Post by: asl20bball on May 11, 2011, 03:44:23 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on May 11, 2011, 04:36:22 PM
Post by: bowpredator on May 11, 2011, 04:48:03 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on May 11, 2011, 04:56:37 PM
Post by: bigtex on May 11, 2011, 06:59:19 PM
The entire FS 74 RD system is closed to vehicles due to a washout that occured about 5 years go. The FS doesn't really have any concrete plans to rebuild the road because there is no $ money to do so.
Trophy,
New this year the three Hancock tree farms (Snoqualmie, White River, and Kapowsin) are no longer considered "open and unclaimed" lands which allow tribal hunters to hunt them using tribal laws. So if a tribal member wants to hunt those areas they must follow WDFW regulations. However all USFS lands will still be considered "open and unclaimed"
Post by: trophyhunt on May 11, 2011, 07:32:39 PM
Post by: asl20bball on May 11, 2011, 08:07:52 PM
Thanks for the info. Guess I wont try looking for black bear up FSRD74. :-)
Sounds like the best bet for this permit draw is the SE portion of the unit east of hwy 410.
Post by: bigtex on May 11, 2011, 08:14:03 PM
That sounds like great news, I wonder who will enforce the laws on them if they continue to do what they will on handcock properties?
Well for one its Hancock, no D.
Well if any tribal member is on land that is not "open and unclaimed" then WDFW can do whatever they see fit with them if they violate a WDFW law. It's just when they are on "open and unclaimed" lands that tribal laws apply and WDFW is basically powerless.
Post by: cem3434 on May 12, 2011, 12:05:07 PM
We passed up or missed out on eight bulls and a couple of spikes before finally shooting a 6x6. All of them expect one were on USFS property and back away from the roads. In all of our scouting and hunting, we only seen about 6 bulls on Hancock's property because the Indians slaughter them in there unless they avoid the roads.
My fiance also had a tag since we put in on a group hunt. We tried to get her a nice bull for her first elk, but the Indians came in and shot a 6x6 that we were on the last Friday of the season. We seen him bed up about 300 yards off the road right before dark and they shot it sometime Friday night We returned in the morning and caught them loading it in the dark still. I got into with them and they told me that "Whitey" didn't deserve to hunt their sacred hunting grounds and I left while I could still resist the urge to scalp somebody.
We tried to turn them in, but I was told they could do whatever they wanted. I am actually 3/8 Native American, not Indian, but I have never even thought about getting rights because my "people" haven't been suppressed. I think the Indians not being able to hunt that area is a good thing and maybe they can learn to hunt like the rest of us "Whitey's."
My fiance ended up shooting a spike later that day, which we had actually seen twice before. He didn't have a big rack like the one that Indians poached, but he sure is tender!
I found that Bigtex probably knows as much or more about this unit than any other person I talked to, so he is a must talk to if you get drawn.
Post by: trophyhunt on May 12, 2011, 08:13:21 PM
Post by: bigtex on May 12, 2011, 08:20:19 PM
with that kind of attitude from the indians, do you really think that just because Hancock says it's not "open and unclaimed" land that they won't be there poaching? Hell yes they'll be there and they'll do what they please. Not saying you don't know what's up big tex but, who has ever in the past 100 years told the indians they can't hunt on a piece of property and have it stick. I don't believe that the 11 tribes that hunt that area are just gonna stop because Hancock changes some wording. I wish it was true, sorry for being negative.
Well its not Hancock saying it, its the county prosecutors that have decided the Hancock land is not "open and unclaimed". Of course there will be poaching, there is always poaching, especially on these "private" timber companies land that limit access but only have one security person on each tree farm.
Post by: trophyhunt on May 12, 2011, 08:22:56 PM
Post by: bigtex on May 12, 2011, 09:17:52 PM
Did this change happen just this year?
yes
Post by: TikkaT3-270Shortmag on May 12, 2011, 11:33:25 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on May 13, 2011, 04:05:50 AM
That is huge, I wonder how the tribes are feeling about that ruling? So can every private property owner claim the same thing? like Wheyrehouser (probably spelled wrong) ? It must be going to the courts? And why did it take sooooo long for someone to think of this? Anyway, sorry for jacking a thread. Just a little bit excited about it. Any info on a link to a news report or anything Tex? Thanks.Did this change happen just this year?
yes
Post by: bigtex on May 13, 2011, 03:48:40 PM
That is huge, I wonder how the tribes are feeling about that ruling? So can every private property owner claim the same thing? like Wheyrehouser (probably spelled wrong) ? It must be going to the courts? And why did it take sooooo long for someone to think of this? Anyway, sorry for jacking a thread. Just a little bit excited about it. Any info on a link to a news report or anything Tex? Thanks.Did this change happen just this year?
yes
No links that I know of. The big "breaking point" with Hancock is that you have to pay to enter their property, whereas with a lot of Rayonier or Weyerhauser land it is simply wide open gates, there isn't really a access restriction.