Post by: fishunt247 on December 13, 2010, 06:25:08 PM
Dad called the sherriff a little after 8, and again just after 9. The dispatcher said, "Well, the guys don't always have cell phones on them." Good thing nobody around there was getting murdered, because the cops couldn't have stopped it or even caught the murderer if he got out of there with an hour and a half of killing someone.
We called three Game Department employees before we finally got ahold of someone. We tried every explanation: they just shot a giant bull, they are trespassing, they are chasing game with a vehicle and shooting from roads. Basically, the game wardens (who finally decided to come that way) said they couldn't do anything because they are tribal.
Whatever for tribal rights and that trash, but something is very very wrong if they can kill a bull on the winter range in a unit where we have to get drawn to hunt AND in an area of the unit where we cannot hunt cows or spikes with archery in the late season to protect the herd. I hate fueling the fire, but *censored*. I flipped them off to their faces to feel better...like it did anything.
Whatever
Post by: Tony 270 on December 13, 2010, 06:54:01 PM
Post by: ser300wsm on December 13, 2010, 06:55:32 PM
Post by: bobcat on December 13, 2010, 07:06:19 PM
Post by: grundy53 on December 13, 2010, 07:12:24 PM
Post by: Tony 270 on December 13, 2010, 07:17:56 PM
Post by: ribka on December 13, 2010, 07:25:57 PM
Post by: boneaddict on December 13, 2010, 07:26:54 PM
Post by: bobcat on December 13, 2010, 07:34:03 PM
Wish they would make themselves useful and go wolf and sea lion hunting.
:yeah: And cougar.
Post by: boneaddict on December 13, 2010, 07:34:31 PM
Honestly Bigtine, its probably what its going to take to get it to stop.
Post by: Coastal_native on December 13, 2010, 07:36:16 PM
Way to step up as an admin...
Harassing wildlife with a vehicle on winter range is pretty classless...everything else you mentioned just seems like typical behavior in the westside modern firearm season to me. It's not very sporting that's for sure, but true sportsman are few and far between anymore, especially in this state...but that's just me being pessimistic.
Post by: fishunt247 on December 13, 2010, 07:45:22 PM
How did I know they were tribal??? I waited where the road they were on met pavement, saw they were tribal when they drove ten feet from me, and took down their license plate number. I called the gamies right away, told them the number at what way they were driving. They said, "Nothing we can do?"
And I am in no way making a racial attack. Just stating the facts of what I saw.
I agree that the topic is old. But 90% of the time on here it is "I heard from a friend of a friend that the Indians shot 6 bulls in the Colockum." I watched this entire "hunt." Just thought I'd share my frustration with the hunters as well as the sheriff/WDFW/Treaty of 1855/whatever else is to blame.
Would I condone the chasing of elk with vehicles and shooting from the road if it were white people? Hell no. I would have called the game wardens in that situation too.
Post by: boneaddict on December 13, 2010, 07:48:08 PM
Post by: Lowedog on December 13, 2010, 07:48:42 PM
They backed the truck right up to it and loaded it up without gutting it.
Holy crap! Did they have a fork lift with them or something?
Post by: fishunt247 on December 13, 2010, 07:48:56 PM
Post by: grundy53 on December 13, 2010, 07:50:21 PM
My dad told the sheriff dispatch that they might be tribal. And the first question the game warden asked, before they asked if the bull was dead or what the hunters were doing now, was "Are they tribal?"
How did I know they were tribal??? I waited where the road they were on met pavement, saw they were tribal when they drove ten feet from me, and took down their license plate number. I called the gamies right away, told them the number at what way they were driving. They said, "Nothing we can do?"
And I am in no way making a racial attack. Just stating the facts of what I saw.
I agree that the topic is old. But 90% of the time on here it is "I heard from a friend of a friend that the Indians shot 6 bulls in the Colockum." I watched this entire "hunt." Just thought I'd share my frustration with the hunters as well as the sheriff/WDFW/Treaty of 1855/whatever else is to blame.
Would I condone the chasing of elk with vehicles and shooting from the road if it were white people? Hell no. I would have called the game wardens in that situation too.
and if they were white the gamies could have done somthing about it instead of having to let them get away with it. :bash: :bash:
Post by: bigmonster on December 13, 2010, 07:51:43 PM
Post by: bobcat on December 13, 2010, 07:58:28 PM
How did I know they were tribal??? I waited where the road they were on met pavement, saw they were tribal when they drove ten feet from me, and took down their license plate number. I called the gamies right away, told them the number at what way they were driving. They said, "Nothing we can do?"
Not doubting you at all, just wondering how do you tell they are tribal, even if they are only 10 feet away? Do they have a different license plate or some sort of identification on their vehicles? Surely you can't be judging based only on the color of their skin? It seems to me that in a situation like that, law enforcement should come out and verify the "poachers" are in fact tribal members. Why would they just take your word for it? I'm only asking because I'd like to know for my own knowledge, in case I ever witness something like this.
Post by: boneaddict on December 13, 2010, 08:00:41 PM
Quote
Sounds like a solid case with your observations and the physical evidence. Who taking the case? Did you take pictures or video? Some pictures through your spotting scope with a camera phone is better than nothing and can be cleaned up if necessary for identifications purposes.
Post by: Bigtine96 on December 13, 2010, 08:01:20 PM
Maybe some should be fowarding this post and a good day for the tribe post to are governor and state reps to let them know that there is a problem that not being handled by local officials.
They wont do anything this state is to liberal, the only way that there will ever be change is if we as sportsmen do something about it ourselves.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on December 13, 2010, 08:02:02 PM
Post by: brutus1 on December 13, 2010, 08:02:55 PM
Post by: fishunt247 on December 13, 2010, 08:07:21 PM
They obviously didn't care enough, didn't want to waste our precious tax dollars, following this person. I thought why take pictures when the damn game wardens could come catch them in the act. Turns out they didn't care enough to hurry.
Being as it seems like my eyewitness testimony means nothing, maybe next time I'll say, "It looks like two white guys. They are very white." Maybe that would get their attention.
Post by: bobcat on December 13, 2010, 08:08:26 PM
Change the seasons to 2 point and bigger and kill all the big bulls then these so called mighty hunters wouldn't waste their time on cows and spikes. Just my 2 cents worth sorry for getting on a soap box
I was thinking exactly the same thing. Why do we have to save all the bulls, just so the tribal "poachers" can kill them? Let's open it up for everybody, any bull. Just think of how many less bulls the indians will be entering into the record books.
Post by: biggdogg on December 13, 2010, 08:09:26 PM
Post by: boneaddict on December 13, 2010, 08:10:57 PM
Post by: bobcat on December 13, 2010, 08:12:00 PM
Being as it seems like my eyewitness testimony means nothing, maybe next time I'll say, "It looks like two white guys. They are very white." Maybe that would get their attention.
Yes exactly, now I know what to say if I'm ever in the same situation.
Gee, couldn't a white guy just put some make up on to darken the skin up some, and maybe a wig, and go kill as many big bill elk as he wants? If that's all they're going to say when someone reports and incident like this- "do they look tribal?" :bash:
Post by: chester on December 13, 2010, 08:13:21 PM
Post by: MAVsled on December 13, 2010, 08:15:06 PM
oneday, someone else will not. Part of me hopes they aren't caught. Then authorities will put the wheels in motion while the tribe wails their mourning.
I witnessed a similar incident 3 years ago in GMU 648. Tribal hunters, riding shotgun in the back of a pickup Truck with "native pride" bumper sticker, shot at 3 deer off the main logging road (back before it was blacktopped). Saw the whole thing as I had been viewing the deer with binos/spotting scope.
They didn't even get out of the back of the pickup. the truck driver angled the front end toward the clearcut and they started blasting over the top of the cab. As I hiked down from my observation knob, archery gear, backpack and spotting scope in hand, they loaded the 2 deer onto two other deer in the back of the truck; 2 does, 2 bucks. I just kept on walking back to my rig along the main drag. And there was a sign on the next gate; deer sanctuary area. How ironic!
Then they had the balls to speed past me, swerving on my side of the shoulder, as if they were trying to kick up gravel from the tires treads in my direction/vicinity.
in short, I was fuming >:(
Post by: Coastal_native on December 13, 2010, 08:18:00 PM
See what happens...it's worth a try.
Post by: fishunt247 on December 13, 2010, 08:20:13 PM
My dad knows both game wardens personally. There were two of them. And I'm not comfortable putting their names on the internet. Given the situation, I'm not sure why...
Post by: biggdogg on December 13, 2010, 08:24:08 PM
Post by: chester on December 13, 2010, 08:25:19 PM
Post by: fishunt247 on December 13, 2010, 08:27:36 PM
Post by: bobcat on December 13, 2010, 08:29:06 PM
Bigtines remarks r getting old sound like he's pretty damn racist to me, r u talking about taking it into your own hands, or shooting indians that is freakin crazy and bone addict does nothing but say their were 2 different comments
This shows how strongly people feel about these types of incidents. It's pretty frustrating to know this kind of poaching is going on and nothing is being done about it. Surely this way of "hunting" cannot be legal even by the tribal rules, is it? :dunno:
Post by: biggdogg on December 13, 2010, 08:30:05 PM
Post by: 270Shooter on December 13, 2010, 08:31:54 PM
So that explains why the elk come running down the hill with a couple of inches of snowYes its called migration :tung:
Post by: biggdogg on December 13, 2010, 08:33:40 PM
Post by: UBA on December 13, 2010, 08:33:55 PM
Post by: Coastal_native on December 13, 2010, 08:34:33 PM
Post by: biggdogg on December 13, 2010, 08:35:26 PM
Post by: fishunt247 on December 13, 2010, 08:51:18 PM
Post by: biggdogg on December 13, 2010, 08:56:31 PM
Post by: norsepeak on December 13, 2010, 09:00:13 PM
Post by: biggdogg on December 13, 2010, 09:02:08 PM
Post by: Coastal_native on December 13, 2010, 09:03:36 PM
very poorly thought out remarks
Ouch, that's a little harsh, actually these are pretty common on this forum... :chuckle:
Post by: biggdogg on December 13, 2010, 09:04:55 PM
Post by: Buckrub on December 13, 2010, 09:06:40 PM
You should be ashamed biggdog...embarrassed as a race of conservationists and stewards of the animal.
Your ancestors would roll over in their grave if they knew what was happening.
PS... I have Indian blood in me.
Post by: fishunt247 on December 13, 2010, 09:08:51 PM
Quote
Where else do they feed them we don't feed our elk and they do just fine, maybe if they didn't get fed they would stay out of range of tribal hunters, just wait they will get smarter just like the elk at oak creek they don't just stand there anymore as soon as they see someone they r on the move, hopefully they get smart.
I stand corrected: uneducated statement number four. And maybe the most comical one yet. Maybe if they didn't get fed they would stay out of range of tribal hunters? Is this a serious statement? What did you not understand about the fact that THEY AREN'T FEEDING OUT HERE YET? If you don't feed your damn elk and they are doing just fine, maybe you should hunt them instead. Oh that's right, don't they close a section of the winter range in Medicine Valley to protect the wintering elk? And at Oak Creek you can stand at the fence and the elk will feed within ten yards of you. Maybe "our elk" aren't "smart" because they are on the winter range and are just trying to survive. Wow. I don't even know...
Norse, it was the same out here. They drove all around the cows for over an hour until they got close enough to the biggest bull out here. Good thing they shot it so the head can go rot on some shed in Brownstown.
Post by: fishunt247 on December 13, 2010, 09:13:09 PM
Post by: biggdogg on December 13, 2010, 09:14:36 PM
Post by: biggdogg on December 13, 2010, 09:19:24 PM
Post by: UBA on December 13, 2010, 09:22:06 PM
i don't do the chit other Yakama's do so where r u enrolled at???????So does that mean your a Yakama?
Post by: chester on December 13, 2010, 09:22:36 PM
Post by: jager on December 13, 2010, 09:23:10 PM
I think we all agree that something needs to be done regardless of who is committing these crimes...yes, they are crimes in every sense of the word
Poaching is everywhere....unfortunately the tribes and the state continue to turn a blind eye to these types of offenses.
It has been discussed many times before. There needs to be hard evidence. Photos/videos. I have heard of neither....in reference to any of the incidences that we have all read about on here.
Plain and simple....this is exploitation to its fullest. It needs to stop!
Post by: Buckrub on December 13, 2010, 09:23:31 PM
Probably not enough to be even enrolled anywhere and I'm not embarrassed no reason to be, i don't do the chit other Yakama's do so where r u enrolled at???????
I'm not and won't... this is not hunting...its rape.
You don't do the chit others do but support it??
Respect for the animal and the hunt doesn't mean anything?
Post by: biggdogg on December 13, 2010, 09:25:58 PM
Post by: Buckrub on December 13, 2010, 09:27:59 PM
Well pretty quick u wont have to worry about it because the tribe is getting 20 keys to all gates in the ceded land so everyone will be behind gates, i bet u that rubs u wrong to doesn't it but nothing u or anybody else can do about it
Doesn't rub me the wrong way... I think the tribes should be able to "hunt".
Hunting and raping are two seperate subjects...one only needs to look in the mirror.
Post by: UBA on December 13, 2010, 09:30:52 PM
It's called a game refuge the elk don't get fed there but they get shot in there every year and for your info i do hunt the rez 95% of the time and i got bulls every sportsman has to wait ten years to get drawn for and they probably still won't shoot bulls like i get of the rez
sweet lets see some pics.
Post by: GlennGTR on December 13, 2010, 09:30:57 PM
Well pretty quick u wont have to worry about it because the tribe is getting 20 keys to all gates in the ceded land so everyone will be behind gates, i bet u that rubs u wrong to doesn't it but nothing u or anybody else can do about it
Post by: Tony 270 on December 13, 2010, 09:33:15 PM
Post by: Yak-NDN on December 13, 2010, 09:33:43 PM
Post by: biggdogg on December 13, 2010, 09:35:58 PM
Post by: jager on December 13, 2010, 09:36:04 PM
Why do you think these types of offenses are being committed? I'm just looking for a little enlightening....not saying that you know, I would just like to hear your opinion.
BTW...nice bull.
From the rez?
Post by: biggdogg on December 13, 2010, 09:36:59 PM
Post by: Buckrub on December 13, 2010, 09:37:57 PM
Yes a big bull can be loaded whole in a toy no problem man up or should I put a class on? A big dodge is not that bad.
A rutted out bull has lost a lot of weight and they eat real good too. ;)
Post by: UBA on December 13, 2010, 09:39:20 PM
Post by: biggdogg on December 13, 2010, 09:40:45 PM
Post by: Tony 270 on December 13, 2010, 09:44:31 PM
Personally I think they should be allowed to do whatever they want on tribal land and deal with tribal consequences, but outside of that tribal land be held to the laws everyone else is. One set of laws for everyone, no special treatment.
Post by: biggdogg on December 13, 2010, 09:47:29 PM
Post by: jager on December 13, 2010, 09:51:20 PM
Thanks for answering my question....I guess that explains a lot.
Post by: biggdogg on December 13, 2010, 09:57:34 PM
Post by: Tony 270 on December 13, 2010, 10:02:41 PM
Post by: biggdogg on December 13, 2010, 10:05:20 PM
Post by: Tony 270 on December 13, 2010, 10:12:07 PM
Plus the PETA fools have lots of money and some good lawyers, wonder if they have gone against the tribal rights before or if it is only the regular hunting seasons and limits.
Post by: Tony 270 on December 13, 2010, 10:14:02 PM
Post by: biggdogg on December 13, 2010, 10:16:19 PM
Post by: Tony 270 on December 13, 2010, 10:17:49 PM
But really, if your ancestors (or mine as well since I'm 1/16th) hunted wolves isn't there an argument to be made that you should be able to today as well? Something about your beliefs or values, tradition or anything? Are you legally prohibited from doing so?
Do you know if anything were to happen if a tribal member just went out and killed a few wolves? Big stink but nothing actually done? Turned over to the tribe?
I guarantee if tribal members went out and slaughtered the wolves that are slaughtering the elk hunters would stop bitching so much about the tribal elk killings off reservation.
Post by: biggdogg on December 13, 2010, 10:21:08 PM
Post by: Yak-NDN on December 13, 2010, 10:27:49 PM
Yes a big bull can be loaded whole in a toy no problem man up or should I put a class on? A big dodge is not that bad.
A rutted out bull has lost a lot of weight and they eat real good too. ;)
You must have had some of the rutted bull I shot last year didn't kill one this year.
Post by: Yak-NDN on December 13, 2010, 10:37:26 PM
Most people don't care about hunting till they see a good, clear video about how the poor, fuzzy animals are being unfairly treated and slaughtered in an unfair manner. I think if enough people saw that and a good campaign was actually put together it might have enough of an effect for people to care temporarily. Definitely an appeal to passion type of thing.
Plus the PETA fools have lots of money and some good lawyers, wonder if they have gone against the tribal rights before or if it is only the regular hunting seasons and limits.
Ya and and your video could include 10,000 state hunters running 1,000 spike elk killing most all of them and running the rest of the elk herd almost to death run them so hard cows are not being bread in Sep and Oct and you have new born calf's at the feed station in Dec.
Post by: biggdogg on December 13, 2010, 10:38:54 PM
Post by: biggdogg on December 13, 2010, 10:39:33 PM
Post by: Tony 270 on December 13, 2010, 10:43:18 PM
Most people don't care about hunting till they see a good, clear video about how the poor, fuzzy animals are being unfairly treated and slaughtered in an unfair manner. I think if enough people saw that and a good campaign was actually put together it might have enough of an effect for people to care temporarily. Definitely an appeal to passion type of thing.
Plus the PETA fools have lots of money and some good lawyers, wonder if they have gone against the tribal rights before or if it is only the regular hunting seasons and limits.
Ya and and your video could include 10,000 state hunters running 1,000 spike elk killing most all of them and running the rest of the elk herd almost to death run them so hard cows are not being bread in Sep and Oct and you have new born calf's at the feed station in Dec.
No, my video wouldn't have anything remotely close to that, but thanks for playing. And since when do cows drop calves in December? Never seen that myself.
Post by: buckmaster_wa on December 13, 2010, 11:54:16 PM
Post by: ASHQUACK on December 14, 2010, 01:50:24 AM
Post by: krout81 on December 14, 2010, 01:59:40 AM
:beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse:
Post by: haus on December 14, 2010, 05:32:32 AM
Post by: boneaddict on December 14, 2010, 06:18:17 AM
Post by: trophyhunt on December 14, 2010, 07:17:01 AM
Just gets old seeing all the threats towards indians it's pretty sad when a trophy bull is worth more than someone's life pretty classyI respect the elk way more than I do those Indians that pull this kind of crap and any non native poachers, we should have finished the job a couple hundred years ago. I know this will piss some of you off but I can't stand this crap anymore and not saying whats on my mind is hard for me to do.
Post by: fishunt247 on December 14, 2010, 07:19:20 AM
And Yak, I agree with some of your statement about chasing elk during the rifle season. That's why every year out here and on the Mill Rd. people get tickets. The game wardens patrol this by the house pretty heavy during rifle season. And rightfully so.
Post by: jackmaster on December 14, 2010, 07:27:08 AM
oh true dat *censored*, i also believe we should have finished the job but sibce we didnt we need to figure out how to make everyone hunt and fish by the same rules, what i dont understand is back in the day native americans held the earths animals with the highest respect , hell they named themselves after them and honored there spirits, and gave the animal they pursued last rights upon the kill, can someone please tell me where that went, why is it that they stopped carring about the animals that ment so much to them and their tribes, they do this because of the way it affects us and sit back sipping there fire water loving the fact that the white eyes cant do squat about it. its fricken sad, just sad.this may sound like a copout but if i had the financial backing i would honor the challenge of taking the tribes on man to man, i would love to put the evidence out to the people and see how they handle it.Just gets old seeing all the threats towards indians it's pretty sad when a trophy bull is worth more than someone's life pretty classyI respect the elk way more than I do those Indians that pull this kind of crap and any non native poachers, we should have finished the job a couple hundred years ago. I know this will piss some of you off but I can't stand this crap anymore and not saying whats on my mind is hard for me to do.
Post by: trophyhunt on December 14, 2010, 07:30:01 AM
Post by: TJD on December 14, 2010, 07:49:15 AM
Post by: boneaddict on December 14, 2010, 09:26:10 AM
Post by: Hornseeker on December 14, 2010, 09:39:08 AM
I have no idea what it would take....I dont think it will ever happen.... I mean, who, of us, is going to risk getting thrown in jail for who knows how long, to put a stop to this.
Post by: Tony 270 on December 14, 2010, 09:53:50 AM
Post by: biggdogg on December 14, 2010, 10:44:59 AM
Post by: 6x6in6 on December 14, 2010, 10:45:55 AM
Not going to bother with too much of my .02 worth. Simply not worth it. Waste of typing and time.
The PETA idea is an interesting one. Video would help. The people we elect to sit in Olympia growing a spine would be nice.
I kinda like the shoot a wolf or 10 idea. Give it a whirl and let us all know how that works out for ya. :chuckle:
Carry on..........
Post by: bobcat on December 14, 2010, 11:04:34 AM
Why is it when indians get on here and make dumb ass remarks mod can get rid them really quick but the other side talks they should be wiped out or shootem all everbody does is agree or something to that kind
??? I have no idea what you just said. Do you care to clarify?
Post by: 6x6in6 on December 14, 2010, 11:12:52 AM
:chuckle:Why is it when indians get on here and make dumb ass remarks mod can get rid them really quick but the other side talks they should be wiped out or shootem all everbody does is agree or something to that kind
??? I have no idea what you just said. Do you care to clarify?
Post by: 6x6in6 on December 14, 2010, 11:43:22 AM
Post by: 400out on December 14, 2010, 11:44:42 AM
They all end up the same I don't even have to read them anymore and I'm still up to speed! It's like watch a damn soap opera :bash: :bash: I think they should get nuked from the word go :twocents:
Bone you keep doing what your doing it's working just fine for me ;)
Everyone else..... well I will leave it at that
Post by: boneaddict on December 14, 2010, 11:45:11 AM
Post by: trophyhunt on December 14, 2010, 11:49:57 AM
Post by: Clark33 on December 14, 2010, 12:02:39 PM
Post by: elkchaser on December 14, 2010, 12:42:44 PM
Post by: remington300mag on December 14, 2010, 12:52:57 PM
[/quote]
:yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: This is the nicest way of saying what I think...."Should have finished the job a couple hundred years ago"......
Post by: biggdogg on December 14, 2010, 01:28:11 PM
Post by: bullcanyon on December 14, 2010, 02:29:48 PM
Post by: fishunt247 on December 14, 2010, 02:58:59 PM
I'm not willing to accept the idea/fact that "we can't touch the tribe" mentality that the government has. So I posted my story on here. And this same story will end up in a Letter to the Editor in the Yakima Herald soon. And I'll try to get video next time. None of this public voicing can hurt.
Post by: boneaddict on December 14, 2010, 03:04:41 PM
Post by: Coastal_native on December 14, 2010, 07:44:54 PM
I personally like to see these types of posts because it emphasizes the fact that there is tension between state/tribal hunters...and it needs attention. For the record I thought the OP did a better job than most describing the situation only because he gave testimony to the tribal members breaking a law and being unethical. In some cases like "Good day 4 the tribe" and "They're at it again" it was simply someone seeing tribal members with elk in the back of their truck...and that alone was enough to start an uproar.
As a tribal member I would be happy if the only tension between state/tribal hunters was because of the difference of seasons/bag limits/regs...but that's not the case. A lot of times the resentment starts when someone witnesses a tribal member doing something illegal or unethical...and then it's a downward spiral. Because of this, tribes should take extra precautions to protect their public image...by policing and making examples out of abusers, especially with wasting. I see some improvements on this in my area and from what Bigdogg said earlier it sounds like the Yaks may be hiring some additional enforcement officers. Obviously there is some work to be done still in order to come remotely close to meeting my desired future condition above. I understand if non tribal hunters will always hold a grudge, but as long as they still have the "abuse" argument to fall back on they will continue to pass the hatred on to another generation of hunters...maybe in their mind it's justifiable, but that would still be unfortunate.
I have no problems with people making posts about witnessing poachers, whether tribal or nontribal. The only thing that really ticks me off about this whole thing is that WDFW game wardens don't think its worth their time to at least respond when there is no confirmation as to whether or not they're tribal, although that's already been said.
On a more serious matter...I challenge anyone to dig deep in their heart and come up with one positive thing that would have come from killing ALL Native Americans in the name of conquest...isn't that similar to some of the situations we send our soldiers over seas to try to prevent? Would you really be a happier hunter if a few more native American women and children were murdered? I understand the mods frustration, but is that really the message that hunters from Hunt Wa want to portray...this is the current state of hunting in washington?
Post by: trophyhunt on December 15, 2010, 07:32:36 AM
Post by: b23 on December 15, 2010, 07:43:47 AM
1) How many "rights" do you think Indians would have if say the Portuguese, Spaniards or one of the Asian countries would have landed here first? Do you really think they would have taken the "natives" into account and given them anything except a death sentence or a slave collar. My point is that someone was going to land on this continent and though things certainly didn't go picture perfect I think all "native americans" should be somewhat thankful it was "whitey" that landed here and stuck around and not someone else. Now before you go and get all spun out of control, sit and think how BAD it could have gone. Then reply.
2) How does everyone think things would go if we left big game management up to the Indians? Say we throw our hands in the air and make a general open statement that the gloves are off and Indians can do freely as they want without ANY retaliation and bitching from anyone. All indians could shoot kill and do whatever they want to big game animals. Does ANYONE think they would use ANY kind of self control or would it just be an all out slaughter with dead animals laying in waste???
Post by: Alchase on December 15, 2010, 12:36:23 PM
I know everyone is beyond the point of caring about the tribal perspective, but.........I decided I'm going to spout off again.
I personally like to see these types of posts because it emphasizes the fact that there is tension between state/tribal hunters...and it needs attention. For the record I thought the OP did a better job than most describing the situation only because he gave testimony to the tribal members breaking a law and being unethical. In some cases like "Good day 4 the tribe" and "They're at it again" it was simply someone seeing tribal members with elk in the back of their truck...and that alone was enough to start an uproar.
As a tribal member I would be happy if the only tension between state/tribal hunters was because of the difference of seasons/bag limits/regs...but that's not the case. A lot of times the resentment starts when someone witnesses a tribal member doing something illegal or unethical...and then it's a downward spiral. Because of this, tribes should take extra precautions to protect their public image...by policing and making examples out of abusers, especially with wasting. I see some improvements on this in my area and from what Bigdogg said earlier it sounds like the Yaks may be hiring some additional enforcement officers. Obviously there is some work to be done still in order to come remotely close to meeting my desired future condition above. I understand if non tribal hunters will always hold a grudge, but as long as they still have the "abuse" argument to fall back on they will continue to pass the hatred on to another generation of hunters...maybe in their mind it's justifiable, but that would still be unfortunate.
I have no problems with people making posts about witnessing poachers, whether tribal or nontribal. The only thing that really ticks me off about this whole thing is that WDFW game wardens don't think its worth their time to at least respond when there is no confirmation as to whether or not they're tribal, although that's already been said.
On a more serious matter...I challenge anyone to dig deep in their heart and come up with one positive thing that would have come from killing ALL Native Americans in the name of conquest...isn't that similar to some of the situations we send our soldiers over seas to try to prevent? Would you really be a happier hunter if a few more native American women and children were murdered? I understand the mods frustration, but is that really the message that hunters from Hunt Wa want to portray...this is the current state of hunting in washington?
Tribal perspective or not, I agree with what you said, I would also add that us non tribal hunters also need to police our own as well.
That would be a win win if both Tribal and non tribal were more proactive in busting the scumbags.
I also believe most people here do know the difference between a heated disagreement and blatant bigotry, the first is what gets things accomplished the second promotes hatred.
Post by: buckmaster_wa on December 15, 2010, 12:41:07 PM
I have two questions.:yeah: Great post.
1) How many "rights" do you think Indians would have if say the Portuguese, Spaniards or one of the Asian countries would have landed here first? Do you really think they would have taken the "natives" into account and given them anything except a death sentence or a slave collar. My point is that someone was going to land on this continent and though things certainly didn't go picture perfect I think all "native americans" should be somewhat thankful it was "whitey" that landed here and stuck around and not someone else. Now before you go and get all spun out of control, sit and think how BAD it could have gone. Then reply.
2) How does everyone think things would go if we left big game management up to the Indians? Say we throw our hands in the air and make a general open statement that the gloves are off and Indians can do freely as they want without ANY retaliation and bitching from anyone. All indians could shoot kill and do whatever they want to big game animals. Does ANYONE think they would use ANY kind of self control or would it just be an all out slaughter with dead animals laying in waste???
I would imagine the big game would be wasted much like the "Natives" do with the fish they net.
Post by: biggdogg on December 15, 2010, 04:35:09 PM
Post by: grundy53 on December 15, 2010, 04:43:36 PM
the fish r not wasted we sell every fish we catch damn good money 2 i do it
You should come over to the west side some time. A lot go to waste over here...
Post by: Clark33 on December 15, 2010, 04:44:27 PM
the fish r not wasted we sell every fish we catch damn good money 2 i do it
That may be true for you, but i have personally witnessed an irrigation ditch in the Lower Valley filled with over a hundred rotting fish that didn't get sold.... pretty disgusting sight and smell.
Post by: norsepeak on December 15, 2010, 05:44:09 PM
Post by: NoBark on December 15, 2010, 05:44:19 PM
Post by: boonerboy on December 15, 2010, 07:00:44 PM
Post by: biggdogg on December 15, 2010, 07:47:59 PM
Post by: biggdogg on December 15, 2010, 08:00:24 PM
Post by: Coastal_native on December 15, 2010, 08:03:23 PM
I have two questions.
1) How many "rights" do you think Indians would have if say the Portuguese, Spaniards or one of the Asian countries would have landed here first? Do you really think they would have taken the "natives" into account and given them anything except a death sentence or a slave collar. My point is that someone was going to land on this continent and though things certainly didn't go picture perfect I think all "native americans" should be somewhat thankful it was "whitey" that landed here and stuck around and not someone else. Now before you go and get all spun out of control, sit and think how BAD it could have gone. Then reply.
2) How does everyone think things would go if we left big game management up to the Indians? Say we throw our hands in the air and make a general open statement that the gloves are off and Indians can do freely as they want without ANY retaliation and bitching from anyone. All indians could shoot kill and do whatever they want to big game animals. Does ANYONE think they would use ANY kind of self control or would it just be an all out slaughter with dead animals laying in waste???
I'm not sure if these were addressed to me, but I don't mind answering...I will warn you though, I love answering questions. I have to add a disclaimer that I do not necessarily consider my answers to be the right answers, and most of the time they just lead to more questions & answers that will inevitably leave everyone unsatisfied :)
1.) It's been said before, by me...the "rights" were not "given" to Native Americans by the federal government out of pity for killing 90% of the indigenous population. In fact it was arguably some of the greatest military strategists in world history (on the side of the Natives) that lead to the feds giving in and opting to enter into treaties. Also, treaties are not something that exist only in the realm of the US government...they are indeed a higher level of law honored by many other nations. So, my answer to your question is yes it could have been different and much worse...or much better...it would be highly speculative to say which one. If you ask some Natives they might say it can't get any worse...we have lost 99% of our traditions because we've been forced to modernize...Myself, I'm thankful for the 1% and the treaty rights that help secure that 1%.
2.) We don't have to think what would happen...we have hundreds of years of history prior to western civilization that shows what would happen. If you remove all non tribal hunters from the equation in washington there is little doubt in my mind what the result would be...an overpopulation of big game (and I'm not advocating that as a solution). If you remove all natives from the equation there would be minimal affect, except a small percentage of the non tribal hunters would see increased success. In most cases our regs/seasons/bag limits are so loose that we are basically hunting unrestricted anyway, and over the course of a few decades no agency can show data that suggests natives are solely responsible for any declines in the game populations or overall heard health.
IMO, those are solid answers and not intended to be antagonistic...as usual, comments are welcome. For the record, I don't think Bigdogg deserves the heat he is getting for chiming in, but as we all know...it comes with the territory.
Post by: fishunt247 on December 15, 2010, 08:29:00 PM
Quote
In most cases our regs/seasons/bag limits are so loose that we are basically hunting unrestricted anyway, and over the course of a few decades no agency can show data that suggests natives are solely responsible for any declines in the game populations or overall heard health.
Coastal, I'm grateful for people like you on here that can answer a question intelligently and ask new educated questions. That's what I like about the debate. Like Ron White said, claiming "Well f**k you" in a debated does not mean you are the winner, which some do not understand.
My question to you is: It may be true that tribal hunters are not solely responsible for declines in game populations or overall herd health, but this statement negates the fact/observation that tribal hunters (or Yakamas, I cannot speak for any other tribe) selectively harvest the largest bull elk they can find in regions where the harvest of these elk is restricted for non-tribal hunters. So, while they may not significantly impact overall herd health, they can/do significantly impact bull to cow ratios and the proportion of mature vs. non-mature bulls. It would be very interesting to see a study that looked at this. Maybe one that looked the long term number of mature bulls in a unit where they regulated big bull tags to tribal members in the same manor that they are alloted to non tribal, per capita (so a 1:200 ratio or whatever the math would be). Or a study of success rates for tribal vs non tribal big bull hunters based SOLELY on time of year each group can/does hunt in.
Post by: Coastal_native on December 15, 2010, 08:47:34 PM
I don't disagree with anything you said. Not only would it be an interesting study, it's arguably a necessity for the purposes of modern management in Washington. I was involved in a study that tracked some of the things you mentioned to a lesser degree...here on the westside that is. I think most would be surprised how the harvest fluctuates as the state seasons are taking place. Most Natives refuse to leave the reservation in the state seasons. I think some would also be surprised how good the reporting is and how low the total harvest actually is. I still keep my finger on the pulse of branched bull harvest over here (even tabulating it sometimes), which is easy to do because everyone trolls around with a rack in their truck after they get one. By the time mid September rolls around I think to myself "man we're killing alot of bulls", by the end of the year I'm thinking "man...we didn't kill enough bulls".
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 15, 2010, 08:48:50 PM
Post by: halflife65 on December 15, 2010, 08:52:59 PM
I've also seen piles of fish on the banks of rivers that were the wrong species and thrown out after being netted and watched some Native Americans knock down an entire herd of elk in the White River (this was 10 or 15 years ago) that consisted of nothing but cows and calves. I also witnessed a Native on the Skok come into a fishing hole, purposely run his boat over everyone's line, throw nets in the river, stand in his boat on the other (reservation) side of the river and yell obscenities at the white guys fishing with rod and reel. I had skipped school and driven down there on my own at about 16 years of age and it looked like there was going to be a riot with grown men threatening to kill each other. At the time I couldn't wait to get out of there (I'm 38, so this was a long time ago now - however it left a lasting impression.)
On the other hand, there is a thread right now where some (not all) are complaining about a master hunter damage hunt north of Eburg where apparently 9 cows were just shot (given it was 9 people that did the shooting and not 1 person loading up a pickup. Still, a dead elk is a dead elk.) Oregon has stated that poaching might actually equal the number of deer that are legally harvested and people are moving into, and building big houses on, winter range of elk and deer all over the western states.
The problem is that we can't accurately assess the effect that native hunting has and the exposure that most of us have had (including me) to Native hunting and fishing is almost entirely negative. People see atrocities, such as what started this thread and what I have seen in the past, and it REALLY sticks in the mind. It seems to me that there needs to be a more coordinated effort to manage the deer and elk with harvest reports, etc. from Indians, some restraint where called for and cooperation. Doesn't appear that there is any of that now...It's "I'll get mine because it's my right" and "look at those *censored*s shooting all the elk" - pretty antagonistic all around. I know that I've personally felt some REALLY serious anger in the past (White River massacre that I witnessed, for instance) and am NOT happy about the rumored number of mature bulls that the Yakama's have shot in Colockum. There have been a bunch - I've heard 26+ this year alone and in the 40s in years past - but I don't really know if it's true because there are no requirements to record the numbers taken. Hard to manage that way.
Post by: Coastal_native on December 15, 2010, 08:54:08 PM
So, when natives hunt off the reservation can they hunt on private property? Reason I ask is there are other threads (ex: one about an area in Mason County where locals chase the animals out of fields/pastures so they wouldn't get shot up) kind of alluding to that they either can or just do it anyways. I know that private property isn't always what it seems...as in the case of surface rights and mineral rights. In some places the two can be sold separately and if you own surface rights but not mineral....ex: oil companies can come on and build roads/drill/install pipes. So I'm curious if natives have some sort of hunting right to private property that would fall into a category such as surface or mineral.
Someone on here has to be able to answer this question...any legal eagles out there, I've had it explained many times to me, but it never sticks. This is complex, the treaty specifies "open and unclaimed" lands, which is the topic of debate and I'm not sure of any litigation? I think most tribes consider this to mean "open and unclaimed" at the time of treaty signing?
Anyone...????
Post by: halflife65 on December 15, 2010, 08:58:26 PM
Maybe under XX acres in size and/or with structures is "claimed" but is not "open" because of the structures while timber company lands are "claimed" but are "open" because nobody has built anything on them. Interesting to find out the real definition (Note: I'm not claiming what I wrote is accurate and I'm just speculating.)
Post by: grundy53 on December 15, 2010, 08:58:59 PM
I have two questions.
1) How many "rights" do you think Indians would have if say the Portuguese, Spaniards or one of the Asian countries would have landed here first? Do you really think they would have taken the "natives" into account and given them anything except a death sentence or a slave collar. My point is that someone was going to land on this continent and though things certainly didn't go picture perfect I think all "native americans" should be somewhat thankful it was "whitey" that landed here and stuck around and not someone else. Now before you go and get all spun out of control, sit and think how BAD it could have gone. Then reply.
2) How does everyone think things would go if we left big game management up to the Indians? Say we throw our hands in the air and make a general open statement that the gloves are off and Indians can do freely as they want without ANY retaliation and bitching from anyone. All indians could shoot kill and do whatever they want to big game animals. Does ANYONE think they would use ANY kind of self control or would it just be an all out slaughter with dead animals laying in waste???
I'm not sure if these were addressed to me, but I don't mind answering...I will warn you though, I love answering questions. I have to add a disclaimer that I do not necessarily consider my answers to be the right answers, and most of the time they just lead to more questions & answers that will inevitably leave everyone unsatisfied :)
1.) It's been said before, by me...the "rights" were not "given" to Native Americans by the federal government out of pity for killing 90% of the indigenous population. In fact it was arguably some of the greatest military strategists in world history (on the side of the Natives) that lead to the feds giving in and opting to enter into treaties. Also, treaties are not something that exist only in the realm of the US government...they are indeed a higher level of law honored by many other nations. So, my answer to your question is yes it could have been different and much worse...or much better...it would be highly speculative to say which one. If you ask some Natives they might say it can't get any worse...we have lost 99% of our traditions because we've been forced to modernize...Myself, I'm thankful for the 1% and the treaty rights that help secure that 1%.
2.) We don't have to think what would happen...we have hundreds of years of history prior to western civilization that shows what would happen. If you remove all non tribal hunters from the equation in washington there is little doubt in my mind what the result would be...an overpopulation of big game (and I'm not advocating that as a solution). If you remove all natives from the equation there would be minimal affect, except a small percentage of the non tribal hunters would see increased success. In most cases our regs/seasons/bag limits are so loose that we are basically hunting unrestricted anyway, and over the course of a few decades no agency can show data that suggests natives are solely responsible for any declines in the game populations or overall heard health.
IMO, those are solid answers and not intended to be antagonistic...as usual, comments are welcome. For the record, I don't think Bigdogg deserves the heat he is getting for chiming in, but as we all know...it comes with the territory.
Except it was probably less then ten percent of the tribes that could give the army trouble. We could of wiped the rest of this earth with out much trouble. not that i would want to or condone it. i'm just saying it was mostly us showing restraint and to be honest quite generous. we could have said this is all ours we will take what we want and you as a conquered nation can have whats left. but we didn't.... now look at what it got us.
Post by: norsepeak on December 15, 2010, 09:07:07 PM
Quote
In most cases our regs/seasons/bag limits are so loose that we are basically hunting unrestricted anyway, and over the course of a few decades no agency can show data that suggests natives are solely responsible for any declines in the game populations or overall heard health.
My local gw, says that the tribal harvests are not reported to the state like the non-tribal hunters have to so that is why there is no data, and their harvest does indeed effect not only total population numbers, but population dynamics and hunting opportunity for everyone else. I think most people would completely satisfied if natives had to hunt the same seasons as everyone else and report their hunting activity just like everyone else.
Post by: grundy53 on December 15, 2010, 09:09:16 PM
Pretty sure that it needs to be public - except that I know that they hunt on timber company lands. However, I don't think that they can just come in your yard and start whacking deer. Not sure how that is interpreted or should read.
Maybe under XX acres in size and/or with structures is "claimed" but is not "open" because of the structures while timber company lands are "claimed" but are "open" because nobody has built anything on them. Interesting to find out the real definition (Note: I'm not claiming what I wrote is accurate and I'm just speculating.)
i know that in the package that came with my Hancock pass it says that their land is not to be considered "open and unclaimed"
Post by: Coastal_native on December 15, 2010, 09:13:00 PM
Except it was probably less then ten percent of the tribes that could give the army trouble. We could of wiped the rest of this earth with out much trouble. not that i would want to or condone it. i'm just saying it was mostly us showing restraint and to be honest quite generous. we could have said this is all ours we will take what we want and you as a conquered nation can have whats left. but we didn't.... now look at what it got us.
Yeah, I think that was poorly worded on my part...90% of the natives were not "killed". A large percentage inadvertently died of disease, some died in battles, some were slaughtered, etc..
Although, I think most of your post above actually just restated what I was trying to argue against when I addressed question 1.) The point I was trying to make was that they were not being generous to Natives when they haulted their conquest...they were infact being self serving...I think that's historical fact and not a matter of interpretation? I could be wrong.
Post by: Coastal_native on December 15, 2010, 09:23:43 PM
Coastal in regards to your statement:QuoteIn most cases our regs/seasons/bag limits are so loose that we are basically hunting unrestricted anyway, and over the course of a few decades no agency can show data that suggests natives are solely responsible for any declines in the game populations or overall heard health.
My local gw, says that the tribal harvests are not reported to the state like the non-tribal hunters have to so that is why there is no data, and their harvest does indeed effect not only total population numbers, but population dynamics and hunting opportunity for everyone else. I think most people would completely satisfied if natives had to hunt the same seasons as everyone else and report their hunting activity just like everyone else.
Reporting is definately important for all the reasons you stated...if you go to the NWIFC website you can see the member tribes and view historical harvest reports by GMU. This information is obviously available publicly and is shared with the state. They are also one of the key players in wildlife mgmt projects that are coops between state/tribes.
Yeah, my statement wasn't too clear, what I meant is that in all studies that document reported harvest/non reported harvest/poaching...etc, basically anything that would capture a sample of what could be considered tribal harvest...nothing points out that any one factor is solely responsible for a decline in populations...especially natives. Unless someone shows me otherwise.
Post by: krout81 on December 16, 2010, 12:33:23 AM
Definitions.
As used in this chapter, unless a different meaning is required by the context:
(1) "Open space land" means (a) any land area so designated by an official comprehensive land use plan adopted by any city or county and zoned accordingly, or (b) any land area, the preservation of which in its present use would (i) conserve and enhance natural or scenic resources, or (ii) protect streams or water supply, or (iii) promote conservation of soils, wetlands, beaches or tidal marshes, or (iv) enhance the value to the public of abutting or neighboring parks, forests, wildlife preserves, nature reservations or sanctuaries or other open space, or (v) enhance recreation opportunities, or (vi) preserve historic sites, or (vii) preserve visual quality along highway, road, and street corridors or scenic vistas, or (viii) retain in its natural state tracts of land not less than one acre situated in an urban area and open to public use on such conditions as may be reasonably required by the legislative body granting the open space classification, or (c) any land meeting the definition of farm and agricultural conservation land under subsection (8) of this section. As a condition of granting open space classification, the legislative body may not require public access on land classified under (b)(iii) of this subsection for the purpose of promoting conservation of wetlands.
Some interesting reading talks mainly about fishing since there were no elk.
http://www.nwcouncil.org/history/indiantreaties.asp (http://www.nwcouncil.org/history/indiantreaties.asp)
Post by: ASHQUACK on December 16, 2010, 02:24:25 AM
The timber company lands are indeed considered claimed. Just ask them when they close the gates at the end of the hunting seasons. The reason they allow the tribes to hunt them is that they are afraid of the costly lawsuits that stem when a tribe feels that their "rights" are being the least bit infringed. Timber companies don't have the unlimited funds to battle in court like the tribes do.
As far as wasting fish where have you been? This happens every year and seems to get worse all the time. I personally came up on a net this year that had rotting salmon in it while it was catching more.
Lets face it guys there is no way that without Coastal and Bigdog stepping up to the plate and telling their tribal members how it "should" be then it isn't going to change. I remember several years ago there were numerous tribal members killing elk down in the margaret unit along with the mud flow. Areas where "whites" could not go without getting arrested. Remember that these areas were not supposed to have any human interference so they could study how things would come back after the eruption. There was a huge stink made and a couple of the news stations covered the pissed off guys making all kinds of statements. But it didn't change then and it's not going to change now.
Coastal, Bigdog step up and help make the needed changes so we can all benefit!
Post by: husky270 on December 17, 2010, 11:52:42 PM
Post by: fishunt247 on December 18, 2010, 08:54:11 PM
Post by: Alan K on December 18, 2010, 09:43:24 PM
Post by: colockumelk on December 19, 2010, 06:21:00 PM
As for people saying "we should have finished the job" you should be ashamed of yourself. That is a HORRIBLE HORRIBLE THING TO SAY!!!! When you say things like this you only make yourself sound racist and ignorant and do not contribute or help the debate towards equality. Instead you only hurt it.
Now that being said. Biggdogg I hope some of the things towards cracking down on Tribal Poachers is true. You climb a mountain one step at a time. Coastal I think there will always be animosity between the two groups as long as one group has more rights and plays by different rules than the other. Anytime there is Racial Discrimination one group will always resent the group that is favored in the Discrimination.
Personally I could care less if tribal hunters can shoot more animals than me. But it is BS when the rules and regulations are leniant enough that they can be taken advantage of as bad as they currently are over on the East Side of the state.
Biggdogg I guarantee you there would be far less complaining if the Yakamas had a limit of 1 Bull, 1 Buck and X-amount of does and cows. If your members need the meat that bad then so be it. But why kill off all the big bulls and bucks and then flaunt it in front of us. And you wonder why we get angry. Your tribe flaunts the ability to harvest as many Big Bulls and Bucks as you want when you know damn well that we have to get drawn to hunt a big bull which happens about every 7-10 years. You want us to like the Yakama tribe change your rules and regulations so they are more ethical and are less likely to be taken advantage of.
As far as Yaks argument that non-tribal hunters shoot 1,000's of spikes. This is true but theres also about 50,000 elk hunters in central washington. I GUARANTEE you that per capita the Yakama tribe has a FAR FAR greater impact on the Colockum and Yakima elk herds than non-tribal members do. Case in point. On average it takes a state hunter 7 years to kiill an elk. So 1 out of 7 years a state hunter kills an elk. On average a state hunter will kill a branch bull every 20 years. Now you have Yakamas in the Colockum who kill 4-6 bulls each in that area every year. This doesn't include how many they kill in each year each in the Yakima herd. I'm sorry buddy but that argument is comparing apples to oranges.
Post by: Coastal_native on December 19, 2010, 07:16:14 PM
As usual your post is a good one..........................except! the one area where we always respectfully disagree. The rights that some tribes retained through treaties have nothing to do with racial discrimination. This is true only because the treaties had nothing to do with race, they were agreements between nations. There are Natives out there that are descendants of tribes that didn't sign treaties and those Natives don't have the same rights as me when it comes to hunting. So, it's not as simple as just saying Indians get special rights because they are Indians. Natives are members of Nations that have different rights than the Nation you are a member of...However, I acknowledge any counter argument that points out the fact that Natives are also US citizens. That definitely complicates the argument, but my statement above still holds truth.
Thanks for speaking out about the "we should've finished the job" comment...just when I think your only good quality is your ability to use sarcasm, you show me a hint of class :)
Also,go easy on Bigdogg...he's suppose to be sending me a sample pack of jerky from a colockum bull...if it's good, I might just put in for a tag. Just Joking...he didn't' say it was a colockum bull. Once again...poor taste humor on my part :chuckle:
Post by: colockumelk on December 19, 2010, 07:47:04 PM
Que Pasa is German. It means "Ugly Woman" I was insulting you. :chuckle:
Post by: chester on December 19, 2010, 07:50:59 PM
Post by: Coastal_native on December 19, 2010, 08:07:17 PM
Coastal so what you're saying is that my Bow name is actually a Quinnalt greeting. Cool :) As far as me having class sssshhhh! I have a reputation to uphold. I know well probably never agree on the Discrimination vs Treaty rights issue. I was just explaining where a major part of the issue between state and tribal hunters lies.
Que Pasa is German. It means "Ugly Woman" I was insulting you. :chuckle:
If that's true...that's pretty funny. I'd insult you back in Quinault, but we were too peacefull of a culture to have insults.......... :rolleyes:
Laugh it up Chester...I know what town your from. There are more than enough "Que Pasa's" where you come from. :chuckle:
Post by: chester on December 19, 2010, 08:10:03 PM
why do you think i moved ;)
Post by: logger on December 19, 2010, 08:16:08 PM
Post by: biggdogg on December 19, 2010, 08:41:19 PM
Post by: Coastal_native on December 19, 2010, 09:06:28 PM
Do you guys have a game refuge on rez...that's pretty cool if you do. I'd like to see some areas over here both on and off rez get closed up during the winter to prevent harassment. At least you found gut piles and not wasted elk...I like to see elk get eaten. They didn't get the bull you were after did they? That's too bad the jerky's not from a colockum elk...as much attention as those elk get on this forum I gotta imagine they are the best tasting things on earth :chuckle:
Post by: biggdogg on December 19, 2010, 09:39:25 PM