without more info to go off of.
I would have said the exact same thing had I not seen it with my own two eyes last weekend. Not this truck but another. You are waaaaayyyyyy off base about the "tribal members only drive *censored*" comment. The one i saw was a early 2000's chevy with a toad in the back, probably a nicer bull than I'll ever kill. The other guys we saw were in a very nice late 90's F-250. So be skeptical all you want but just know this. Your wrong.
Post by: Practical Approach on September 30, 2010, 02:50:54 PM
I don't doubt you see tribal hunters with mature/trophy quality bucks and elk in the backs of their trucks. Again, do you know they were tribal members? You talked to them. Most people see a dark skinned person or just assume it must be a tribal member hunting under a tribal tag. Some tribe buy state tags and even apply in the permit process. I never said they only drive crummy trucks. But I did lean that a lot of them are older trucks. Your just another person that has made an accusation with no factual evidence other than I saw or my brothers sister saw or a friend of a friend saw.I keep going back to that picture and wonder where it came from? It today's media age you can photoshop or take pictures out of context. Sure is a nice truck, not like most tribal rigs I see. The small picture is such poor quality that I can't even tell if those are whole elk or just someone hauling two shoulder mounts from a taxidermy shop. I get so sick of people getting all fired up about what could be? Do we have a tribal name yet. Do we have an exact location? Whether its politics or some other BS floation around my email, most of it is that exactly BS designed to get people all pissed off jumping to conclusions. This picture might be a tribal hunter, however I have my doubts without more info to go off of.
I would have said the exact same thing had I not seen it with my own two eyes last weekend. Not this truck but another. You are waaaaayyyyyy off base about the "tribal members only drive *censored*" comment. The one i saw was a early 2000's chevy with a toad in the back, probably a nicer bull than I'll ever kill. The other guys we saw were in a very nice late 90's F-250. So be skeptical all you want but just know this. Your wrong.
I hate that I am sounding like a backer of tribal hunters, but some of these forums are way off base. Some folks sound more like an angry mob than concerned productive hunters.
The
Post by: 6x6rack on September 30, 2010, 03:47:26 PM
Post by: UBA on September 30, 2010, 03:55:42 PM
Post by: WSU on September 30, 2010, 04:09:25 PM
Post by: Practical Approach on September 30, 2010, 04:13:15 PM
1st, there are WA State plates on the truck...can someone run them. Blown up it looks like a personal plate 'I Text' or something like that. Someone out there should be able to clean it up and run it. Secondly there aren't many places in washington someone is going to get two rockies like that at the same time. Third, A poacher wouldn't load them like that and flaunt them and I doubt many sportsmen would either. Fourth, how many tag holders are going to double up on those hogs with archery, then be in a place to load them whole. Fifth, taxidermy mounts...really...you spend $2000 each, wait a year and a half then throw them in the back of a truck piled on top of each other??? Admit it...these are indian rat bass turds somewhere in eastern WA and every sportsman on here has a right to be flamed >:(.I must have missed the time and date stamp on the picture. You are assuming it is current and taken during archery season. You can get two bulls like that on private property. If someone can track them down and confirm I will admit it, until then I don't know when or where that picture was taken. Hell, the person could have had a guided hunt in Montana.
Post by: Gutpile on September 30, 2010, 04:18:25 PM
I don't doubt you see tribal hunters with mature/trophy quality bucks and elk in the backs of their trucks. Again, do you know they were tribal members? You talked to them. Most people see a dark skinned person or just assume it must be a tribal member hunting under a tribal tag. Some tribe buy state tags and even apply in the permit process. I never said they only drive crummy trucks. But I did lean that a lot of them are older trucks. Your just another person that has made an accusation with no factual evidence other than I saw or my brothers sister saw or a friend of a friend saw.I keep going back to that picture and wonder where it came from? It today's media age you can photoshop or take pictures out of context. Sure is a nice truck, not like most tribal rigs I see. The small picture is such poor quality that I can't even tell if those are whole elk or just someone hauling two shoulder mounts from a taxidermy shop. I get so sick of people getting all fired up about what could be? Do we have a tribal name yet. Do we have an exact location? Whether its politics or some other BS floation around my email, most of it is that exactly BS designed to get people all pissed off jumping to conclusions. This picture might be a tribal hunter, however I have my doubts without more info to go off of.
I would have said the exact same thing had I not seen it with my own two eyes last weekend. Not this truck but another. You are waaaaayyyyyy off base about the "tribal members only drive *censored*" comment. The one i saw was a early 2000's chevy with a toad in the back, probably a nicer bull than I'll ever kill. The other guys we saw were in a very nice late 90's F-250. So be skeptical all you want but just know this. Your wrong.
I hate that I am sounding like a backer of tribal hunters, but some of these forums are way off base. Some folks sound more like an angry mob than concerned productive hunters.
The
Geez guy, either they were tribal or they were very blatant poachers who just happen to be indian. There were no legal seasons open for elk while we were there..................... ere...................... you know.............................for us. Is that enough? You want to bury your head in the sand go for it. But again........................................ Your wrong. You sound like the type of guy who says I'm racist because I don't agree with Obama. Maybe I should have gotten there friggin phone #'s. Again for late comers I'm not talking about the photo. I'm talking about what I saw in the blues last weekend. This stuff does happen.
Post by: Practical Approach on September 30, 2010, 04:26:46 PM
Wow how did we get into politics? Are you going to go down the religion road as well. My point is not to try to prove that you were lying about what you saw. I don't care one way or another. My point is that you shouldn't jump on the bandwagon feet first for every piece of heresay info or random picture that gets posted on a forum. I suppose you believe everything you read in the paper and everything the political TV ads say?I don't doubt you see tribal hunters with mature/trophy quality bucks and elk in the backs of their trucks. Again, do you know they were tribal members? You talked to them. Most people see a dark skinned person or just assume it must be a tribal member hunting under a tribal tag. Some tribe buy state tags and even apply in the permit process. I never said they only drive crummy trucks. But I did lean that a lot of them are older trucks. Your just another person that has made an accusation with no factual evidence other than I saw or my brothers sister saw or a friend of a friend saw.I keep going back to that picture and wonder where it came from? It today's media age you can photoshop or take pictures out of context. Sure is a nice truck, not like most tribal rigs I see. The small picture is such poor quality that I can't even tell if those are whole elk or just someone hauling two shoulder mounts from a taxidermy shop. I get so sick of people getting all fired up about what could be? Do we have a tribal name yet. Do we have an exact location? Whether its politics or some other BS floation around my email, most of it is that exactly BS designed to get people all pissed off jumping to conclusions. This picture might be a tribal hunter, however I have my doubts without more info to go off of.
I would have said the exact same thing had I not seen it with my own two eyes last weekend. Not this truck but another. You are waaaaayyyyyy off base about the "tribal members only drive *censored*" comment. The one i saw was a early 2000's chevy with a toad in the back, probably a nicer bull than I'll ever kill. The other guys we saw were in a very nice late 90's F-250. So be skeptical all you want but just know this. Your wrong.
I hate that I am sounding like a backer of tribal hunters, but some of these forums are way off base. Some folks sound more like an angry mob than concerned productive hunters.
The
Geez guy, either they were tribal or they were very blatant poachers who just happen to be indian. There were no legal seasons open for elk while we were there..................... ere...................... you know.............................for us. Is that enough? You want to bury your head in the sand go for it. But again........................................ Your wrong. You sound like the type of guy who says I'm racist because I don't agree with Obama. Maybe I should have gotten there friggin phone #'s. Again for late comers I'm not talking about the photo. I'm talking about what I saw in the blues last weekend. This stuff does happen.
Post by: 6x6rack on September 30, 2010, 04:36:03 PM
Post by: Gutpile on September 30, 2010, 04:36:42 PM
Post by: 6x6rack on September 30, 2010, 04:40:07 PM
Quote
Are you going to go down the religion road as well.
OK, you won me over. Indians think elk are sacred and would never do this. ;)
Post by: Practical Approach on September 30, 2010, 04:47:43 PM
Post by: 6x6rack on September 30, 2010, 05:09:05 PM
Quote
I am not trying to say it doesn't happen, I trying to say be careful of what you hear from others without substantial proof.
Those are Washington plates in broad daylight. No non tribal poacher would risk that. Those are trophies of a lifetime being loaded like the days garbage in the back of a pick-up...no one who has waited years for those tags would do that, let alone two guys agreeing to do it. "what do you think Bob, do you care if yours antlers are banging against the rear bumper" :dunno: "ah seein' as yours are smashed against the tailgate I guess its ok" Haha, Haha...man that sure is a big pile of elk."
Post by: woodswalker on September 30, 2010, 05:11:22 PM
Quote
I hate that I am sounding like a backer of tribal hunters, but some of these forums are way off base. Some folks sound more like an angry mob than concerned productive hunters.
Yes you are sorta sounding that way...and yes some of the folks here sound like a mob.
I have hunted the Yakima/Colockum herds for a generation now. MOST, not all but MOST of the abuses i've managed to document well enough to stand up in a FAIR court have been tribal kills and have been dismissed IF, IF they went anywhere past the determination of affiliation.
Does that FROST ME...You bet Red Rider it does. >I< would be in JAIL and not able to hunt.
Yes, I know about the treaties....HOWEVER wildlife MANAGEMENT doesnt work if part of the parties are under no obligation to FOLLOW the rules. True Spike (unless you are a Tribal member), Spike Only (unless you are a tribal member), 3pt min on mulies (unless you are a tribal member), hunting only in open season (unless you are a tribal member). Start to see a trend here?
Its THAT inequity and the FEW who take BLATANT advantage of it that ABSOLUTELY INFURIATES the rest of us who see our opportunities dwindling.
Post by: TheHunt on September 30, 2010, 05:41:16 PM
Post by: motcha on September 30, 2010, 05:58:48 PM
So if I were to show some pics during regular general seasons of unskinned deer/elk being brought on the hwy... would they be ridiculed as you have these pics?? I mean thats what most of you are mad at right? Or should they have cut the heads off and tied them to the bumper? Hey maybe they should have threw a tarp over them ... that way any truck with a tarp would be deemed a 'tribal' hunter with a bull or 6....
I mean so they were Tribal.... that must mean they all do it right??
Post by: whiteeyes on September 30, 2010, 06:50:33 PM
Wow! Come on guys... let it out... lets hear how you really feel!:yeah:
So if I were to show some pics during regular general seasons of unskinned deer/elk being brought on the hwy... would they be ridiculed as you have these pics?? I mean thats what most of you are mad at right? Or should they have cut the heads off and tied them to the bumper? Hey maybe they should have threw a tarp over them ... that way any truck with a tarp would be deemed a 'tribal' hunter with a bull or 6....
I mean so they were Tribal.... that must mean they all do it right??
Post by: 270Shooter on September 30, 2010, 06:55:06 PM
Wow! Come on guys... let it out... lets hear how you really feel!We're pissed because the indians can go out and shoot as many elk as they want, whenever they want, wherever they want. Not saying they all do it, but enough of them do it to make a statement, same thing happens in the entiat when the deer migrate down low. Its BS
So if I were to show some pics during regular general seasons of unskinned deer/elk being brought on the hwy... would they be ridiculed as you have these pics?? I mean thats what most of you are mad at right? Or should they have cut the heads off and tied them to the bumper? Hey maybe they should have threw a tarp over them ... that way any truck with a tarp would be deemed a 'tribal' hunter with a bull or 6....
I mean so they were Tribal.... that must mean they all do it right??
Post by: motcha on September 30, 2010, 07:27:44 PM
Just be sure to know, other Tribes can and are different with their seasons and bag limits. Not only that but some are reall and true sportsman. You can say what you want and make your own conclusions from other stories you hear from a friend of a friends cousin...
I know some of you have known at one time or another a Tribal member... and please feed of the impression that they left and not what the bad apples leave.
Post by: 6x6rack on September 30, 2010, 08:19:45 PM
Quote
I just hate to see such hatred towards Tribal hunters.
Then tell them to quit decimating the herds, making it impossible for the State game managers to manage Bull/cow ratios. Tell them to quit killing the bulls off the feeding stations. Tell them to take a cow to feed their family and after the tribe has taken 20 cows they get one bull for the ceremony. Tell them to have hunter saftey classes which includes ethics regarding public perception and sportsmanship. Tell them to use the same weapons we use during the same seasons, they are set for a reason. There are abuses everywhere and non tribal poachers are (and should be) severely punished if they are caught. You can't have a rogue segment out there killing at will and expect healthy herds...look what the wolves have done in Idaho, yet there are people who insist wolves are not a problem and jump to their defense without thought that there might have been a reason ranchers eradicated them 100 years ago...when the game was gone (and it will be again unless they reinstate the wolf season) they went after livestock. I am not an Indian hater, or a wolf hater, but I hate that the people who are paying to support and manage the system through license purchases and tags get screwed because Indians and wolves can't or wont manage themselves. You want the average sportsman to like the Tribe, then play by the same rules....fine you dont have to buy a tag or whatever...but you do have to accurately account for your kills so the game department can manage the herds and have the authority to tell you you cant fill the bed of your pick-up with bulls this year because you killed way to many last year. Of course that will never happen because things are perfect for the Tribe right now. We pay to manage and maintain the resource, they get to kill whatever they want whenever they want with absolutly no accountability and if there aren't enough left over the people paying the tab are subject to even tighter restrictions. The tribe wants respect...then step up and be part of the solution to maintaining healthy herds and bull/cow ratios. Everyone will welcome them with open arms.
Post by: Alan K on September 30, 2010, 08:40:29 PM
That said, all we're doing is. . . . :beatdeadhorse:
Nothing will change. I've given up and just accepted it. At least on the west side the bulls have half a chance because of the terrain and cover that the lazy pukes can't get them all from the road.
Post by: Team Baze on September 30, 2010, 08:51:59 PM
Post by: 270Shooter on September 30, 2010, 08:54:27 PM
How do you know if it just wasn't a sportsmen with a special permit? A buddy of mine just shot a hog archery bull in Manashtas ridge with a special permit, there are special hunts going on.possible, but extremely unlikely
Post by: woodswalker on September 30, 2010, 09:20:33 PM
I just hate to see such hatred towards Tribal hunters.
Just be sure to know, other Tribes can and are different with their seasons and bag limits. Not only that but some are reall and true sportsman. You can say what you want and make your own conclusions from other stories you hear from a friend of a friends cousin...
I know some of you have known at one time or another a Tribal member... and please feed of the impression that they left and not what the bad apples leave.
Motcha, I do not relate second/third/more hand data... I'm an engineer for a living, we work with verifiable facts and data. the things I've seen, I have SEEN with my own eyes. The abuses I have tried to document and present as factual cases. See my previous post on Page 5 of this near the bottom.
You say dont feed off the impression of the bad apples....so WHAT ARE WE SUPPOSED TO THINK when we KNOW that certain elements are WAY off the straight and narrow. GO to the Yakima Sportsmans show...See how many REALLY HUGE trophy racks have ONE name on them. Racks that I will NEVER have a chance to shoot in those areas as they are SPIKE ONLY(onless you DRAW a branch tag....NOT just drive up and shoot one that looks good). Jealous...yeah a bit...UNHAPPY that the herds are being trodden underfoot with out regard for the viability of the herd as whole.
I previously pointed out as others have done, that the game managers cannot MANAGE THE GAME with out facts and data and with out everyone playing to similar rules.
THAT is the kind of thing that gets us >:( and hot under the collar. If the Tribes REALLY CARED about the game and the treaties and the PERCEPTION, they would rein in the abusers....we certainly dont see that happening.
Post by: jstone on September 30, 2010, 09:30:45 PM
Post by: fair-chase on September 30, 2010, 09:39:40 PM
Post by: jstone on September 30, 2010, 09:59:09 PM
Post by: h2ofowlr on September 30, 2010, 10:21:30 PM
Post by: motcha on September 30, 2010, 11:07:19 PM
You see its guys like you whom I hopr to never run into when I am exercising my Tribal rights.
But you know what I think I have... or a relative there of. I have had pistols/rifles shot over our camp, slang words yelled to us... threatened .. horns honked when we were hunting. 4-wheelers push us off the trail. etc etc etc. I can go on.
I will just sit back and read the ignorance and false accusations of this thread. Please keep it here. I am learning a lot. I will try not to reply anymore. Carry on... thanks for your time
Post by: Wahunter555 on September 30, 2010, 11:55:35 PM
-Scott-
Post by: Practical Approach on October 01, 2010, 08:01:22 AM
Post by: boneaddict on October 01, 2010, 08:13:26 AM
Post by: 300magman on October 01, 2010, 08:20:44 AM
follow our rules or you can get the hell out.
Post by: Practical Approach on October 01, 2010, 08:28:16 AM
I paint with the widest brush of all. I think we should be treated as one, no special treatment equals no prejudice. I am a citizen of the United States. If you are then you should be treated like another citizen. Same taxes, same rules. If you are not a citizen, then GET OUT, your visit is over.When did we all start paying the same taxes? Pretty sure it is based on income. Wait thats not fair :'( Yes, it would be great if everyone was treated the same, realistic probably not.
Post by: bearhunter99 on October 01, 2010, 08:29:51 AM
I paint with the widest brush of all. I think we should be treated as one, no special treatment equals no prejudice. I am a citizen of the United States. If you are then you should be treated like another citizen. Same taxes, same rules. If you are not a citizen, then GET OUT, your visit is over.
AMEN!
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on October 01, 2010, 08:33:43 AM
When were Elk introduced to Washington?? :dunno:They have been reintroduced several times, but elk have always been in Washington.
In Washington,but not on the Colockum
As for the Colockum the Coffin family brought them in in the early 1900's and the white folks could not even hunt the area until the early to mid 50's since the land was privately owned.
I saw an article of the Ellensburg Daily record circa 1953 or 54 announcing the opening of the Colockum area to hunters that year. The coffins moved to Yakima,in the late 1800's and ran sheep on the Colockum for years,owning THOUSANDS of acres in the area..
Hey all you Cougs...Kudos to your alma mater for having these documents!
http://www.wsulibs.wsu.edu/holland/masc/finders/cg405.htm (http://www.wsulibs.wsu.edu/holland/masc/finders/cg405.htm)
Washington State University Libraries
Manuscripts, Archives, and Special Collections
Pullman, WA 99164-5610 USA
(509) 335-6691
Inquiries
Cage 405
Coffin Family Papers, 1864-1977
The papers of the H. Stanley Coffin Family were donated to the Washington State University Libraries by H. Stanley Coffin III in July 1977 (77-39). The collection was processed from June to November 1979 by Pat Graham Pidcock.
Number of containers 15
Linear feet of shelf space 19
Approximate number of items 12,340
PERSONAL AND BUSINESS HISTORY
For over fifty years, the firm of Coffin Brothers, Incorporated, dominated the livestock industry in central Washington, the wholesale grocery business in the Yakima Valley, and a variety of other financial enterprises. Coffin Brothers became the core of a family owned group of business ventures. The principal founder of the family fortunes was H. (Harvard) Stanley Coffin, born at The Dalles, Oregon, on September 14, 1869. He attended local public school, the Wasco Academy, and a business college. At age fourteen he began working in the warehouse of McFarland and French, General Merchandisers. Four years later, he moved up the Columbia River to Arlington, Oregon, where he worked with his brother, Arthur Coffin at the Coffin-McFarland Company warehouse. Stanley and another brother, Lester, learned the business quickly, and proceeded to purchase a quarter interest in the firm which was then renamed Arthur Coffin and Brothers.
Recognizing central Washington's potential for growth, the brothers moved their business to Yakima about 1893. Aided by their commercial connections in San Francisco, Portland, and on Puget Sound, they conducted a thriving business with farmers and stockmen, and, increasingly with Indians. As a result of this early association, Stanley became friends with the Indians. He learned to speak their languages, to share their respect for horses, and to participate in their ceremonies. Later he was made an honorary member of the Yakima Tribe.
The three-way partnership was renamed Coffin Brothers, and in 1903 it became a licensed corporation in the State of Washington. Their success in Yakima led to the opening of several branch stores. Using the name "The Idaho Store Company," outlets were established in Lewiston, Kamiah, Nezperce, Forest, Filer, and Lapwai in Idaho. Another store was established in Seattle which catered to the needs of miners enroute to Alaska. Additional retail stores were opened in Prosser, Mabton, Kennewick, and Toppenish in central Washington. Retailing, however, proved less profitable, so the firm concentrated on the Yakima wholesale business. In 1954, the wholesale business, the Yakima Grocery Company, was transferred to Stanley's niece and nephew, John Wenner and Mary Alice Wenner.
In addition to merchandise and groceries, the brothers expanded into a major livestock operation. In 1895, two years after moving to Yakima, the Coffins imported two bands of ewes from Oregon. Within a few years the sheep venture had grown to such an extent that for a time Stanley was forced to devote his full attention to the bands, although he remained a full partner in the merchandise business. Following the premature deaths of Lester (ca. 1918) and Arthur (ca. 1920), Stanley assumed full responsibility for the entire business operation.
Stanley Coffin married Anna Wenner of Canton, Ohio, and they raised three daughters--Dorothy (d. 1924), Mary Elizabeth, and Margaret-- and a son--Harvard Stanley Coffin II. Additional family history can be found in Edson Dow's .us Passes to the North: History of the Wenatchee Mountains (Wenatchee, WA: Outdoor Publishing Company, 1963).
H. Stanley Coffin II was born on December 6, 1897 in Yakima. After attending Yakima schools and Columbia University, he graduated from Harvard University in 1921 with a bachelor of science degree. In 1924, he married Caroline Van Vliet of Yakima. Their daughter, Nancy was born in 1925 and the following year a son, Harvard Stanley Coffin III, was born. In 1921, Stanley II assumed management of the grocery business, and following his father's lead, became the central figure in the family's business interests. He was president of Coffin Brothers (liquidated 1954), the Yakima Grocery Company (passed to the Wenners in 1954), and the Coffin Sheep Company (reduced in 1956), in addition to holding a controlling interest in a number of smaller livestock companies. Mr. Coffin was a founder and director of the West Side National Bank of Yakima and a director of the Home Federal Savings and Loan Association.
Over the years the Coffin Family controlled substantial real estate holdings. Before 1909, they had acquired 50,000 deeded acres and 50,000 leased acres between Ellensburg and Wenatchee, known as the Cape Horn/Mountain Home Ranch. Eventually, Lester Coffin's descendents came to manage this property. Stanley Coffin I took control of the Coffin/Babcock range (also called the West Bar Ranch) which was located on the Columbia River. The family's Wenas Creek lands included the Mt. Vale Ranch, the McCabe Place, and the Lee Land ranch which totaled approximately 16,000 acres. Lying west of Yakima, the Cold Creek Ranch contained about 17,000 acres of well-watered grazing land. The Horse Heaven Ranch, inclusive of the Wilmert place and the Blakely place, was located south of Kennewick and was comprised of 30,000 deeded acres plus adjacent leased pastures. In addition to small deeded holdings (i.e., city lots, beach plots) the family also controlled various tracts of leased acreage.
Both Stanley I and Stanley II made significant contributions to the development of Yakima and the Pacific Northwest. As early members of the Washington Wool Growers Association and as leading sheep producers, the Coffins imported Corriedale and Romney sheep from Great Britain, Australia, and New Zealand to upgrade local stock. Also they aided industry novices with both financial aid and moral support. Beginning in 1920, the Coffins were loyal Rotarians, both father and son serving terms as president. In addition to civic projects, the Stanley Park residential area in Yakima was developed by the Coffins. In 1940, at the age of 70, Stanley I passed away. Stanley II followed in 1970 at the age of 72. H. Stanley Coffin III, a practicing Yakima physician, continues to manage the family holdings.
ARRANGEMENT AND DESCRIPTION
Upon arrival at Washington State University, the Coffin papers contained several different filing systems plus considerable loose material. To unify the collection, six major subject series were established and the various filing systems were integrated into these series. With the exception of four boxes of unfoldered material which has been organized by topic and interfiled into the series, the original order within the folders was maintained. In each series and/or subseries, the folders are arranged alphabetically.
Throughout the papers the difficulty in discriminating between the signatures of Stanley I and Stanley II is encountered. During the nineteen year period between the time of Stanley II's assuming an active role in the business (1921) and the year of Stanley I's death (1940), their signatures are indistinguishable. The signature of Stanley III is usually differentiated by the use of a wide-tipped, black ink pen. Another problem in evaluating the papers is the result of the original filing of records of different Coffin enterprises in common folders. This may be due to the concurrent existence of Coffin Brothers, Yakima Grocery Company, and Coffin Sheep Company and to the interlocking roles of individuals within these entities.
The first series, General Office Files, dates from 1906 through 1917 and is arranged in three subseries. The first subseries, correspondence, deals with labor recruitment; employee instruction and rural operation reports; local, county, state, and federal agencies; civic projects; industry organizations and individuals of a service nature (i.e. lawyers, accountants, insurance agents); family correspondence; and clippings and journal articles of personal, family, business, or historical nature. In addition to the Coffins, Stella Pearl Brady, corporation secretary for approximately seventeen years, contributed substantially to the volume of correspondence.
The second subseries is comprised of three court suits related to the Horse Heaven Ranch. In the case of Coffin vrs Deffenbaugh, real estate boundaries were contested. The second case, Coffin .us v Moch, a former employee was charged with cattle misappropriation. The final case, Hellberg .us v Coffin, dealt with road right-of-way. In the third subseries, Livestock, 1906-1975, sheep are the greatest concern, but cattle and horses receive considerable attention. Materials include livestock industry correspondence and bulletins, livestock feeding and health data, and livestock registration papers.
The second major series, Financial, extends from 1899 through 1975 and contains eight subseries. Bills, the first and largest subseries, concerns livestock and real estate maintenance, livestock purchases, office upkeep, and other expenses. The Coffin Brothers liquidation papers make up the second subseries while the third subseries contains the papers of the Anna.enner Coffin estate. The fourth subseries, income, documents the sales of livestock, wool, and grain. The fifth subseries, investments, contains stock certificates and other papers which reflect the variety of financial ventures undertaken by the Coffins. The check register and the five ledgers that comprise the sixth subseries span the years 1908 through 1967 although they are not inclusive for all those years. Inventories, receipts, budgets, financial pocket books, and worksheets are included in the seventh subseries. The last financial subseries contains income and real estate tax data.
Dating 1864 through 1977, the third and largest series, Real Estate, evidences the extensive land holdings of the Coffin family. The first of the six subseries, correspondence and general real estate files, deals with easements and range and wheat-land leases. Documents, the second subseries, is largely property title abstracts. The third subseries concerns the maintenance and improvements, chiefly for irrigation, made by the Coffins on both deeded and leased land. Papers related to land purchases, sales, and use comprise the fourth through sixth subseries.
Thirty-seven personal/business logs with daily entries by Stanley I and Stanley II make up the fourth series. These day books date from 1899, skip to 1931, and are nearly complete through 1969 with only 1944 and 1947 lacking. Depicting the major real estate holdings and the prime livestock are the photographs in the fifth series. The last major series consists of maps which also illustrate the Coffin real estate. Aside from two bound atlases of Benton County, the series contains an oversize folder of Benton County maps of varied quality, sources, types and dates. Numerous maps of Yakima city and county are included in this series in an oversize folder.
Although the records may appear to be complete, a cautionary note is in order. For the most part, the records of the Coffin enterprises are not continuous and are not entirely complete. There are apparent gaps within series and subseries--both with respect to time and type of material. Records in a single folder often cross over organizational boundaries, thus making it difficult to trace the activities of a single unit within the Coffin financial hierarchy. For example, while a folder label may specify one entity of the Coffin enterprise, it may also contain information dealing with several other aspects.
SERIES LIST
Post by: bearhunter99 on October 01, 2010, 08:34:53 AM
I paint with the widest brush of all. I think we should be treated as one, no special treatment equals no prejudice. I am a citizen of the United States. If you are then you should be treated like another citizen. Same taxes, same rules. If you are not a citizen, then GET OUT, your visit is over.When did we all start paying the same taxes? Pretty sure it is based on income. Wait thats not fair :'( Yes, it would be great if everyone was treated the same, realistic probably not.
Ahem, there is a difference between paying your taxes (whatever bracket that may be) and not paying ANY taxes and getting government subsidies to boot.
There are many options to manage this, just nobody wants to be the one to enforce them because they will be the ONE who persecuted the Native Americans again. Make em go non motorized with stick and string, close the gates when the seasons are closed, do something, anything before the herds are decimated further. Tribal leaders need to start taking heed of their perceptions and make some changes, until then :puke:
Post by: runamuk on October 01, 2010, 08:39:12 AM
I paint with the widest brush of all. I think we should be treated as one, no special treatment equals no prejudice. I am a citizen of the United States. If you are then you should be treated like another citizen. Same taxes, same rules. If you are not a citizen, then GET OUT, your visit is over.When did we all start paying the same taxes? Pretty sure it is based on income. Wait thats not fair :'( Yes, it would be great if everyone was treated the same, realistic probably not.
not realistic because of those who refuse to become equal. I apply this to all the nazi feminists as well who went right past equal rights to expecting special rights for being female.... :bash: :bash: Equal is not the same as special and as long at entitlements continue to be handed out to special interest groups we will never have a society of equals and will always suffer the effects of discrimination and racism.
The tribes on the west side have done a fabulous job of creating an artificial population of hatchery fish that allows them to maintain massive harvest rates for profit while screwing sportsmen and the native fish populations, yep real stewardship :bash: :bash: again not every single tribe or tribal member but many partake and reap benefits from things none of the rest of the population has access to this is discrimination. I also do not receive an annual stipend for existing discrimination based on race so racism, yet somewhere we have native blood in my family...oh and I am female and I dont blame all men today for what men did in the past I got the ef over it...get sick of being told by 20 something tribal members that "I" took their land BS neither did my parents or grand parents . Difference is I cannot legally operate a casino and I dont get 10k-40k a year for having been born :o the treaties are outdated and the federal government needs to wise the heck up and deal with it this country is self destructing due to greed.
Post by: Practical Approach on October 01, 2010, 08:43:11 AM
Taken from the WDFW Herd Plan for the ClockumWhen were Elk introduced to Washington?? :dunno:They have been reintroduced several times, but elk have always been in Washington.
In Washington,but not on the Colockum
As for the Colockum the Coffin family brought them in in the early 1900's and the white folks could not even hunt the area until the early to mid 50's since the land was privately owned.
I saw an article of the Ellensburg Daily record circa 1953 or 54 announcing the opening of the Colockum area to hunters that year. The coffins moved to Yakima,in the late 1800's and ran sheep on the Colockum for years,owning THOUSANDS of acres in the area..
Hey all you Cougs...Kudos to your alma mater for having these documents!
http://www.wsulibs.wsu.edu/holland/masc/finders/cg405.htm (http://www.wsulibs.wsu.edu/holland/masc/finders/cg405.htm)
Washington State University Libraries
Manuscripts, Archives, and Special Collections
Pullman, WA 99164-5610 USA
(509) 335-6691
Inquiries
Cage 405
Coffin Family Papers, 1864-1977
The papers of the H. Stanley Coffin Family were donated to the Washington State University Libraries by H. Stanley Coffin III in July 1977 (77-39). The collection was processed from June to November 1979 by Pat Graham Pidcock.
Number of containers 15
Linear feet of shelf space 19
Approximate number of items 12,340
PERSONAL AND BUSINESS HISTORY
For over fifty years, the firm of Coffin Brothers, Incorporated, dominated the livestock industry in central Washington, the wholesale grocery business in the Yakima Valley, and a variety of other financial enterprises. Coffin Brothers became the core of a family owned group of business ventures. The principal founder of the family fortunes was H. (Harvard) Stanley Coffin, born at The Dalles, Oregon, on September 14, 1869. He attended local public school, the Wasco Academy, and a business college. At age fourteen he began working in the warehouse of McFarland and French, General Merchandisers. Four years later, he moved up the Columbia River to Arlington, Oregon, where he worked with his brother, Arthur Coffin at the Coffin-McFarland Company warehouse. Stanley and another brother, Lester, learned the business quickly, and proceeded to purchase a quarter interest in the firm which was then renamed Arthur Coffin and Brothers.
Recognizing central Washington's potential for growth, the brothers moved their business to Yakima about 1893. Aided by their commercial connections in San Francisco, Portland, and on Puget Sound, they conducted a thriving business with farmers and stockmen, and, increasingly with Indians. As a result of this early association, Stanley became friends with the Indians. He learned to speak their languages, to share their respect for horses, and to participate in their ceremonies. Later he was made an honorary member of the Yakima Tribe.
The three-way partnership was renamed Coffin Brothers, and in 1903 it became a licensed corporation in the State of Washington. Their success in Yakima led to the opening of several branch stores. Using the name "The Idaho Store Company," outlets were established in Lewiston, Kamiah, Nezperce, Forest, Filer, and Lapwai in Idaho. Another store was established in Seattle which catered to the needs of miners enroute to Alaska. Additional retail stores were opened in Prosser, Mabton, Kennewick, and Toppenish in central Washington. Retailing, however, proved less profitable, so the firm concentrated on the Yakima wholesale business. In 1954, the wholesale business, the Yakima Grocery Company, was transferred to Stanley's niece and nephew, John Wenner and Mary Alice Wenner.
In addition to merchandise and groceries, the brothers expanded into a major livestock operation. In 1895, two years after moving to Yakima, the Coffins imported two bands of ewes from Oregon. Within a few years the sheep venture had grown to such an extent that for a time Stanley was forced to devote his full attention to the bands, although he remained a full partner in the merchandise business. Following the premature deaths of Lester (ca. 1918) and Arthur (ca. 1920), Stanley assumed full responsibility for the entire business operation.
Stanley Coffin married Anna Wenner of Canton, Ohio, and they raised three daughters--Dorothy (d. 1924), Mary Elizabeth, and Margaret-- and a son--Harvard Stanley Coffin II. Additional family history can be found in Edson Dow's .us Passes to the North: History of the Wenatchee Mountains (Wenatchee, WA: Outdoor Publishing Company, 1963).
H. Stanley Coffin II was born on December 6, 1897 in Yakima. After attending Yakima schools and Columbia University, he graduated from Harvard University in 1921 with a bachelor of science degree. In 1924, he married Caroline Van Vliet of Yakima. Their daughter, Nancy was born in 1925 and the following year a son, Harvard Stanley Coffin III, was born. In 1921, Stanley II assumed management of the grocery business, and following his father's lead, became the central figure in the family's business interests. He was president of Coffin Brothers (liquidated 1954), the Yakima Grocery Company (passed to the Wenners in 1954), and the Coffin Sheep Company (reduced in 1956), in addition to holding a controlling interest in a number of smaller livestock companies. Mr. Coffin was a founder and director of the West Side National Bank of Yakima and a director of the Home Federal Savings and Loan Association.
Over the years the Coffin Family controlled substantial real estate holdings. Before 1909, they had acquired 50,000 deeded acres and 50,000 leased acres between Ellensburg and Wenatchee, known as the Cape Horn/Mountain Home Ranch. Eventually, Lester Coffin's descendents came to manage this property. Stanley Coffin I took control of the Coffin/Babcock range (also called the West Bar Ranch) which was located on the Columbia River. The family's Wenas Creek lands included the Mt. Vale Ranch, the McCabe Place, and the Lee Land ranch which totaled approximately 16,000 acres. Lying west of Yakima, the Cold Creek Ranch contained about 17,000 acres of well-watered grazing land. The Horse Heaven Ranch, inclusive of the Wilmert place and the Blakely place, was located south of Kennewick and was comprised of 30,000 deeded acres plus adjacent leased pastures. In addition to small deeded holdings (i.e., city lots, beach plots) the family also controlled various tracts of leased acreage.
Both Stanley I and Stanley II made significant contributions to the development of Yakima and the Pacific Northwest. As early members of the Washington Wool Growers Association and as leading sheep producers, the Coffins imported Corriedale and Romney sheep from Great Britain, Australia, and New Zealand to upgrade local stock. Also they aided industry novices with both financial aid and moral support. Beginning in 1920, the Coffins were loyal Rotarians, both father and son serving terms as president. In addition to civic projects, the Stanley Park residential area in Yakima was developed by the Coffins. In 1940, at the age of 70, Stanley I passed away. Stanley II followed in 1970 at the age of 72. H. Stanley Coffin III, a practicing Yakima physician, continues to manage the family holdings.
ARRANGEMENT AND DESCRIPTION
Upon arrival at Washington State University, the Coffin papers contained several different filing systems plus considerable loose material. To unify the collection, six major subject series were established and the various filing systems were integrated into these series. With the exception of four boxes of unfoldered material which has been organized by topic and interfiled into the series, the original order within the folders was maintained. In each series and/or subseries, the folders are arranged alphabetically.
Throughout the papers the difficulty in discriminating between the signatures of Stanley I and Stanley II is encountered. During the nineteen year period between the time of Stanley II's assuming an active role in the business (1921) and the year of Stanley I's death (1940), their signatures are indistinguishable. The signature of Stanley III is usually differentiated by the use of a wide-tipped, black ink pen. Another problem in evaluating the papers is the result of the original filing of records of different Coffin enterprises in common folders. This may be due to the concurrent existence of Coffin Brothers, Yakima Grocery Company, and Coffin Sheep Company and to the interlocking roles of individuals within these entities.
The first series, General Office Files, dates from 1906 through 1917 and is arranged in three subseries. The first subseries, correspondence, deals with labor recruitment; employee instruction and rural operation reports; local, county, state, and federal agencies; civic projects; industry organizations and individuals of a service nature (i.e. lawyers, accountants, insurance agents); family correspondence; and clippings and journal articles of personal, family, business, or historical nature. In addition to the Coffins, Stella Pearl Brady, corporation secretary for approximately seventeen years, contributed substantially to the volume of correspondence.
The second subseries is comprised of three court suits related to the Horse Heaven Ranch. In the case of Coffin vrs Deffenbaugh, real estate boundaries were contested. The second case, Coffin .us v Moch, a former employee was charged with cattle misappropriation. The final case, Hellberg .us v Coffin, dealt with road right-of-way. In the third subseries, Livestock, 1906-1975, sheep are the greatest concern, but cattle and horses receive considerable attention. Materials include livestock industry correspondence and bulletins, livestock feeding and health data, and livestock registration papers.
The second major series, Financial, extends from 1899 through 1975 and contains eight subseries. Bills, the first and largest subseries, concerns livestock and real estate maintenance, livestock purchases, office upkeep, and other expenses. The Coffin Brothers liquidation papers make up the second subseries while the third subseries contains the papers of the Anna.enner Coffin estate. The fourth subseries, income, documents the sales of livestock, wool, and grain. The fifth subseries, investments, contains stock certificates and other papers which reflect the variety of financial ventures undertaken by the Coffins. The check register and the five ledgers that comprise the sixth subseries span the years 1908 through 1967 although they are not inclusive for all those years. Inventories, receipts, budgets, financial pocket books, and worksheets are included in the seventh subseries. The last financial subseries contains income and real estate tax data.
Dating 1864 through 1977, the third and largest series, Real Estate, evidences the extensive land holdings of the Coffin family. The first of the six subseries, correspondence and general real estate files, deals with easements and range and wheat-land leases. Documents, the second subseries, is largely property title abstracts. The third subseries concerns the maintenance and improvements, chiefly for irrigation, made by the Coffins on both deeded and leased land. Papers related to land purchases, sales, and use comprise the fourth through sixth subseries.
Thirty-seven personal/business logs with daily entries by Stanley I and Stanley II make up the fourth series. These day books date from 1899, skip to 1931, and are nearly complete through 1969 with only 1944 and 1947 lacking. Depicting the major real estate holdings and the prime livestock are the photographs in the fifth series. The last major series consists of maps which also illustrate the Coffin real estate. Aside from two bound atlases of Benton County, the series contains an oversize folder of Benton County maps of varied quality, sources, types and dates. Numerous maps of Yakima city and county are included in this series in an oversize folder.
Although the records may appear to be complete, a cautionary note is in order. For the most part, the records of the Coffin enterprises are not continuous and are not entirely complete. There are apparent gaps within series and subseries--both with respect to time and type of material. Records in a single folder often cross over organizational boundaries, thus making it difficult to trace the activities of a single unit within the Coffin financial hierarchy. For example, while a folder label may specify one entity of the Coffin enterprise, it may also contain information dealing with several other aspects.
SERIES LIST
Historic Distribution
Zooarchaeological data from the Columbia Basin suggest elk were present and utilized by early
inhabitants (McCorquodale 1985, Dixon et al. 1996). By the late-1800s elk may have been
extirpated from the Region (McCorquodale 1985). The current Colockum elk population
developed from the reintroduction of Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus elaphus nelsoni) from
Yellowstone National Park in 1913 and 1915, which significantly contributed to any remnant
animals in the area (Bryant and Maser 1982).
Post by: boneaddict on October 01, 2010, 08:44:37 AM
Post by: whiteeyes on October 01, 2010, 09:01:08 AM
The Indian haters on this web site are amazing, you have people moving here from our southern borders buy the truck loads people from the eastern country's buy the plane load living off our system buy the thousands and not contributing back.
The Tribes do more for conservation than most even have a clue about. But throw a picture or comment about a Tribe shooting a animal and all hell breaks loss.
I spend alot of time up in the Colockum and Nanem area and have yet to see the truck loads of elk being exported out of those areas. I know for a fact that the Advanced Hunter program in that area is taking way more elk out of the system than we as hunters can imagine. This country is becoming more separated buy the day and it wont be long till nothing will be as we see it today. But than again that will be the Indians fault as well.
Peace
Post by: 300magman on October 01, 2010, 09:09:29 AM
last time I checked the Indians no longer live in teepee's and sure as hell dont use bow and arrow.........
Oh and as for the whites invading the native land........ we fought a war and we won last time I checked.......
All we as hunters want is equal rights when it comes to hunting............
as for the illegal immigrants........thats a whole other topic......................
Post by: woodswalker on October 01, 2010, 09:10:16 AM
Well its sad to hear what the Yakama Tribe has become. What imprints their examples leave on others.
You see its guys like you whom I hopr to never run into when I am exercising my Tribal rights.
But you know what I think I have... or a relative there of. I have had pistols/rifles shot over our camp, slang words yelled to us... threatened .. horns honked when we were hunting. 4-wheelers push us off the trail. etc etc etc. I can go on.
I will just sit back and read the ignorance and false accusations of this thread. Please keep it here. I am learning a lot. I will try not to reply anymore. Carry on... thanks for your time
Motcha, I judge a man(or a tribe) on his(their) actions. If you play fair and dont ABUSE your treaty rights I dont care. EVEN if you do take game year round as is your Treaty right...but dont be wastefull about it. Dont go shoot all the trophy bulls you can find JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN. Dont strip the salmon hens of the skeins and throw the fish on the bank to rot. Dont gillnet gank to bank and throw away the "too small" fish that are killed in the nets. I fully understand that NOT ALL tribal members comport themselves in this manner...but enough DO to leave a REALLY bad taste when we see it again and again. Start by policing your own. Tell the Tribal councils to crack down on the wastage, dont take more than you NEED. Dont go shoot all the trophy bulls you can find JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN and then display them at the Sportsmans show and rub our noses in the fact that you CAN while we are restricted. SHARE the Tribal harvest info...most won't because they KNOW it is abusive.
Dont make the vast majority of us who pay for wildlife management feel like we are being RIPPED OFF by certain folks with certain special privelege.
Do that, work the Tribal fisheries and game agents WITH WDFW, share the info on Tribal harvest.
I grew up in a place with tribes all around, folks pretty much like me. We all mostly get along and 90% of the tribal members i know personally are straight up folks. There are a few who abuse it.
I'll turn in a poacher...no matter what color or affiliation....If the tribes dealt with their abusers it would go a long ways towards calming things down.
Post by: WSU on October 01, 2010, 09:13:39 AM
The other thing this "equal" argument ignores is the legal footing upon which tribal hunting rights sit. Anyone ever read the Marshall Trilogy? Any familiar with 300 years of constitutional caselaw involved? The true facts giving rise to where we are today? No need right, 'cause someone posted a picture of dead elk in an unidentified pickup.
Here is an article that give anyone who cares to educate themselves a bit a little hint of background. It explains why the state "won't" challenge the tribes and halt the "slaughter." It certainly won't give a full understanding, and certainly won't change many peoples' minds, but it may give a bit more perspective. I'm off the soap box for now...
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19990523&slug=bull23 (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19990523&slug=bull23)
Post by: boneaddict on October 01, 2010, 09:16:21 AM
Quote
This country is becoming more separated buy the day and it wont be long till nothing will be as we see it today.Thats a dang true statement, and NO it won't be the indians at fault. It is ALL of our fault. That tends to be why I approach this subject the way I do. We each have a part in this and thats why I challenge you to do your part. Just like I do mine. When I am pointing my finger at you, there are four more pointing back at me.
Post by: boneaddict on October 01, 2010, 09:25:30 AM
Post by: GoldTip on October 01, 2010, 09:58:29 AM
Post by: WSU on October 01, 2010, 10:02:55 AM
Special rights for specific groups of people does nothing more than perpetuate racism and hate, period. Bone is right, your either an American or your not. If you live here become one and get the SAME rights we all have and are open to us, or leave. Whether your white, pink, black, crippled, brown, gray, gay, the green lady Captian Kirk had sex with, yellow, albino, club footed or just plain stupid, if YOU feel YOU deserve special rights, then YOU are the reason for the divison among people. It needs to stop.
With all due respect, did you or boneaddict read the article? If so, care to directly address any of the facts contained in the article?
Post by: runamuk on October 01, 2010, 10:14:31 AM
The problem, as I see it, with the "equals" argument that always gets pushed is that this "equals" approach completely ignores history and the facts regarding how the treaties came to be. The treaties, and hunting and fishing rights that came along with them, were born out of a deal struck by our government and the various tribes. It was more desireable to enter into treaties than it was to attempt to prosecute a war. In exchange for all the land we, as the U.S., now own the tribes reserved some rights. It's important to note a few things here. First, they RESERVED the rights. It is not an "entitlement." They are rights that existed prior to the treaties. They were given nothing. They were simply keeping rights they already had. Second, we were given something that is almost beyond value in today's dollars. We got all the land you and I live in. Want to end the rights of the tribe? Maybe we should end the deal we cut. You all give back your houses and land, your employer can do the same, as can the government, and the tribes can quit having hunting and fishing rights. Sound like a good deal? Or, you can simply disavow your word and the word of country. We all agree that not living up to your word is dishonorable and bad, right? Especially when the legal foundation of our country is built upon that very principle, right?
The other thing this "equal" argument ignores is the legal footing upon which tribal hunting rights sit. Anyone ever read the Marshall Trilogy? Any familiar with 300 years of constitutional caselaw involved? The true facts giving rise to where we are today? No need right, 'cause someone posted a picture of dead elk in an unidentified pickup.
Here is an article that give anyone who cares to educate themselves a bit a little hint of background. It explains why the state "won't" challenge the tribes and halt the "slaughter." It certainly won't give a full understanding, and certainly won't change many peoples' minds, but it may give a bit more perspective. I'm off the soap box for now...
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19990523&slug=bull23 (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19990523&slug=bull23)
you dont consider it an entitlement to be paid for your existence :dunno: you do not have to ever lift a finger and you get 10k-40k depending on your tribal affiliation? This is money coming from the federal government so i suppose it is simply monopoly money they printed up :dunno: and no one who pays taxes is paying those annual stipends. I guess seeing first hand how this changes people and working with and for people with this mentality has altered my attitude being legally and actively discriminated against at work having it made clear regularly that I am beneath them and seeing inequality based on race has changed my attitude.....
and I haven't read the article been doing other things.....
Post by: boneaddict on October 01, 2010, 10:33:23 AM
Post by: Viszla on October 01, 2010, 10:36:00 AM
You must mean everyday. :bash: :bash:
Post by: WSU on October 01, 2010, 10:49:57 AM
My point isn't so much that the current state of things is ideal; obviously it is far from ideal. My point is that the simplistic idea "that we should all be equals, if your not a citizen then get it" completely ignores 300 years of relevant legal and factual history.
Further, the equities of the situation aren't really on our side, are they? We got ALL THE LAND. They retained the right to hunt and fish, and little bit of money each year. Are we really in the right to reneg on the deal now that it is inconvenient for us that treaty tribes have rights to hunt and fish? You think it isn't inconvenient for them that we control all the land they once controlled, have decimimated fish runs to the point where we now bitch about them harvesting a few thousand fish when the used to harvest millions out the Columbia alone, etc., etc.? (As a side note, that reminds me of a fact that is often ignored or unknown by many: the tribes used to harvest up to half the annual runs in the Columbia without harming the runs. It wasn't until we turned the Columbia River into a series of lakes and filled it with hatcheries to fuel our own over-harvest that it could no longer sustain the harvest levels that once were possible).
Post by: GoldTip on October 01, 2010, 10:58:05 AM
For the record WSU, in case you may think I am insensitive to Native Americans, my very best friend from college is one of those 2,000 native american lawyers, and I never, ever heard him identify himself as anything but an American. He works for one of the tribes listed in your article, in fact he is the lead attorney for one of those tribes. I have known him for 25 years, and he has never, ever in that time taken a game animal that he did not have state of Montana issued license for.
I have to append this after reading your post WSU, yes, the salmon runs have been damaged since we put the damns up, but have the Natives slowed their harvest of fish or have they simply not been able to take as many because their aren't as many present? I also don't see them bitching about having electricity or turning it away, they only ciomplain that there aren't as many salmon, but give us the electricity. You don't get the cake and get to eat it to, and I think that is what upsets most people on these forums.
Post by: WSU on October 01, 2010, 11:03:51 AM
WSU yes, I read the article written explicitly from a pro-native american/treaty stance without doubt, and the many points made come down to that treaties were made and they should/will/must be adhered to. I don't disagree with that in any way shape or form. What I don't agree with is that they haven't been progressive with the change in shape and technology of this great nation. What was not provided for/nor considered was the advacement in technologies to which the Native American would take full advantage of. When these treaties were written, they did not then get in the car/truck and drive off to the reservation. They didn't slide a bolt action Remington 700 in 300 win mag into a rope sling and slide it around their neck and and climb on their horse bareback and ride off to the reservation either. They also didn't go to the store and buy their gill nets to net salmon and then pack them in coolers and slide them into the bed of their truck. Their was never a future envisioned that there would be 350million people living on this soil, let alone the world at the time of these treaties. Times have changed and the treaties must as well.
For the record WSU, in case you may think I am insensitive to Native Americans, my very best friend from college is one of those 2,000 native american lawyers, and I never, ever heard him identify himself as anything but an American. He works for one of the tribes listed in your article, in fact he is the lead attorney for one of those tribes. I have known him for 25 years, and he has never, ever in that time taken a game animal that he did not have state of Montana issued license for.
Valid points. And I agree, times have changed (although not in all the ways we often think - example, tribes used gillnets, traps, and other nets prior to our arrival, harvested up to half the entire run of salmon in the Columbia as I state above, etc., etc.). Part of what makes our Constitution and laws great, and even work at all, is the ability to apply them as times change. The examples are endless: voting, slavery, on and on. However, your points are more thought out and take history and laws into account much more than the average knee-jerk comment most on this thread gave. As I indicated above, nobody is going to argue that the situation is ideal.
Post by: GoldTip on October 01, 2010, 11:41:00 AM
Post by: pods8 on October 01, 2010, 11:59:35 AM
I spend alot of time up in the Colockum and Nanem area and have yet to see the truck loads of elk being exported out of those areas. I know for a fact that the Advanced Hunter program in that area is taking way more elk out of the system than we as hunters can imagine.
The Master Hunter (previously AHE) are allowed to pursue antlerless elk that come down into the valley area, the current boundaries are below the power lines for the Colockum corner. This is to discourage the elk from doing damage to the ranch land. They are not allowed to go up into the prime heard areas and take elk antlerless or branch antlered at will.
Additionally their harvests are all recorded for wildlife management purposes and public record. Its all about balancing animal location and private property damage. If the animals don't come down they don't get shot at. Additionally WDFW can change the rules as they see fit for the health of the heard and have full control of it.
None of that can be said for the tribal hunting going on there. :dunno:
Post by: pods8 on October 01, 2010, 12:12:09 PM
Further, the equities of the situation aren't really on our side, are they? We got ALL THE LAND.
Tribes fought for control of land historically as well, its the way of man (not just white man). Whitey came in and was willing to play the game as well. Nobody likes the messy past but land that wasn't claimed by modern practices of the new government of the land was going to get claimed. One could argue how much land they should have gotten but in the end if it was unreasonable it was going to come down to who could win the fight. They have their reservations in tact and can do as they please with them. I don't have issue saying enough with off-reservation tribal hunting unless they are doing so as normal US citizens because in the long run the tribes weren't going to hang onto the land anyways as some other government entity to be blunt. It was the conquering/land expansion era of man and the tribes on US soil were just one of many in the world that were overpowered. Today the modern US government is the law of this land and no tribe is going to be able to change it.
Post by: WSU on October 01, 2010, 12:22:36 PM
Further, the equities of the situation aren't really on our side, are they? We got ALL THE LAND.
Tribes fought for control of land historically as well, its the way of man (not just white man). Whitey came in and was willing to play the game as well. Nobody likes the messy past but land that wasn't claimed by modern practices of the new government of the land was going to get claimed. One could argue how much land they should have gotten but in the end if it was unreasonable it was going to come down to who could win the fight. They have their reservations in tact and can do as they please with them. I don't have issue saying enough with off-reservation tribal hunting unless they are doing so as normal US citizens because in the long run the tribes weren't going to hang onto the land anyways as some other government entity to be blunt. It was the conquering/land expansion era of man and the tribes on US soil were just one of many in the world that were overpowered. Today the modern US government is the law of this land and no tribe is going to be able to change it.
This idea is simply wrong factually. The government made a calculated decision to enter into treaties rather than prosecute a costly war that it didn't have the capability of prosecuting. Some treaties are the result of the "conquering" you allude to, but many aren't. At the time, it was more profitable and feasible to enter into deals rather than kill enough Indians to take everything by force. What it may have come down to had we not entered into the treaties is largely, if not completely, irrelevant. We could go round and round on every subject with "what ifs" or alternative things that could have happened.
Post by: 6x6rack on October 01, 2010, 09:32:14 PM
You sound like a logical and reasonable guy. The treaties are what they are and if I'm reading between the lines correctly no-one here feels the treaties need to be changed if the Tribes were willing to stop the abuses. At some point any government without laws and enforcement of those laws will fall into chaos. The stability of the collocum herd has reached such a point. A declining herd, a 5/100 bull to cow ratio (those are All bulls, not trophy bulls) and a less than 50% calving rate among fertile cows.
People are pissed because there is an ungoverned (and if they were white, black, asian or hispanic they would be labeled as poachers), group of individuals that only the Tribe can stop from abusing the resources... and nothing is done. Yes there are treaty rights that were established for all the reasons you and the article mention, but nowhere is there the right to decimate a resource through lack of internal control and stewardship. No one here will EVER be OK with that just because a treaty says you get special priveleges. Special priveleges in this day and age mean special responsibility to make sure those priveleges arent abused. We are sportsmen and LOVE the resource (in my opinion much more than the tribes, I say that because as times have evolved we have created laws to protect the resource), we will NEVER be OK with the abuse because a judge says its OK and the tribe doesn't care enough to govern it own. Some things I have seen with my own eyes...A tribe can take 1/2 the clams and oysters every year...but guess what, they don't reproduce to legal size by the next year so now our beach is raped. I have gone out and caught my 1 sockeye, only to see thousands and thousands of dead fish laying on the bottom of the lake after the Indians took the eggs and threw the rest back. I watched a tribal member shoot an elk and deceide it ran too far down the canyon to retrieve, so they left it to rot. Why can't I call and say hey tribal regulator, you have taken all the shellfish off my beach and there won't be any left if you do it again this year (I tried and was rewarded with them showing up the very next day to take more), hey I watched vehicle license # shoot an elk and leave it to rot. You bring up some very valid points, but in the end they mean absolutly nothing if the people with the special priveleges refuse to govern and manage the resources in an ethical and responsible fashion. The Tribes are a huge part of the problem, they just dont care enought about the "sacred" resources to do a damn thing to protect them when blatant disregard by their citizens takes place. I dont hate indians or anyone else, I hate that the tribes dont seem to give a crap enough about this issue to practice responsible management. I am sick of hearing about the treaty rights as a defense of stupidity.
Post by: grundy53 on October 01, 2010, 09:40:26 PM
WSU...
You sound like a logical and reasonable guy. The treaties are what they are and if I'm reading between the lines correctly no-one here feels the treaties need to be changed if the Tribes were willing to stop the abuses. At some point any government without laws and enforcement of those laws will fall into chaos. The stability of the collocum herd has reached such a point. A declining herd, a 5/100 bull to cow ratio (those are All bulls, not trophy bulls) and a less than 50% calving rate among fertile cows.
People are pissed because there is an ungoverned (and if they were white, black, asian or hispanic they would be labeled as poachers), group of individuals that only the Tribe can stop from abusing the resources... and nothing is done. Yes there are treaty rights that were established for all the reasons you and the article mention, but nowhere is there the right to decimate a resource through lack of internal control and stewardship. No one here will EVER be OK with that just because a treaty says you get special priveleges. Special priveleges in this day and age mean special responsibility to make sure those priveleges arent abused. We are sportsmen and LOVE the resource (in my opinion much more than the tribes, I say that because as times have evolved we have created laws to protect the resource), we will NEVER be OK with the abuse because a judge says its OK and the tribe doesn't care enough to govern it own. Some things I have seen with my own eyes...A tribe can take 1/2 the clams and oysters every year...but guess what, they don't reproduce to legal size by the next year so now our beach is raped. I have gone out and caught my 1 sockeye, only to see thousands and thousands of dead fish laying on the bottom of the lake after the Indians took the eggs and threw the rest back. I watched a tribal member shoot an elk and deceide it ran too far down the canyon to retrieve, so they left it to rot. Why can't I call and say hey tribal regulator, you have taken all the shellfish off my beach and there won't be any left if you do it again this year (I tried and was rewarded with them showing up the very next day to take more), hey I watched vehicle license # shoot an elk and leave it to rot. You bring up some very valid points, but in the end they mean absolutly nothing if the people with the special priveleges refuse to govern and manage the resources in an ethical and responsible fashion. The Tribes are a huge part of the problem, they just dont care enought about the "sacred" resources to do a damn thing to protect them when blatant disregard by their citizens takes place. I dont hate indians or anyone else, I hate that the tribes dont seem to give a crap enough about this issue to practice responsible management. I am sick of hearing about the treaty rights as a defense of stupidity.
Very well put!
Post by: ICEMAN on October 02, 2010, 04:56:48 AM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on October 02, 2010, 06:47:25 AM
Post by: Special T on October 02, 2010, 08:08:24 AM
As for the hunting.... we should renegotiate with the tribes, but there is nothing to bring them to the table..... 1st not all tribes are created equal... The Yakimas are bigger and more powerful than most other tribes, and the tribes have the intelligence to bargain together. 2nd most tribes that are "in need" are more likely to be good Stuarts of the land. I'm my area the tribes have helped bring back the nooksack herd, and kicked in with $$ to do so... So the question is how do we bring the tribe(s) back to the bargaining table? In this case we are mostly talking about the Yakimas... We either 1 need to kill all/most of the elk so that hunting sucks for them as well as us, or we need to close hunting to everyone. I believe we can either do that as an emergency closure, to which the tribes must abide, or by reducing access so that it limits opportunity to the extremely dedicated... I think for us this is a lose/lose proposition... I wish we could find a better solution, but unfortunately i believe we have put ourselves in this position.. :twocents:
Remember to vote for yourself in November... Vote for your freedom and any candidate that will work to give back to you.
Post by: colockumelk on October 02, 2010, 10:01:29 AM
Illegal immigration is not a new problem Native Americans used to call it white people.
The Indian haters on this web site are amazing, you have people moving here from our southern borders buy the truck loads people from the eastern country's buy the plane load living off our system buy the thousands and not contributing back.
The Tribes do more for conservation than most even have a clue about. But throw a picture or comment about a Tribe shooting a animal and all hell breaks loss.
I spend alot of time up in the Colockum and Nanem area and have yet to see the truck loads of elk being exported out of those areas. I know for a fact that the Advanced Hunter program in that area is taking way more elk out of the system than we as hunters can imagine. This country is becoming more separated buy the day and it wont be long till nothing will be as we see it today. But than again that will be the Indians fault as well.
Peace
Whiteeyes maybe you will be the first one to step up to the plate and debate me. However most likely you will back down like all the others on this website who have come before you. That being said.....
The main problem I have with the situation is not so much the fact that some Indians choose to take advantage of the laws its this. The treaty that was signed and the Boldt Decision if either of those two ever went to federal court would be deemed unconstitutional. The reason being is that they are both EXTREMELY descriminatory. You can not create nor enforce laws that create discrimination. Look up the definition of DISCRIMINATION in the dictionary and you will find that Indian hunting rights compared to American's hunting rights fits that definition to a T. You and other defenders of Indians like to talk about how nothing can change because of "The Treaty" You are ALL mistaken. Because you see it used to be legal to own slaves. That law changed. There used to be laws called the Jim Crow laws that allowed segregation and was highly discriminatory. Those laws were deemed unconstitutional. And rightly so. Therefore do not think your treaty is so unchanable. Also its not the treaty that gave you these unconstitutional rights, it was the Boldt Decision which can EASILY be overturned. So my question to you is why do you feel that discrimination is okay. Why you should get more rights and should get to play by different rules than I do. So please tell us.....
Post by: brianb231 on October 02, 2010, 10:24:08 AM
What would Uncle Ted do?
Just a thought.
Post by: elkhuntindad on October 02, 2010, 11:52:26 AM
Post by: Special T on October 03, 2010, 09:15:22 AM
Post by: TikkaT3-270Shortmag on October 03, 2010, 05:29:44 PM
Post by: ratherhunt on October 03, 2010, 05:42:32 PM
Post by: whiteeyes on October 04, 2010, 08:05:57 AM
Illegal immigration is not a new problem Native Americans used to call it white people.
The Indian haters on this web site are amazing, you have people moving here from our southern borders buy the truck loads people from the eastern country's buy the plane load living off our system buy the thousands and not contributing back.
The Tribes do more for conservation than most even have a clue about. But throw a picture or comment about a Tribe shooting a animal and all hell breaks loss.
I spend alot of time up in the Colockum and Nanem area and have yet to see the truck loads of elk being exported out of those areas. I know for a fact that the Advanced Hunter program in that area is taking way more elk out of the system than we as hunters can imagine. This country is becoming more separated buy the day and it wont be long till nothing will be as we see it today. But than again that will be the Indians fault as well.
Peace
Whiteeyes maybe you will be the first one to step up to the plate and debate me. However most likely you will back down like all the others on this website who have come before you. That being said.....
The main problem I have with the situation is not so much the fact that some Indians choose to take advantage of the laws its this. The treaty that was signed and the Boldt Decision if either of those two ever went to federal court would be deemed unconstitutional. The reason being is that they are both EXTREMELY descriminatory. You can not create nor enforce laws that create discrimination. Look up the definition of DISCRIMINATION in the dictionary and you will find that Indian hunting rights compared to American's hunting rights fits that definition to a T. You and other defenders of Indians like to talk about how nothing can change because of "The Treaty" You are ALL mistaken. Because you see it used to be legal to own slaves. That law changed. There used to be laws called the Jim Crow laws that allowed segregation and was highly discriminatory. Those laws were deemed unconstitutional. And rightly so. Therefore do not think your treaty is so unchanable. Also its not the treaty that gave you these unconstitutional rights, it was the Boldt Decision which can EASILY be overturned. So my question to you is why do you feel that discrimination is okay. Why you should get more rights and should get to play by different rules than I do. So please tell us.....
Wow wow wow there clockumelk pump the brakes. Indians did not create discrimination. The Indians didnt sit around the camp fire and write up this proposal and take it to the government and say please sign here. With that being said...........
Life as we know it is being taken more and more every day little by little a law for this a law for that, big brother is here to save us from our selves. Every day we loose a little bit more of what used to be Land of the Free. And maybe , just maybe the Indians could read the writing`s on the wall many years ago and new that they had better accept what was being offered at that time. So we as a Nation better start coming together as the Tribes had to years ago to keep what little Freedom and Rights that we still have.
Yes there are a few bad apples with in the Tribes as there is in every Race. It just gets old to see the bad Indian apples always being thrown all over in this site making it sound like all Indians. Things will change and people will come together and it might not be over some hunting rights but will be over a means of survival if we dont start looking at the bigger picture.
Peace
Post by: WSU on October 04, 2010, 11:18:58 AM
Whiteeyes maybe you will be the first one to step up to the plate and debate me. However most likely you will back down like all the others on this website who have come before you. That being said.....
The main problem I have with the situation is not so much the fact that some Indians choose to take advantage of the laws its this. The treaty that was signed and the Boldt Decision if either of those two ever went to federal court would be deemed unconstitutional. The reason being is that they are both EXTREMELY descriminatory. You can not create nor enforce laws that create discrimination. Look up the definition of DISCRIMINATION in the dictionary and you will find that Indian hunting rights compared to American's hunting rights fits that definition to a T. You and other defenders of Indians like to talk about how nothing can change because of "The Treaty" You are ALL mistaken. Because you see it used to be legal to own slaves. That law changed. There used to be laws called the Jim Crow laws that allowed segregation and was highly discriminatory. Those laws were deemed unconstitutional. And rightly so. Therefore do not think your treaty is so unchanable. Also its not the treaty that gave you these unconstitutional rights, it was the Boldt Decision which can EASILY be overturned. So my question to you is why do you feel that discrimination is okay. Why you should get more rights and should get to play by different rules than I do. So please tell us.....
I have no problem "stepping up" and debating you on this. I think it is important to understand what the Constitutional application of discrimination protection is and the related legal foundation of what gives treaty tribes the status they currently hold.
The first, and by far the most important thing, that you don't appear understand is that members of treaty tribes are not U.S. citizens in the sense that you and I are. The whole "sovereign nation" thing comes into play here. They are sovereign nations (like Mexico, France, Canada, etc.). As such, they are not subject to the constraints of our Constitution to the same extent. The waters are really muddied here, however, because treaty tribe members are often outside their reservations, and are subject to to our laws to different extents depending on where they are and who the other party is that is involved. Suffice it to say, however, that the view that our consititution applies directly to tribal members, let alone treaties, does not work.
Second, the discriminatory effect is not looked at the same. It is not a simple case of the U.S. government discriminating against its citizens. It is two sovereign (read foreign) nations regulating the relationship between the different nations. To be short, the U.S. is free to have policies with foreign nations that would not pass Constitutional muster if they were to apply the same policies against its own citizens. Whether these policies are good or bad for the U.S. populous is more of a political than legal question. Examples are wars, trade policies, etc.
Third, the Boldt decision is a completely accurate, in my opinion, legal interpretation of the treaties as written. The main thing that gets everyone up in arms is that the treaties were interpreted to give 50% of the harvest to the treaty tribes based on the "in common with" language. Courts attempt to give words their ordinary meaning unless an obviously contrary intent can be found in the law. This is applied all over (normal contracts, insurance contracts, statutes, etc., etc.). In effect, the Boldt decision determined that "in common with" mean equal, especially when read in the context of the tribes who did not write the treaties or speak english. Again, this policy is applied throughout the law. Contracts are interpreted against the drafting party so that the drafting party cannot as easily use trickery in drafting the contract. A prime example is insurance contracts, in which ambiguities are interpreted against insurance companies. In short, "in common with" was basically interpreted to mean "equal," which in the case of harvest allocation is half, or 50%. Perhaps you have a definition of "in common with" that is different and would allow the Boldt decision to be "EASILY overturned", or can point to a different reason?
Fourth, and related to the above, is that your analogies to Jim Crow laws and the like are completely inapplicable (legally speaking). This is not the case of the government (remember that a government action is required for constitutional discrimination) doing something to U.S. citizens. Jim Crow laws were the government purposefully discrminating against racial minorities. That simply isn't the case with treaty law. If anything, the only racial minority that has been targeted throughout history for discrimination under treaty laws is the Indians themselves, which would give them a cause of action against the government in the event these inapplicable constitutional principles were applied (which again, I don't think they do apply).
Fifth, the treaties can be changed, just not by the courts. The courts are applying the laws as written, and the current system is what the laws say. Under the Constitution, the Senate and the Executive branch have powers over treaties. Article 6, the "Supremacy Clause," makes the Constitution, the laws of the U.S., and treaties the "law of the land." The only body with the power to change treaties, and the current system of laws being interpreted by the courts, is Congress. They have the power to abrogate the treaties and make the laws regarding Indians whatever they want.
Of course, all of the above is only my interpretation, and could be wrong. It is worth exactly what you paid for it! Debate away! (Colockumelk - as you know, I enjoy these types of debates, and you and I have done so before. I'm not trying to piss anyone off here, just offer a different perspective.)
Post by: WSU on October 04, 2010, 11:32:04 AM
WSU...
You sound like a logical and reasonable guy. The treaties are what they are and if I'm reading between the lines correctly no-one here feels the treaties need to be changed if the Tribes were willing to stop the abuses. At some point any government without laws and enforcement of those laws will fall into chaos. The stability of the collocum herd has reached such a point. A declining herd, a 5/100 bull to cow ratio (those are All bulls, not trophy bulls) and a less than 50% calving rate among fertile cows.
People are pissed because there is an ungoverned (and if they were white, black, asian or hispanic they would be labeled as poachers), group of individuals that only the Tribe can stop from abusing the resources... and nothing is done. Yes there are treaty rights that were established for all the reasons you and the article mention, but nowhere is there the right to decimate a resource through lack of internal control and stewardship. No one here will EVER be OK with that just because a treaty says you get special priveleges. Special priveleges in this day and age mean special responsibility to make sure those priveleges arent abused. We are sportsmen and LOVE the resource (in my opinion much more than the tribes, I say that because as times have evolved we have created laws to protect the resource), we will NEVER be OK with the abuse because a judge says its OK and the tribe doesn't care enough to govern it own. Some things I have seen with my own eyes...A tribe can take 1/2 the clams and oysters every year...but guess what, they don't reproduce to legal size by the next year so now our beach is raped. I have gone out and caught my 1 sockeye, only to see thousands and thousands of dead fish laying on the bottom of the lake after the Indians took the eggs and threw the rest back. I watched a tribal member shoot an elk and deceide it ran too far down the canyon to retrieve, so they left it to rot. Why can't I call and say hey tribal regulator, you have taken all the shellfish off my beach and there won't be any left if you do it again this year (I tried and was rewarded with them showing up the very next day to take more), hey I watched vehicle license # shoot an elk and leave it to rot. You bring up some very valid points, but in the end they mean absolutly nothing if the people with the special priveleges refuse to govern and manage the resources in an ethical and responsible fashion. The Tribes are a huge part of the problem, they just dont care enought about the "sacred" resources to do a damn thing to protect them when blatant disregard by their citizens takes place. I dont hate indians or anyone else, I hate that the tribes dont seem to give a crap enough about this issue to practice responsible management. I am sick of hearing about the treaty rights as a defense of stupidity.
To be honest, I'm not sure to what extent the tribes are the problem and the extent to which they are not. And, in my view, nobody else on here does either. The posting of a picture of two dead bulls isn't proof to me that tribes are the problem. Neither is a report of someone else who saw two dead bulls in a truck in the Blues, even assuming it was tribal. For example, just the week before we had reports of multiple poached bulls in the Blues. We are constantly hearing other reports of poaching, which is an activity that is hidden. Tribal members don't appear to hide their harvest. I think the amount of poaching is an unknown, as is perhaps tribal harvest. Further, we know that what we harvest legally, which is a giant percentage of animals (take the harvest problems WE have in the Colockum as a prime example). Often, I think it is just easier to point the finger "at the other guy."
I do, however, recognize there are issues with tribal harvest. In cases were it is a problem, I don't agree with it, legal or not. To me, however, these are all distinct issues and questions.
Also, thanks calling me a logical and reasonable guy. Now convince my wife!
Post by: Practical Approach on October 04, 2010, 11:33:07 AM
Post by: colockumelk on October 04, 2010, 06:34:25 PM
Been waiting for a reply from somebody like that for about 6 months now. Thankyou for that, that's the kind of stuff that keeps me coming back to this site for. I don't have alot of time to write an appropriate response to that because I have a 0530 flight tomorrow morning. So I will only touch on one point because it'll take only a few minutes. Rather than trying to counter some of the other stuff you mentioned because it would take more time.
A treaty is basically an agreement, a contract if you will between two parties. And treaties become null and void if one side breaches that contract. In the particular treaty of 1855 ARTICLE 9 says basically Indians are not allowed to drink. Obviously this Article is violated daily. (Please no one read into that, if you looked at any city in America someone in that town drank a beer that day)
Whiteeyes you missed my point once again. I know the history of both our people. You circumnavigated my point. I'm saying changes need to be made so everyone is treated equal. At least outside of the reservation.
I will enjoy debating this further but I have a 0330 wakeup. Take Care
Post by: WASHBCBOOK on October 04, 2010, 08:48:01 PM
Post by: bigmonster on October 09, 2010, 11:44:47 AM
Post by: Bob on October 09, 2010, 12:18:52 PM
Post by: Antlerking on October 09, 2010, 12:30:02 PM
Post by: bearhunter99 on October 09, 2010, 02:27:16 PM
It has been said before I am sure but the main reason I and most others on here get steamed about the whole issue is that you see the same names in the record books and at the shows for these big bulls and bucks. Technically speaking the argument could be made that these animals are ineligible for the record books and the award shows because the majority of them were NOT taken by the standards of FAIR CHASE! I have seen first hand some of the abuse, and believe me it burns the blood. There was a camp the year before last (after all the seasons were closed) very close to the reserve with at most four tribal members in it and there were eleven bulls hanging. Not all were trophy quality but at least 7 were 340 or better. Four gut piles IN the road, not even enough courtesy to shove them off the road, just left in the middle of the road for anyone out for a Sunday drive to see. These are the images also that the antis see, and some of what the tribe does gives the rest of us a bad name because a bunny hugger sees it and doesn't know that it is not your everyday hunter doing this. They don't know the seasons or regs, just what they can see with their own eyes. A simple Ebay search in the winter months will show some very large antlers being sold from the Yakima area. The rights are for sustenance and ritual, not for an additional profit center. If I saw a truck with a bull and a couple of cows in it I would not be as steamed, but the cows are left alone.
I also know a tribal warden in the Omak area who told me about alot of the abuse that goes on and he is not even able to do anything about it under tribal law. He told me that he had caught tribal members shooting deer and if they ran over the ridge they just kept driving until they found one that would roll into the road. He himself as a tribal warden was powerless to do anything about it and he was steamed! The talk about the tribes governing their members needs to be addressed when even their own wardens are not able to stop the abuse on the reservation itself.
My :twocents:
Post by: spikehunter on October 09, 2010, 05:34:26 PM
Post by: WABONEHNTR on October 09, 2010, 09:14:40 PM
Post by: huntnnw on October 09, 2010, 09:43:00 PM
Post by: NataSS on October 09, 2010, 09:44:50 PM
I have yet to harvest a deer, bear, cougar or *censored*ing elk. I have hunted my ass off this year and still nothing. I have spent the last couple of months scouting for elk because everyone here says "you scout, you score" (or something to that effect).
Now I can at least point in the right direction as to why my chances are getting more and more deminished as the years go on. It seems like I am camping with a rifle and not hunting.
While scouting outside Yakima I came accross a large (what i could only assume was a bull) elk. It was missing 3 things....Its head, and both its backstraps. I pulled out my camera to take a picture and just my luck, batteries were dead.
I cant say with 100% certanty who (poacher or native) did this, but it doesnt take a rocket scientist.
I have so much spit and venom built up inside me on the ethics of the tribal hunters, if I was to even type out 1% of it I would be banned from this site. And since I consider this place a bastion for sane, ethical hunters and an excellent resource, I will keep my comments to myself.
The long and short of it is that it has to be stopped. Maybe a phone call to one of the larger news networks to do a little investigative work and then airing it during prime time might put a light on the situation?
Post by: CheyTac on October 09, 2010, 09:49:25 PM
Post by: bullcanyon on October 10, 2010, 06:30:45 AM
Post by: spottedhand on October 10, 2010, 09:28:03 AM
Post by: GEARHEAD on October 10, 2010, 10:42:48 AM
Post by: Special T on October 10, 2010, 10:56:57 AM
Post by: 3dsheetmetal on October 10, 2010, 11:56:04 AM
I dont think these $%^& were given any injustices, they are damn lucky we didnt wipe their asses and rid them a 130 years ago of the land,you tell me in history where someone came in and invaded a country, then sets land aside for them and then gives them money then special assistant programs and hunting and fishing rights and they still cant seem to take advantage it, but the fishing and hunting side of it, abuse it just as the alcohol that is rampant on the rez. :bash:Exactly what i was thinking. >:(
Post by: wildbill100 on October 10, 2010, 01:30:25 PM
Post by: monster_bull on October 10, 2010, 05:15:17 PM
Post by: Michelle_Nelson on October 10, 2010, 05:45:41 PM
I have hunted here in WA going on 11 years now.
I have yet to harvest a deer, bear, cougar or *censored* elk. I have hunted my ass off this year and still nothing. I have spent the last couple of months scouting for elk because everyone here says "you scout, you score" (or something to that effect).
I'm sorry but it is deffinatly not the Natives fault you havn't killed a Deer, Elk, Bear, or Cougar in Washington in the past 11 years.
Post by: billythekidrock on October 10, 2010, 06:06:55 PM
I have hunted here in WA going on 11 years now.
I have yet to harvest a deer, bear, cougar or *censored* elk. I have hunted my ass off this year and still nothing. I have spent the last couple of months scouting for elk because everyone here says "you scout, you score" (or something to that effect).
I'm sorry but it is deffinatly not the Natives fault you havn't killed a Deer, Elk, Bear, or Cougar in Washington in the past 11 years.
:yeah:
Post by: WSU on October 10, 2010, 07:33:53 PM
I have hunted here in WA going on 11 years now.
I have yet to harvest a deer, bear, cougar or *censored* elk. I have hunted my ass off this year and still nothing. I have spent the last couple of months scouting for elk because everyone here says "you scout, you score" (or something to that effect).
I'm sorry but it is deffinatly not the Natives fault you havn't killed a Deer, Elk, Bear, or Cougar in Washington in the past 11 years.
This is true. Indians are not the reason you cannot find success. If you really are having that much difficulty shoot me a PM and I will point you in the right direction.
Post by: 3dsheetmetal on October 10, 2010, 08:12:43 PM
it was but its not a real pic grow up its been doctored up get a clue dont you have anything better to do than try to bash indians what are you try to start :'(I don't think anybody is trying to bash anybody but it is obvious that some "native americans"are taking advantage of the system. Ever since the Boldt decision I have seen every river netted from bank to bank in Whatcom county so they could catch every salmon and steelhead they could catch.And if you go out to the res at night the indians don't go out till just before dark to hunt and start shooting at ducks and probably only retreive only one duck out of five so don't try and tell me that they actually care about conservation.And when brandt season was closed in order to strengthen the population I know a so called 'native american " that was out killing all the brandt that he could kill.They completely destroyed the noocksack elk herd and god bless them they are trying to rebuild the herd .What a f@##@ joke what a bunch of horse *censored*.They are Obama's illegitimate children and
I see nothing ever to change they are just on welfare and can never change.:Send them all to China.
Post by: ser300wsm on October 10, 2010, 09:00:33 PM
Post by: NataSS on October 11, 2010, 09:56:00 AM
I have hunted here in WA going on 11 years now.
I have yet to harvest a deer, bear, cougar or *censored* elk. I have hunted my ass off this year and still nothing. I have spent the last couple of months scouting for elk because everyone here says "you scout, you score" (or something to that effect).
I'm sorry but it is deffinatly not the Natives fault you havn't killed a Deer, Elk, Bear, or Cougar in Washington in the past 11 years.
Trust me I know its my own fault. This is the first year I have had time to actually scout so it was real frustrating actually finding something only to see its head lopped of and the straps taken out of it and left to rot.
In previous years I could only get enough time off to hunt for a few days and zero time to scout. Well, got laid off in April and so now I have lots of time! :chuckle:
Post by: Nimrod on October 11, 2010, 10:38:13 AM
Post by: Special T on October 11, 2010, 10:46:12 AM
just my :twocents:
Post by: coachcw on October 11, 2010, 01:06:44 PM
Post by: monster_bull on October 11, 2010, 02:34:25 PM
Post by: mebco09 on October 11, 2010, 03:11:40 PM
I don't see why a tribal hunter would just take the horns and the backstraps , they would have no reason not two take the whole elk and laugh in our faces.
My honist oppion is the *censored*s that are shooting elk and taking just the horns and straps are some degrade local white trash *censored*s .
It is called laziness. If they can shoot multiple elk in a year, and take out the easy meat, they can fill their freezers with nothing but backstrap and not gut, quarter and pack out anything. If it is a single hunter (poacher), it would be tough to load up a big bull into a truck without some help.
It may very well be that it is white trash *censored*s doing this, but if they are caught, at least there is punishment. It doesn't make it any better as there is still a wasted elk out there, but if white boys get caught doing this the game department has legal teeth. With the natives, they walk. There is probably some tribal laws regarding wastage....who enforces that?
Post by: coachcw on October 11, 2010, 03:58:35 PM
Post by: mebco09 on October 11, 2010, 04:59:34 PM
That said, I don't think the intent of the tribal hunters is to piss off the white hunters. I don't think taking the best cuts of meat off an animal and leaving the rest to rot is being sneaky, or meant to piss someone else off, I think it is just being lazy. The whole process of field dressing and quartering a large animal is a long one, and ideally requires more than one person, or one person and some equipment (hoist, winch atv etc.).
The bottom line is, however, unless someone is seen shooting an animal and leaving it to rot, we can only speculate on who did it. For all we know, it could have been an archery or muzzleloader permit hunter who said "screw it, too much work." Ill take the horns and backstraps and go back to the truck. (not likely, but possible)
Along those lines, and a little off topic, something that I have thought about for awhile is why don't those tribal hunters use the benefit of their treaty rights and try earning their elk. I would have a ton of respect for a tribal guy who packed in, camoed out and called in a giant elk, using his rifle or whatever during the bugle season, and then took out all the meat and fed his family. Those are the hunts that we all dream about. Basically a Governors tag every year. So what if the season is only open to him. In my opinion, this kind of hunt was the intent of their treaty.
I don't think there are many guys on this board who dream about a great road hunt with a case of Rainier Ice in a blue 79 chevy where they take a 350" bull, gut shot. And then take the backstraps only and antlers down to the Yakima sportsmans show.
I don't think that anyone on this site would have a negative opinion of the tribes if they did it right, and this would be a done topic.
Post by: seth30 on October 11, 2010, 05:34:15 PM
Post by: coachcw on October 11, 2010, 05:43:42 PM
Post by: RippinLips on October 13, 2010, 03:08:41 PM
no f nnnnnnn wonder why the bull ratio sucks there .I'd be ok if the used wood arrows , long bow and a horse.i agree... if it was done the same way it was 150 years ago id be fine with it but now days its bs they drive around drink their fire water find the first animal shoot a horrible shot cut the good meat an leave the rest and their all complete a holes about it too. every one of em ive ever met are exactly like that
Post by: go4itlab on October 13, 2010, 09:11:08 PM
Post by: bobcat on October 13, 2010, 10:48:14 PM
Post by: krout81 on October 13, 2010, 11:30:20 PM
HOWEVER when I was 8 years old hunting archery near Forks, WA my father and I heard a lot of machine gun fire coming from a ways off near the HOH River Rainforest National boundry. Later that day we saw game wardens on the road so we went over to see. There was 18 dead elk..... 2 missing horns, all missing backstraps and Ivories, a few missing hind quarters. Most of the elk had several bullet holes. This has left a lasting impression on me since 6 years later the once 60plus herds we chased arround during early season when you could shoot any elk, has now been reduced to 3-point or better for the last 14 years. The last time I went over there and walked the same trails I did along HOH River I saw very little sign and the elk I did see were in groups of 5-10 not the massive herds that used to roam. You can't tell me that the impact some tribal members has left isn't felt. This is proof in my book and if we are to ever function as an equal society then we should all be equal in accordance with the laws of 2010 and not dwell on the past.
PS this was 21 years ago for those who care, and I will never forget it.
Post by: Practical Approach on October 14, 2010, 08:57:12 AM
Im new, but All I can say is if they did it by the rules then fine........That's too bad. I hear stories such as the one you have shared throughout the state when I travel. Sometimes it is tribal member stories and sometimes its nontribal poachers. Unfortunately this stuff happens, it sucks, and I am glad to hear that the wardens were on it. However, one thing you mention that I found interesting is that you refer to back in the days when herds were larger and you could shoot any elk. Were you referring to cows too? That in itself is probably the largest reason the populations declined. You cannot build an elk herd and shoot your cows too.
HOWEVER when I was 8 years old hunting archery near Forks, WA my father and I heard a lot of machine gun fire coming from a ways off near the HOH River Rainforest National boundry. Later that day we saw game wardens on the road so we went over to see. There was 18 dead elk..... 2 missing horns, all missing backstraps and Ivories, a few missing hind quarters. Most of the elk had several bullet holes. This has left a lasting impression on me since 6 years later the once 60plus herds we chased arround during early season when you could shoot any elk, has now been reduced to 3-point or better for the last 14 years. The last time I went over there and walked the same trails I did along HOH River I saw very little sign and the elk I did see were in groups of 5-10 not the massive herds that used to roam. You can't tell me that the impact some tribal members has left isn't felt. This is proof in my book and if we are to ever function as an equal society then we should all be equal in accordance with the laws of 2010 and not dwell on the past.
PS this was 21 years ago for those who care, and I will never forget it.
Post by: krout81 on October 14, 2010, 09:38:02 PM
Post by: pods8 on October 15, 2010, 07:42:47 AM
I have a great idea why don't we give them whisky and blankets infected with smallpox. Round up the ones that don't die or we haven't killed and put them on a post stamp size piece of land. Then we'll take there kids away and send them to some *censored*ed up boarding school, beat them and give them white people names. Who's with me!!!!
Pretty much any race has had a rough time in the past whether its black, Irish, Jews, Polish, Mexican, etc. However they are held to the same laws are the rest of US citizens on US soil. Don't try and pretend the indians had it worse than the slaves or something of that nature. :rolleyes:
Post by: runamuk on October 15, 2010, 07:53:44 AM
I have a great idea why don't we give them whisky and blankets infected with smallpox. Round up the ones that don't die or we haven't killed and put them on a post stamp size piece of land. Then we'll take there kids away and send them to some *censored*ed up boarding school, beat them and give them white people names. Who's with me!!!!
Pretty much any race has had a rough time in the past whether its black, Irish, Jews, Polish, Mexican, etc. However they are held to the same laws are the rest of US citizens on US soil. Don't try and pretend the indians had it worse than the slaves or something of that nature. :rolleyes:
Yep...pretty much all people have been persecuted and downtrodden at some point in history how far back shall we go should we start a injustices rating scale to decide who gets what entitlements :dunno:
Post by: Whitefoot on October 21, 2010, 04:42:14 PM
Post by: monster_bull on October 21, 2010, 05:37:09 PM
Post by: monster_bull on October 21, 2010, 05:41:36 PM
there machine guns again at all the elk in forks.
Post by: Lowedog on October 21, 2010, 06:02:09 PM
Oh ya and if you guys don't like it get back on the mayflower and leave.
That was pretty funny. :chuckle: Stupid but funny.
Post by: Special T on October 21, 2010, 07:20:23 PM
I challenge you to speak up and explain so that we can better understand and together be better stewards of the gifts God has given us...
I look forward to hearing your insights.
Post by: Whitefoot on October 22, 2010, 05:01:36 PM
I think a lot of things get blown out of the water. Then everybody else feeds off it and it makes it worse.
Yeah, I think everyone agrees on the purpose of hunting an elk is for all the meat. But I was curious to where this was? Because I don't recognize who it was! :dunno: Thanks to this hunting-washington.com everybody knows where the clock is now.. Juss another year before they figure all the roads out.. ;)
Post by: stewcamp on October 26, 2010, 03:36:11 PM
Post by: tlbradford on October 26, 2010, 03:56:06 PM
Post by: MtnMuley on October 26, 2010, 04:15:46 PM
Post by: gonehuntin68 on October 26, 2010, 06:16:04 PM
Post by: Whitefoot on October 28, 2010, 01:11:19 PM
Doing good 270.. Been getting any birds?
Post by: 270Shooter on October 28, 2010, 03:34:06 PM
Post by: phishisgroovin on October 28, 2010, 08:00:45 PM
Went when i was a kid with my indian buddys, what a blast too. i always seen humane kills and they used every part of the animal. Even the bones back then, they ground it into pulp for something, maybe fertilizer who knows.
I always ate well at their houses hehe!
Post by: monster_bull on October 29, 2010, 10:55:41 PM
Post by: hunterofelk on October 30, 2010, 08:46:16 AM
Post by: remington300mag on October 30, 2010, 09:03:21 AM
hey gang! haven't been on here in a while was on a business trip. :hunter:. lol. so tomorrow is a good day for the COCKasin! MODERN RIFLE SEASONS! were all the true spikes get slathered.. poor elk.. so whats new.. you guys still hating Indians? yup... so white guys hunting on the rez for birds... WOW.. what did you guys kill all the TROPHY birds on you land now you have to come on our land. see i have a problem with all these white guys killing all of these mature birds on the reservation. if the shoot all of these trophy bird we wont have any birds left.i seen a white guy with 4 trophy bird in the back of his truck. then i seen 10 trophy birds laying in a Field with there tails cut off. it was horrible. If you guys want to shoot all of these trophy birds you should do it like you ancestors did. with a musket full of nails. :hunt2:LMFAO.. see how stupid this sounds.. :chuckle:. see what you guys sound like.
Wow, this has got to be the most intelligent post I have read in a while.....nice to see that a guy can prove his stupidity so easily!! Hopefully he is not the voice of the entire tribe.....
Post by: ribka on October 30, 2010, 09:19:56 AM
Is there a special Clockum/ LT Murray Bull permit that tribal members have to purchase? How tribal members are paying members of RMEF?
"Washington's Yakima Valley Chapter is a rural chapter that does not have the population base to raise lots of funds, but unlike urban chapters, has a large land base on which to conduct habitat projects. The chapter has, therefore, been blessed by being able to partner with large urban chapters including Mt. Vernon, Bellevue, Bellingham, Tacoma and Vancouver chapters. Yakima focuses on permanent habitat projects, largely with the Yakima Indian Nation (YIN), the Washington State Department of Wildlife and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Yakima Valley Chapter's relationship with Tracy Hames and his crew at the YIN Wildlife Department has been critical to its habitat success. The chapter is currently partnering with the YIN on its second North American Wetland Conservation Act project. The first one provided $3 million; the second $2 million -- all going toward wetland restoration and enhancement".
Post by: monster_bull on October 30, 2010, 02:31:54 PM
Post by: ICEMAN on October 30, 2010, 05:02:41 PM
Post by: LITTLEBUCK on October 30, 2010, 08:10:40 PM
Post by: monster_bull on October 30, 2010, 08:26:53 PM
Post by: ducks55 on October 30, 2010, 08:33:27 PM
Post by: bobcat on October 30, 2010, 08:37:02 PM
Post by: Special T on October 31, 2010, 05:26:06 PM
Post by: huntnnw on October 31, 2010, 08:07:51 PM
Post by: monster_bull on October 31, 2010, 10:33:24 PM
Post by: monster_bull on October 31, 2010, 10:36:25 PM
Post by: fair-chase on October 31, 2010, 10:46:53 PM
And one more thing... if you go back in history a couple of decades. who was responsible for killing all the elk deer buffalo ext.? any guesses? oh it was the white man.. cant blame that one on the Indians.
Yep, you got that right. We could sit around here and bash a bunch of dead guys for crimes they committed a century ago, or we could focus on trying to change what is plaguing us today.
Post by: gonehuntin68 on November 01, 2010, 05:10:31 PM
Post by: colockumelk on November 01, 2010, 05:41:39 PM
i will keep laughing until you guys quit blaming everything on Indians. we are all not the same. all you guys do on this web site is talk trash. nothing good comes from it. you guys bash Indians and bad mouth us. but there aer white people that are worse then Indians out there and you know it. Did you notice how every time an elk is found dead or poached you guys automatically blame it on the Natives? so put you :twocents: back in ur pocket. read the posts and blogs. i was trying to be understanding but all you guys do is talk trash. i tryed but you guys pushed me away with all of you bad mouthing. i meet some cool people on here. but other people are out right crazy. i don't shoot that many elk. trust me. if i wanted to i could. but i let them walk. i am all for better elk heads. but bad mouthing Natives isn't the way to go. because all there going to do is laugh in ur face and do what they want.
monster_bull I have done more research on the Colockum than the wildlife bio's have. There's been a couple of papers that did an article on my stuff including the Yakima Herald. I DON"T blame everything on the Indians. The main problem is spike recruitment in the Colockum. HOWEVER..... the Yakama's do have an impact on the Colockum elk herd. In fact the Yakama's have become a tipping point on whether or not that elk herd sees an increase or a decrease in bull numbers. It didnt used to be that way. Only a few elk were harvested by Yakamas. But word of mouth got around and now there are ALOT of Yakamas that hunts the Colockum. So they are now making a very negative impact on that elk herd. Per Person your tribal members harvest far more than it's equal share considering on average each hunter only harvest an elk every 7 years and in these cases its a Spike. Compared with some members on here from your tribe who harvest 6 bulls a year at a minimum. So yes it does have an impact.
The WDFW scientifically and strictly controls the amount of elk harvested by legal hunters. And have decreased the amount of branch bull tags given out every year taken away ALL cow permits in the Colockum, Archery can not shoot cows, taken away the muzzle loader general season and now hunters can only harvest "True Spikes." It is THE most restrictedd area in Washingnton. So many hunters are angry that we are seeing a ton of restrictions and paying money to the RMEF and for hunting licenses and doing OUR part to make the herd better and healthier. But the Yakama's have done NOTHING for this herd and instead only kill a good number of the few Branch Antler bulls. All were asking is that the Yakama's restrict the amount of elk that it allows its members to harvest in this very ill area. Or at the very least release harvest data to help out the WDFW. Instead the Yakama nation has refused to help out in anyway. All members do is take from this herd.
Further more members on here wait 15 years to draw a tag to have one opportunity to harvest a mature bull elk. And then a member of your tribe on this site shoots more bulls himself from that area than ALL of us hunters combined. And he does it every year. So can you now see why we are upset?
We are NOT asking you to lose all your rights. All we want is if the Yakama is going to hunt this elk herd at least help our WDFW to properly manage this herd. This means meeting us half way and restricting your tribes harvest numbers. All WE ASK is fairness and responsibility. As of yet we have seen NONE of this from the Yakama nation in regards to the Colockum Elk Herd.
Again the Yakamas are NOT FULLY to blame for the Colockum elk herds current situation. The WDFW is more to blame than the Yakama Nation is. But the Yakamas couuld also do their part in helping out. All were asking is to be met half way.
Post by: rock on November 01, 2010, 05:44:53 PM
i will keep laughing until you guys quit blaming everything on Indians. we are all not the same. all you guys do on this web site is talk trash. nothing good comes from it. you guys bash Indians and bad mouth us. but there aer white people that are worse then Indians out there and you know it. Did you notice how every time an elk is found dead or poached you guys automatically blame it on the Natives? so put you :twocents: back in ur pocket. read the posts and blogs. i was trying to be understanding but all you guys do is talk trash. i tryed but you guys pushed me away with all of you bad mouthing. i meet some cool people on here. but other people are out right crazy. i don't shoot that many elk. trust me. if i wanted to i could. but i let them walk. i am all for better elk heads. but bad mouthing Natives isn't the way to go. because all there going to do is laugh in ur face and do what they want.
monster_bull I have done more research on the Colockum than the wildlife bio's have. There's been a couple of papers that did an article on my stuff including the Yakima Herald. I DON"T blame everything on the Indians. The main problem is spike recruitment in the Colockum. HOWEVER..... the Yakama's do have an impact on the Colockum elk herd. In fact the Yakama's have become a tipping point on whether or not that elk herd sees an increase or a decrease in bull numbers. It didnt used to be that way. Only a few elk were harvested by Yakamas. But word of mouth got around and now there are ALOT of Yakamas that hunts the Colockum. So they are now making a very negative impact on that elk herd. Per Person your tribal members harvest far more than it's equal share considering on average each hunter only harvest an elk every 7 years and in these cases its a Spike. Compared with some members on here from your tribe who harvest 6 bulls a year at a minimum. So yes it does have an impact.
The WDFW scientifically and strictly controls the amount of elk harvested by legal hunters. And have decreased the amount of branch bull tags given out every year taken away ALL cow permits in the Colockum, Archery can not shoot cows, taken away the muzzle loader general season and now hunters can only harvest "True Spikes." It is THE most restrictedd area in Washingnton. So many hunters are angry that we are seeing a ton of restrictions and paying money to the RMEF and for hunting licenses and doing OUR part to make the herd better and healthier. But the Yakama's have done NOTHING for this herd and instead only kill a good number of the few Branch Antler bulls. All were asking is that the Yakama's restrict the amount of elk that it allows its members to harvest in this very ill area. Or at the very least release harvest data to help out the WDFW. Instead the Yakama nation has refused to help out in anyway. All members do is take from this herd.
Further more members on here wait 15 years to draw a tag to have one opportunity to harvest a mature bull elk. And then a member of your tribe on this site shoots more bulls himself from that area than ALL of us hunters combined. And he does it every year. So can you now see why we are upset?
We are NOT asking you to lose all your rights. All we want is if the Yakama is going to hunt this elk herd at least help our WDFW to properly manage this herd. This means meeting us half way and restricting your tribes harvest numbers. All WE ASK is fairness and responsibility. As of yet we have seen NONE of this from the Yakama nation in regards to the Colockum Elk Herd.
Again the Yakamas are NOT FULLY to blame for the Colockum elk herds current situation. The WDFW is more to blame than the Yakama Nation is. But the Yakamas couuld also do their part in helping out. All were asking is to be met half way.
:yeah:
Post by: bigdog9236 on November 01, 2010, 07:43:45 PM
Post by: colockumelk on November 01, 2010, 07:54:21 PM
Why is it that everytime myself or someone else talks about why can't there be fairness and equality in hunting regulations, and why is descrimination okay when its against white people. Or when we talk about why can't the tribes help practise proper game managment or help the WDFW in this pursuit, or why can't they even at the VERY LEAST submit harvest reports.... Tribal members or the people with white guilt try and turn it around? Every time you bring up poachers. Are you all trying to compare poachers to Indians? We aren't. We ALL hate poachers on here. Whats your point?
I would like for once an Indian or a White Guilt person to have ONE SINGLE comback and actually debate me about 1. Proper Game Managment and what the tribes does for the Colockum. Or 2. The fact that it's okay that hunting in WA fits the definition of discrimination to a T.
bigdog don't mean to jump on you but you just spouted the same boring useless argument that has absolutely nothing to do with what myself or others on here are talking about. I have heard it from every single tribal member on here. I mention discrimination and saving the elk herd and ethics and I get back 1855 treaty and white people poach. It gets frustrating. I have yet to hear from someone on here that can tell me how discrimination is okay. Will you be the first?
Post by: phishisgroovin on November 01, 2010, 08:01:21 PM
Last year i atleast got to look at a bull, this year NOTHING, all i seen that resembled a bull was a spike shed i found. so i know they USED to exist up there atleast.
Kind of ashamed i chose to hunt that side now, its PATHETIC over there.
Just found this in a google search LOL!
http://www.cafepress.com/ElkHuntingwa (http://www.cafepress.com/ElkHuntingwa)
True spike only areas need to be closed completely to ALL hunting for a few years and closed longer to tribes to see just how deep of an impact their hunts hurt areas.
Post by: bigdog9236 on November 01, 2010, 08:23:19 PM
Post by: bigdog9236 on November 01, 2010, 08:28:14 PM
Post by: phishisgroovin on November 01, 2010, 08:30:27 PM
just peaved that all the bulls are gone, knowing i see ALOT every year up there for years then see ZERO this year at all.
Post by: bigdog9236 on November 01, 2010, 08:45:41 PM
Post by: Coastal_native on November 02, 2010, 12:03:32 AM
Whitefoot, Mosterbull, and other Tribesmen..... What do you think the answer is, If i concede you have special hunting rights? I doubt good tribesmen of any tribe think wasting game is a good thing... I have friends from the Yakima's and am curious what you think... I doubt you are a hunting/fishing slob because you are here seeking knowledge to be a better outdoors-man. I know all tribes are not the same and there are many members here from different tribes. I know that there is an NW Indian fisheries Commission to try and help the tribes as a whole. ( I know this from the quarterly magazine they produce.)
I challenge you to speak up and explain so that we can better understand and together be better stewards of the gifts God has given us...
I look forward to hearing your insights.
It's funny... I joined this forum to see how fellow hunters are doing on the west side and so far I just find myself entranced by the tribal bashing trend on some of these threads. I'm a native american from the westside and I've had the opportunity to work for my tribes wildlife management dept as well as assisting some of the other tribes and WDFW with big game projects. I'm not sure I have the insight that you're looking for, but I can assure you that treaty tribes are not an enemy to WA hunters, nor do they warrant the amount of time that gets spent talking about them. Our ancestors were forced with a decision to either sign treaties or continue to fight, I don't blame them for there choice. A condition of the treaty was to reserve the right to hunt, fish, and gather from the land as they had done from time immemorial. Today we hunt with modern weapons and modern transportation and have liberal seasons and bag limits. Most tribes hire wildlife managers and biologists that help to ensure that the game populations can support the amount of harvest that is taking place. Some tribal members including myself kill mulitiple elk and deer every year. Most do it with good intentions but some do it because they can. I put elk and deer meat in all my extended family members freazers and it is one the most honerable things I do. I choose to hunt trophy animals because I love to hunt mature elk and deer (as do most hunters) and my family is happy to get what ever meat they can. I also choose to exclusively hunt my reservation because we have far more elk and deer per hunter than any area off reservation (too many hunters, too few animals).
With all that being said I still don't think tribes are the reason why anyone should be unhappy as a hunter in WA state. There are far worse enemies to hunters out there and I'm sure most of you can probably name them. One thing that everyone fails to realize is that tribal harvest is so insignificant to the big picture, but it gets so much attention simply because we do it with different rules. When it comes to hunting we are not equals...we're not asking for equality, we're asking that our federal gov continue to honor the treaties. We our continuing to modify our way a life to fit in...and i'm not sure we're succeeding. The only reason why we are encorporating modern game management rules is because we now have to share a resource with a population that it can't support. It is unfortunate.
I encourage people to get to know a tribal hunter and hear there stories. Get a feel for how many tribal hunters are using there liberal bag limits the way they were intented to be used...I think you'd be surprised. I encourage tribal hunters to get to know a state hunter and go out and grind it out during a tuff, crowded state season and get some appreciation for how hard it is and how important the hunting tradition is, not just to tribal hunters, but to everyone. I encourage people on this forum to have a productive conversation about something that does have a significant impact on game populations and our rights to hunt.
Thanks for the invite Special T
Post by: Special T on November 02, 2010, 07:28:32 AM
BTW Welcome to the discussion Costal Native...
Post by: bobcat on November 02, 2010, 07:39:00 AM
I know it's been mentioned before, but if the tribes want to have a positive influence on deer and elk numbers, why don't they hunt cougars with hounds in all the areas they are allowed to hunt? It seems like the perfect way to get around the ban on hound hunting, and the diminishing numbers of deer and elk due to the increase in cougar numbers. I'm sure there are guys with hounds that would be happy to take tribal members out to kill some cats. Is there any reason this can't be done? Does anyone know?
Post by: Special T on November 02, 2010, 07:44:14 AM
Post by: bobcat on November 02, 2010, 08:03:17 AM
Sounds Like some Houndsmen should make friends with some local tribesmen.. Sounds like a Win Win to me. :)
Exactly! If they could knock the cat population down by say, 50%, just think of all the deer and elk we would have. Then there would be no need to be so concerned with a few deer and elk the tribes take every year.
Post by: Practical Approach on November 02, 2010, 08:18:46 AM
I do know the tribes in many cases have done positive things for fish and fish habitat. They oftentimes force the state (or private landowners) to protect and/or restore salmon and steelhead habitat, among other positive things. I'm not so sure about anything they have done to improve wildlife populations in areas outside of their reservations.Not positive, I think it might be ok if the tribal hunter is hunting under his own tags using someone's dogs or his or her own dogs, but if you have a non-Indian hound hunter/observer in the group, that person could be cited by enforcment. This pertains to off reservation hunting.
I know it's been mentioned before, but if the tribes want to have a positive influence on deer and elk numbers, why don't they hunt cougars with hounds in all the areas they are allowed to hunt? It seems like the perfect way to get around the ban on hound hunting, and the diminishing numbers of deer and elk due to the increase in cougar numbers. I'm sure there are guys with hounds that would be happy to take tribal members out to kill some cats. Is there any reason this can't be done? Does anyone know?
Post by: WSU on November 02, 2010, 09:52:34 AM
I would like for once an Indian or a White Guilt person to have ONE SINGLE comback and actually debate me about 1. Proper Game Managment and what the tribes does for the Colockum. Or 2. The fact that it's okay that hunting in WA fits the definition of discrimination to a T.
I did, and you copped out saying you had to wake up early and then never got back to give any response. Here was your post:
"The main problem I have with the situation is not so much the fact that some Indians choose to take advantage of the laws its this. The treaty that was signed and the Boldt Decision if either of those two ever went to federal court would be deemed unconstitutional. The reason being is that they are both EXTREMELY descriminatory. You can not create nor enforce laws that create discrimination. Look up the definition of DISCRIMINATION in the dictionary and you will find that Indian hunting rights compared to American's hunting rights fits that definition to a T. You and other defenders of Indians like to talk about how nothing can change because of "The Treaty" You are ALL mistaken. Because you see it used to be legal to own slaves. That law changed. There used to be laws called the Jim Crow laws that allowed segregation and was highly discriminatory. Those laws were deemed unconstitutional. And rightly so. Therefore do not think your treaty is so unchanable. Also its not the treaty that gave you these unconstitutional rights, it was the Boldt Decision which can EASILY be overturned. So my question to you is why do you feel that discrimination is okay. Why you should get more rights and should get to play by different rules than I do. So please tell us....."
And so I did. I made a long post about why each of your theories was wrong, and why it wasn't "ALL" of us that were mistaken, but in fact you. Your response, once someone actually "steps up" and debates you, was this:
"Good Stuff WSU,
Been waiting for a reply from somebody like that for about 6 months now. Thankyou for that, that's the kind of stuff that keeps me coming back to this site for. I don't have alot of time to write an appropriate response to that because I have a 0530 flight tomorrow morning. So I will only touch on one point because it'll take only a few minutes. Rather than trying to counter some of the other stuff you mentioned because it would take more time.
A treaty is basically an agreement, a contract if you will between two parties. And treaties become null and void if one side breaches that contract. In the particular treaty of 1855 ARTICLE 9 says basically Indians are not allowed to drink. Obviously this Article is violated daily. (Please no one read into that, if you looked at any city in America someone in that town drank a beer that day)
Whiteeyes you missed my point once again. I know the history of both our people. You circumnavigated my point. I'm saying changes need to be made so everyone is treated equal. At least outside of the reservation.
I will enjoy debating this further but I have a 0330 wakeup. Take Care."
Debate away. Here is the page if you care to go back and draft a response: http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,57995.msg718766.html#msg718766 (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,57995.msg718766.html#msg718766)
Post by: 6x6rack on November 02, 2010, 10:24:41 AM
Post by: grundy53 on November 02, 2010, 10:29:26 AM
Post by: tlbradford on November 02, 2010, 10:36:39 AM
Post by: bobcat on November 02, 2010, 10:54:47 AM
Post by: 6x6rack on November 02, 2010, 10:56:22 AM
I have really enjoyed the site, there are some terrific people on here, and I have a feeling its places like this that will eventually spearhead change. Not only legally, but in the actions of every sportsman regarding where they spend their money and how they vote. Heck, maby someone like Dan Agnew skips a year of 400" bulls and starts a fund for a legal challenge to the tribes blatent decimation of public resources. If every sportsman skipped only one year of hunting and fishing and sent the money to that fund WDFW and the Tribes would be pissing all over themselves to get to the table for real change.
Post by: WSU on November 02, 2010, 11:00:38 AM
Thanks TL,
I have really enjoyed the site, there are some terrific people on here, and I have a feeling its places like this that will eventually spearhead change. Not only legally, but in the actions of every sportsman regarding where they spend their money and how they vote. Heck, maby someone like Dan Agnew skips a year of 400" bulls and starts a fund for a legal challenge to the tribes blatent decimation of public resources. If every sportsman skipped only one year of hunting and fishing and sent the money to that fund WDFW and the Tribes would be pissing all over themselves to get to the table for real change.
I do have to say agree with a lot of what you are saying. A lot of the tribes money comes from casinos, etc., and we are all paying to shoot ourselves in the foot by spending our money their (by we I mean the general populous, I personally haven't gone to any tribal casinos).
I have a question though: what legal change do you think we all could make if given the resources?
Post by: whacker1 on November 02, 2010, 11:27:36 AM
Thanks TL,
I have really enjoyed the site, there are some terrific people on here, and I have a feeling its places like this that will eventually spearhead change. Not only legally, but in the actions of every sportsman regarding where they spend their money and how they vote. Heck, maby someone like Dan Agnew skips a year of 400" bulls and starts a fund for a legal challenge to the tribes blatent decimation of public resources. If every sportsman skipped only one year of hunting and fishing and sent the money to that fund WDFW and the Tribes would be pissing all over themselves to get to the table for real change.
I do have to say agree with a lot of what you are saying. A lot of the tribes money comes from casinos, etc., and we are all paying to shoot ourselves in the foot by spending our money their (by we I mean the general populous, I personally haven't gone to any tribal casinos).
I have a question though: what legal change do you think we all could make if given the resources?
A governor with a backbone to start - not on the Indian Campaign contribution platform.
2. An outreach program spearheaded by WDFW via new governor to the tribes to get their buy in. Some tribes already cooperate with some harvest data to certain extents, but many do not. Further outreach I think is a priority. Get the tribal leadership on board and positive things can happen. I am merely talking about harvest data cooperation at a minimum benchmark
3. as extension of outreach program - get tribal leadership to monitor hunting pressure. The leadership can direct their members to stay out of certain units for good reasons, and the only ones that can hold the members accountable. They don't have to prosecute their members for violation - they merely can cut funding to those members if they don't cooperate.
4. There is a tribe in WA that has stated in so many words that if you don't play by the leadership's rules then you will receive "0" dollars from the casino. By Rules - I mean improving their image. Low and behold over a several year period of time the properties have been cleaned up, single wides removed and modest 1500-2000 square foot homes built. It is a small reservation, but they are making headway. There are still some trouble members on the reservation, but overall they are making significant improvements to their reservation and the members are not seen in the same light as they were just a few years ago. They understand that Public Perception is huge.
Post by: GEARHEAD on November 02, 2010, 11:29:10 AM
Don't give them a Dime, don't forget some of those dimes will fund elections and recounts.
Post by: Special T on November 02, 2010, 11:47:30 AM
Post by: phishisgroovin on November 02, 2010, 12:02:14 PM
Tribals would go in and slaughter the bulls on the reserve BEFORE they made it back out to where we the Hunters could bag one.
was thinking about this last night, whatever improvements the closure of colockum did would be lost in a few short weeks by Tribal members and their 7 tags EACH per year. (muckleshoot indians each get 7 tags per year per tribal member)
Post by: 6x6rack on November 02, 2010, 12:04:49 PM
I am no legal mind, but there has to be something to resources that are being paid for with public funds being subject to rules that everyone using those public resource abides by. IE no discriminatory practices being allowed in the administration of public funds and resources. The Colocum herd is managed and funded by dollars raised through the State, primarily WDFW. In this case we have allowed a group, under the pretence of an archaic treaty, to openly decimate public resources. Treaty rights give special privledges, but nowhere does it allow the ABUSE of those privledges to the extent we are condoning discriminatory and destructive practices on Government owned or public land being managed with taxpayer dollars and government funds. IE Tax dollars are being spent to maintain the feeding stations to protect wintering elk, yet because you are a different RACE you can go in and kill the elk we are spending public dollars on public property to protect? Makes no sence, or do Indians also have the right to blow up public dams or tear up public roads that affect their treaty rights? Of course not, because there are laws that govern behavior of citizens as a whole, and sometimes those laws supercede class laws in application because they apply to EVERY citizen equally and the application and enforcement of those laws are publicy funded. Our wildlife resources are no different. So Indians have a longer season by treaty and can take animals any time without paying for tags...fine, they take 3 bulls per every 100 cows on public land just like the rest of us, report it just like the rest of us, get one just like the rest of us, and have severe penalties in place for violaters just like the rest of us. Something like this allows their treaty rights to be honored, but off the reservation they are held to the same accountability we all have when on publicly owned and funded property dealing with publicy owned and funded resources. Possibly an inniative that reads something like "Should Congress enact an amendment that requires State law be applied equally to all classes and races when on public property, or when participating in an event that is funded or managed by the State" It just sounds so stupid to say something like that in this day and age but it would give WDFW a reason to arrest and judges some teeth to force the tribes to be part of the solution.
Post by: Curly on November 02, 2010, 12:10:00 PM
Possibly an initiative that reads something like "Should Congress enact an amendment that requires State law be applied equally to all classes and races when on public property, or when participating in an event that is funded or managed by the State" It just sounds so stupid to say something like that in this day and age but it would give WDFW a reason to arrest and judges some teeth to force the tribes to be part of the solution.
Great idea. I like it. :tup:
Post by: Practical Approach on November 02, 2010, 12:12:29 PM
Post by: vandeman17 on November 02, 2010, 12:15:56 PM
I don't think a state initiative will do squat to supersede a federal treaty.....Or will it?
I was just going to say the same thing. I think it would have to go to the Federal level in the end for it to have any staying power. :bash:
Post by: Practical Approach on November 02, 2010, 12:20:28 PM
if they closed Colockum completely for a few years, unfortunately the bulls there currently would grow enormously and when it reopened anyone unable to hunt the reserve would be hosed and life as usual would be the norm still.Sorry Phishisgroovin but your are wrong regarding Muckleshoot. Your 7 tags per tribal member is fairly vague regarding species,so I will clarify it for you a bit. Muckleshoot tribal members only get 2 deer tags per year and only 1 elk tag per household. They have one of the most highly regulated and restrictive seasons out there. I doubt anyone on this forum would be willing to go to one elk per household.
Tribals would go in and slaughter the bulls on the reserve BEFORE they made it back out to where we the Hunters could bag one.
was thinking about this last night, whatever improvements the closure of colockum did would be lost in a few short weeks by Tribal members and their 7 tags EACH per year. (muckleshoot indians each get 7 tags per year per tribal member)
Post by: 6x6rack on November 02, 2010, 12:23:19 PM
Post by: whacker1 on November 02, 2010, 12:42:09 PM
Does this include "off" reservation hunting as well for the Muckleshoots? or just the "on" reservation hunting? I don't know, which is why I ask. Every tribe seems to operate very differently from the next tribe.if they closed Colockum completely for a few years, unfortunately the bulls there currently would grow enormously and when it reopened anyone unable to hunt the reserve would be hosed and life as usual would be the norm still.Sorry Phishisgroovin but your are wrong regarding Muckleshoot. Your 7 tags per tribal member is fairly vague regarding species,so I will clarify it for you a bit. Muckleshoot tribal members only get 2 deer tags per year and only 1 elk tag per household. They have one of the most highly regulated and restrictive seasons out there. I doubt anyone on this forum would be willing to go to one elk per household.
Tribals would go in and slaughter the bulls on the reserve BEFORE they made it back out to where we the Hunters could bag one.
was thinking about this last night, whatever improvements the closure of colockum did would be lost in a few short weeks by Tribal members and their 7 tags EACH per year. (muckleshoot indians each get 7 tags per year per tribal member)
Post by: Practical Approach on November 02, 2010, 12:43:55 PM
That includes both on and off reservation.Does this include "off" reservation hunting as well for the Muckleshoots? or just the "on" reservation hunting? I don't know, which is why I ask. Every tribe seems to operate very differently from the next tribe.if they closed Colockum completely for a few years, unfortunately the bulls there currently would grow enormously and when it reopened anyone unable to hunt the reserve would be hosed and life as usual would be the norm still.Sorry Phishisgroovin but your are wrong regarding Muckleshoot. Your 7 tags per tribal member is fairly vague regarding species,so I will clarify it for you a bit. Muckleshoot tribal members only get 2 deer tags per year and only 1 elk tag per household. They have one of the most highly regulated and restrictive seasons out there. I doubt anyone on this forum would be willing to go to one elk per household.
Tribals would go in and slaughter the bulls on the reserve BEFORE they made it back out to where we the Hunters could bag one.
was thinking about this last night, whatever improvements the closure of colockum did would be lost in a few short weeks by Tribal members and their 7 tags EACH per year. (muckleshoot indians each get 7 tags per year per tribal member)
Post by: 6x6rack on November 02, 2010, 12:52:16 PM
Just got a funny PM and no, I dont smoke pot or have feelings one way or another about those that do :dunno: The point was that just because you know you aren't going to win the war in a single battle, it doesn't mean it's not worth fighting. You get something like this going in every State with the tribal problem...they will hear sick and tired pissed off sportsmen roar and yes, it would give us the opportunity to have this heard Federaly and it has to start somewhere, every special interest group in the world finds a way to get it done...any sportsmen tired of being pissed on???. I'd like to see the Judge who finds that it is OK to discriminate in the case of Indians because their Treaty says so...open the door to play Cowboys and Indians again every time they step off the reservation in this day and age...I dont think so. The key is to keep the Treaty rights intact while forcing equality on State, Federal or public property or anything being funded or managed by the State. I don't know how to write something like that but I sure as hell would sign it and volenteer endless hours to get it signed by every other red blooded sportsman in this State.
Post by: tlbradford on November 02, 2010, 01:08:49 PM
Quote
The right of taking fish, at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations, is further secured to
said Indians in common with all citizens of the Territory, and of erecting temporary houses for the
purpose of curing, together with the privilege of hunting, gathering roots and berries, and
pasturing their horses on open and unclaimed lands....
1. The right of taking fish, at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations. This statement refers to physical locations only. It does not denote a time-frame, and it does not denote a harvest amount.
2. is further secured to said Indians in common with all citizens of the Territory. This denotes a shared opportunity in common with non-Indian citizens. Meaning that all laws of the land should apply equally to Indians and non-Indians. Since this is an equal opportunity to harvest fish only, the ruling that the fish numbers are shared equally is wrong. No numbers are stated in the language of the treaty.
The treaty interpretation can be overturned in federal courts. The treaty itself can only be altered by the President of the United States. However, as mentioned earlier, the state wields a large hammer when it comes to public funds being given to tribal agencies and members. Access to these funds could be leveraged very easily to insure cooperation of the tribes to the overall well-being of the Fish and Wildlife of our state.
Post by: WSU on November 02, 2010, 01:10:40 PM
HA...
Just got a funny PM and no, I dont smoke pot or have feelings one way or another about those that do :dunno: The point was that just because you know you aren't going to win the war in a single battle, it doesn't mean it's not worth fighting. You get something like this going in every State with the tribal problem...they will hear sick and tired pissed off sportsmen roar and yes, it would give us the opportunity to have this heard Federaly and it has to start somewhere, every special interest group in the world finds a way to get it done...any sportsmen tired of being pissed on???. I'd like to see the Judge who finds that it is OK to discriminate in the case of Indians because their Treaty says so...open the door to play Cowboys and Indians again every time they step off the reservation in this day and age...I dont think so. The key is to keep the Treaty rights intact while forcing equality on State, Federal or public property or anything being funded or managed by the State. I don't know how to write something like that but I sure as hell would sign it and volenteer endless hours to get it signed by every other red blooded sportsman in this State.
The states have tried over and over to do exactly what you all are asking, and have lost over and over. The Boldt decision, which is a prime example pointed to by most, was the result of the state's attempt to curtail tribal harvest. The fact is that federal treaties supercede any laws passed by the states. Period. End of story. Tribes win, states lose every time if the state law conflicts with treaty rights.
You all are right that it can be changed. Congress, at the federal level, can change it. The state can't. Initiatives can't. WDFW can't.
6x6 had an interesting thought: "....., or do Indians also have the right to blow up public dams or tear up public roads that affect their treaty rights? Of course not, because there are laws that govern behavior of citizens as a whole, and sometimes those laws supercede class laws in application because they apply to EVERY citizen equally and the application and enforcement of those laws are publicy funded. Our wildlife resources are no different."
The answer may be yes. Some of you may be familiar with the "culverts case" that recently occurred. In it, the tribes successfully sued the Washington DOT over culverts under state roads that were cutting off salmon habitat. The argument was that the tribes reserved the right to fish and to maintain their way of life, but the state was badly hampering that right by cutting off thousands (yes, thousands) of miles of salmon habitat. The result: the DOT replaced the culverts, at the cost of millions and millions of dollars, in order to repair salmon habitat it had blocked as ordered by the court. They forced the state it its own expense to tear up public roads and fix them.
Now imagine how that precedence could be applied. Insert the thing of your choosing that the state is doing to screw up salmon habitat. Dams? Scientifically proven on the Columbia to kill up to 90% of out-migrating smolts per year. Seems to fit the bill. So the answer, 6X6, maybe yes?
Post by: runamuk on November 02, 2010, 01:13:11 PM
Last time I checked aren't there several hundred "legal" Pot grows in the state and stores selling "legal" Marijuana from here to California, which is a Federal Crime. Anyway, they would have a hard time defeating a law that forbids racial or class discrimination.
comes down to the concept of states rights.....sort of like the issue of wolves and the idaho government saying they wont enforce the federal law...they aren't technically violating it just refusing to enforce.....or Nevada for a long long time was known to put up speed limits and then not enforce them....this way they received federal road monies but didn't actually set speed limitations....
In this case it is all about equality and discrimination with regards to public lands.....I see it being a legitimate complaint....in this day and age it is ridiculous ..
gonna pose a question that just occurred to me being election day......how many tribal members are also voters? how can they be sovereign and citizens and not be held to the same standards? it does not make sense no matter what the treaties say or what Boldt legislated (which is also against the foundations of this country)
If you do not live by the same rules as the rest of the citizenry why even have any rules at all?
I also will keep picking at this until somehow something changes.....or I die...which is more likely than a change...
Post by: colockumelk on November 02, 2010, 01:19:08 PM
Post by: tlbradford on November 02, 2010, 01:25:56 PM
Quote
The answer may be yes. Some of you may be familiar with the "culverts case" that recently occurred. In it, the tribes successfully sued the Washington DOT over culverts under state roads that were cutting off salmon habitat. The argument was that the tribes reserved the right to fish and to maintain their way of life, but the state was badly hampering that right by cutting off thousands (yes, thousands) of miles of salmon habitat. The result: the DOT replaced the culverts, at the cost of millions and millions of dollars, in order to repair salmon habitat it had blocked as ordered by the court. They forced the state it its own expense to tear up public roads and fix them.
If this was the language of the ruling than this is incorrect too. Nowhere in any of the treaties does it state that Indians get to "maintain their way of life". They have a right to the opportunity to harvest fish and game in the ceded lands. If there are no fish and game on those lands, tough *censored*, the non-indians have no obligation to maintain them for the use of Indians.
The whole "maintain their way of life" has been improperly inserted into the treaty language, much like the "seperation of church and state" has been inserted into the Constitution. That language does not exist in the original documents.
Post by: meathunter on November 02, 2010, 01:30:03 PM
Post by: Practical Approach on November 02, 2010, 01:31:56 PM
Final Approach please clarify do you mean 2 deer tags per member and 1 elk tag per house hold?Yes, each tribal member gets 2 deer tags per member and 1 elk tag per household.
Post by: Special T on November 02, 2010, 01:32:21 PM
I think our fellow hunters that are less encumbered by BS (Tribesmen) have a unique opportunity to affect our natural resources of fish and game...For everyone benefit... I think our focus has been on a few individuals from an uncooperative tribe... I think because we are uneducated about the differences between tribes and how they are run and they manage their resources, well fall back to thinking they are all like X tribe... Running dogs, baiting, shooting magpies, cormorants, sealions are less hindering options for tribesmen than us white folks... Take the Makaw tribe. They were able to kill a Whale... If a tribe can break the ESA for cultural reason like that, then our hunting brothers should be encouraged to go back to their roots and kill other predators in vast numbers for "Cultural" reasons...
You want to fight the federal government over BS rules? So do I. Indians have not surrendered so many of their rights in this area as we have... Do you want to march 100 miles or 1000 miles? I don not think all tribes would be interested or able to do this.The large number of tribes in the are so diverse in nature and historical practices would be able to attack this issue on differnet fronts.... Take this "challenge" of tribal abilities to hunt/ do what they want into an advantage not a disadvantage.... Just have a cold one and let that though seep into your mind. :twocents:
Post by: WSU on November 02, 2010, 01:32:55 PM
First of all I didn't cop out. I forgot about it. I'm currently in flight school and am in charge of my flight class. 14 hours a day is devoted to this. So if a post gets rolled passed the first page I forget about it. Sorry. Go get a degree in one year and you'll get an idea of my workload.
Perhaps "cop out" was a poor choice of words. It just seems that you are more than willing to post repeatedly and say the same thing time and again, and willing to call everyone out about not debating you, but unwilling to follow through when someone "steps up."
Also, sorry to hear that you have a heavy work load, I can certainly sympathize with that!
Post by: Practical Approach on November 02, 2010, 01:46:19 PM
I don't necessarily think overturning the bolt decision is what we really need. I could kinda care less one way or the other in some ways. :twocents: The WDFW has NOT been doing a stellar job of managing OUR recourse's either, and i think they use the tribe to point fingers at to a degree... Think outside the box with me on this for a moment and just ponder this without a knee jerk reaction.... The tribes suffer less from bureaucratic BS than our own hunters and state depts... Lets take predator control into the for front of the discussion... Animals that USED to be killed on a regular basis, sealions, wolves, cougar, bears, cormorants etc are either protected or made impossible to hunt because of BS regulations... Many of the protected species have come away from the brink of extinction and now flourish... The example that comes to my mind first is the Sealion... At one time it was near extinction and needed protection. Now there is no shortage and stupid extreme lengths are taken to humanely take care of those that gorge on fish near damn ladders...
I think our fellow hunters that are less encumbered by BS (Tribesmen) have a unique opportunity to affect our natural resources of fish and game...For everyone benefit... I think our focus has been on a few individuals from an uncooperative tribe... I think because we are uneducated about the differences between tribes and how they are run and they manage their resources, well fall back to thinking they are all like X tribe... Running dogs, baiting, shooting magpies, cormorants, sealions are less hindering options for tribesmen than us white folks... Take the Makaw tribe. They were able to kill a Whale... If a tribe can break the ESA for cultural reason like that, then our hunting brothers should be encouraged to go back to their roots and kill other predators in vast numbers for "Cultural" reasons...
You want to fight the federal government over BS rules? So do I. Indians have not surrendered so many of their rights in this area as we have... Do you want to march 100 miles or 1000 miles? I don not think all tribes would be interested or able to do this.The large number of tribes in the are so diverse in nature and historical practices would be able to attack this issue on differnet fronts.... Take this "challenge" of tribal abilities to hunt/ do what they want into an advantage not a disadvantage.... Just have a cold one and let that though seep into your mind. :twocents:
Tribes can and have used dogs for cougar hunting in the past. When the Nooksack elk were reintroduced recently, WDFW made exceptions for non-tribal houndsmen to hunt cougars on an emergency basis. One major problem tribes have is public perception when killing/managing animal populations that the general public doesn't think needs to be managed. For example the Makah whaling hoopla. If a tribe announced that it was going to start reducing seal/sealion populations down to X population size, could you imagine the media attention/PETA death threats etc. Instead seals and sealions just mysteriously wash up on beaches with bullet holes in them with nobody to blame. :rolleyes: The tribes in the past have taken heat from WDFW when the subject of cougar control via hounds is broached. WDFW is in the cat business.
Post by: 6x6rack on November 02, 2010, 01:48:43 PM
You make a good point. The Indians went through legal channels to accomplish this. Yet they are hunting illegally (poaching). They don't have treaty rights to break the law or take it into their own hands, they can't blow up a dam, they have to work WITHIN the framework of established law. No where does the Boldt decision give them rights to half the animals, it gives them equal rights ( The same rights as the general public) to harvestable animals. So what are the General Publics rights...The WDFW sets general public harvest limits and seasons which are monitored closely, and annually adjusted depending on the previous years harvest and seasonal counts. We can legally hunt with the CONDITION we obey these seasons and laws. If we don't, our harvest is considered ILLEGAL and we loose privledges to hunt again. Indians ignore this CONDITION of the harvest and are breaking the law as dictated in the Boldt decision. You can't, as the Indinas have, interpret Boldt to mean they they have equal rights but no responsibility. This is incorrect as the rights and responsibility are synanamous as dictated to the General public. We dont get one without the other and if the Indians practice their equal rights, they must practice equal responsibility. This means bag limits, harvest reporting, seasons and a quota on the type and number of animals killed. Legally they could be arrested for poaching every time they go out as they aren't obeying the laws that dictate general public harvest...which Boldt says they have the right to share EQUALLY in. There is nothing in any decision that says Indians don't have to obey the law when practicing their treaty rights on public land...in fact quite the opposite. "Should Congress enact an amendment that requires State Law be applied equally, to all classes and races, when on public property or when participating in an event that is funded or managed by the State" Show me where that is in conflict with any wording in any treaty or the Boldt decision? I would honestly like to know.
Post by: bobcat on November 02, 2010, 01:48:51 PM
The tribes in the past have taken heat from WDFW when the subject of cougar control via hounds is broached. WDFW is in the cat business.
Huh? Really? Then why no heat for the indians wiping out elk and deer in certain locations? :bash:
Post by: tlbradford on November 02, 2010, 01:49:49 PM
I don't necessarily think overturning the bolt decision is what we really need. I could kinda care less one way or the other in some ways. :twocents: The WDFW has NOT been doing a stellar job of managing OUR recourse's either, and i think they use the tribe to point fingers at to a degree... Think outside the box with me on this for a moment and just ponder this without a knee jerk reaction.... The tribes suffer less from bureaucratic BS than our own hunters and state depts... Lets take predator control into the for front of the discussion... Animals that USED to be killed on a regular basis, sealions, wolves, cougar, bears, cormorants etc are either protected or made impossible to hunt because of BS regulations... Many of the protected species have come away from the brink of extinction and now flourish... The example that comes to my mind first is the Sealion... At one time it was near extinction and needed protection. Now there is no shortage and stupid extreme lengths are taken to humanely take care of those that gorge on fish near damn ladders...
I think our fellow hunters that are less encumbered by BS (Tribesmen) have a unique opportunity to affect our natural resources of fish and game...For everyone benefit... I think our focus has been on a few individuals from an uncooperative tribe... I think because we are uneducated about the differences between tribes and how they are run and they manage their resources, well fall back to thinking they are all like X tribe... Running dogs, baiting, shooting magpies, cormorants, sealions are less hindering options for tribesmen than us white folks... Take the Makaw tribe. They were able to kill a Whale... If a tribe can break the ESA for cultural reason like that, then our hunting brothers should be encouraged to go back to their roots and kill other predators in vast numbers for "Cultural" reasons...
You want to fight the federal government over BS rules? So do I. Indians have not surrendered so many of their rights in this area as we have... Do you want to march 100 miles or 1000 miles? I don not think all tribes would be interested or able to do this.The large number of tribes in the are so diverse in nature and historical practices would be able to attack this issue on differnet fronts.... Take this "challenge" of tribal abilities to hunt/ do what they want into an advantage not a disadvantage.... Just have a cold one and let that though seep into your mind. :twocents:
Or, we could fight to have predator control rights returned to houndsman, trappers, and baiters.
Post by: bobcat on November 02, 2010, 01:51:37 PM
Or, we could fight to have predator control rights returned to houndsman, trappers, and baiters.
You think the non-hunters of this state would vote for that? No way. It'll never happen.....
Post by: Practical Approach on November 02, 2010, 01:53:13 PM
Not sure which locations you are refering to? Eastside or Westside? There are constant negotiations on the westside regarding harvest strategies. Not necessarily arguments, just working throught management approaches.The tribes in the past have taken heat from WDFW when the subject of cougar control via hounds is broached. WDFW is in the cat business.
Huh? Really? Then why no heat for the indians wiping out elk and deer in certain locations? :bash:
Post by: tlbradford on November 02, 2010, 01:56:02 PM
Post by: bobcat on November 02, 2010, 01:58:17 PM
So we should give up, just because the current liberal mind set thinks it is bad? :dunno:
Yes, it would be a waste of time and money. Instead, let's learn how to hunt cougars without dogs, and call them in!
Post by: Practical Approach on November 02, 2010, 01:58:45 PM
So we should give up, just because the current liberal mind set thinks it is bad? :dunno:No unfortunatley we just need to wait for a few more politicians, pets, children etc to get attacked by predators, before an ititiative to resume predator hunting will be successfull.
Post by: Practical Approach on November 02, 2010, 02:02:55 PM
What you need to learn how to do is, trap cougars, radio collar them, then track them to their dens and kill the adult and young. Makes more of a dent in the population that way. Ooops did I just :DOH:say that?So we should give up, just because the current liberal mind set thinks it is bad? :dunno:
Yes, it would be a waste of time and money. Instead, let's learn how to hunt cougars without dogs, and call them in!
Post by: colockumelk on November 02, 2010, 02:14:59 PM
Whiteeyes maybe you will be the first one to step up to the plate and debate me. However most likely you will back down like all the others on this website who have come before you. That being said.....
The main problem I have with the situation is not so much the fact that some Indians choose to take advantage of the laws its this. The treaty that was signed and the Boldt Decision if either of those two ever went to federal court would be deemed unconstitutional. The reason being is that they are both EXTREMELY descriminatory. You can not create nor enforce laws that create discrimination. Look up the definition of DISCRIMINATION in the dictionary and you will find that Indian hunting rights compared to American's hunting rights fits that definition to a T. You and other defenders of Indians like to talk about how nothing can change because of "The Treaty" You are ALL mistaken. Because you see it used to be legal to own slaves. That law changed. There used to be laws called the Jim Crow laws that allowed segregation and was highly discriminatory. Those laws were deemed unconstitutional. And rightly so. Therefore do not think your treaty is so unchanable. Also its not the treaty that gave you these unconstitutional rights, it was the Boldt Decision which can EASILY be overturned. So my question to you is why do you feel that discrimination is okay. Why you should get more rights and should get to play by different rules than I do. So please tell us.....
I have no problem "stepping up" and debating you on this. I think it is important to understand what the Constitutional application of discrimination protection is and the related legal foundation of what gives treaty tribes the status they currently hold.
The first, and by far the most important thing, that you don't appear understand is that members of treaty tribes are not U.S. citizens in the sense that you and I are. The whole "sovereign nation" thing comes into play here. They are sovereign nations (like Mexico, France, Canada, etc.). As such, they are not subject to the constraints of our Constitution to the same extent. The waters are really muddied here, however, because treaty tribe members are often outside their reservations, and are subject to to our laws to different extents depending on where they are and who the other party is that is involved. Suffice it to say, however, that the view that our consititution applies directly to tribal members, let alone treaties, does not work.
Actually it does. Tribal Members are subject to FEDERAL regulations and laws. If they hold a job they pay taxes. They have drivers license etc. If they are outside the reservation whether that's hunting driving or actually living there they are subject to ALL rules laws and regulations. Therefore if our US government decided that this decision was unconstitutional based on its discriminatory language it COULD enfore it.
Second, the discriminatory effect is not looked at the same. It is not a simple case of the U.S. government discriminating against its citizens. It is two sovereign (read foreign) nations regulating the relationship between the different nations. To be short, the U.S. is free to have policies with foreign nations that would not pass Constitutional muster if they were to apply the same policies against its own citizens. Whether these policies are good or bad for the U.S. populous is more of a political than legal question. Examples are wars, trade policies, etc.
Actually members from other countries must still abide by our laws. They can also get deported or extridited back to their country of origin. However our country can still enforce and regulate laws and force members from other countries to abide by our laws. This particular point is confusing and didn't make much sense. So if my particular defense on this point is weak its because it didnt make sense.
Third, the Boldt decision is a completely accurate, in my opinion, legal interpretation of the treaties as written. The main thing that gets everyone up in arms is that the treaties were interpreted to give 50% of the harvest to the treaty tribes based on the "in common with" language. Courts attempt to give words their ordinary meaning unless an obviously contrary intent can be found in the law. This is applied all over (normal contracts, insurance contracts, statutes, etc., etc.). In effect, the Boldt decision determined that "in common with" mean equal, especially when read in the context of the tribes who did not write the treaties or speak english. Again, this policy is applied throughout the law. Contracts are interpreted against the drafting party so that the drafting party cannot as easily use trickery in drafting the contract. A prime example is insurance contracts, in which ambiguities are interpreted against insurance companies. In short, "in common with" was basically interpreted to mean "equal," which in the case of harvest allocation is half, or 50%. Perhaps you have a definition of "in common with" that is different and would allow the Boldt decision to be "EASILY overturned", or can point to a different reason?
Only an extremely liberal interpretation of "In Common With" would mean they get half of the harvest. A normal person would interpret it to mean we all abide by the same laws. We all hunt the same. If I can only shoot one animal then you can only shoot one animal. Again white guilt comes into play. But you are right ithe In common language is up to interpretation apparantly. But it is discriminatory thus it can be deemed unconstitutional.
Fourth, and related to the above, is that your analogies to Jim Crow laws and the like are completely inapplicable (legally speaking). This is not the case of the government (remember that a government action is required for constitutional discrimination) doing something to U.S. citizens. Jim Crow laws were the government purposefully discrminating against racial minorities. That simply isn't the case with treaty law. If anything, the only racial minority that has been targeted throughout history for discrimination under treaty laws is the Indians themselves, which would give them a cause of action against the government in the event these inapplicable constitutional principles were applied (which again, I don't think they do apply).
Yes they are the same. The Government is who restricts us and allows another group to live by a completely different set of laws and rules. Websters says Discrimination is defined as: treatment taken toward or against an individual of a certain group in consideration based solely on class or category. Discrimination is the actual behavior towards another group. It involves excluding or restricting members of one group from opportunities that are available to other groups. Oh and stop living in the passed. The discrimination that took place was in the past. We want to move forward and advance as a society not live in the past like you and many tribes do.
Fifth, the treaties can be changed, just not by the courts. The courts are applying the laws as written, and the current system is what the laws say. Under the Constitution, the Senate and the Executive branch have powers over treaties. Article 6, the "Supremacy Clause," makes the Constitution, the laws of the U.S., and treaties the "law of the land." The only body with the power to change treaties, and the current system of laws being interpreted by the courts, is Congress. They have the power to abrogate the treaties and make the laws regarding Indians whatever they want.
Of course, all of the above is only my interpretation, and could be wrong. It is worth exactly what you paid for it! Debate away! (Colockumelk - as you know, I enjoy these types of debates, and you and I have done so before. I'm not trying to piss anyone off here, just offer a different perspective.)
I know who can and cannot change the treaties. But politicians are easily swayed by public opinion. We have far more sway in regards to votes than the tribes do. My main point is not to change the treaty. That would be a very difficult task. However overturning the Boldt Decision wouldnt be all that difficult. Supreme Court Decisions are struck down every year. The Bold Decision is highly discriminatory and was improperly interpreted. At the very least our state reserves the right to contnrol tribal harvest in the name of conservation. This is in the Boldt Decision. But our WDFW and our very liberal state chooses not to do that. I think we all know why. There are avenues that can be taken. And it is a fight that can easily be won.
Post by: colockumelk on November 02, 2010, 02:36:00 PM
ARTICLE 9.
The said confederated tribes and bands of Indians desire to exclude from their reservation the use of ardent spirits, and to prevent their people from drinking the same, and, therefore, it is provided that any Indian belonging to said confederated tribes and bands of Indians, who is guilty of bringing liquor into said reservation, or who drinks liquor, may have his or her annuities withheld from him or her for such time as the President may determine.
Such as the state could decide to start enforcing this law. They could put pressure on the tribes simply by enforcing a current part of this treaty. The point is if our state had a spine and our WDFW would do what is right by hunters and by the game its supposed to manage then it could make things better and more fair. But they don't.
Post by: 6x6rack on November 02, 2010, 02:36:48 PM
Colockumelk you are welcome at my campfire any time :fire.:
Post by: WSU on November 02, 2010, 04:53:10 PM
6x6 has said it better than I can. Excellant posts and welcome aboard. The Boldt Decision can be overturned. And yes there are actions the state can take and that the WDFW can take monetary wise that the tribes can't do anything about. That would not break any federal laws. The tribes would be SOL. But we have a liberal state government and WDFW and they have refused to do it. To be honest stuff like this probably hasnt occured to the average politician in this state. Such as the Boldt Decision left the state and WDFW with the ability to control and limit Tribal Harvest in the name of conservation. They could easily do this and there is nothing the Tribes or the Federal Government could do about it.
ARTICLE 9.
The said confederated tribes and bands of Indians desire to exclude from their reservation the use of ardent spirits, and to prevent their people from drinking the same, and, therefore, it is provided that any Indian belonging to said confederated tribes and bands of Indians, who is guilty of bringing liquor into said reservation, or who drinks liquor, may have his or her annuities withheld from him or her for such time as the President may determine.
Such as the state could decide to start enforcing this law. They could put pressure on the tribes simply by enforcing a current part of this treaty. The point is if our state had a spine and our WDFW would do what is right by hunters and by the game its supposed to manage then it could make things better and more fair. But they don't.
Why exactly do you think the Boldt decision can be overturned? Explain to me why "in common with" means one per person rather than half for the tribe and half for the U.S. citizens. The dictionary defines "common" to mean "belonging equally to, or shared alike by, two or more or all in question." See here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/in+common. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/in+common.) Since the two sides were divying things up between the tribe and the non-tribe, how is it belonging equally to each entity not meaning each side gets half? This simple analysis does not seem clearly wrong to me. Keep in mind, the court's job is to interpret what was written, and not to interpret what should be written. You need to talk to your congressman if you want the laws rewritten.
And this gets us to the problem: the law, as written, gives tribes half. We all bitch about tribal harvest in the Colockum, but you yourself said that the tribes don't harvest as many as us. So, as you point out, we have to curtail our own harvest. Then we get into the "foregone opportunity" analysis. The tribes can harvest more than half if we are choosing not harvest our half. This idea grows out of our own management policies of requiring maximum harvest, even at the expense of the runs/herds. Our own WDFW tries like hell to maximize harvest due to legislative mandates and the way our laws are written. Again, we bitch about WDFW. Fact is, at least in some arenas, WDFW is directed by statute to maximize harvest.
In short, I agree things are screwed up, but I don't believe what you say is going to provide any solution. The WDFW tried like hell in the 1970's and 80's to do what you suggest, and we ended up with the Boldt decision and what we have now. The tribes have not always held such power, but clearly have it now.
Post by: tlbradford on November 02, 2010, 05:24:47 PM
Quote
Why exactly do you think the Boldt decision can be overturned? Explain to me why "in common with" means one per person rather than half for the tribe and half for the U.S. citizens.
WSU - See my above posts, regarding why the Boldt decision should be overturned. I think it is pretty clear.
Post by: colockumelk on November 02, 2010, 05:30:02 PM
Things need to change in the Colockum. Your right like I've said before the LARGEST problem is spike recruitment. But I've also said its not the ONLY problem. Tribal harvest of mature bulls has a VERY large impact as well. So it would be pointless to put the Colockum into permit only if the Yakamas are not willing to also start regulating their members.
Also where does one tribal member killing 4-6 big bulls a year in the Colockum when us American's on average only kill a "True Spike" once every 7 years. There is nothing "In Common" with the regulations that the Yakama's have and what us American's have. The "In Common" you speak of is an extremely liberal white guilt interpretation of that meaning. Like I said its extremely discriminatory which goes against our US Constitution. If a Supreme Court is shown to be un-constitutional it is struck down. You an be a hater all you want but the simple fact is if the ball gets rolling and we have non-liberal white guilt self-hating members of congress etc in our state this thing is gone. Thatll be the biggest challenge is turning this state around and getting the socialists out of our government.
Post by: bobcat on November 02, 2010, 05:33:28 PM
Post by: 6x6rack on November 02, 2010, 05:59:06 PM
The discussion has been defining laws that everyone must adhere to EQUALLY. As you say, the resource must be "shared Equally" meaning total harvest numbers by gender and antler size which is clearly defined in our Game Regs. Right now there is blatant discrimination applied to a publicly funded resource on public lands...which is against the law. I agree, "shared equally" which means you can't seperate harvest numbers from the laws regulating that harvest. NO ONE looking at this can say the current system is "shared equally" because the Indians have no accountability. This is not only illegal according to Boldt, but allows racial discrimination in a publicy funded and managed activity . Why the total lack of accountability by the Tribes? Because it gives them a loophole to rape the system and fall back on the total BS, wag the dog, just plain stupid response.."you can't prove its us" comeback. Laws need to be in place so we can prove, definatively, what the problem is so we can fix it. Why won't the Yakimas do that...because they like their meat POACHED.
Post by: Lowedog on November 02, 2010, 08:59:08 PM
Post by: Coastal_native on November 02, 2010, 09:29:35 PM
Obviously you are very firm on your position against tribal treaty hunting, but I'm curious if your negative experiences with tribes are only in your area or across the entire state? I'm only familiar with what goes on in my own areas. Also, I would suggest that if you're going to be a spokespearson on this forum for anti-treaty hunting that you refrain from using sarcastic comments and name calling. I think you probably have good thoughts and ideas but they get lost in all that other stuff.
Hopefully you don't think that I'm trying to get a rise out of you, I just think using phrases like "wreckless indian idiots" is counterproductive. It kind of makes it sound more like you hate indians rather than you care about wildlife...I doubt thats the case. I did appreciate the lesson on population dynamics (or at least I think that was you, I've lost track at who's who now because you've gained so many supporters). As a wildlife manager myself, I've seen that tribes now have plenty of money (not necessarily casino money, but the ability to get federal grants) to conduct population surveys and big game research in the areas they hunt...even using radio telemetry to get a measure of non-reporting (good stuff, I think). at least where I'm from they are starting to align the bag limits with what the population data shows...while also considering state harvest. It seems to be getting better. Anybody who cares about deer on the westside should look into the Blacktail deer study that is being conducted by the Makah tribe (with assistance by WDFW,other tribes,volunteers,etc..). Even WDFW officials consider it to be some of the best blacktail research...I think the emphasis is on fawn survival. By the way, the one thing that I agree seems to be lagging behind is tribal enforcment...hopefully that'll improve.
Is it your intent to find a way to get rid of treaty hunting or would you be satisified if tribes were cooperatively managing game with the state in a way that would not lead to a decline in wildlife populations or trophy quality animals?
Post by: Special T on November 02, 2010, 10:00:38 PM
Post by: Coastal_native on November 02, 2010, 10:17:51 PM
I'm not sure if its finalized yet, but here is a link to a progress report I remember seeing. It is more about fawn survival and/or recruitment to the adult breading population. There are rumors that both tribes and WDFW will use this research to justify curtailing antlerless harvest on the westside (sounds good to me).
It' not the kind of research that will help you become a better blacktail hunter, but if you find any, let me know...I've lived on the coast my whole life and I would consider myself a novice blacktail hunter at best. I refuse to shoot young bucks, coincidently I don't harvest very many mature ones either. I love blacktail hunting, but I come home crying almost every time.
Post by: 6x6rack on November 03, 2010, 12:48:04 AM
First I am not a spokesman for anyone on this forum, my opinions are what they are...mine unless anyone wants to pipe in with a "yea that". This is one discussion I wont back down from though. I want my kids to grow and respect nature, I heard that was once the Indian way so I guess we have something in common :)
I have personally seen the Quinault, Skokomish, Puyallup, Mucks and Yakima indians do things any White person would have been thrown in jail for.
I dont hate Indians. If I was born 150 years ago as an Indian I would rant just as loudly about pale-face raping the land. But hey, it's 150 years later it's the indians decimating wildlife. I will be as loud as necessary until someone on your side deceides to put a stop to Tribal poaching er uh "treaty hunting"... how convenient. Call it what you want but the Yakima Indians are poaching mature bulls and decimating the Colockum herd.
Give them a call and personally thank THEM for the growing reputation and resentment. And as a side note I hope this isn't Tater, the Quinault game manager who took us fishing a couple years ago. It was real special pulling into town and seeing dogs chewing on an elk quarter in the street at 5am, Tater's reason..."We shot a couple and they rotted so we fed them to the dogs." :yike:
To be fair, nice work on the Blacktail project, a friend of mine was there helping and he said it was great, just hoped the collars were'nt going to be used to track down bucks and poach them. He was wondering out loud how so many big bulls are being found by the tribe just standing on the side of the road...how "lucky" they can even often load them whole.
Post by: Coastal_native on November 03, 2010, 08:17:47 AM
I'm not expecting you to back down or change your opinion, just trying to convince you to get your point across without being so abrasive. Nope I'm not Tater...I know him though, he's a good friend and a good guy. I've not personally witnessed him wasting, but I'd be pretty disgusted if I saw what you saw. Wasting is a serious issue and it's something we're proactively addressing. In our hunters meetings we've made it clear that its unacceptable and we want our enforcement staff taking care of it. We convinced our policy folks to purchase a community walk in cooler and food bank freezer...it gets monitored to make sure people aren't abusing the privilege.
If you ever want to come back for a walk in fishing trip, I'd love to take you. I'm not much of an angler...I just know how to do it. I'm not a licensed guide either so I can't and wouldn't charge you...just need to know a little in advance.
I wish there were enough resources available that everyone could hunt with similar regulations as tribes. Especially the designated hunter program...it is an amazing experience to be selected by an elderly person to harvest an animal for them...to take your time, money, and effort... to do something you love...to care for and process the meat...and to deliver it to that elderly person or family in need.
I totally agree with what everyone says about cooperative management, especially in those areas where the state is trying to create a trophy hunting opportunity. It doesn't quite work unless both parties are taking similar management approaches. We don't really have that conflict on the westside. Actually, WDFW uses the upper Quinault as a trophy hunting area but the Quinaults choose not to open it to there members in an attempt to avoid private land owner disputes...I'd like it if we had a draw system too though...I wouldn't mind the opportunity to hunt up there.
By the way, I go to my fish and game office every year and pick up my tags and regs...I legally harvest animals following my regs...and I don't waste meat. I also support organizations like RMEF and NRA. I do this all under the hunting jurisdiction of my tribe (with oversight by the federal government of course).
In your opinion...am I welcome on this forum?
Post by: WSU on November 03, 2010, 08:47:45 AM
Each city gets an "equal" amount of tax dollars from the state and federal government. So with your definition of "In common with" this would mean that Ellensburg, WA should receive as much tax funds as Seattle, WA does, even though Seattle is like 50 times larger. There is alot more of us than them. And if you must know the Yakama's harvest far more branch bulls than we do. Shoot one member alone kills more than all of us combined every year.
Things need to change in the Colockum. Your right like I've said before the LARGEST problem is spike recruitment. But I've also said its not the ONLY problem. Tribal harvest of mature bulls has a VERY large impact as well. So it would be pointless to put the Colockum into permit only if the Yakamas are not willing to also start regulating their members.
Also where does one tribal member killing 4-6 big bulls a year in the Colockum when us American's on average only kill a "True Spike" once every 7 years. There is nothing "In Common" with the regulations that the Yakama's have and what us American's have. The "In Common" you speak of is an extremely liberal white guilt interpretation of that meaning. Like I said its extremely discriminatory which goes against our US Constitution. If a Supreme Court is shown to be un-constitutional it is struck down. You an be a hater all you want but the simple fact is if the ball gets rolling and we have non-liberal white guilt self-hating members of congress etc in our state this thing is gone. Thatll be the biggest challenge is turning this state around and getting the socialists out of our government.
It gets old every time someone makes a point and cites something, such as a definition from a dictionary, for you to say over and over that any opposing view point must be due to "white guilt" or because the poster is "extremely liberal." As if it would make a difference to you, you should know that I am neither liberal nor having "white guilt," whatever that means. I would venture a guess that you and I vote nearly the same on most issues and candidates. I explained to you why "In common with" as interpreted fits the dictionary definition. I've explained why the Courts are stuck interpreting the laws as written. I explained why your discrimination idea is not going to hold water. I have cited facts, definitions, court cases, etc. I don't, however, feel the need to win any debates by claiming that you are a right-wing wacko racist who has no understanding of the law, constitution, or anything more than arm-chair biology. I don't claim that while you claim to be smarter than the biologists at WDFW, your paper and research were based largely, if not almost entirely, on information you obtained from WDFW and an interview you did with a WDFW biologist. I don't claim to be too busy to post when someone makes a point, and then tell you that perhaps you should go get an education and you will see how busy I am. I don't say that we have to get rid of all these right-wing, gun-toten redneck hillbillies who don't share my viewpoint, and that our country is worse-off since everyone doesn't agree with me. Why must you resort to such tactics over and over?
In any event, the reason the "in common with" "white guilt" definition has been interpreted to mean 50/50 is because the treaties are interpreted in a way that attempts to give them the meaning the parties to them intended at the time they were written. Are we sure the interpretation is right? No. Is the best we can do when interpreting what two parties meant several hundred years ago, based on the facts and evidence we have now? Yes. The fact is, courts are attempting to give meaning to the words that the parties agreed on. Bear in mind, one side didn't speak English, and it was all done through interpreters. Also bear in mind that, at the time, neither side thought there would be an issue like we have today. The U.S., who drafted the treaties, did not foresee that our population would grow to the point where we would occupy most of the land, take up most of the wintering habitat, greatly diminish all of the fish runs, and have far more people than animals. We didn't foresee that there would not be enough to go around when we drafted the treaties. Keeping all this in mind, the Court has interpreted the treaties to mean that each side has as many rights as the other. Indians on one side, and the U.S. on the other. Negotiations took place with the idea that the fishing and hunting rights would be divided among groups, not individuals. The fact that our individual right is now diminished because our population has grown beyond what was foreseen is not the legal question at all. Courts can't, and shouldn't be able to, twist laws as written into whatever flavor of the day is most popular. Think large scale if this were to occur. Think McCarthy hearings. Think witch hunts and eroded Constitutional rights. Think courts in Kalifornia interpreting the second amendment as was popular, rather than as intended. Boxer and Pelosi not being constrained by the laws as written.
As you say, the biggest challenge you face is getting rid of all the "extremely liberal" "white guilt" folks out there. You are going to have to convince the Feds that we should do away with the treaty rights, or modify them. And, if you can get enough support, more power to you. As the Boldt decision and culverts case should show you though, the State needs to be very cautious when they stir the pot, or may very well end up with something they don't like and didn't foresee.
Post by: WSU on November 03, 2010, 08:56:48 AM
WSU, you keep making good points on the wrong side of the discussion. "Shared Equally By" Do you honestly believe that is happening. If the general public gets 25 mature bulls, the indians get 25 mature bulls. They are taking WAY more than that. You can't interpret that because there are 272 bulls in the herd the tribe gets 136 of them every year. Again, a resource that takes 4-5 years to cycle to maturity needs to be managed that way. taking roughly 50 total between the parties is good management. hunters taking 25 and Indians taking 70 is moronic, even by the most liberal interpretation of Boldts decision.
The discussion has been defining laws that everyone must adhere to EQUALLY. As you say, the resource must be "shared Equally" meaning total harvest numbers by gender and antler size which is clearly defined in our Game Regs. Right now there is blatant discrimination applied to a publicly funded resource on public lands...which is against the law. I agree, "shared equally" which means you can't seperate harvest numbers from the laws regulating that harvest. NO ONE looking at this can say the current system is "shared equally" because the Indians have no accountability. This is not only illegal according to Boldt, but allows racial discrimination in a publicy funded and managed activity . Why the total lack of accountability by the Tribes? Because it gives them a loophole to rape the system and fall back on the total BS, wag the dog, just plain stupid response.."you can't prove its us" comeback. Laws need to be in place so we can prove, definatively, what the problem is so we can fix it. Why won't the Yakimas do that...because they like their meat POACHED.
The analysis, as I see, is not limited to mature bulls. We kill a pile of spikes in the Colockum that must be added into our numbers. Everyone adhering equally means the same number of elk for each side.
I've said before, but I don't think in this post, that the system isn't working smoothly. There are times, especially fish runs, where neither side should be harvesting any. Tribes in places shouldn't be netting at all. There should be accountability and harvest numbers for each side. It should all be scientifically managed, and the herd/runs should not be the ones that suffers. But, this is separate from the legal question regarding tribal rights, or at least a distinction must be made when discussing what can be done and what it all really means. I don't honestly think that the Yakamas are poaching elk. If you look at Colockum Elk's numbers, it seems very unlikely that the tribes kill as many elk as we do in the Colockum. Perhaps he can post up the figures from his research showing the total number of bulls recruited each year, our harvest, etc. I know the tribe's numbers are not certain, but we could get some good insight just from knowing our take as a percentage of the total herd.
Post by: 6x6rack on November 03, 2010, 10:53:59 AM
You are welcome on any site, and it's nice to have you here. Any Tribal members who are willing to be pro-active in their efforts to have Tribes as EQUAL partners,and stewards, in management are a bonus to any hunting or fishing forum or orginization.
I hope when you say you buy your tags and hunt by your rules you are refering to WDFW rules and regs, if not I would love to have you post a copy of the rules and regs you do hunt by. It would be interesting to see what the Tribes in your neck of the woods consider "equal" if you are hunting by a different set of regs than the rest of us do.
I appreciate the fishing offer but that trip ruined it for me. The dogs eating spoiled elk, nets across the ENTIRE river, fishing with "indian specials" (snagging with 3" trebble hooks) and the trip being OVER at 12:30 because we didn't bring enough beer for Tater was one of the saddest days of my sporting life. :yike: He is their Tribal game manager...what are the others doing :yike:
WSU.
If a spike was "equal" to a mature bull then we would'nt have "spike only" and "true spike" seasons as part of our game management, we would have "any bull" seasons. I am dumbfounded that this part of management is lost on the tribes and those who argue for them. For the umteenth time posted here by many members, the mature bull escapement and recent changes to spike and true spike only were designed to help more mature bulls survive and insure the passing of good genes and high calving rates, the lack of which is a big part of the declining Colockum herd. Tribes wiping out mature bulls with an "elk is an elk" attitude is total BS and underlines the complete lack of Tribal understanding and participation in management. If an "elk was an elk" then why aren't you only shooting cows? Because you and I both know every elk is not created equal. All I can say is I'm shocked at your last post and it truly highlights the need for immediate change if this herd is ever going to recover.
Post by: WSU on November 03, 2010, 11:14:12 AM
WSU.
If a spike was "equal" to a mature bull then we would'nt have "spike only" and "true spike" seasons as part of our game management, we would have "any bull" seasons. I am dumbfounded that this part of management is lost on the tribes and those who argue for them. For the umteenth time posted here by many members, the mature bull escapement and recent changes to spike and true spike only were designed to help more mature bulls survive and insure the passing of good genes and high calving rates, the lack of which is a big part of the declining Colockum herd. Tribes wiping out mature bulls with an "elk is an elk" attitude is total BS and underlines the complete lack of Tribal understanding and participation in management. If an "elk was an elk" then why aren't you only shooting cows? Because you and I both know every elk is not created equal. All I can say is I'm shocked at your last post and it truly highlights the need for immediate change if this herd is ever going to recover.
I think you misunderstand my post. I'm aware that all elk aren't the same. My point is that we are making a bigger dent in large bull escapement by killing all the spikes before they even get a chance to become mature. I'm certainly not arguing that a spike is "equal" to a big bull in any way (including ability to breed). What I am arguing is that it is tough to point the blame solely at the tribe when we kill 80% of the spikes before they ever get a chance to grow up. Kinda why people don't want to shoot immature animals. They never get to be big if you kill them as yearlings. Having an any bull season would result in us killing not only a ton of spikes, but also the few bulls that escape the yearling stage in the colockum.
Post by: 6x6rack on November 03, 2010, 11:49:15 AM
1.
Quote
The dictionary defines "common" to mean "belonging equally to, or shared alike by, two or more or all in question."
2.
Quote
I'm certainly not arguing that a spike is "equal" to a big bull in any way (including ability to breed).
Herein lies the truth as you have just outlined so simply and clearly. According to current law AND the Boldt decision Indians ARE poaching the big bulls in the Colockum. They should be arrested just like the three hunters who killed branch antler bulls opening day of rifle season.
Post by: Practical Approach on November 03, 2010, 12:43:46 PM
Coastal,Hey 6x6 I know Tater as well. I have hunted with him as well had have had a great hunt. Sorry you saw all the drama. By they way Tater has never been their game manager. He at one time was a wildlife technician, but has never been the manager. The Quinault tribe has a staff wildlife manager and two wildlife biologists, none of which are Tater.
You are welcome on any site, and it's nice to have you here. Any Tribal members who are willing to be pro-active in their efforts to have Tribes as EQUAL partners,and stewards, in management are a bonus to any hunting or fishing forum or orginization.
I hope when you say you buy your tags and hunt by your rules you are refering to WDFW rules and regs, if not I would love to have you post a copy of the rules and regs you do hunt by. It would be interesting to see what the Tribes in your neck of the woods consider "equal" if you are hunting by a different set of regs than the rest of us do.
I appreciate the fishing offer but that trip ruined it for me. The dogs eating spoiled elk, nets across the ENTIRE river, fishing with "indian specials" (snagging with 3" trebble hooks) and the trip being OVER at 12:30 because we didn't bring enough beer for Tater was one of the saddest days of my sporting life. :yike: He is their Tribal game manager...what are the others doing :yike:
WSU.
If a spike was "equal" to a mature bull then we would'nt have "spike only" and "true spike" seasons as part of our game management, we would have "any bull" seasons. I am dumbfounded that this part of management is lost on the tribes and those who argue for them. For the umteenth time posted here by many members, the mature bull escapement and recent changes to spike and true spike only were designed to help more mature bulls survive and insure the passing of good genes and high calving rates, the lack of which is a big part of the declining Colockum herd. Tribes wiping out mature bulls with an "elk is an elk" attitude is total BS and underlines the complete lack of Tribal understanding and participation in management. If an "elk was an elk" then why aren't you only shooting cows? Because you and I both know every elk is not created equal. All I can say is I'm shocked at your last post and it truly highlights the need for immediate change if this herd is ever going to recover.
Post by: Practical Approach on November 03, 2010, 12:52:23 PM
Post by: Special T on November 03, 2010, 01:01:49 PM
Post by: SliverSlinger21 on November 03, 2010, 01:02:16 PM
Post by: WSU on November 03, 2010, 01:08:26 PM
I think I understand clearly, and you make two points that not only clarify, but underline, my posisition and the feelings of many other hunters.
1.QuoteThe dictionary defines "common" to mean "belonging equally to, or shared alike by, two or more or all in question."
2.QuoteI'm certainly not arguing that a spike is "equal" to a big bull in any way (including ability to breed).
Herein lies the truth as you have just outlined so simply and clearly. According to current law AND the Boldt decision Indians ARE poaching the big bulls in the Colockum. They should be arrested just like the three hunters who killed branch antler bulls opening day of rifle season.
According to all laws and the Boldt decision, Indians aren't poaching when they harvest animals in compliance with their seasons and laws. It is that simple. You say the word poached over and over, but it still ain't poaching.
My point is very simple. We kill way over, and I mean way over, 50% of the deer and elk killed annually in WA. That is fact. In the Colockum, we choose to kill ours as yearlings (spike only regs). Not the tribes fault, decision, or problem. Arguing that we have not created the lack of big bulls defies logic since we kill the vast majority of the bulls before they ever get the chance to grow up. Simple math will illustrate this. Say we start with 100 spikes. We then kill 80. The tribes then kill 10 branch bulls. Hard to argue that we are not having a bigger impact, since every year we remove 80% of the potential branch antlered bulls. Unless only 1 out of 8 spikes that survives becomes branch bull, we are killing more. Repeat every year for a few decades. You simply cannot kill 80% of your potential branch antlered bulls and expect to have a lot of branch antlered bulls.
Post by: Practical Approach on November 03, 2010, 01:29:51 PM
Which is why I don't understand anyone engaging my earlier pint that we should look at tribes as an asset and try to utilize thier abilty to hunt without excess regulation... there is too many possible negatives attacking the tribes(when maybe a little cooperation is all that is necessary) to get a better outcome, MORE GAME!:yeah:
Post by: WSU on November 03, 2010, 01:37:58 PM
I am not sure you want to keep using equal as a comparison. I don't think hunters want the tribes to hunt the same way they fish if it goes to litigation. The courts have ruled that equal means 50%. If the tribes are awarded 50% of the harvestable game then certainly all hunting will go to permit only. Not only that, but with the state hunters taking well over 85% of the deer and elk harvest in western washington alone, there will definitely be cut backs on state opportunity. You can't argue against history and the precedence already established in the courts. Well you can, but it might be in vain.
That is the idea I was alluding to above. We better be careful what we wish for when saying we are going to attempt to regulate the tribes based on conservation.
We better make damn sure that they are killing more than we are before we do that, or guess who is going to end up with even less opportunity. Another thing to think about is that it isn't necessarily only taking into account animals killed during hunting season. If the culverts case is any indication, it may also include lack of habitat and the like, all caused by us. I'm not sure how much we limit deer and elk numbers by changing habitat, closing off winter-range (the reason for AHE hunts, feed stations, etc.), and on and on. Perhaps we couldn't put a number on it, perhaps we could. The fact remains that even if we only count deer and elk season we still kill far more per year.
Post by: bobcat on November 03, 2010, 01:43:27 PM
Post by: Practical Approach on November 03, 2010, 01:47:56 PM
"WE" are always going to kill more than the tribes- there are MORE of "us." If they want to go by the Boldt decision and say it applies to wildlife the same as it does fish, fine. They can have an equal amount of deer and elk- PROPORTIONALLY. That means if we get one elk per person, they get one elk per person. NOT if we kill 1000 bull elk, they also get to kill 1000 bull elk.Sorry, thats a nice wish, but not the way the previous court cases have gone. Proportion has nothing to do with it.
Post by: runamuk on November 03, 2010, 01:48:56 PM
"WE" are always going to kill more than the tribes- there are MORE of "us." If they want to go by the Boldt decision and say it applies to wildlife the same as it does fish, fine. They can have an equal amount of deer and elk- PROPORTIONALLY. That means if we get one elk per person, they get one elk per person. NOT if we kill 1000 bull elk, they also get to kill 1000 bull elk.
We dont always agree but this is what I mean when I say equal and not discriminating. If seasons are set to"manage" game then those seasons need to be abided by and it says right in the damn boldt decision that the state has the right to set seasons etc as relates to managing the game ....yet time and time again I hear the tribes can do whatever they please...because they do not follow the same laws the rest of the state follows. And again I will say there is no way on earth to manage a population of animals if everyone is not on board with those management goals :bash: :bash: :bash: wont happen cant happen will never happen and is NOT management.....it is a bunch of crap laws only applicable to one part of society based on race...... >:( boom my head just exploded
Post by: WSU on November 03, 2010, 01:56:06 PM
"WE" are always going to kill more than the tribes- there are MORE of "us." If they want to go by the Boldt decision and say it applies to wildlife the same as it does fish, fine. They can have an equal amount of deer and elk- PROPORTIONALLY. That means if we get one elk per person, they get one elk per person. NOT if we kill 1000 bull elk, they also get to kill 1000 bull elk.
Do you have a reason that case law and the treaties should be interpreted to require proportionality? Especially, is there a reason other than it seems more fair?
Post by: bobcat on November 03, 2010, 01:57:25 PM
"WE" are always going to kill more than the tribes- there are MORE of "us." If they want to go by the Boldt decision and say it applies to wildlife the same as it does fish, fine. They can have an equal amount of deer and elk- PROPORTIONALLY. That means if we get one elk per person, they get one elk per person. NOT if we kill 1000 bull elk, they also get to kill 1000 bull elk.
Do you have a reason that case law and the treaties should be interpreted to require proportionality? Especially, is there a reason other than it seems more fair?
Yes, the words "in common with." Nowhere does it say the tribes are entitled to 50% of the wildlife.
Post by: Practical Approach on November 03, 2010, 02:02:29 PM
You are right, it doesn't, but precedence in our court system is a powerful thing."WE" are always going to kill more than the tribes- there are MORE of "us." If they want to go by the Boldt decision and say it applies to wildlife the same as it does fish, fine. They can have an equal amount of deer and elk- PROPORTIONALLY. That means if we get one elk per person, they get one elk per person. NOT if we kill 1000 bull elk, they also get to kill 1000 bull elk.
Do you have a reason that case law and the treaties should be interpreted to require proportionality? Especially, is there a reason other than it seems more fair?
Yes, the words "in common with." Nowhere does it say the tribes are entitled to 50% of the wildlife.
Post by: WSU on November 03, 2010, 02:10:03 PM
"WE" are always going to kill more than the tribes- there are MORE of "us." If they want to go by the Boldt decision and say it applies to wildlife the same as it does fish, fine. They can have an equal amount of deer and elk- PROPORTIONALLY. That means if we get one elk per person, they get one elk per person. NOT if we kill 1000 bull elk, they also get to kill 1000 bull elk.
Do you have a reason that case law and the treaties should be interpreted to require proportionality? Especially, is there a reason other than it seems more fair?
Yes, the words "in common with." Nowhere does it say the tribes are entitled to 50% of the wildlife.
For some reason I feel like I'm talking in a circle. Using your logic, you are just as wrong. It doesn't say proportional or one per person either. Or does it? Perhaps you can enlighten me.
Post by: bobcat on November 03, 2010, 02:15:59 PM
Post by: WSU on November 03, 2010, 02:20:20 PM
"In common with" means they have the right to hunt wildlife the same as we do, following our laws, and by purchasing the same licenses and tags we are required to buy. That's what it means to me. It's obvious that Judge Boldt interpreted the treaty incorrectly. When people on here call it "indian poaching" they are right. That's what it is. They kill more than their limit, hunt out of season, and don't even bother to buy a hunting license. Oh, and do they wear the required 400 square inches of blaze orange? I doubt it. :bash:
So the courts are wrong because thats what it means to you? If 2 plus 2 equals 5 to you, does that mean the rest of us are wrong if we say it equals 4? Is that why it is obvious that Judge Boldt is wrong? Because it differs from what "in common with" means to you?
I'm not saying that "in common with" couldn't mean they have a right to hunt and follow our laws, I'm just saying I have seen no evidence that it was ever intended to mean that (at least not until recent history when the rights Indians reserved became inconvenient for us).
Post by: runamuk on November 03, 2010, 02:25:05 PM
Sorry for the messy spelling and typos am on my phone
Post by: bobcat on November 03, 2010, 02:33:10 PM
So the courts are wrong because thats what it means to you?
No. Not just because that's what it means to me, but what it would mean to any normal person who read the phrase "in common with" including most third graders. I'm sure most tribes are just laughing their butts off with the way our judges/lawyers interpret the treaties in favor of the tribes. I'd bet most indians are smart enough to know that the treaties really didn't give them the right to kill off entire herds of elk, some of which didn't even exist before the "white man" came here and transplanted elk to the east side of the Cascades.
Post by: Curly on November 03, 2010, 02:36:57 PM
So the courts are wrong because thats what it means to you?
No. Not just because that's what it means to me, but what it would mean to any normal person who read the phrase "in common with" including most third graders. I'm sure most tribes are just laughing their butts off with the way our judges/lawyers interpret the treaties in favor of the tribes. I'd bet most indians are smart enough to know that the treaties really didn't give them the right to kill off entire herds of elk, some of which didn't even exist before the "white man" came here and transplanted elk to the east side of the Cascades.
:rockin: :brew:
Yep. The lawyers and judges can really f things up.
Post by: WSU on November 03, 2010, 02:54:55 PM
So the courts are wrong because thats what it means to you?
No. Not just because that's what it means to me, but what it would mean to any normal person who read the phrase "in common with" including most third graders. I'm sure most tribes are just laughing their butts off with the way our judges/lawyers interpret the treaties in favor of the tribes. I'd bet most indians are smart enough to know that the treaties really didn't give them the right to kill off entire herds of elk, some of which didn't even exist before the "white man" came here and transplanted elk to the east side of the Cascades.
First, you are wrong that elk didn't exist east of the Cascades. They did until we killed them, then had to transplant them. This info can be found all over the interwebz. Here is a map on the RMEF site:
http://www.rmef.org/AllAboutElk/ElkRange/ (http://www.rmef.org/AllAboutElk/ElkRange/)
Notice the brown over the east cascades. In fact, notice how much more area elk lived in prior to us extirpating them. But yea, those damn Indians and their wiping out of the herds. The pot is calling the kettle black.
And your definition isn't what it means to normal people, unless normal people rely on something other than dictionaries to determine what words mean. See a few posts back were I posted a link to the dictionary definition. If you disagree, maybe you should take it up with Websters rather than lawyers and judges.
Further, nobody ever claimed treaties give Indians the right to wipeout herds. I've acknowledged that we have the right to regulate for conservation. I have also pointed out that is not the question here. The fact that people continue to assert that is absurd for a few reasons. First, we kill more elk in the Colockum than the tribes do. Second, we have a history of extirpating populations of animals, and in fact are still doing so. The argument that we only did so 100 years ago holds no water. I could point to populations that we are today actively wiping out. You need to look no further than the map from RMEF I posted above and our harvest statistics to see that you can't seriously argue that tribes are worse for elk populations that we have been.
Post by: WSU on November 03, 2010, 03:03:22 PM
No. Not just because that's what it means to me, but what it would mean to any normal person who read the phrase "in common with" including most third graders. I'm sure most tribes are just laughing their butts off with the way our judges/lawyers interpret the treaties in favor of the tribes. I'd bet most indians are smart enough to know that the treaties really didn't give them the right to kill off entire herds of elk, some of which didn't even exist before the "white man" came here and transplanted elk to the east side of the Cascades.
I really doubt that when the white man wrote those treaties there was any intent to interfere with his own pursuit of game and fish; basically making himself a second-class citizen in the hunting and fishing world. Yet the courts have decided that is what he wanted but didn't know it. Probably back when they were written, the white man was laughing hysterically about how badly the treaties were screwing the natives.
Actually, my understanding is that both sides thought there was plenty to go around. That is how we got in the dilemna we are in today. I believe the courts have tried to give them the intent that both sides had at the time, which was we get all the land, and the Indians can still hunt and fish.
Post by: bobcat on November 03, 2010, 03:21:26 PM
First, you are wrong that elk didn't exist east of the Cascades. They did until we killed them, then had to transplant them. This info can be found all over the interwebz. Here is a map on the RMEF site:
http://www.rmef.org/AllAboutElk/ElkRange/ (http://www.rmef.org/AllAboutElk/ElkRange/)
Notice the brown over the east cascades. In fact, notice how much more area elk lived in prior to us extirpating them. But yea, those damn Indians and their wiping out of the herds. The pot is calling the kettle black.
That map is such a small scale that I can't see it anyway. But, whether there were elk on the east slope of the Cascades when the white man first arrived is arguable. I've read studies done on the subject and nobody can really say one way or the other. Either way, I'm pretty sure the indians weren't hunting them with 300 magnums and 4 wheel drive Dodge trucks. By the way, if it's so important to stick to every word written in the treaties, why are indians allowed to consume alcohol?
Post by: WSU on November 03, 2010, 03:23:41 PM
First, you are wrong that elk didn't exist east of the Cascades. They did until we killed them, then had to transplant them. This info can be found all over the interwebz. Here is a map on the RMEF site:
http://www.rmef.org/AllAboutElk/ElkRange/ (http://www.rmef.org/AllAboutElk/ElkRange/)
Notice the brown over the east cascades. In fact, notice how much more area elk lived in prior to us extirpating them. But yea, those damn Indians and their wiping out of the herds. The pot is calling the kettle black.
By the way, if it's so important to stick to every word written in the treaties, why are indians allowed to consume alcohol?
Don't know the answer to that. Lack of enforcement, much like all other crime? Does that change anything?
Post by: bobcat on November 03, 2010, 03:25:09 PM
Post by: bobcat on November 03, 2010, 03:26:20 PM
https://research.wsulibs.wsu.edu:8443/xmlui/bitstream/handle/2376/1274/v70%20p262%20Dixon%20and%20Lyman.PDF?sequence=1
Post by: Curly on November 03, 2010, 03:27:17 PM
Post by: WSU on November 03, 2010, 03:34:52 PM
Just maybe, the elk were wiped out by the native Americans before the settlers showed up............. :dunno:
Perhaps, but I know that settlers and the like are known to have killed them off in a lot of areas. Market hunting was a big thing back in the day, and resulted in wiping out a lot of elk. RMEF has stuff here:
http://www.rmef.org/AllAboutElk/ElkInHistory (http://www.rmef.org/AllAboutElk/ElkInHistory)
Post by: colockumelk on November 03, 2010, 05:33:02 PM
6x6rack,
Obviously you are very firm on your position against tribal treaty hunting, but I'm curious if your negative experiences with tribes are only in your area or across the entire state? I'm only familiar with what goes on in my own areas. Also, I would suggest that if you're going to be a spokespearson on this forum for anti-treaty hunting that you refrain from using sarcastic comments and name calling. I think you probably have good thoughts and ideas but they get lost in all that other stuff.
Hopefully you don't think that I'm trying to get a rise out of you, I just think using phrases like "wreckless indian idiots" is counterproductive. It kind of makes it sound more like you hate indians rather than you care about wildlife...I doubt thats the case. I did appreciate the lesson on population dynamics (or at least I think that was you, I've lost track at who's who now because you've gained so many supporters). As a wildlife manager myself, I've seen that tribes now have plenty of money (not necessarily casino money, but the ability to get federal grants) to conduct population surveys and big game research in the areas they hunt...even using radio telemetry to get a measure of non-reporting (good stuff, I think). at least where I'm from they are starting to align the bag limits with what the population data shows...while also considering state harvest. It seems to be getting better. Anybody who cares about deer on the westside should look into the Blacktail deer study that is being conducted by the Makah tribe (with assistance by WDFW,other tribes,volunteers,etc..). Even WDFW officials consider it to be some of the best blacktail research...I think the emphasis is on fawn survival. By the way, the one thing that I agree seems to be lagging behind is tribal enforcment...hopefully that'll improve.
Is it your intent to find a way to get rid of treaty hunting or would you be satisified if tribes were cooperatively managing game with the state in a way that would not lead to a decline in wildlife populations or trophy quality animals?
Good post coastal native. None of us are against treaty hunting. And when myself and most others on here talk about this stuff it's not a statewide thing. Its mostly just a Yakama thing. I for one have no clue what other tribes do. I do know some facts about my neck of the woods. I will use the Colockum as the example.
In the past ten years the Colockum herd has seen its branch bull population reduced by 70%. It has gone down from around 372 down to about 115. The branch bull to cow ratio is currently at a whopping 3:100. A healthy herd should be from 12-20:100. During this ten years Non-Tribal hunters have had all cow tags taken away. The muzlle loader season was taken away and it has now gone from spike only to "True Spike" including bow hunters. Also our branch bull tags have been drastically reduced. Most people are fine with this as if the herd is hurting that bad then we have to do what we have to do to let the herd survive.
Now on the flip side of this every year more and more Yakamas hunt this area and kill more and more branch bulls. This is because like all hunters if word gets out about a honey hole people start showing up. There is one member on this site who shot 6 branch bulls in one year from this area.. (I have pictures of 4 of them) This ONE tribal hunter harvested more branch bulls in this area in one year than ALL Non-Tribal hunters combined. So while we as "Non-Native" hunters face more and more restrictions every year and harvest less and less.... The Yakamas still have free reign with no restrictions in a unit that has an elk population that can't take much more.
Many on here (especially me) would like it to go to permit only for at least three years to give the herd a chance to come back. We are willing to do our part in saving this herd. But the Yakama Nation which demands that it be allowed to hunt some 60 miles north of its reservation borders doesn't contribute one cent to helping this herd out. In fact they also refuse to conduct harvest surveys to aid the WDFW in better managing this herd. They have flat out refused to help the WDFW in any way.
All that members on here are asking for is this... In regards to the Colockum that they are forced in some way to submit harvest reports and to limit the amount of bull elk taken in this area. That's it. I don't want to take privelages away. But the Yakamas are taking advantage of a good thing. In fact I'm pretty sure their ancestors would be ashamed at the lack of respect given to their neighbors and the game that they hunt.
No one on here would probably care if Yakamas or any other member harvest a few bulls a year if it wasn't for the fact that it is seriously hurting our elk herd. Its not so much a racial thing or a US vs Them kind of thing its simply we have an elk herd being driven to extinction and while we are trying to do something about it the other side refuses to help out. Its very frustrating because the Yakamas have the legal right to do what they do. However just because they can doesn't mean its right or ethical. I can legally go to Saudi Arabia and beat my wife but that would be wrong. If the Yakamas don't limit themselves and start policing their own there wont be a Colockum elk herd to argue about.
Post by: colockumelk on November 03, 2010, 05:59:17 PM
According to the WDFW there were a FEW elk east of the Cascades. There was a Selkirk herd, and a Blue Mountain Herd. Both most likely killed off by settlers or because of habitat. No one knows for sure. As far as a Yakima and Colockum herd there was none until the early 1900's when we planted them. Any elk that wandered east of the PCT is believed to have come from the West side as elk often migrate great distances. When settlers arrived here they did not report any elk. Deer but no elk. According to tribal history they did NOT hunt elk. As they would have to travel too far to find elk. They did HOWEVER, trade for elk meat. Lewis and Clark also did not see elk since leaving Idaho until they got West of the PCT. If you would like I can dig those sources.
To be honest though in what we are talking about none of the above info matters at all. I do realize how hard legally it would be to do anything. And we would probably fail. Unless we undertook a huge PR campaign and got the true word out instead of a "White Guilt" version from the other side I think it could and would happen. But what else should we do WSU?? The Yakama's have shown themselves to not give a damn about elk or deer or responsible wildlife managment. How much has American's sacrificed as far as more and more restrictions? What has the other side given up??
I just want some equality. If the Treaty is such a big deal to the Yakamas then why do they allow their members to drink alcohol? Something needs to be done and soon before that herd dissapears. You are correct that we kill far more "bulls" than the Yakams do. Although this gap gets narrower every year. In 2006 the WDFW estimated that they kill 40 branch bulls a year. Whitefoot has even admitted that since then especially in the last few years the amount of tribal hunters up there has grown dramatically so this number is probably even higher. I am going to do all that I can to save this herd and want permit only really bad and this is not a secret. We are going to do our part we just want the other side to do theirs. You sound like a very intelligent person and have definately made me think and given me a run for my money. What would you suggest we do.?
I'm serious. I understand your points as far as the legal issue. We probably wont agree on some of this stuff. But doesn't mean we can't be on the same side. What course of action do you think would be best to take? The Colockum WILL go to permit only soon. That is a 100% guarantee. But it wont matter if the Tribes are not willing to play ball and do their part as well. 6x6 you are my newest best friend. You make some awsome points. And you can call in bulls for me anytime :chuckle:
Post by: runamuk on November 03, 2010, 06:48:13 PM
I haven't even touched on the west side issue of spreading and uncontrolled hoof rot that eventually will likely destroy many of the elk herds over here....from the research i did they have known of this problem and OSU was doing a minor study into it as regards to the deer along the columbia that are also infected.....seems it is limited to elk and not spreading to cattle or sheep so it is of little interest......I mean who cares if we have HEALTHY elk populations :dunno:..... resources in this state are so mismanaged its ridiculous, preference is given only to those who pitch the biggest bitch or have the money to line pockets ..... But I still think we can somehow get the majority of sportsmen and outdoors enthusiasts and yes even tribal member to see the need to change if we want any resources left in this state for our grandchildren. There will always be poachers and those whose greed can never be filled...Indian and non indian....we need to deal with these people equally....the tribal members following the rules are being burned by those who aren't as much as hunters are smeared by slob hunting and poaching....so hold them accountable and make a stand if the state wont...or let the elk go the way of the dodo :dunno:
It is gonna take all of us that care to make something happen.....and those who keep saying we cant do anything well...I for one am glad the women who fought for my rights didn't take no for an answer :dunno:
Post by: Coastal_native on November 03, 2010, 09:24:28 PM
No, I don't purchase a state tag or hunt by state regulations...I think thats what you were asking...?
Our regs are pretty lengthy, but I'll try to summarize. As far as legal hunting methods, calibur of weapons, shooting hours, wasting, etc... everything is pretty identical to WDFW regs... I'm pretty sure most of the language is copied. The major difference obviously is bag limits and seasons, which vary from year to year depending on harvest data, population trends, composition counts, and what WDFW is allowing. Our bag limits are on a per household basis, and most of the time it is 2 elk and 4 deer per household, except single person households who are typically allowed 1 elk and 2 deer. We sometimes have conservation closures in certain GMU's for cows/does and often it's because we're "piggy backing" off WDFW's conservation closure. To my knowledge we've never really restricted spike vs. branched bull harvest. Sometimes we have extended seasons that last past the end of Dec. and usually its because we've witenessed a low amount of harvest due to a lack of access in the early season (mainly fire closures in late summer). Our extended seasons mostly occur on reservation for antlered bulls, but sometimes we'll open up cow hunting in January if WDFW is also issuing tags for population control. Our hunters rarely hunt off reservation when state seasons are open, so allthough we have a lengthy season we're really only hunting off reservation for about two months total.
colockumelkelk
Thanks for the education on the colockum situation.
If the Yakima's are only following what their hunting regs allow...that makes for an "interesting" situation. It seems as if the co managers in this situation might have different management goals. I know, I know...one guy shooting 6 bulls in the same area doesn't really sound like it fits into any managment goal, but under our regulations (including the designated hunter program) it is possible that this could be the case with one of our tribal members...and it is, but as long as all six elk get eaten, none of them were poached, and it is not to the detriment of overall heard health (not to be confused with bull composition) I can't complain...even if they were all trophies. But...I'm not saying that your situation in the colockum fits that description. I'm pretty sure it'd be hard to swallow if I was in your shoes.
It is not pertinant to this discusion, but I find it interesting that on the westside...if WDFW estimates a GMU to have X amount of branched bulls...they will sell an unlimited amount of branched bull tags for archery, rifle, muzzle loader. I know some people love the opportunity to hunt elk every year, but is that really sound management. Would state hunters rather have a 30% chance of killing a good bull every few years or a 0.1% chance of killing a raghorn every year. Those are BS numbers, but I really am curious how many people support a draw system that is acutally based on the amount of available animals and promotes good bull composition...like some other states do.
Post by: Special T on November 03, 2010, 09:32:05 PM
Post by: bobcat on November 03, 2010, 09:32:49 PM
It is not pertinant to this discusion, but I find it interesting that on the westside...if WDFW estimates a GMU to have X amount of branched bulls...they will sell an unlimited amount of branched bull tags for archery, rifle, muzzle loader. I know some people love the opportunity to hunt elk every year, but is that really sound management. Would state hunters rather have a 30% chance of killing a good bull every few years or a 0.1% chance of killing a raghorn every year. Those are BS numbers, but I really am curious how many people support a draw system that is acutally based on the amount of available animals and promotes good bull composition...like some other states do.
This is what I've always said. We need permit only hunting, otherwise they are not managing our deer and elk herds. How can they just let the harvest be totally random? It boggles my mind. I could see it 30 years ago when there was a lot more area to hunt and less people hunting. To me it's ridiculous to sell unlimited numbers of tags with no control on how many are hunting and where they are hunting. Sure it's convenient, to just buy a tag and pretty much hunt anywhere every year, but when I go hunting I would like to see more animals than hunters. And this is not possible in this state with our current so called "management" by the WDFW.
Post by: Coastal_native on November 03, 2010, 09:36:32 PM
disregard the first part of my last post, I understand now that your opinion was that they are not hunting with regulations and they probably don't have management goals...right?
I re read what I posted and it sounded argumentative. I'm probably tyring to be too diplomatic...I don't know the Yakima situation and I don't want to offend any fellow Natives. I also don't want to resort to arguing against you just because I am also Native...you could be right.
Post by: Coastal_native on November 04, 2010, 12:13:10 AM
Obviously we put an emphasis on learning the language, dance, art, wood carving/canoe making, etc...but as far as traditional hunting methods go...no I don't think so. There was a movement a few years ago to try to teach the new generation about preserving meat in the traditional way (drying meat), but it never materialized, mainly because there are fewer and fewer youngsters interested in hunting it seems. Some of the older traditional hunters believe in hunting spikes and cows as opposed to trophies, but most hunters will shoot the first bull they see. Some also believe there is an appropriate time of year to hunt cows vs. bulls. (don't disturb elk during the breading season, don't shoot cows when they are far along in pregnancy).
Although it would be interesting to learn, I personally think teaching and/or practicing traditional hunting methods would be a PR nightmare...I'm not sure environmental groups would want to see elk being snared, speared, or driven into a pit of stakes...you know what I mean? As far as mirroring the states rules...I think the idea is to make sure the combination of modern technology and liberal bag limits doesn't lead to over harvesting. Like I said in a previous post, natives are not entirely accustomed to manageing wildlife in the modern sense. However, we do know that we have a shared and limited resource and harvest monitoring is important to conservation. I think that might be some of the logic behind mirroring state regulations.
I do agree with you, we are risking the loss of another piece of our culture.
Post by: Special T on November 04, 2010, 07:52:44 AM
Post by: Curly on November 04, 2010, 08:08:36 AM
It is not pertinent to this discussion, but I find it interesting that on the westside...if WDFW estimates a GMU to have X amount of branched bulls...they will sell an unlimited amount of branched bull tags for archery, rifle, muzzle loader. I know some people love the opportunity to hunt elk every year, but is that really sound management. Would state hunters rather have a 30% chance of killing a good bull every few years or a 0.1% chance of killing a raghorn every year. Those are BS numbers, but I really am curious how many people support a draw system that is actually based on the amount of available animals and promotes good bull composition...like some other states do.
This is what I've always said. We need permit only hunting, otherwise they are not managing our deer and elk herds. How can they just let the harvest be totally random? It boggles my mind. I could see it 30 years ago when there was a lot more area to hunt and less people hunting. To me it's ridiculous to sell unlimited numbers of tags with no control on how many are hunting and where they are hunting. Sure it's convenient, to just buy a tag and pretty much hunt anywhere every year, but when I go hunting I would like to see more animals than hunters. And this is not possible in this state with our current so called "management" by the WDFW.
Yep. It is a shame that WDFW caves to the wishes of the majority of hunters in the state instead of actually managing the herds by using permit only as a method. True spike will probably help slightly in the Colockum, but I bet eventually they will need to shut it down altogether or try permit only. Permit only for the entire state would probably be the best way to manage the elk herds, but hunters refuse to accept that idea.......
Post by: WSU on November 04, 2010, 10:29:52 AM
First of all WSU I appoligize. After re-reading that post I realize I sound like a jerk. So sorry, I didn't mean to come of that way. Oh and BTW I AM smarter than the Wildlife Bio's :chuckle: Seriously who sounded smarter in that article me or the WDFW?
According to the WDFW there were a FEW elk east of the Cascades. There was a Selkirk herd, and a Blue Mountain Herd. Both most likely killed off by settlers or because of habitat. No one knows for sure. As far as a Yakima and Colockum herd there was none until the early 1900's when we planted them. Any elk that wandered east of the PCT is believed to have come from the West side as elk often migrate great distances. When settlers arrived here they did not report any elk. Deer but no elk. According to tribal history they did NOT hunt elk. As they would have to travel too far to find elk. They did HOWEVER, trade for elk meat. Lewis and Clark also did not see elk since leaving Idaho until they got West of the PCT. If you would like I can dig those sources.
To be honest though in what we are talking about none of the above info matters at all. I do realize how hard legally it would be to do anything. And we would probably fail. Unless we undertook a huge PR campaign and got the true word out instead of a "White Guilt" version from the other side I think it could and would happen. But what else should we do WSU?? The Yakama's have shown themselves to not give a damn about elk or deer or responsible wildlife managment. How much has American's sacrificed as far as more and more restrictions? What has the other side given up??
I just want some equality. If the Treaty is such a big deal to the Yakamas then why do they allow their members to drink alcohol? Something needs to be done and soon before that herd dissapears. You are correct that we kill far more "bulls" than the Yakams do. Although this gap gets narrower every year. In 2006 the WDFW estimated that they kill 40 branch bulls a year. Whitefoot has even admitted that since then especially in the last few years the amount of tribal hunters up there has grown dramatically so this number is probably even higher. I am going to do all that I can to save this herd and want permit only really bad and this is not a secret. We are going to do our part we just want the other side to do theirs. You sound like a very intelligent person and have definately made me think and given me a run for my money. What would you suggest we do.?
I'm serious. I understand your points as far as the legal issue. We probably wont agree on some of this stuff. But doesn't mean we can't be on the same side. What course of action do you think would be best to take? The Colockum WILL go to permit only soon. That is a 100% guarantee. But it wont matter if the Tribes are not willing to play ball and do their part as well. 6x6 you are my newest best friend. You make some awsome points. And you can call in bulls for me anytime :chuckle:
No sweat. I do agree with a lot of what you are saying as well. The bottom line is that both sides likely need to do a better job managing the resource. I personally was disgusted watching the colockum modern firearm fiasco. Elk running everywhere with their tongues hanging out, game wardens driving everywhere as fast as they could go to try to cover all the violations, etc. When I was there, there was a gamey with a big 6x6 bull in his rig that he had recovered. Turns out one of the branch bull tag holders shot it, and a bigger bull walked out so he shot it too. Also, look at all the stories about people who are unable to count points and kill non-true spikes. The fact is we, as hunters and sportsmen, have no room to get on our high horse about the colockum. The herd is in trouble because we mismanaged it to the point it is now. And I agree, true-spike may not work. It seems that it might have a chance working if we, collectively, could be responsible enough to identify exactly what it is we are shooting, but that doesn't appear to be the case.
Also, I'd like to see the info that lays out historical elk ranges. Everything I've seen says they were there, but I haven't read much detail beyond that.
Post by: colockumelk on November 04, 2010, 02:22:29 PM
Apparantly before 2001 or so only a couple of Yakamas hunted the Colockum and only took a couple of bulls. So no big deal. But then the WDFW started that Klickitat Meadows special permit which is on the reservation. There was a letter written to the editor of the Yakima Herald Republic from members of the Yakama Tribe. It basically said if the WDFW goes through with this few permits allowing elk harvest on the reservation that they would go to the Colockum and start killing our bulls. Well the WDFW went with the hunt anyways and therefore Yakamas started hunting the Colockum. Still it wasn't a whole lot of members that did it. But like all good hunting spots word got around. So every year more and more Yakamas started hunting the Colockum. Whitefoot has even said the numbers have increased dramatically over the last few years. So now it is now having a noticable impact on that herd. In 2006 it was estimated that 40 bulls a year were taken by the Yakamas. Since then this number is definately alot higher since according to the Game Wardens and Yakamas I've talked to alot more Yakamas hunt it now.
If I had it my way it would go to permit only for bulls and cows. This way the WDFW could scientifically and mathematically control the amount of bulls and cows every year so the herd could begin to grow and more importantly start increase the bull to cow ratio. I would also close alot of the spur roads therefore actually giving the elk a place to escape to. This would also cut down on poaching. Also the WDFW might not be able to do a whole lot about tribal harvest but closing roads will definately limit the amount of tribal harvest. Also there shouldn't be an open road withing 2 miles of the Coffin Game Refuge. I would also cut down on cattle grazing so that theres more food for the elk to eat. Once we have done our part and if the herds are still not doing what they should then go to the Yakamas and start putting political pressure on them to help out. At the very least force them to submit harvest reports.
I've read other tribal regs and they actually have limits. Many also submit harvest data reports and do surveys and help the WDFW with research and game managment. I wonder why it is that the Yakamas don't do ANYTHING???
Oh as far as elk living in the Kittitas and Yakima Valleys: There isnt much. If you go to the WDFW site and look up the Colockum Elk herd 2006 research study and look up the history of the herd it talks a little bit about it. Basically says there wasn't a "herd" per-say but some elk drifted back and forth across the PCT. They do mention the cave drawings on the bluffs of the Columbia. If you read about Lewis and Clark when he drifts through the area (farther south I think) they don't talk about elk from Idaho until they get towards the coast. I also looked up some stuff about the Yakama's history and nothing talks about hunting elk. But as far as one difinitive study there isn't any.
colockumelk,
disregard the first part of my last post, I understand now that your opinion was that they are not hunting with regulations and they probably don't have management goals...right?
I re read what I posted and it sounded argumentative. I'm probably tyring to be too diplomatic...I don't know the Yakima situation and I don't want to offend any fellow Natives. I also don't want to resort to arguing against you just because I am also Native...you could be right.
coastal you didn't sound combative at all. You had some good points. You just came off as like you were asking questions. I don't know what their goals are or if they have any. Unlike many tribes in WA like Ii've mentioned before the Yakama's have not beeen willing to cooperate with the WDFW when it comes to big game. They refuse to set responsible limits and have flat out REFUSED to conduct harvest data or help out in big game managment in any way. They have also not tried to police their own. Which is why many on here are getting upset. I do not know why they are like this.
But to be fair to the Yakamas I don't know how much or how hard the WDFW or our state has pushed the Yakamas to do any of this stuff. It often seems with the WDFW that they really don't care as long as they sell tags. So who knows maybe if some political pressure was put on them they would help out more. :dunno: This is why we come here to debate. Mostly its about raising awareness.
Post by: vandeman17 on November 04, 2010, 03:57:25 PM
Post by: Grouse Hunter on November 04, 2010, 03:58:39 PM
Post by: runamuk on November 04, 2010, 04:37:02 PM
I have been trying to keep up on this thread as this has always been a topic that both frustrates me but also makes me want to know more. It seems like every time I check, there has been 5 more responses so I apologize if I am repeating what somebody else asked. My question is this, are the Yakama's trophy hunting or meat hunting? I mean, why do they feel it necessary to go in and shoot the big branch antlered bulls if they are just trying to provide for their families? Wouldn't it make more sense, for both the elk and for relations between the two sides, to fill their tags with cows? Not only would it be a way to help the bull to cow ratio but it would also be a step in the right direction showing that they actually do care about the overall health of the heard. :twocents:
Its sort of a matter of both....Colockum mentions the permit hunt that set the trophy bull slaughter in motion
Quote
There was a letter written to the editor of the Yakima Herald Republic from members of the Yakama Tribe. It basically said if the WDFW goes through with this few permits allowing elk harvest on the reservation that they would go to the Colockum and start killing our bulls. Well the WDFW went with the hunt anyways and therefore Yakamas started hunting the Colockum. Still it wasn't a whole lot of members that did it. But like all good hunting spots word got around. So every year more and more Yakamas started hunting the Colockum. Whitefoot has even said the numbers have increased dramatically over the last few years. So now it is now having a noticable impact on that herd. In 2006 it was estimated that 40 bulls a year were taken by the Yakamas. Since then this number is definately alot higher since according to the Game Wardens and Yakamas I've talked to alot more Yakamas hunt it now.
.....basically there are a few who are taking trophies to rub in our faces as far as I can tell. And I hear they show up with nice fresh ones at the show every year :dunno: not sure how that puts meat on the table but it likely puffs up an ego or two :dunno: This herd seems to be catching the brunt of stupidity on both sides of the fence and it all is really more about money and power than herd health at this point.
Post by: monster_bull on November 04, 2010, 05:36:01 PM
Post by: Antlerking on November 04, 2010, 05:38:48 PM
Post by: Special T on November 04, 2010, 05:41:59 PM
Post by: Antlerking on November 04, 2010, 05:47:12 PM
Post by: colockumelk on November 04, 2010, 05:48:52 PM
colockumelk - i would like to thank you for you articles being put in the paper.... lets all thank him for advertising the colockum to every reader that pics up the paper. thank you for showing the rest of the Rez were it is... its half you fault for putting that crap in the paper. all they had to do is google it. Now instead of a hand full of yakamas hunting the colockum you got a bunch more.. so thank you so much :stup:
Wow so you're calling me stupid. Classy MB. Classy. Way to show your true colors. BTW nice argument.
Post by: runamuk on November 04, 2010, 05:57:06 PM
I am kinda worried about the fact that if we keep this argument going that we might piss em off and then they can really do some damage! I hate the facts but it also scares me on how much worse it could get. Imagine a van load of 10 or so going up there and getting it done, very scary.
well if we can get it on video that might be just over the line enough for them to hang themselves...and thats the thing the abuses have got to be documented and even spread virally online if possible....get some press on this not just in Yakima but elsewhere....
Post by: Special T on November 04, 2010, 06:16:55 PM
Post by: colockumelk on November 04, 2010, 06:25:58 PM
I agree with your "squeaky wheel" analogy. Couldn't have said it better myself. I hope that in 2011 or 2012 people start really pressuring the WDFW to do whats right. Despite what people think they do listen if enough people raise a fuss. Just look at GMU 101. The WDFW was going to allow a late general rifle season in there and enough bow hunters complained that instead they just gave out permits. Like The Great Barack Obama once said "YES WE CAN" :chuckle: Just kidding 8)
Post by: Coastal_native on November 04, 2010, 08:28:55 PM
Post by: Special T on November 04, 2010, 08:38:56 PM
Post by: colockumelk on November 04, 2010, 08:39:50 PM
On a serious note I couldn't agree more Coastal Native. They do have some great people working for them. Their wildlife bio's and their Wardens do a pretty good job. It's not them that's the problem. Unfortunately the people at the top are the ones to blame. They take what the wildlife bio's and what their predator and big game managers have to say, then yawn and do whatever will help them politically or make the WDFW more money. To them its a business and wildlife managment takes a back seat. It is too bad because we have some great resources in this state and if things were run correctly I suspect we probably wouldn't even be debating treaty rights and tribal hunting. But instead our resources have been so mismanaged that we're all squabling and fighting for the scraps that are left over. And now if wolves are here to stay its only going to get worse.
Post by: YoterHunter on November 04, 2010, 08:44:13 PM
Post by: Special T on November 04, 2010, 08:48:53 PM
Post by: Coastal_native on November 04, 2010, 09:06:39 PM
I was waiting for you to say that :), It's getting a little uncomfortable on this fence. I'm still new to this forum and I'm pretty sure I know some of these people...gotta watch what I say.
This thread is getting addicting...hunters are opinionated...in a good way.
Unfortunately King county residents still get to decide what happens in my backyard...wolves...I think I'm gonna be sick.
Post by: Special T on November 04, 2010, 09:17:37 PM
Post by: Lowedog on November 04, 2010, 09:50:59 PM
Post by: monster_bull on November 04, 2010, 09:57:05 PM
there are a lot more younger bulls this year. i have seen alot of rag horns. And alot of nice bull. i am hoping other natives don't ruin this. i dont break any rules when i am up there. i now some natives break them. But i dont. I have shot two spikes this year and nether was a true spike. i know you guys shoot those. i have already ate both of those and dang near got my elk burger done. i don't eat beef. i eat elk and deer. i wasnt calling you stupid ColokumElk but see how you took that. It wasn't meant toward you but u took it like it was. that's how people talk about me and my people on this site. dosent feel good does it. then they say were not bashing natives.
Post by: Coastal_native on November 04, 2010, 11:04:13 PM
We eat spikes pretty fast too over on the coast. The nearest store with reasonably priced beef is probably an hours drive. My family never really bought beef. It's cool though...in the summer time when we are having lots of celebrations...we can sit down in a weekend with about two families and eat almost an entire spike elk...all cooked over the fire...with fresh salmon too. We do it right there in our little village at the mouth of our river too, just like our people would have done it hundreds of years ago.
You seem to have a tough time on this these threads. It's hard to maintain your cool when you're getting refered to as "Obama's illegitimate step children" or "rat *censored*s". I can't fight with these guys like you do though...I'm not as close to the situation...sounds like you really do like hunting up there though, hopefully it doesn't go down hill like you guys are talking about.
Do you know any Quinault guys that hunt with family on your Reservation, I know one guy that goes to BBall tournaments over there and I think he does.
Post by: monster_bull on November 04, 2010, 11:10:57 PM
Post by: Special T on November 04, 2010, 11:30:32 PM
Post by: 6x6rack on November 04, 2010, 11:35:05 PM
So another question so the rest of us can understand Indian math.
The speed limit is 60mph, but since you choose to only go 30mph one day, and 30mph the next, Indian math reasons you get to legally go 120 today?
(We choose to not take nearly as many cows as you, we dont take as many spikes as you...so we're going to kill every big bull in the herd to make up the difference (and we're not poaching)
Oh...and we all loved the line...I didn't kill the spike because I was thinking of you...so I killed two branched antler bulls instead. :mor:
Post by: monster_bull on November 04, 2010, 11:40:37 PM
Post by: Special T on November 04, 2010, 11:46:09 PM
Post by: Coastal_native on November 05, 2010, 12:09:18 AM
....not sure where we go from here...Indian math? My bachelor's degree is in engineering...I never took Indian math though :)
I did respond to your questions about our regs though if you're interested. My comment about the spike wasn't intended to be boastful. I was just trying to illustrate that we harvest a lot of elk and we eat a lot too. Having a celebration where we consume a whole elk isn't anything new though...we've been doing that for hundreds of years...accept for that brief time period where the only roosevelt's that were left were deep in the olympics.
A couple of years ago I harvested an elk right before some of my non tribal friends were putting together a big "pig roast" bbq. There were probably about 30 people there and we all "savored" the elk for about 6 hours...that was probably half of an elk (not including the trimmings we took off for burger meat).
The oceans, rivers, and forests have always been our pantry.
Post by: 6x6rack on November 05, 2010, 12:11:18 AM
Sad you are wiping out the Coluckum herd, and bitter that when people make GREAT, scientific, legal and moral arguements you would rather wag the dog then say "Man, these guys are right...we need to talk to the Yaks and get their biologists involved and have some Tribal accountability before we wipe out the herd, this thing makes us look really bad."
You see, every time you post you say something that a kindergardner could see the logic in, but you don't (and your the one who wrote it)
So we get equal share, or however you want to interpret it, but since WE MANAGE our share in an attempt to help and preserve the herd, YOU (Indians) deciede you are going to kill everything (branched antler bulls) we are trying to protect? Do you really not understand you are pissing in the face of everyone else who is trying to manage and protect it.
Post by: 6x6rack on November 05, 2010, 12:19:29 AM
The Quinault is quite a pantry. I've had some real sacred experiences with you guys.
Post by: Little Dave on November 05, 2010, 12:21:48 AM
Do any of the tribes teach ancestral hunting methods, consistent with the old ways? and practice it?
Some of the ancient methods may not be compatible with our era. For example, one method was to get the game moving by setting the forest on fire, funnel the fleeing game through a bottleneck. It's one of the first of many things I think of when I hear someone start into, "We should learn to live like the Indians used to."
Ironically, many forests are overgrown. So have at it I guess.
Post by: Coastal_native on November 05, 2010, 12:46:54 AM
I just realized I was in an argument with you...how did it start again? I don't even know what I'm responding to anymore... You haven't had any sacred experiences with me. You said you had a bad experience with one of our fishing guides.
Sometimes I go to our local rivers during the state season and watch people yard fish in side ways and then kick them back into the river when they're too dark...in the end all that's left is a pile of Busch cans. It doesn't make me hate state fisherman...just the little punks that do it. The small landowners out in my county that have two untagged doe's and and a cow hanging in their garage in august are saying that Indians are the reason they can't kill a branch bull every year, but I don't hold it against you. This has all been said already.
I have a feeling your trying to antagonize me with sarcasm, but I'm not sure why. Your last few comments have been toxic to this thread. Go back to the beginning and see how this topic progressed, pay attention to the posts in the last 5 or 6 pages that didn't have the same tone as those in the beginning...and then look how similar your last posts were to those in the beginning. They scream "I hate Indians!".
As I said before, I doubt you hate Indians.
Post by: krout81 on November 05, 2010, 12:53:38 AM
Ultimately I conclude from both papers that Technology is to blame.
Post by: 6x6rack on November 05, 2010, 01:54:47 AM
No argument on this side. If saying the Yakima's "don't get it", are idiots, or whatever, is toxic...well, they don't get it and are acting like idiots. No time, or desire, to smoke the peacepipe when they are out poaching all the bulls out of the herd. Perhaps if I referred to them as Ba'sis it would be more appropriate?
As for you I apolagize if I have offended you in any way. It's just time to wake up and smell the damn coffee on this issue.
If I were arguing or wanting to really be abrasive I would, and could, go for it...I have much more experience with Northwest tribes than you know. There is a certain ceremonial canoe carved by white carvers, whites that learned to honor and respect Northwest Indian culture (the old one), carved because the tribe didn't have any carvers left of their own. These white carvers spent a lot of time with tribes and got to see it all. Simon Charlie, the Hunts, Davidsons, LeFortunes, Lelooska and the Pollards. All up and down the Coast. Chinook, Tlingit, Makah, Haida, Kwakiutl, Bella Bella and Salish. Needless to say I have seen unimaginable waste, and unimaginable need.
I am pissed because need is relative, and cows eat just as good as Bulls, often better. No one here is stupid, the "need" to kill bulls is fabricated other than a few for a ceremony here and there, I understand that and have a deep respect for the cultural purpose it serves.
When a culture with such a deep and spiritual connection to the resource are the ones decimating it, sometimes you just need to slap them in the hopes someone, somewhere will wake up. Wake up before the resource is gone, but just as importantly wake up before the culture is gone. Glad we have a few of your attention. Now I hope you get together and do something about it. Hopefully we are not Noomis before we can smoke the pipe, wet the grease bowl and celebrate together.
Post by: Lowedog on November 05, 2010, 07:37:05 AM
elk to the white guy is a specialty. elk to us is dinner, lunch and breakfast.
If this is true then why do so many of you pass on opportunities to harvest cows or lesser bulls to kill trophy size bulls?
Post by: remington300mag on November 05, 2010, 07:45:22 AM
:yeah: Also, I love the argument that "I eat elk everyday, I don't eat beef, breakfast lunch and dinner." Well I would love to eat elk everyday of the year as well, I know that a lot of guys on here and there entire families would like to eat elk every day....If the opportunity came, I would never buy beef either! There are also a lot of white guys on here that's economic situation is just as bad as the tribes, but we still have to pay for beef...... maybe as a collective group, we should all just go up and slaughter the Colokum herd...... I mean we would eat the animals! Nope, as a responsible race, we will try to manage the herd only to see them get decimated every year!elk to the white guy is a specialty. elk to us is dinner, lunch and breakfast.
If this is true then why do so many of you pass on opportunities to harvest cows or lesser bulls to kill trophy size bulls?
Post by: runamuk on November 05, 2010, 07:52:35 AM
:yeah: Also, I love the argument that "I eat elk everyday, I don't eat beef, breakfast lunch and dinner." Well I would love to eat elk everyday of the year as well, I know that a lot of guys on here and there entire families would like to eat elk every day....If the opportunity came, I would never buy beef either! There are also a lot of white guys on here that's economic situation is just as bad as the tribes, but we still have to pay for beef...... maybe as a collective group, we should all just go up and slaughter the Colokum herd...... I mean we would eat the animals! Nope, as a responsible race, we will try to manage the herd only to see them get decimated every year!elk to the white guy is a specialty. elk to us is dinner, lunch and breakfast.
If this is true then why do so many of you pass on opportunities to harvest cows or lesser bulls to kill trophy size bulls?
I agree I only wish I could eat elk instead of beef...but here in WA I have to hunt it and it is limited and if I ever get one in my lifetime...yes ONE I will be thrilled...in Idaho if I had the money I could buy it from the elk farm down the road ;) here I can buy bison from that farm next door again if I have the money mostly I eat cheap beef and chicken not because its my favorite but because its what I can afford and unlike my pioneering ancestors game is no longer free for the taking on an as needed basis I live in a new time and have to live within the rules of this society.
Hey I wonder if I start a religion and it required wild game as a legitimate part of my practice if my religious freedoms would over rule the state :dunno: :dunno:
Post by: Coastal_native on November 05, 2010, 08:14:51 AM
elk to the white guy is a specialty. elk to us is dinner, lunch and breakfast.
If this is true then why do so many of you pass on opportunities to harvest cows or lesser bulls to kill trophy size bulls?
Good question,
I can only speak for myself on this one though...Depending on if I'm hunting for myself or as a designated hunter, I typically prefer to harvest mature bulls....rut hunting elk is fun and i like trophies too, just like any other hunter. If I'm hunting for some one else, I usually shoot the first branch bull I see. I'm not big on cow hunting...It's been documented by just about everyone that has studied it over here...Roosevelt elk have a high rate of natural cow mortality, thats one of the reasons we don't always have cow seasons in our areas. I choose to harvest branch bulls over spikes because during the time of year I hunt (late august-september) they have pretty good fat content still and they have about twice as much meat on them as a spike. Again, most of my hunting occurs on the reservation...and not to be insensitive, but part of it is because I have non tribal friends and family that hunt off reservation and every elk I harvest off reservation before the state season starts is an opportunity I take away from them...and I still get out and hunt the state seasons with them, in fact I'll be out there during MF.
As for the "taste" argument that's been thrown around...the toughest elk steak I ever ate was from a young healthy cow I harvested in December (only cow I've ever harvested), the best steak I've ever ate was from an old reverted rutted out bull that barely had any teeth left. Not that that holds true all of the time though, just my experience. Spikes always taste good, I just don't really enjoy hunting them...and that's one of the reasons we do this right? because we enjoy it.
These comments are not intended to offend anyone, I'm just trying to answer questions honestly to help you guys get into the mind of tribal hunter.
Post by: Lowedog on November 05, 2010, 08:26:05 AM
Post by: Coastal_native on November 05, 2010, 08:37:07 AM
Post by: Coastal_native on November 05, 2010, 08:45:33 AM
Post by: 6x6rack on November 05, 2010, 08:58:59 AM
All of us would rather hunt a branched bull, all of us love to hunt the rut. But since we respect the health of the herds we sometimes disignate areas that can't happen.
Why dont you throw us a bone here Coastal so we can see if you are just here like other indians before you to rub your privledges "poaching" in our faces.
Please read Colockum's article (Available on his other thread you have been viewing) and answer to yourself HONESTLY about the health of the Colockum herd. Then, as a Tribal Game Manager ask yourself what is the issue affecting the herd. Then apply your own words and reasoning...why you choose to only shoot Bulls (you suposably have sick cows in your neck of the woods, premature death rates???) so you only shoot bulls to keep the herd healthy...another conversation I'm sure is headed your way. Anyway read Colockums article and answer us one simple question. Yes or No, no waggin' the dog.
Should the Yakima tribe be harvesting all the big bulls out of the Colockum Herd given it's present condition. Yes or NO
Post by: remington300mag on November 05, 2010, 09:04:32 AM
Seriously, why don't the tribes of Washington look what other tribes around the nation have done.....Like the Apache on White Mountain?!?! When it comes to the Yakima's, they have a hell of a lot of PRIME elk and mule deer habitat that if managed correctly would be a huge money maker for them, not to mention the trophy potential! Fact is, they are too lazy, they would rather bleed off of the government, rather than take care of themselves!
Post by: Special T on November 05, 2010, 09:09:20 AM
Post by: Lowedog on November 05, 2010, 09:17:08 AM
If your management angency was going to give you the opportunity to harvest extra animals for your family or other people in need...would you not go about it the same way I do? Like I said in previous posts...we know the impacts of our harvest level and we are not decimating elk populations over here, I can assure you that.
Are you issued tags for each elk and do you have to report your harvests to both your tribal agency and WDFW or does your agency share harvest statistics with WDFW? If tags are issued are they purchased?
WDFW does issue second deer tags in some areas. I don't apply for those. I would help a disabled hunter harvest an animal if it was someone close to me but I wouldn't use it as an opportunity to trophy hunt. As far as shooting extra animals for my family or other people in need...if my family needs more than one then another member of my family has the opportunity to purchase tags and hunt and they do. I can't see harvesting animals for others in need, it is not the way our system is set up or ever has been so it is hard to fathom doing so.
Post by: Special T on November 05, 2010, 09:23:25 AM
Post by: tlbradford on November 05, 2010, 09:26:51 AM
Coastal Hunter - just to reiterate this, since it has been said many times, we are angry at the tribal policies that allow overharvest, non-cooperation with our WDFW Dept in managing herds, blatant abuse of hunting rights by certain tribal members, and lack of prosecution for tribes that actually break laws. We are not hateful of Indians, are hateful of policies that allow our fish and game to be raped.
Speaking for myself, there are some members that I can't stand. Specifically Whitefoot. This is not because he is Indian, it is because he pisses on our heads and tries to convince us that it is raining. We are told that he hunts for meat, but we see several trophy racks at Sportsman's shows with his name on it.
So to all of you involved in this discussion, make sure you are directing your anger in the proper direction and keep it respectful.
Thanks,
Travis
Post by: Coastal_native on November 05, 2010, 09:28:30 AM
I've read the article and it is well written...In my opinion that heard is not being coomananged as it should be, or even really managed at all...I'm not here to rub anything in your faces, hopefully i've not said anything that makes you think that. I'm here because I like hunting, I want the hunting tradition to continue to be possible, and I live in Washington.
rem
I'm not sure how to respond, I don't think you understood my post. We manage our heards well, we have excellent bull/cow ratios within the boundaries of our reservation, we have good bull age composition (I never have trouble finding a mature bull), we have low calf survival for some reason, another reason why we try not to shoot cows (probably because we have a serious black bear infestation), and our heards are not on the decline. Selecting mature bulls in our area is good management, and they are abundant.
Post by: Coastal_native on November 05, 2010, 09:39:04 AM
I think my mistake was trying to project a clean tribal hunting image accros the board in a thread that was aimed at discussing one situation in which people are of the opinion that a tribe is guilty of mismanagement in a specific area.
The broader argument that tribes mismanage all together should probably be discussed somewhere else.
Post by: remington300mag on November 05, 2010, 09:40:53 AM
Would it be better to go out on your land and shoot 4 mature big 6x6 bulls......or go out and kill one mature 6x6....and harvest 3 bulls that are considered to be management bulls?!?! IE: rag horns, 6x5,5x5,4x5...and so on?!?! these bulls are genetically inferior....harvesting them would only make your trophy potential greater! I too understand if you have a large calf mortality rate that you would not want to harvest cows.... but this is not so much the case in the Colokum....I also understand that the Colokum herd is not the same as yours.... What you do need to understand though is this....not only are the Yakima's up in the Colokum shooting every branched bull they can see from the road, but they are also shooting them off of game reserves, feed lots, winter grounds, public high ways......
And just to hit on what Travis said, I do greatly appreciate the conversation....it is nice to get some insight from a tribesman that seems to care about the herds.....Oh, and if you need some help culling some of the bears....just let me know!!! LOL :tup:
Post by: 6x6rack on November 05, 2010, 09:48:48 AM
Quote
I'm a native american from the westside and I've had the opportunity to work for my tribes wildlife management dept as well as assisting some of the other tribes and WDFW with big game projects.
I think Coastal is more than qualified to answer a simple yes or no question after reading Colockums report, which is scientifically supported and even more indepth than some WDFW studies. He obviously works with more than one tribe on wildlife related issues. Says he cared deeply about the herds and their health.
Again, Yes or no from and someone participating in Indian Wildlife. Should the Yakima tribe be killing all the big bulls out of the Colockum herd?
Post by: TikkaT3-270Shortmag on November 05, 2010, 09:54:10 AM
Post by: Coastal_native on November 05, 2010, 09:55:30 AM
Lowe,
We are issued tags...only one at a time, unless using the DH tag, then we can have at most 2 tags on our person. We report our harvest to the Northwest Indian Fisheries commission along with the other tribes around here, they total it by GMU and share it with the state (without disclosing which tribes are harvesting in which GMU though, i think that has to do with bad blood between the state/tribes...we don't want the state to find out we're not actually harvesting animals in a certain GMU for fear they will play the "if you don't use it you lose it" card). We also have annual WDFW/Tribal technical meetings where we discuss research projects and who has the funding to cover population monitoring in certain GMU's.
Post by: Coastal_native on November 05, 2010, 09:58:29 AM
No...no one should be killing "all" the bulls out of the Colockum heard. I didn't make that clear in my response, sorry.
Post by: 6x6rack on November 05, 2010, 10:07:31 AM
So given that answer, which is the right one, I have another question.
As someone who participates in Tribal Game Management, if you were to write a letter to the Yakima Tribe encouraging them to begin participating in rebuilding the Colockum herd and participate with non tribal hunters in game management what would it say. I'd like to hear specifics.
Post by: Lowedog on November 05, 2010, 10:12:39 AM
Understandable to those who wouldn't hunt like I do...but like I said, i only really trophy hunt for myself, the animals i harvest for others I wouldn't necessarily consider trophy animals...just opportunistically.
Lowe,
We are issued tags...only one at a time, unless using the DH tag, then we can have at most 2 tags on our person. We report our harvest to the Northwest Indian Fisheries commission along with the other tribes around here, they total it by GMU and share it with the state (without disclosing which tribes are harvesting in which GMU though, i think that has to do with bad blood between the state/tribes...we don't want the state to find out we're not actually harvesting animals in a certain GMU for fear they will play the "if you don't use it you lose it" card). We also have annual WDFW/Tribal technical meetings where we discuss research projects and who has the funding to cover population monitoring in certain GMU's.
Thanks CN. I appreciate your contribution to this subject. I think it says a lot about you that you have maintained a calm level attitude in your responses here when I could see someone in your position becoming defensive and combative. Thank you for that!
Post by: Coastal_native on November 05, 2010, 10:22:50 AM
Not to sound like a chicken*&%! , but I think I'll tread lightly here, I am, as I've said, distant to the situation. First...I think the they would have to be convinced there is currently a problem...and either they don't know there is, or they honestly don't believe there is. So, you would probably have to convince them that it would be beneficial to participate in a comanagement strategy...so that everyone can harvest big bulls without resentment.
I think sensativity awareness might be another thing I would address, to promote good PR for the tribes...Don't put yourself in a situation where you are causing resentment, by harvesting 6 trophy bulls...in one area...in one season. Wealthy people harvest 6 trophy bulls a year and probably don't even eat all the meat, they just don't do it in one area...I am refering to people that can afford quality tags in multiple states.
Those are some of the thoughts I have...
Post by: b23 on November 05, 2010, 10:28:35 AM
Maybe you can help me understand something I have always wanted an answer to.
I have always been lead to believe Native Americans are spiritual and in touch with the heart beat of mother earth and all her wonderful animals. That they only took what they needed to survive. Never killed in vain and would only take a proud, prestigious, trophy animal in a fashion that showed GREAT respect to that animal. That the "style" of the hunt and the death of said animal would be spiritual and have great meaning.
My question is this. If native american indians wish to lay claim to ANY of these animals for the sake of "Culture" why aren't any of you hunting these animals in a "Cultural" manner that is "Native" to your people? Because all I ever see is modern times machinery and weaponry and it appears, atleast to me, these animals are being taken simply because you can. There, IMO, seems to be nothing "spiritual" about it.
Not trying to ruffle your feathers, no pun intended, but I would truely like to understand this much better than I obviously do.
Post by: tlbradford on November 05, 2010, 11:05:03 AM
Coastal Native
Maybe you can help me understand something I have always wanted an answer to.
I have always been lead to believe Native Americans are spiritual and in touch with the heart beat of mother earth and all her wonderful animals. That they only took what they needed to survive. Never killed in vain and would only take a proud, prestigious, trophy animal in a fashion that showed GREAT respect to that animal. That the "style" of the hunt and the death of said animal would be spiritual and have great meaning.
My question is this. If native american indians wish to lay claim to ANY of these animals for the sake of "Culture" why aren't any of you hunting these animals in a "Cultural" manner that is "Native" to your people? Because all I ever see is modern times machinery and weaponry and it appears, atleast to me, these animals are being taken simply because you can. There, IMO, seems to be nothing "spiritual" about it.
Not trying to ruffle your feathers, no pun intended, but I would truely like to understand this much better than I obviously do.
This was already answered in a previous post. I don't think you understand Indian philosophy very well. I pray before every meal with my family and thank God for providing the food I am about to eat. That is a pretty simplified way of looking at it, but it is a fair comparison. Running a herd of buffalo off a cliff was effective in obtaining meat for sustenance back in the day. They were thankful for the food, but this it was a means to an end. Not every kill has to be for a spritual ceremony.
Post by: 6x6rack on November 05, 2010, 11:15:39 AM
I think you should go for it. Do some research, get some facts, and put together an open letter that you post here on the site that encourages The Yakimas to begin hunting the Colockum herd in a way that contributes to it's stability and success. You are uniquely suited as a Tribal member, someone involved in Tribal game management, who has an obvious ability to apply some common sence and rational thinking to a charged issue. You are also the first Indian with such credentials who has had the Balls to state the obvious... the Yakimas shouldn't be killing all the big bulls from the colockum herd given their current state. I applaud you for having a set, and caring about the elk enough to say it like it is.
So how about it, how about starting some progressive forward momentum on this issue. There are alot of people following this thread, many very passionate, some pissed, some disgusted but mostly those things because they care. How about if we turn the corner here and see if we can be the start of getting this fixed?
So hell, swallow hard, put the pen to paper and lets see what an Indian who "get's it" and cares would say to a group of Indians who apparently don't.
Post by: b23 on November 05, 2010, 11:35:36 AM
So taking that into account. I'll ask the same question but with a more narrowed scope. Why aren't these animals that are killed in the name of native american culture, taken in a manner more representative to traditional native american indian hunting?
You are absolutely correct. I don't understand indian philosophy very well at all which is why I'm asking this question.
Post by: tlbradford on November 05, 2010, 01:32:10 PM
Post by: runamuk on November 05, 2010, 01:57:33 PM
Coastal Native
Maybe you can help me understand something I have always wanted an answer to.
I have always been lead to believe Native Americans are spiritual and in touch with the heart beat of mother earth and all her wonderful animals. That they only took what they needed to survive. Never killed in vain and would only take a proud, prestigious, trophy animal in a fashion that showed GREAT respect to that animal. That the "style" of the hunt and the death of said animal would be spiritual and have great meaning.
My question is this. If native american indians wish to lay claim to ANY of these animals for the sake of "Culture" why aren't any of you hunting these animals in a "Cultural" manner that is "Native" to your people? Because all I ever see is modern times machinery and weaponry and it appears, atleast to me, these animals are being taken simply because you can. There, IMO, seems to be nothing "spiritual" about it.
Not trying to ruffle your feathers, no pun intended, but I would truely like to understand this much better than I obviously do.
I'm not really native.....well I am but records were burned......anyway the entire process of hunting for me is far more spiritual than any church service or religious belief....there is no way to prove ones spiritual connection through facts and figures....I use a rifle I cant pull a bow ...and still I see the entire thing as way more than just killing an animal since I haven't killed one yet thats not even in my own equation.....its also why I quit posting about my own hunts because they are all far too personal and not something I care to be judged on.
sorry this just sort of struck me ....
Post by: Coastal_native on November 05, 2010, 07:36:15 PM
I'm not sure it matters at this point, but I at least owe you a response to your last question. Some of our traditional/historical methods of hunting would probably be considered inhumane and would only give enviro groups more ammunition to use against hunters. IMO, the cultural aspect of hunting that remains for tribal members is that historically we were always able to hunt...unrestricted...when we wanted to, whether it be for want/or need. Obviously that isn't possible anymore, so we've incorporated some modern management practices (bag limits and seasons). Also, Elk has always been a traditional food for us, and since we have the ability to retain that part of our culture...it makes it that much better. So in summary, culturally we can still go to the forest when we want and/or need to and salvage a piece of our culture (being able to eat a traditional food), as long as we do it within our regulations. Trophy hunting is not a real big part of our culture and it is something that has evolved as we've taken on a Eurocentric way of life...but in some cases it is the best management decision.
6x6rack,
that is a great proposal, but I would definitely need to do my research before I put my reputation at risk doing something like that. Also, thank you for the vote of confidence concerning my credentials, but let me clarify... I've worked for our dept of Natural Resources for the last 6 years which started immediately after I graduated from college. For the first four years I worked for the wildlife dept working with black bear and elk. I had the opportunity to help out on a few other WDFW/tribal coops. I've since took a different position within our DNR, but continue to help out on our wildlife projets. I have aspirations of someday becoming the natural resource director or hunting policy spokesperson (if the position gets created). So, if I gave you the impression that I was a renown game manager, I apologize. What gives me a unique perspective is that my father was nonindian and my mother is indian. I have always been in the middle of the tribal hunting dispute, even amongst my friends and family, but I have never picked a side. IMO, there are no sides. We are teamates in a competition where winning means we will always be able to hunt, however you have to be able to differentiate between your teamates and your opponents. I know it might not seem like it all the time, but I truly believe that tribes are not your real opponents.
Post by: BAR C3 on November 05, 2010, 08:06:12 PM
Post by: monster_bull on November 05, 2010, 08:12:26 PM
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
If this is true then why do so many of you pass on opportunities to harvest cows or lesser bulls to kill trophy size bulls?Answer to this
question.. i do shoot cows. and i do shoot bulls. why does the white man put in for buck tags? or for bull tags? same resason i shoot bulls.
Post by: goosegetter79 on November 05, 2010, 08:23:22 PM
Whats goin on Costal Native?
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
If this is true then why do so many of you pass on opportunities to harvest cows or lesser bulls to kill trophy size bulls?Answer to this
question.. i do shoot cows. and i do shoot bulls. why does the white man put in for buck tags? or for bull tags? same resason i shoot bulls.
Us "white men" only get to kill one a year not multiple deer or elk so why not put in for that shot at getting a decent animal.
Post by: Coastal_native on November 05, 2010, 08:29:37 PM
did you see 6x6racks post about wanting me to write something addressing the situation on this thread...I think you'd be better suited to do that, I don't know &%$# about whats going on over there. I started posting because the comments started to strike a nerve. All I intended to do is testify to the tribal situation on the westside.
Lets here about it from your perspective...be as diplomatic and honest as possible.
What is your tribes position on this...Is it just a few guys giving the tribe a bad rep...Are you guys just re-acting to a season the state sets in your traditional area like people commented on...Do you guys feud with WDFW like other tribes.
Obviously nobody likes the fact that we harvest multiple branched bulls in a season...but I've already explained that from our perspective.
I had to look at a map to see where the hell the colockum even was...I've driven through there, but I didn't know it was elk country.
Post by: monster_bull on November 05, 2010, 08:46:03 PM
Post by: Coastal_native on November 05, 2010, 08:57:58 PM
Post by: colockumelk on November 05, 2010, 09:02:58 PM
ya alot of elk up there. ya there are some tribal members giving us a bad name up there. i tell them the same old stuff but its never enough. they just want us to quit hunting up there. but that was my land before they kicked us off. but we still retain the hunting rights. but there augment is that they brought the elk in there and all of this. so i do what i do. i hunt, i kill. i eat, i enjoy. u know how is.
You are so dense. When have I EVER said that you should quite hunting? This herd is in need of desperate help. All of the statistics and research says so. All any of us have asked is that the Yakamas practise some conservation and some responsible game managment and limit its members to one bull a year. You know you CAN eat cows. Bulls arent the only things you can eat. We are all Americans. I am just as Native as you are. Would it hurt the Yakamas nation to submit harvest reports? What harm could that do. (I think we both know the answer to that question) I will pay you $10,000 if you can come up with ONE single instance where the Yakama nation has contributed ANYTHING positive to the Colockum elk herd.
All we are asking is that you meet us half way in helping this herd out. After all the treaty did say "in common with" right? That means equal right? Well we have sacrificed and imposed alot stiffer regulations to try and help this herd out. And what does the Yakamas do? You instead kill more and more branch bulls every year. Whitefoot kills 6 and you kill4 bulls a year there. You metnioned this year you "Cut back" and only killed four in there. Would it have hurt you to shoot one nice bull for your wall and then shoot some cows? It would be nice if your tribe actually contributed to wildlife managment.
Again we're not talking about taking away rights. We're just asking for help in saving an elk herd. If your people really were the original conservationists I HIGHLY doubt they would look favorably upon the actions of your tribe in regards to the Colockum elk herd. FYI here's a lsit of what we've given up in the name of conservation.
In the past Ten years we've lost
Branch Bull permits have been reduce by 10x
There is not Muzzle Loader General season
Archers must shoot spikes only. No cows.
There are not any cow permits for hunters.
True Spike Only
So what has your tribe done to help out?
Post by: colockumelk on November 05, 2010, 09:06:48 PM
Do you realize that you just let more yakamas now where the clockim is? so before you do that agin better think twice. instead of a hand full of inidans now there a twice as many. good going.
i spend so much time in the colokum you dont even now. i bet i see more elk then you ever had you whole life. i have seen so many bulls this year. And remington300mag how many bulls have you shot. oh thats right u can only shoot spikes. lol. i work for my elk i hunt for big bulls. i am saying that you dont want all the natives up here. but keep it up 300winmag i just might bring the rez and then will see who is talking crap.
ok i will bring all the natives up to the Colokum. fine with me.. too bad for you guys and your elk heard. :hello:
i dont blame them because i get to shoot bulls bucks cows does cougars all kinds of *censored*. hahah. and you just get to kill little baby true spikes. lol. have fun with that big guy :chuckle: . coastal native i am coming over to that thread.
Post by: bobcat on November 05, 2010, 09:08:26 PM
Post by: monster_bull on November 05, 2010, 09:11:54 PM
Post by: monster_bull on November 05, 2010, 09:15:17 PM
Post by: bobcat on November 05, 2010, 09:16:22 PM
our elk my elk who cares. you mad i am mad. this is how it was with the indians and the whites back in the day. white guy always claiming every living thing they can put there hands on. And yes that is how i feel when you guys talk crap. so i will rub it in your face. so go cry about it. and colokum elk do you even have a real life? just wondering. and gess what i will shoot what i want to because ITS my right! remember that. ITS MY RIGHT.
Would you hunt there if you had to walk 5 miles to get to the elk?
Post by: monster_bull on November 05, 2010, 09:17:02 PM
Post by: remington300mag on November 05, 2010, 09:17:19 PM
our elk my elk who cares. you mad i am mad. this is how it was with the indians and the whites back in the day. white guy always claiming every living thing they can put there hands on. And yes that is how i feel when you guys talk crap. so i will rub it in your face. so go cry about it. and colokum elk do you even have a real life? just wondering. and gess what i will shoot what i want to because ITS my right! remember that. ITS MY RIGHT.
And he is back....to prove his intelligence one more time......
Did anyone else noticed tonight that he mentioned that he has shot cows this year too.....so with 4 admitted bulls, and god knows how many cows...I wonder what the true number of elk this one Yakima Indian has taken out of the Colokum this year?!?!?
Notice too that it struck a nerve with him about closing roads down.....
Post by: Coastal_native on November 05, 2010, 09:19:07 PM
I understand what you are trying to say, but I know monster bull has a stance somewhere amidst all his frustration. I can go back through this thread and find some comments that are downright offensive and have no place in this forum. That being said...monster and I respond to the comments differently and it probably has a lot to do with the fact that its his backyard and not mine.
Post by: monster_bull on November 05, 2010, 09:19:38 PM
Post by: ser300wsm on November 05, 2010, 09:19:43 PM
Post by: monster_bull on November 05, 2010, 09:22:17 PM
Post by: colockumelk on November 05, 2010, 09:22:39 PM
Oh yeah I notice how you couldn't come up with one positive thing that your tribe has done. I think you revert to insults because you feel threatened. I havn't once called you names or insulted you. I have not once blamed the Colockum situation solely on your tribe. Yet when I ask you legitimate questions you revert to insults. Which leads me to believe that you don't have any good points to argue. And please answer me this because no one will. WHY DO YOU feel that the past has ANYTHING to do with saving the Colockum Elk herd? Because i'm trying to connect the dots on your ONLY argument and I can't quite do it. So help me out on that one will you.
Post by: colockumelk on November 05, 2010, 09:29:10 PM
Usually when I bring up the fact or pose the question what is so horrible about the Yakamas doing harvest reports. I get called names and the question never gets answered. Any time I bring up imposing some responsible regulations such as one bull and one cow per Yakama in the Colockum (they can still shoot more elk in the Yakima herd or on their res) in order to help out the herd I get called names and of course how their people were treated 150 years ago. I honestly can't make the connection between the past and responsible ethical managment.
There were two other Yakamas on here for awhile named Rezboy and Yak-INDN who I really like debating with. They were respectfull and actually answered the questions. But I think they got sick of other peoples comments on here and moved off. So I thank you coastal for being a good level headed guy. I hope no one calls you any names on here.
Post by: monster_bull on November 05, 2010, 09:39:34 PM
Post by: 270Shooter on November 05, 2010, 09:41:58 PM
the Yakama tribe wont help our work together with you bashing them every other thread. i will hunt and kill what i want and when i want it. so go cry about it. the Yakamas are a good strong tribe. thats all i am gonna say. i dont need to report any thing i kill. all you guys will do is take it and try to use it aginst us. you dont need to know what i do or what i kill.WTF is your problem?
Post by: Coastal_native on November 05, 2010, 09:42:06 PM
Colockum thanks for the reference material...I'll enjoy it.
Post by: monster_bull on November 05, 2010, 09:47:00 PM
Post by: bobcat on November 05, 2010, 09:49:37 PM
Post by: Coastal_native on November 05, 2010, 09:55:34 PM
I agree with you on this, our tribe has a problem giving information to the WDFW directly because we fear they will try to use it against us...they've done it in the past. Luckily we have the northwest indian fisheries commision. They do all the data sharing with the state for the tribes over here...they just don't let the state know which tribe the data is coming from. That's not important for their purposes anyway.
Post by: monster_bull on November 05, 2010, 09:56:27 PM
Post by: bobcat on November 05, 2010, 09:57:34 PM
Post by: mebco09 on November 05, 2010, 10:00:48 PM
What Monster_Bull wrote to Colockum just sent me through the roof so I thought I would chime in:
Colockum- First and foremost, thanks for what you have done and are doing for our country. Men like you are what allows us all to live as free men.
Your research and insights have influenced many on this site and many others who might be able to make a difference. Nuff Said.
Post by: runamuk on November 05, 2010, 10:02:38 PM
You were alive 150 years ago ???
I was thinking the same thing.... :dunno:
I did nothing to you...my parents and grand parents did nothing to yours...why are you picking a scab that is over 150 years old? it doesn't make sense or is it simply easier to blame the white guy and not take any responsibility for your own life? I know lots of people like this it is societies fault, the man keeping them down, whatever instead of taking some responsibility for a situation and working to make it a better place for our future generations.
Post by: monster_bull on November 05, 2010, 10:03:30 PM
Bobcat i am gonna go shoot a true spike in ur name this weekend. :IBCOOL: just to show you i can.
Ya, keep up the good work Colokum elk. but all *censored* talking aside. thanks for fighting for the USA.
Post by: bobcat on November 05, 2010, 10:10:26 PM
Post by: remington300mag on November 05, 2010, 10:11:00 PM
Tell the truth Monster Bull......You and your people are pretty damn lucky.....You were a defeated race....tell me any other time in history that a defeated race has been given so much?!?!? Truth is, you are extremely lucky to have what you have....Count your blessings Monster Bull.....Just like 150 years ago it can all be taken away in a heart beat! There will be a day when you will wish that you had listened a little more and tried to help the cause....not hinder it!
Post by: Coastal_native on November 05, 2010, 10:17:06 PM
Is that really what you guys think? Or am i misinterpreting what you're saying.
Post by: bobcat on November 05, 2010, 10:20:03 PM
Post by: remington300mag on November 05, 2010, 10:24:50 PM
I know its getting pretty deep in here... but just to add some sensitivity awareness to the whole "its been 150 years, get over it already" argument...yes, the treaties were signed roughly 150 years ago, but some of the atrocities on native people lasted late into the 1900's including the sterilization of Native American women by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. lets not down play the struggles of Indian people and the "decimation" of a proud race, especially since decimation is one of the topics of discussion... Why should we "get over" something that has left our culture in ruins.
Is that really what you guys think? Or am i misinterpreting what you're saying.
Change with the times or die on the vines!!! Again I will say.....Other than the Native Americans, when else in history has a conquered nation or a race of people been givin' so much???
Post by: 270Shooter on November 05, 2010, 10:32:16 PM
Post by: bobcat on November 05, 2010, 10:35:11 PM
I would pay big money to get a chance to hunt deer and elk on the yak rez. But don't think they dont hunt their on reservaion bobcat, I have seen them driving all over autanum ridge at night using spotlights to shoot elk and deer.
Honestly I didn't know if they hunted the reservation or not. Kind of wondered if they had wiped out all the game and that's why they have to go and hunt OUR elk on the Colockum. But from the sounds of it they do it just "because they can" and apparently to piss us "white guys" off.
Post by: Coastal_native on November 05, 2010, 10:35:23 PM
I'm not arguing that...I just think there's a better way to say what you're trying to say without being insensitive. I mean c'mon, I'm being honest...it was a pretty bad deal what happened to Native Americans and if we still want to grieve over it, just let us...don't tell us to get over it. My father died when I was a kid and I still grieve over it...it's perfectly normal to remember the past.
This is has nothing to do with hunting, if you want to use the difference in hunting between now and 150 years ago in an argument, I have no problem with that.
Am i being unreasonable right now?
Post by: bobcat on November 05, 2010, 10:37:19 PM
Post by: Coastal_native on November 05, 2010, 10:41:13 PM
Post by: remington300mag on November 05, 2010, 10:41:41 PM
Post by: remington300mag on November 05, 2010, 10:47:38 PM
And again, I'm not trying to get into a debate with you, but...we we're not "given" anything by our conquerers, we came to an agreement of peace in which we would retain an area that we already occupied and the right to hunt it...we already had those things...we were not given them.
My point being CN......you can not argue the fact that the tribes of North America could have been and would have been eradicated from the earth if they had not signed the treaties.....so in turn....YES, the white man did give you the land....the rights..... We could have taken it all....All other times where this occurred, the conquered party did not receive anything.....and were not allowed to keep anything!
Post by: tlbradford on November 05, 2010, 10:53:34 PM
Post by: Coastal_native on November 05, 2010, 10:53:38 PM
Good posts, no argument there and I am thankful that my people decided to sign treaties, but I'm not going to pretend that it was a generous offer by the US gov.
Post by: remington300mag on November 05, 2010, 10:58:34 PM
rem,
Good posts, no argument there and I am thankful that my people decided to sign treaties, but I'm not going to pretend that it was a generous offer by the US gov.
Nope, not generous at all!! The natives took it in the shorts!! They did end up better off than any other invaded nation....but it was still a bum deal! Now, fast forward to 2010..... That is the key, 2010!! Let's all work together and build our herds up....lets work together so that maybe, just maybe our kids kids get a chance at a monster bull elk in the state of Washington!
I also want to say this CN....since you have made your way onto this thread, I have honestly been given a little hope that maybe something can be done.....You really do bring a different perspective to things.....and much needed one at that!
Post by: Coastal_native on November 05, 2010, 10:58:45 PM
are there rules that we can reference about conduct on this forum? I'm curious about the criteria for being removed...I don't want to be removed yet, I still have a lot to say.
Post by: Coastal_native on November 05, 2010, 11:00:32 PM
you're misinterpreting what I'm saying, I meant...not a generous offer in the sense that the alternative was to die.
Post by: remington300mag on November 05, 2010, 11:05:45 PM
rem,
you're misinterpreting what I'm saying, I meant...not a generous offer in the sense that the alternative was to die.
No i get what your saying....I don't think you get that I am agreeing with you....I think it stinks what happened to the natives, in other words, it was a complete injustice! All I am saying is....you cant change the past....you can only hope to make the future better!
Post by: Coastal_native on November 05, 2010, 11:09:52 PM
I gotta get a life...I've been glued to this thread for three days now, I'm trying to respond to everything like I'm saving the world :). MF elk opener tomorrow, and I'm trying to help a buddy fill a tag with some of my "secret squirrel" info. Everybody needs an indian tracker :).
Hopefully we'll have pics of a successful hunt, it'll be his first bull.
Post by: shedcrazy on November 05, 2010, 11:25:23 PM
Agreed,Good luck
I gotta get a life...I've been glued to this thread for three days now, I'm trying to respond to everything like I'm saving the world :). MF elk opener tomorrow, and I'm trying to help a buddy fill a tag with some of my "secret squirrel" info. Everybody needs an indian tracker :).
Hopefully we'll have pics of a successful hunt, it'll be his first bull.
Post by: tlbradford on November 06, 2010, 12:04:11 AM
tlbradford,
are there rules that we can reference about conduct on this forum? I'm curious about the criteria for being removed...I don't want to be removed yet, I still have a lot to say.
You are doing great. I welcome your contributions. Monsterbull was doing nothing but trying to fan the flames of this arguement and turning it into race issues which it is not. This is a tough topic not to get heated about. He never contributed anything of worth to the site, and was clearly only hear to ask people where they were taking pictures of big animals and to incite division between Indians and non-Indians.
Post by: runamuk on November 06, 2010, 08:23:10 AM
Rem,
I'm not arguing that...I just think there's a better way to say what you're trying to say without being insensitive. I mean c'mon, I'm being honest...it was a pretty bad deal what happened to Native Americans and if we still want to grieve over it, just let us...don't tell us to get over it. My father died when I was a kid and I still grieve over it...it's perfectly normal to remember the past.
This is has nothing to do with hunting, if you want to use the difference in hunting between now and 150 years ago in an argument, I have no problem with that.
Am i being unreasonable right now?
And its a pretty bad deal how women were treated and still are all over the world....we can sit and stew and pick old scabs or we can stand up and walk forward :dunno:
and I am enjoying talking with you and reading your replies so please stick around...monster bull sounds much like whitefoot who would get all drunk and come into chat and try to restart the indian wars :bash: :bash:
The yakama tribe has other issues as well it isn't just wildlife....what happens in the realm of childrens services over there is pretty special....and juvenile offenders yeah...I take some issue with the tribe overall.....but that does not mean I think all yakama's (when did it start being spelled different) are to blame....
Post by: whiteeyes on November 06, 2010, 10:02:11 AM
There was a winter and I cant remember the year, but the State could not afford to buy and feed the herd hay and the little old Yakama Indian Lady that lived at the mouth of the Nanuem fed them her hay to sustain them all winter. I know that might not seem like a big deal or contribution, but I find that pretty cool.
Washing a window from only one side will still leave an unclear view, but it is a start to a clearer future. Peace!
Post by: colockumelk on November 06, 2010, 05:05:08 PM
Colockum pay up..... haha just kidding
There was a winter and I cant remember the year, but the State could not afford to buy and feed the herd hay and the little old Yakama Indian Lady that lived at the mouth of the Nanuem fed them her hay to sustain them all winter. I know that might not seem like a big deal or contribution, but I find that pretty cool.
Washing a window from only one side will still leave an unclear view, but it is a start to a clearer future. Peace!
whiteeyes do you accept checks. I promise I wont bounce it. :chuckle:
I meant the Yakama Government or wildlife agency. I didn't want to throw that blow out but I was trying to be as civil as possible with Monster Bull and may have stumbled. . But it gets aggrivating when someone claims that you have no life and when I'm trying to talk about the present and some managment and how the herd is hurting, he brings up 150 years ago and how he kills as many bulls as he can.
Post by: colockumelk on November 06, 2010, 05:15:18 PM
monterbull,
I agree with you on this, our tribe has a problem giving information to the WDFW directly because we fear they will try to use it against us...they've done it in the past. Luckily we have the northwest indian fisheries commision. They do all the data sharing with the state for the tribes over here...they just don't let the state know which tribe the data is coming from. That's not important for their purposes anyway.
What Monster Bull says is true. The Yakama's think that if they have to report harvests that they'll somehow not be allowed to hunt in the Colockum anymore. But if they are so confident that the treaty or the rules can't be changed then why are they worried? The truth is they are worried that the truth will come out and they wont be able to look like the good stewards towards conservation they pretend to be.
In reality if they were made to divulge harvest reports Americans would probably see a reduction in branch bull permits since the WDFW or our state don't have the balls to do whats right. And pressure them to clean up their act in the Colockum.
And just so you CN it's not like the Colockum is the only Primary Managment Unit of their reservation they hunt. There is 4 PMU's in the Yakima Elk herd that they hunt as well. And they give a very bad name to Indians all over the state when they go up in the winter at the feeding stations and harvest bulls in plain view of the public. In fact because of the Yakama's they have closed to feeding sites to the public to help keep the elk safe. They have gated an entire GMU during the winter to the public to keep the Yakamas out of the areas Prime Mule Deer wintering grounds because they were shooting all the bucks they could find. (Although to be fair there was a fair amount of poachers in the mud lake area as well. So in that case it wasn't JUST them) Somehow though they are still allowed to get keys to the gates. This isn't some rumors I have heard these are actual things that the WDFW has had to do to protect elk and deer herds in the area. Because despite what Monster Bull claims, THEY ARE having an effect on our herds.
Hopefully we'll have pics of a successful hunt, it'll be his first bull.
oooh pics. You better post some pics up. We LOVE elk pics. Seriously though good luck. Its always pretty cool guiding someone to their first elk. Hope you guys score.
Post by: 6x6rack on November 07, 2010, 10:00:43 AM
First, I have yet to see a Native American on this thread step up and say "hey, obviously there is a problem, how can I help" It's been one empty, lame excuse after another.
Second, Why when a white person speaks their mind it is offensive, but rubbing poaching in our face is not? There is no need to chase the tail of "EQUAL" again and that taking all bulls is not an "EQUAL" sharing of the resource. That battle has been fought and won, despite somes un-willingness to apply this kindergarden level logic. (lets take 10 little pieces of candy, and 5 great big pieces of candy and put it in front of kindergardners. Lets give the 10 little ones to Johny and the 5 big ones to Sally. First Johnny is going to complain that Sally got all the big ones, then at recess Sally is going to say NEENER, NEENER, NEENER...I got all the big ones" Why...because even a knidergardner can see the resource was not divided "EQUALLY" and both parties damn well know it.
Third, Every time someone steps in and says, "hey, we are sick of this, lets find a way to get something done" An Indian jumps in with ...No, that wont work, Hey you will loose, Bad idea, that was already decieded etc, etc. I think they are wrong, and truly believe racial or Class discrimination CAN NOT be applied where public funds are being used to manage a public resource on public property. I do think they can on the REZ, but NO WAY on public property. Members of any other Nation must abide by the laws of our land. A Frenchman, German, Italian etc cant kill three bulls just because they are of a different Nationality, Neither can an Indian. It is poaching if it is on public property and We CAN beat them.
Fourth, It is glaringly obvious Tribes are not going to step up and be part of the solution, they like it the way it is (and what poor, poor abused Indian wouldn't love getting paid Tens of thousands of dollars a year to break the law) In Hood Canal a couple years ago, two tribal members held a white hunter at GUNPOINT for two hours, on PUBLIC property because they thought he had poached an elk...he hadn't, he was perfectly legal). I think every time we see a non tagged elk we stop the vehicle, hold the suspects if they are unable to produce a WDFW tag until the game warden shows up to make sure it hasn't been poached. Yes it will cause massive uproar...but that is exactly what we need right now. Once this gets into the media spotlight, and the massive poaching problem by the tribes becomes public,THE TRIBES PUBLIC PERCEPTION WILL BE THAT OF AN ABUSIVE HUSBAND...SUPPOSED TO BE PROTECTING THE SACRED FAMILY, BUT NOTHING MORE THAN A COWARDLY ABUSER BEHIND CLOSED DOORS......at that moment we start a campaign for everyone who has been offended by the tribes careless and wreckless abuse of the elk herds to boycot all things Indian. WDFW will have to address the problem before someone gets killed, and the indians will have to come to the table and agree to simply be part of the solution or watch their Casinos be boycotted. I will definately stand at the entrance to the REZ with boycott signs, and I bet a hundred thousand other sportsmen will as well.
So, next time I am in the Colockum you may read about me in the paper. I am going to hold the first person who cant produce a WDFW tag for an elk in their possession until WDFW arrives to document the incident and make sure the animal wasn't paoched. This will give me legal documentation to prove that someone was able to, based solely on RACE, get away with poaching an elk on public property, maintained by government management, and supported with public funds. Case open... WE CAN win this one. I dont see a Judge in the US who will open up the door for Racial and Class discrimination on public property, managed by public employees using public funds. WORST case I see the ruling being they can kill all they want on the REZ, are entitled to half the resource, but must obey government laws when on government property.
Post by: 3dsheetmetal on November 07, 2010, 10:18:22 AM
I was just reading and re-reading this thread and some things struck me that are worth a second look.Well said your exactly right on.I believe we can win we just need to get organized and quit talking about what were going to do and just do it.I haven't been to an injun casino for about 6 years now, even missed last years christmas party cause it was at a casino.Have to start somewhere. :tup:
First, I have yet to see a Native American on this thread step up and say "hey, obviously there is a problem, how can I help" It's been one empty, lame excuse after another.
Second, Why when a white person speaks their mind it is offensive, but rubbing poaching in our face is not? There is no need to chase the tail of "EQUAL" again and that taking all bulls is not an "EQUAL" sharing of the resource. That battle has been fought and won, despite somes un-willingness to apply this kindergarden level logic. (lets take 10 little pieces of candy, and 5 great big pieces of candy and put it in front of kindergardners. Lets give the 10 little ones to Johny and the 5 big ones to Sally. First Johnny is going to complain that Sally got all the big ones, then at recess Sally is going to say NEENER, NEENER, NEENER...I got all the big ones" Why...because even a knidergardner can see the resource was not divided "EQUALLY" and both parties damn well know it.
Third, Every time someone steps in and says, "hey, we are sick of this, lets find a way to get something done" An Indian jumps in with ...No, that wont work, Hey you will loose, Bad idea, that was already decieded etc, etc. I think they are wrong, and truly believe racial or Class discrimination CAN NOT be applied where public funds are being used to manage a public resource on public property. I do think they can on the REZ, but NO WAY on public property. Members of any other Nation must abide by the laws of our land. A Frenchman, German, Italian etc cant kill three bulls just because they are of a different Nationality, Neither can an Indian. It is poaching if it is on public property and We CAN beat them.
Fourth, It is glaringly obvious Tribes are not going to step up and be part of the solution, they like it the way it is (and what poor, poor abused Indian wouldn't love getting paid Tens of thousands of dollars a year to break the law) In Hood Canal a couple years ago, two tribal members held a white hunter at GUNPOINT for two hours, on PUBLIC property because they thought he had poached an elk...he hadn't, he was perfectly legal). I think every time we see a non tagged elk we stop the vehicle, hold the suspects if they are unable to produce a WDFW tag until the game warden shows up to make sure it hasn't been poached. Yes it will cause massive uproar...but that is exactly what we need right now. Once this gets into the media spotlight, and the massive poaching problem by the tribes becomes public,THE TRIBES PUBLIC PERCEPTION WILL BE THAT OF AN ABUSIVE HUSBAND...SUPPOSED TO BE PROTECTING THE SACRED FAMILY, BUT NOTHING MORE THAN A COWARDLY ABUSER BEHIND CLOSED DOORS......at that moment we start a campaign for everyone who has been offended by the tribes careless and wreckless abuse of the elk herds to boycot all things Indian. WDFW will have to address the problem before someone gets killed, and the indians will have to come to the table and agree to simply be part of the solution or watch their Casinos be boycotted. I will definately stand at the entrance to the REZ with boycott signs, and I bet a hundred thousand other sportsmen will as well.
So, next time I am in the Colockum you may read about me in the paper. I am going to hold the first person who cant produce a WDFW tag for an elk in their possession until WDFW arrives to document the incident and make sure the animal wasn't paoched. This will give me legal documentation to prove that someone was able to, based solely on RACE, get away with poaching an elk on public property, maintained by government management, and supported with public funds. Case open... WE CAN win this one. I dont see a Judge in the US who will open up the door for Racial and Class discrimination on public property, managed by public employees using public funds. WORST case I see the ruling being they can kill all they want on the REZ, are entitled to half the resource, but must obey government laws when on government property.
Post by: Special T on November 07, 2010, 12:08:32 PM
I know a guy that has a farm off Lower green canyon Rd.... His Neighbor was out in the field ans saw a truck at his place... The truck with 2 guys drove away as he pulled up to his house, and the place had been robbed.... 2 weeks later he sees this same truck casing the area.. So he blocks the road, and pulls his shot gun on these 2 meat-sticks that had robbed his place... He told them to give him the drivers license, and then the guy Took off... So the farmer calls the sheriff so that they can catch the robbers... The farmer got arrested and tossed in the pokie for "Stealing" The mans drivers lic.. :twocents: So if you want to play Cowboy and Indian with the Yakimas that's your business... If I were you I'd talk to a cop and or a Lawyer and put him on a retainer... If you don't Think the Yakimas wouldn't hire a lawyer to protect their guy, and Monkey Stomp your :ass: you need to do some more thinking... I'm not sold on the whole EYES IN THE WOODS program but that is a lot safer way to do something and protect your :ass: instead of going Vigilante... If Vigilante Justice is what you seek, then you best not post anything about it and have a better Attouny on retainer With $$$ dedicated to saving your Bacon. :twocents:
Post by: 6x6rack on November 07, 2010, 01:42:04 PM
An Old man taught me many years ago that people try to influence action one of two ways. Leadership, and Fear.
Fear works like this, If you can make someone cower at the threat of bad, horrible things befalling them you can convince most to subject themselves to your way of thinking, or at least supress their own opinions, actions or words. How many times did Martin Luther King go to jail?
Leadership works differently. It surrounds itself with people who understand they have nothing to fear but fear its-self. What do I have to be afraid of exactly... stopping someone I believe is poaching and turning them in? Defending myself if they pull a gun on me or try to run me over? There are posts here where whites have turned in whites for poaching...we should cower because its an Indian? I believe they call that discrimination.
Post by: 6x6rack on November 07, 2010, 02:50:38 PM
Recieved your PM and last thread. I agree that we can't group all Indians together without the risk of offending some. I see guys like Coastal who appear to really care about the issue, and I have met many more just like him. In fact I would say they far out-number the bad apples. As I have said several times, I apolagize if they are offended, and regarding this issue my problem is with the Yaks, although I have seen many Tribes abuse the fish and game resources of our State.
It is unfortunate that the Boldt decision groups them all together, giving them as a group collective rights, and as such, collective responsibility. There is probably no way to single out the Yakima Tribe in a legal action. Something to look into though. Besides. as many have said it would utimately become a Federal issue and affect them all equally. In the End, My guess is that the States or Federal Government would not be allowed to practice discrimination based on race or class while enforcing any State or Federal laws on public lands, or in regards to any activity that is publicly managed or funded.
If they did find that Indians could be treated differently just because they are indians, we would have the mother of all back-up plans (thats why we would win in the first round) as we could petition under Constitutional law, and demand all Tribal Federal funding be stopped. Nothing they can do, as the first judge would have allowed special treatment based on race or class...which Constitunally can't be Federally funded or supported. They get special treatment based on race, they dont get money...they get no special treatment based on race or class and they get the money, but they get to hunt just like you and I, same rules, regulations, seasons and accountability when they are on public lands.
It would be too bad that just because they cant figure out some collective ways to participate in Statewide game management, all the tribes suffer in reputation and ultimately all will loose if this went to Federal court. Times have changed in the last 30 years, especially regarding Federal law as it applies to discrimination and public funds. I think we would win this round, one way or another.
Post by: Coastal_native on November 07, 2010, 04:11:07 PM
Post by: colockumelk on November 07, 2010, 04:23:50 PM
I find it interesting that Yakamas on here cry about their treaty like its some sort of constitution and how their rights can't be taken away but when you bring this article up they never have a response. So if that treaty is SO important I'd like to see the entire thing enforced. Especially Article 9. Which says:
ARTICLE 9.
The said confederated tribes and bands of Indians desire to exclude from their reservation the use of ardent spirits, and to prevent their people from drinking the same, and, therefore, it is provided that any Indian belonging to said confederated tribes and bands of Indians, who is guilty of bringing liquor into said reservation, or who drinks liquor, may have his or her annuities withheld from him or her for such time as the President may determine
That being said I think article 9 is unconstitutional as well because it descriminates upon race. If an Indian that is 21 years of age or older wants a beer he should legally be able to drink a beer. It would be nice if the YPD would start enforcing this. Or how about every Yakama that gets a DUI. Does he continue to receive his government money?
Its unfortunate that it has to come to this. If the other team would play nice and help out when it comes to managment or ethical hunting I don't think anyone would care. But I for one get sick and tired of reading about the Yakamas slaughtering bulls up in the Nile feeding station or at oak Creak feeding stations. Or how they put gates up at Mud Lake to keep the Yakamas out so the deer could winter in peace. Its too bad because my family used to drive up around Mud Lake in the winter and look at all the deer and elk. You want to talk about losing rights. Didn't I have the right to go look at elk and deer? Well now I cant because they put up gates to keep the Indians out. I used to be able to go to more than one feeding station to look at elk too but they had to close some down to public viewing because the Yakamas kept shooting bulls at them. For "ceremonial purposes" of course because God knows they can't eat cows apparantly.
BTW for some on here I am not racists. This isnt racism its the opposite. Its about ethical and responsible game managment and its about equal opportunity. Also the things I've mentioned are facts not some casual rumor I heard.
Post by: colockumelk on November 07, 2010, 04:36:10 PM
Also it IS discrimination based on race. Here's why. Each and every single tribe receives ALOT of federal money and grants as well as from the State. This is fine I have no problem with that. Each city in the US also receives that. BUT.... if the tribes are going to take Federal and State money then when they are off the reservation they should play by the same rules that we do. If a tribe is willing to stop taking Federal and State money/funds then they can do whatever they want. I think if the tribes want the money then they should play by the same rules that I have to play by. 6x6rack has a legitimate point when it comes to the funding.
Post by: mebco09 on November 07, 2010, 05:42:01 PM
A couple of questions when you get the chance-
When did the Boldt decision change to include anything other than fishing? It appears that the original ruling and the treaty was based on fishing only.
Has anyone looked into how this situation could be legally addressed? The RMEF has attorneys that do this kind of thing. I know they are a habitat based organization, but they also have people working on the wolf thing in the rockies, and that is not far off from this government sanctioned poaching.
What is the background about the Klikitat Meadows hunt? Is this the genesis of the yakimas hunting the colockum?
I have some thoughts to share, but wanted some clarification before I spouted off. Thanks
Post by: 6x6rack on November 07, 2010, 05:51:32 PM
Just two people on different sides of the coin looking at the same issue. I dont see anywhere where Tribes were given the right to ignore and circumvent State or Federal law while practicing their treaty rights. The two are seperate issues WHEN APPLIED TO OFF THE RESERVATION.
Lets assume I concede Tribes have rights to half the harvest ( I dont agree with this but lets give you a point as the last court ruling seemed to side with you), and as a soviergn nation within our Nation, tribes have the right to abide by their own law within the confines of that nation, in this case the Reservation.
Now, anything outside the boundaries of that nation, or Reservation, are subject to the laws of the United States of America and State of Washington. Regarding hunting on public, State, or Federal land there are strict rules in place that apply to everyone equally as Citizens or guests. The Tribes are breaking these rules and thus poaching when they do, as indians are equal to every other citizen when they are off the reservation. If Indians break the law outside the rez, they are subject to the same penalties you and I are. Since nowhere in any Treaty, or the Boldt decision, does it say, imply, or grant special priveledges outside the reservation, and since Indian arrests are not being made regarding game violations happening on public land off the reservation, one must conclude special privledges are currently being granted to a Class (Indians) that are not being granted to anyone else, based solely on their race. Constituanal law prohibits State or Federal funding to any such class. We will win this.
Post by: Coastal_native on November 07, 2010, 06:04:13 PM
I think most people on this thread have a legitimate point, but I also like to inerject from time to time. It's getting hard to keep up though, you guys write too much and have too many legimate points :) I like engaging 6x6rack, you can tell in his tone that he is pasionate about the topic and wants change...I wish he would have took me up on my fishing offer, we could have put all of this on the backburner and just had fun...and maybe his brush would have gotten just a little narrower as a result.
As for the funding, I'm not sure about the state, at least in our situation. The feds have given the tribes the ability to regulate hunting in their treaty ceded area. The feds have also given the state the responsibilty of regulating hunting within the state. These areas overlap in many places and thats where comanagement should be a priority. Obviously not all tribes are interested in comanagement. Maybe if the feds gave the state the authority to regulate tribal hunting in the treaty ceded area things would be different, but i'm sure thats realistic.
By the way, I saw your PM...we got skunked again, but did see some cows. We had the heard to ourselves for one day, but apparently someone else caught on to us. Not sure where the two branch bulls went, we might have not been able to see them in the trees.
Post by: Coastal_native on November 07, 2010, 06:07:33 PM
Very good points and logic. Although, I still don't think your interpretation is correct. We will all win this..."this" meening hunting for generation to come.
Post by: colockumelk on November 07, 2010, 06:25:43 PM
You make some legitimate points as well. which is what makes this debate so much fun. You keep it classy and when asked a question you answer it and give your opinion on it instead of deflecting it and calling names. I'm glad you don't agree 100% otherwise this thread would be boring. Youre doing pretty good. Just don't take stuff personally and do your best to win and we'll have fun. If someone random comes on and calls you a name just ignore it and only pay attention to the people who have serious points. That's what I do. Its also alright to say I'm getting pissed and then take a break and cruise the other threads. i do that from time to time especially when guys like MB are on here. Anyways I'm glad you found this site.
Post by: Special T on November 07, 2010, 06:38:39 PM
Post by: Coastal_native on November 07, 2010, 07:10:15 PM
i thought you might take a shot at me publically...however this elk season has 7 more days left and I'm determined. We're gonna change it up and head for the high country, maybe try to pick off some of those cowardly park elk as they come out to steel food from some of our honest hard working elk...It seems you have two options during MF. 1) Choose an area with fewer elk and you will see fewer hunters 2) Choose an area with lots of elk and you will have to fight the masses. Most people don't know about the secret option...3) find yourself a native tracker who has the ability to slip into "ninja mode"...by the end of the week we will be walking amongst the heard...mark my words. It's really fun to hunt with an inexperienced hunter though, they get enjoyment out of things that make me say "%$*#". I called in a bull for a friend during archery season and he missed twice at about 20 yds (way over estimated the distance), it would have been his first bull...after I heard the arrows fly I came up to him thinking he hit it, when I found out he missed I through my hat down and said "&$*%". He just laughed and said "you should have seen that bull come out and start throwing chunks of sod in the air with his antlers...that was awesome."
Special T,
You sent 4 PM's before I even knew what the heck they were...thanks for the comments and I'm interested to open the discussion about you know what...I feel there would be an overwhelming consensus amongst hunters.
Oh yeah, I forgot this thread had a particular topic so....um...er....I disagree with what ever the last person said...good point though. :)
Post by: colockumelk on November 07, 2010, 08:21:05 PM
I know that frustration thing. I took my littlist brother hunting in a late season elk hunt. I saw a dozen cows go passed me but were out of range for my bow. I saw them go in the reprod and right up this trail that leads to where I put my brother. When they got to about where my brother was they came flying out of there like crazy. So I was all stoked because I figured my brother shot one. So I gave it some time and walked on over there and there's my brother sound asleep cradling his bow like it was his date. :bash:
Post by: Coastal_native on November 07, 2010, 08:31:11 PM
Post by: Little Dave on November 13, 2010, 11:10:35 PM
Post by: colockumelk on November 14, 2010, 06:04:19 AM
that's hilarious about your brother...and don't act like you've never tried the poop thing...any elk hunter who's ever been out hunting by themselves has at one point or another thought about it...looked over their shoulder to make sure nobody was looking...and preceded to rub poop on their face, or roll around in bull urine. I think I've even entertained the idea of dressing up like an elk and seeing how close I could get...I'm still trying to work out the kinks.
To be honest the thought had cross my mind about being dressing up like an elk with elk urine on the hide. But I just didn't want to end up like this guy. :chuckle:
Deer Attack (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khKrd1RNy2U&NR=1#)
Post by: MLhunter1 on November 15, 2010, 11:16:11 AM
Post by: whiteeyes on November 15, 2010, 12:20:36 PM
I was huntin on a farmers field I met last weekend with a rifle huntin buddy. The farmer told us a few years back the game dept and a tribe guy showed up and asked if they could use his field to "help" the elk. So he said yes, the elk love to hang out in his field. So the next day they tranqualized a few bulls and cows and collared them. This time it was all tribal guys, no dfw officers. So the farmer asked just what were they up to and they said these were GPS tracking collars for tribal hunters. The tribe goes huntin with a handheld GPS that has the elk marked on it to make it easier for them. The farmer got mad and told them never to come back. So not only do they get to hunt big long seasons they get to track the elk with GPS in this area. Plus the helicopter flyin around was a state helicopter he said. So we are also spending money to help the tribe kill animals?
I call bull shart on that. But, pretty funny though.
Post by: MLhunter1 on November 15, 2010, 02:24:17 PM
Post by: Little Dave on November 15, 2010, 05:36:27 PM
Here, read up on the drug...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carfentanil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carfentanil)
Post by: whiteeyes on November 15, 2010, 05:42:01 PM
The farmer did seem a little off his rocker, but we also talked to the farmer next to him and got the same story. Except he said they tranqed em on the ground then landed a state helicopter in the field to put on the collars. We did see several elk with collars on in the area but no bulls. Farmer said that was because the tribe shot the collard bulls in august but didnt bother with the cows.
The farmer probably seen all the elk after the bulls shed there horns so they all looked like cows. hahah!
Post by: boneaddict on November 23, 2010, 02:24:38 AM
Quote
If you really want to see a sad site. Drive up the oak creek rd before they close the gate in dec when it snows. I was in there last year and saw 14 dead elk along the rd within site distance. Most had 2 strips of meat taken out of the back and the sacred crow and eagles got the rest. The guys driving the rd had tan skin and they weren't mexican.This is VERY TRUE.
as for the GPS in the bulls. That seems about as far fetched as lore gets.
Post by: Practical Approach on November 23, 2010, 08:43:28 AM
I was huntin on a farmers field I met last weekend with a rifle huntin buddy. The farmer told us a few years back the game dept and a tribe guy showed up and asked if they could use his field to "help" the elk. So he said yes, the elk love to hang out in his field. So the next day they tranqualized a few bulls and cows and collared them. This time it was all tribal guys, no dfw officers. So the farmer asked just what were they up to and they said these were GPS tracking collars for tribal hunters. The tribe goes huntin with a handheld GPS that has the elk marked on it to make it easier for them. The farmer got mad and told them never to come back. So not only do they get to hunt big long seasons they get to track the elk with GPS in this area. Plus the helicopter flyin around was a state helicopter he said. So we are also spending money to help the tribe kill animals?
I call bull shart on that. But, pretty funny though.
I don't think so. That isn't even how GPS collars work.
Post by: MLhunter1 on November 23, 2010, 12:55:02 PM
Post by: Practical Approach on November 24, 2010, 08:27:21 AM
How does a collar work then? Whats the point of collaring them if they can't be tracked? Also I have heard if you kill one with a collar and don't return the collar the dfw will show up at your house lookin for it.There are many types of GPS collars. Most of them store GPS points within the collar through the life of the collar. When it is time to collect the information. The collar has a mechanism that releases the collar from the animals neck. If the release mechanism doesn't work then the animal is recaptrued and the collar is removed manually. Basically the GPS collars have a VHF transmitter built into them as well for tracking purposes. This VHF system is the same as the ones used on regular non GPS collars. You can't track the collar by GPS coordinates, but by direction of the signal. I guess what I am getting at is that there is not a device that one can use in the woods that will show the current coordinates of where the elk is at that moment. There are more expensive GPS collar units that get you close to that technology, but they are very expensive, and you would have to have cell service and be walking around in the woods with a laptop.
Yes DFW can track the collar to your home or car using the VHF signal that the collar is transmitting. They can home in on it via a helicopter and pinpoint the precise location where the signal is being transmitted from. This comes in especially handy for those poachers who like souvenirs.
Post by: Special T on November 30, 2010, 11:58:27 AM
Post by: Hohriverrunner on December 06, 2010, 01:41:41 PM
Post by: Coastal_native on December 06, 2010, 01:48:24 PM
it's back from the depths...
Post by: colockumelk on December 06, 2010, 06:48:46 PM
Post by: colockumelk on December 06, 2010, 07:02:21 PM
Post by: gaddy on December 06, 2010, 07:05:28 PM
Post by: colockumelk on December 06, 2010, 07:15:40 PM
Post by: Coastal_native on December 06, 2010, 07:20:20 PM
Colockumelk...you do realize we're going to develop a reputation for ruining serious threads with our sarcasm and tomfoolery.
On a serious note, to engage Hohriverrunner...I admit I'm not familiar with the endeavors of the Hoh tribe. They are one of several treaty signatories to the same treaty as my tribe, but we do not combined our harvest data with them or are they hunting with our tags or regulations. I do know they have either policy or natural resource staff that deal with fish and wildlife (I only know that because I met one at a F&W conference). They have a very small village and I know at least some of their members hunt in the same areas as the Quinaults. They are probably hunting pretty aggressively right now because like other tribes over here they focus their efforts before and after the bulk of the state seasons, so I would not be surprised if to see hoh tribal members out hunting nor would I be surprised if I seen hoh tribal members with one or more elk in the back of a truck...just as I'm not surprised when I see two elk in the back of trucks all throughout the state seasons.
My thoughts...
Post by: colockumelk on December 06, 2010, 07:36:47 PM
Post by: Coastal_native on December 06, 2010, 07:55:32 PM
The Hoh rez is set to expand quite a bit soon--200+ acres they acquired plus 39 acres being turned over from Olympic National Park--all of which Congress approved. So that was a good day for the tribe.
I heard this too, but I wasn't sure what tribe it was. I thought the justification of this was to move the village out of the Tsunami zone...not sure if that's credible info though.
Colockumelk,
Your last post was borderline inappropriate and I am no longer going to acknowledge you...starting now...and I'm not going to use an emoticon to imply that I'm joking either.