Post by: rose-n-arrows on May 27, 2011, 09:48:04 AM
It's been a while since I visited this site (or any site) since I've been immersed in studies. I am writing a paper about contemporary Native American issues (hunting, in particular) and remembered that people had strong opinions on this forum. I am seeking input from both sides of the issue and would appreciate objective data, not inflammatory remarks. I would especially appreciate input from Native Americans. If you feel more comfortable sending me a PM, that's fine. I am asking permission to paraphrase some of your comments, so I will consider your participation an implied consent. Thanks!
Post by: h20hunter on May 27, 2011, 09:49:36 AM
Post by: Cougeyes on May 27, 2011, 10:36:04 AM
http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/tribal/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/tribal/)
Post by: rose-n-arrows on May 27, 2011, 11:32:44 AM
Post by: trophyhunt on May 27, 2011, 11:35:20 AM
Post by: CamoDup on May 27, 2011, 11:40:21 AM
Post by: bearpaw on May 27, 2011, 11:43:30 AM
Treaty rghts are agreements that were signed by both parties, treaties need to be honored. I do however think the interpretation of some treaties may be questionable. There also comes into play the fact that treaties were based on primitive modes of transportation, primitive weapons, and tribal hunting as a means of survival. When you factor in all these issues, there's no doubt tribal hunting will continue to be a highly controversial issue and all parties will never be satified with how the issue is handled. :twocents:
Post by: Curly on May 27, 2011, 11:45:24 AM
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,6349.msg70065.html#msg70065 (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,6349.msg70065.html#msg70065)
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,655.msg14708.html#msg14708 (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,655.msg14708.html#msg14708)
I'm not sure if you've already read the above threads, but they may help you somewhat.
Post by: runamuk on May 27, 2011, 12:09:01 PM
I have strong opinions and butt heads regularly with my classmates and instructor however I am entitled to my opinion even if it pisses some of them off. Which it does one guy in particular I worry he is gonna have a heart attack the way he gets defending his right as a native, had many face to face discussions with my native american boss and he never got like that we had some really good conversations.
There are a few things at work here that create this mess as far as I see it. On the one hand there were treaties written granting certain rights to the tribes and giving them certain lands. Second these tribes were also guaranteed a certain amount of reparations many with no length of time established. The tribes claim sovereign status inside another country and this is beyond awkward at best and rather unheard of in most past battles for land ownership. Further complicate this matter with a few legal interpretations by a judge and you now have the ingredients for an eternal battle.
My main points are you CANNOT manage a resource if you are not in control of the use, harvest, and monitoring. So from a purely management position the treaty rights directly conflict with the management of state resources. There is no management and cant be until everyone is held to the same standards.
Secondly on an issue of equal rights there is no equality when one group has special privileges this will create animosity and conflict period. There is no way you can give perks to one set of people based on race and not expect to see racial tensions exist.
From their standpoint they were given these rights in treaties but these treaties were written in a far different time and many are rather outdated. For a look at a new treaty there is one underway in BC Canada and it is interesting and I am sure controversial up there as well, however I am less educated on their governmental system so not sure of the impacts.
I actually dont even have a huge issue with the treaty rights but the lack of working with our government body in charge of managing resources is the bigger problem. Setting limits and seasons without full and accurate data on harvest is simply guessing and any farmer knows guessing is a good way to lose everything. Kinda like betting on a lame horse just setting yourself up to fail.
Also the inability of our government to deal with poaching issues involving natives, we have enough problems right now with illegals stealing resources lets not make it even more difficult to stop what can be stopped.
Reading the regs posted for some of the tribes is enlightening, and you will find certain groups seem to have some of the worst offenders who take pleasure in waving their rights in the faces of those who cannot stop them. There are just people like that in the world and they seem to do a huge disservice to those who are trying to work together to change things.
I think really the treaties need to be reevaluated as they pertain to todays standards, there was a time when I could of made my living off of hunting and fishing but I have had to give that up due to changing times why do the tribes feel they dont have to change as well? Can they do no other work? Why is it ok to use technology and build and operate casino's but they cannot change their hunting practices? And the claim that they must fish its the way they survive, I dunno it didn't work real well for the loggers they were told to suck it up and deal when the industry went tits up :dunno: this is the issue the practices are unfair, unequal, and give one group special rights creating division and essentially creating government approved racial profiling and racial preference which is basically the government keeping racial tension alive and well.
Post by: Cougeyes on May 27, 2011, 12:14:32 PM
I think they should have to follow the state regulations on weapon use during each season. That is, during the rut in september they should only be allowed to use bow and arrow, during rifle season for the state they should use rifle etc.... I think they shouldn't be allowed to harvest animals within a certain buffered distance of feed lots. Most of the time they claim they are just seeking food to support their tribes which I dont disagree on. However, if it's just food they're after then why are they constantly shooting big bulls and bucks, does and cows taste better anyway.
By being allowed to hunt the Colockum and Entiat, Swakane etc... during the winter is a joke. There aren't a bunch of 200 inch bucks running around but often it seems like they're targetting the trophy deer and elk more so than just the meat which could be obtained by harvesting a cow or doe.
This does not apply to all tribal members as some do typically harvest females. In the end i think the state and tribes need to come to an agreement on the number of animals that can be harvested by tribal within each GMU that lies within their ceded lands. They need to spread out their harvest rather than focusing on areas that are easy access and produce trophy animals. They should be hunting for meat not antlers, so killing a bunch of huge bulls and bucks during the rut and on their wintering grounds is a freaking joke. I think its ok if a tribal member shoots one big bull during the rut but not 10 from one area. Again not all do this.
Post by: buckhorn2 on May 27, 2011, 12:21:05 PM
Post by: h20hunter on May 27, 2011, 01:05:32 PM
Post by: rose-n-arrows on May 27, 2011, 01:38:10 PM
Post by: Glockster on May 27, 2011, 02:11:22 PM
In this case, it was not written with the caveat that once modern firearms, ATVS, and exploding human populations came along that we would renegotiate. Some say this treaty does not fit modern times. That's the very same argument anti gunners like to make against the 2nd amendment.
What I have a hard time understanding is the "open and unclaimed lands" portion of the treaty. I do not know of any unclaimed lands anywhere in the USA these days.
Post by: runamuk on May 27, 2011, 02:21:27 PM
Treaties are contracts made between sovereign nations and unless they have an expiration date, they're written in stone if / until one side decides to break it. ~If a country breaks a treaty what other country would ever make a treaty with them again?
In this case, it was not written with the caveat that once modern firearms, ATVS, and exploding human populations came along that we would renegotiate. Some say this treaty does not fit modern times. That's the very same argument anti gunners like to make against the 2nd amendment.
What I have a hard time understanding is the "open and unclaimed lands" portion of the treaty. I do not know of any unclaimed lands anywhere in the USA these days.
and most treaties also say "IN COMMON WITH" to almost all people this means following the same guidelines as everyone else however even in the boldt decision where this was emphasized it has been completely ignored and tossed aside.
I just started reading here for a topic in my class and its the website for the northwest indian fisheries commission so lots to read there from the native point of view as well, hope that helps....
http://nwifc.org/ (http://nwifc.org/)
Post by: bobcat on May 27, 2011, 02:30:23 PM
Post by: carpsniperg2 on May 27, 2011, 02:40:22 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on May 27, 2011, 03:00:05 PM
Post by: Arrowhead on May 27, 2011, 03:09:09 PM
We preach equality, but we fail to hold everyone to the same standards, and this is WRONG. The poaching issues are not an isolated problem, and the fish nets and snagging continue to create problems across the board. In my opinion this is a simple case of people wanting stuff for free, without regulation, without reprecussions.
I am not saying that every Indian of the PNW tribes is poaching, or snagging, or doing something wrong. I am stating that as long as we allow the rules to be different, then there are going to be those individuals that ABUSE the system. And those individuals need to be STOPPED! :twocents:
Post by: h20hunter on May 27, 2011, 03:20:39 PM
Post by: Wazukie on May 27, 2011, 03:27:21 PM
Yes, the "in common with" phrase is key. If the tribal members wish to hunt off reservation, then they should follow all the same rules we do. The only perk they should get is that the hunting license and tag should be free. They should be limited to one tag each for deer and elk just like we are. After all, the treaties do say "in common with". On their reservations, they can feel free to do whatever they wish.When you talk about "off reservation", don't forget that the ceded land, is considered reservation land when it comes to hunting and fishing rights of the Natives.
Post by: carpsniperg2 on May 27, 2011, 03:36:59 PM
I believe your question should possibly be narrowed down to which Native Americans you are specifically interested in. The individual tribes and more importantly the geographical regions/states that they occupy differ tremendously. Being a Native American from the plains, I am CONSTANTLY outraged by the local tribes and regulations of the Pacific Northwest. This areas laws and regulations concerning the tribal actions are a farse in my view. The hunting and fishing regulations that govern the tribes need IMMEDIATE action to be brought into the modern era. The overall "free for all" access and restrictions are doing damage not only to the wildlife but to the views of society concerning tribal actions.
We preach equality, but we fail to hold everyone to the same standards, and this is WRONG. The poaching issues are not an isolated problem, and the fish nets and snagging continue to create problems across the board. In my opinion this is a simple case of people wanting stuff for free, without regulation, without reprecussions.
I am not saying that every Indian of the PNW tribes is poaching, or snagging, or doing something wrong. I am stating that as long as we allow the rules to be different, then there are going to be those individuals that ABUSE the system. And those individuals need to be STOPPED! :twocents:
Very well put! Nice to read your :twocents: I think a few lines of that needs to be in your report!
Post by: bobcat on May 27, 2011, 04:40:58 PM
Yes, the "in common with" phrase is key. If the tribal members wish to hunt off reservation, then they should follow all the same rules we do. The only perk they should get is that the hunting license and tag should be free. They should be limited to one tag each for deer and elk just like we are. After all, the treaties do say "in common with". On their reservations, they can feel free to do whatever they wish.When you talk about "off reservation", don't forget that the ceded land, is considered reservation land when it comes to hunting and fishing rights of the Natives.
I realize that, but that's where the "in common with" phrase comes in.
Post by: Coastal_native on May 27, 2011, 10:03:28 PM
I've been thinking more and more about the challenges with co-managing a resource like wildlife...and the challenges of dealing with two different management ideologies (WDFW & Tribes). It seems that tribal management is geared toward making it at easy as possible to be successful at harvesting an animal, when it comes to setting regulations. Where as, in most cases, WDFW tries very hard to minimize hunter success, as a mitigation measure to selling 1000 times the amount of tags as the amount of available animals. I know most don't like to hear it, but tribes don't necessarily have to use that mitigation measure because they aren't putting as much of a demand on the resource. I think the reservations are proof of that...in that, there aren't any tribes that are driving big game populations into the toilet on their reservations by their hunting practices.
So it would seem that a successful season for a tribe, is if hunters have a high rate of success and wildlife population levels are maintained. Where as, a successful season for the state, is when tag revenues are high and hunter success is low. I don't know if it's possible for those two management philosophies to coexist. The tribes have the authority to manage wildlife in their ceded area and the state has been given the authority to manage wildlife throughout the state. In the areas where there is overlap, the wildlife are at the mercy of the co-managers. It'll be ugly if it ever comes down to a resource allocation. I don't see many tribes wanting to take on the philosophy that revolves around low hunter success.
My thoughts...after a second glance, very poorly worded.
Post by: bobcat on May 27, 2011, 10:30:26 PM
I think the reservations are proof of that...in that, there aren't any tribes that are driving big game populations into the toilet on their reservations by their hunting practices.
I'm not sure about the above statement. Maybe it's true, I don't know. But if that is true, then why do the Yakama indians need to go so far off their reservation to hunt deer and elk? They have a huge reservation with prime deer and elk habitat. Why don't they just hunt there? Is it because the reservation has been over-hunted and deer and elk numbers are "in the toilet"?
Post by: HighCountryHunter88 on May 27, 2011, 10:33:28 PM
Post by: Coastal_native on May 27, 2011, 10:37:16 PM
Post by: Wazukie on May 27, 2011, 10:43:43 PM
I think the reservations are proof of that...in that, there aren't any tribes that are driving big game populations into the toilet on their reservations by their hunting practices.
I'm not sure about the above statement. Maybe it's true, I don't know. But if that is true, then why do the Yakama indians need to go so far off their reservation to hunt deer and elk? They have a huge reservation with prime deer and elk habitat. Why don't they just hunt there? Is it because the reservation has been over-hunted and deer and elk numbers are "in the toilet"?
I believe its because they can. When the reservation was set up, the Yakama's retained their right to hunt and fish on all ceded land that was not privately owned. I don't agree with it, but the state has no say in it. It is a Federal issue. I agree with what has been said about the treaties needing to be revised, but it needs to be done at the Federal level, although the State could push for this but I would guess that they make to much money from the Reservations? :dunno:
Post by: trophyhunt on May 27, 2011, 10:49:57 PM
that's a fair question. I'm not sure about the Yaks. For us, I'd say it has to do with retaining the rights to the areas we've always hunted...and serving our members that live in the outlying areas of our ceded area.I respect your remarks because they are well thought out, but you say " not sure about the yaks" and it seems your more about what your tribes do. And the way you intelligently talk it seems you represent all tribes. If you just know about the way one tribe is then you should present that before you talk about facts of other tribes when you express your feelings about the subject.
Post by: bobcat on May 27, 2011, 10:53:13 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on May 27, 2011, 10:55:33 PM
[/quote] What the .... are you talking about? Making money from the res? Am I missing something? Does the state make money from any res in the state? Please, seriously let me know if this is true because I would love to know what you are talking about?
Post by: HighCountryHunter88 on May 27, 2011, 10:56:52 PM
Post by: bobcat on May 27, 2011, 10:57:21 PM
Post by: Wazukie on May 27, 2011, 10:58:32 PM
Post by: Coastal_native on May 27, 2011, 11:01:15 PM
Maybe I'll write up a disclaimer that will appear with all my posts, so no one gets confused and thinks I'm making a legally recorded comment under oath on this anonymous internet forum.
Post by: trophyhunt on May 27, 2011, 11:07:21 PM
Post by: Coastal_native on May 27, 2011, 11:10:50 PM
I do know a fair amount about many other tribes in the state...I communicate with tribal resource managers quite a bit, but you're right...that don't make me an expert.
Post by: Wazukie on May 27, 2011, 11:14:02 PM
[/quote] What the .... are you talking about? Making money from the res? Am I missing something? Does the state make money from any res in the state? Please, seriously let me know if this is true because I would love to know what you are talking about?
[/quote]
I guess I should re-word this, if you do the research, its not the state that gets the money but our glorious governor.
Post by: Coastal_native on May 27, 2011, 11:19:36 PM
I guess I should re-word this, if you do the research, its not the state that gets the money but our glorious governor.
She aint gettin any of my money...that's for sure :chuckle:
Post by: trophyhunt on May 27, 2011, 11:20:05 PM
What the .... are you talking about? Making money from the res? Am I missing something? Does the state make money from any res in the state? Please, seriously let me know if this is true because I would love to know what you are talking about?
[/quote]
I guess I should re-word this, if you do the research, its not the state that gets the money but our glorious governor.
[/quote] I'm really not trying to be a dick about this, but what money does the state collect from the tribes? I have allways assumed that the tribes never pay taxes and received cheap loans, cheap or free housing and didn't pay a cent of casino profits to the state? I also read quite a bit about the state paying millions in gas taxes back to the tribe for projects that have never been finished. Please inform me, again I'm not being a smart ass.
Post by: Wazukie on May 27, 2011, 11:26:18 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on May 27, 2011, 11:30:42 PM
Post by: Coastal_native on May 27, 2011, 11:35:48 PM
rose-n-arrows,
I wrote a paper in my undergrad technical writing class that was basically the same topic. The best input I got was from interviews with non-tribal natural resource managers...non-indians that've worked for tribes managing fish and wildlife for many years. They have very objective opinions, especially if they fish or hunt. Most tribes have a handful of them. Good luck!
Post by: rose-n-arrows on May 28, 2011, 09:21:30 AM
Post by: asl20bball on May 28, 2011, 10:31:29 AM
Post by: buckhorn2 on May 28, 2011, 11:53:58 AM
Post by: sakoshooter on May 29, 2011, 12:38:06 PM
Waaaaaaaaaaaay back when, my fore fathers hunted and fished for subsistance just like the Indians. We depleted the resources quickly with the Indians help. No one was innocent of over harvest in those days. The white man has since enacted hunting seasons and limits and lots of restrictions to conserve the resource for future generations. The Indians did not do this nor were they made to adhere to our limits, seasons or any of the retrictions. There is no common sense reason for this.
Treaties were written and signed. Some ignored, some upheld, even still today. The Native Americans were made US citizens many years ago so they "are" just like us, supposedly. They should be made to buy hunting/fishing licenses like every US citizen does. Pay taxes and be restricted to the exact same limitations as every US citizen is.
There should be no sorereign nations. This is and should be 100% one nation under God. No ifs, ands or buts.
We had the fortitude to see the consequences of our actions years ago and created laws to conserve these resources. These laws should be upheld by everyone in this great nation, period!
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on May 29, 2011, 01:42:59 PM
I have a little different take on it than some.YA I agree Dale ... My biggest complaint is when they net the rivers and we are shut down ... Something just does not make sense here...
Treaty rghts are agreements that were signed by both parties, treaties need to be honored. I do however think the interpretation of some treaties may be questionable. There also comes into play the fact that treaties were based on primitive modes of transportation, primitive weapons, and tribal hunting as a means of survival. When you factor in all these issues, there's no doubt tribal hunting will continue to be a highly controversial issue and all parties will never be satified with how the issue is handled. :twocents:
Post by: huntnnw on May 29, 2011, 05:15:01 PM
Post by: Gringo31 on June 02, 2011, 10:31:29 AM
I want to thank Coastal Native for always being such a class act. He could tell all us white guys to piss off and deal with it. :chuckle:
Good discussion and communication on these issues seems to be rare...even on here. In short, I wish there were more men out there like Coastal Native.