Post by: bearpaw on June 13, 2011, 07:04:22 AM
The concerns that I was asked to share:
If the tribes can be used to control bear populations on state land with baiting and hounds, (the general public cannot) and this is allowed to happen, how many more areas will tribes be used to manage overpopulated bear and what other species will the tribes be used to manage wildlife by state or federal agencies simply because the tribes can use hunting methods which have been made illegal for other hunters to use.
What effects will this have on hunting opportunities for the general public to allow the tribes to manage wildlife on public land using methods and with access that the general public does not have.
If DNR is allowed to utilize this type of management, will this set a precedent that will eventually change the course of wildlife management from this time forward.
____________________________________________
From: Milner, Ruth L (DFW)
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 12:52 PM
To:
Subject: Bears on DNR lands
Good Morning,
Sergeant Chandler called me this am to let me know that Brian Ballard, a manager within DNR’s South Puget Region, has issued gate keys and permission to hunt over bait on all their lands south of Hwy 18 to the Muckleshoot Tribe. Our guess is that this is their way of solving their peeling problems. We realize there’s not much we can say about their decision, but obviously there are some issues for us:
1) WDFW officers will not be able to distinguish a tribal bait pile from an illegal one
2) Officer safety could become a factor because of the confusion over who has a right to hunt vs those who don’t
3) Non-tribal hunters will likely be dismayed because they don’t have access, can’t use bait, and can’t hunt at this time of the year
4) Non-hunters in King County will likely be dismayed over bears killed in the spring using bait
We wanted to make you aware of their decision. Please let me know if you want Kim or me to do anything other than monitor the situation, which his detachment will do as time permits.
Thanks,
Ruth
Ruth L. Milner
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
District Wildlife Biologist
PO Box 1100
La Conner, WA 98257
360-466-4345 ext 265
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on June 13, 2011, 07:30:47 AM
I was asked to share the following message with the public by a concerned citizen who wishes to remain anonymous.just freaken lovely ... everyday that goes by they have something new up their sleeve ... I know ruth so I will be writting to her ASAP ....They need a serious awakening ... lets all quit hunting and fishing and see what that brings to the plate !!! :chuckle: :chuckle:
The concerns that I was asked to share:
If the tribes can be used to control bear populations on state land with baiting and hounds, (the general public cannot) and this is allowed to happen, how many more areas will tribes be used to manage overpopulated bear and what other species will the tribes be used to manage wildlife by state or federal agencies simply because the tribes can use hunting methods which have been made illegal for other hunters to use.
What effects will this have on hunting opportunities for the general public to allow the tribes to manage wildlife on public land using methods and with access that the general public does not have.
If DNR is allowed to utilize this type of management, will this set a precedent that will eventually change the course of wildlife management from this time forward.
____________________________________________
From: Milner, Ruth L (DFW)
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 12:52 PM
To:
Subject: Bears on DNR lands
Good Morning,
Sergeant Chandler called me this am to let me know that Brian Ballard, a manager within DNR’s South Puget Region, has issued gate keys and permission to hunt over bait on all their lands south of Hwy 18 to the Muckleshoot Tribe. Our guess is that this is their way of solving their peeling problems. We realize there’s not much we can say about their decision, but obviously there are some issues for us:
1) WDFW officers will not be able to distinguish a tribal bait pile from an illegal one
2) Officer safety could become a factor because of the confusion over who has a right to hunt vs those who don’t
3) Non-tribal hunters will likely be dismayed because they don’t have access, can’t use bait, and can’t hunt at this time of the year
4) Non-hunters in King County will likely be dismayed over bears killed in the spring using bait
We wanted to make you aware of their decision. Please let me know if you want Kim or me to do anything other than monitor the situation, which his detachment will do as time permits.
Thanks,
Ruth
Ruth L. Milner
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
District Wildlife Biologist
PO Box 1100
La Conner, WA 98257
360-466-4345 ext 265
Post by: Old Dog on June 13, 2011, 07:47:38 AM
Post by: Special T on June 13, 2011, 07:54:11 AM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on June 13, 2011, 07:58:13 AM
I was going to wait until we were in WFW committee before I spoke out on this but here is my :twocents: . This State hates us. They don't like the idea of anything being hunted & killed by evil white men. (Tribal hunters are not evil.) Wolves will reduce populations of everything by 25% to 50%. Expect harvestable opportunity for average people to be reduced by half of what it is now. With that said, if say the number of elk available for harvest is only 4000 and Natives already take between 1000 and 2000 the numbers are equal between Natives and the "General" population of humans. That is what this ALL is about in my opinion. That is why we NEED so many wolves. Then this nagging issue of Tribal hunting verses the rest of us will be ended. Our Politicians can continue the very important business of over regulating Washington, perfect standardized testing for education, increasing taxes, and running businesses into the ground. Did you know that Washington State ranks 44th out of 50 in the most free States in America? (50th would be the worst.)
Tribes are considered "partners" with State Agencies, they are part of the solution. We are considered adversaries. After all, we are evil.
Post by: MtnMuley on June 13, 2011, 08:04:44 AM
Post by: runamuk on June 13, 2011, 08:13:40 AM
Post by: bearpaw on June 13, 2011, 08:16:45 AM
This type of tribal bear hunting has been going on for quite some time now. All the more reason WDFW management is horses*#t. It makes you wonder what's next, as they can pull this crap and fly by with it. >:(
Is it the Colville's you are referring too? I am aware the Colville's can hunt the north half but that is a different situation, the Colville's reserved hunting rights on the north half and I do not have issue with that. This situation in western Washington I am told is different.
Post by: elkoholic1 on June 13, 2011, 08:19:05 AM
Post by: huntnfmly on June 13, 2011, 08:19:26 AM
jim
Post by: Wenatcheejay on June 13, 2011, 08:19:50 AM
So we came to this country and we won and then we claimed we are a free people and we gave states the rights to manage themselves all so we could become oppressed and treated like criminals for simply wanting to live our lives :dunno: making sure I have this right because when the losers of a war/game/etc have more rights than the winners it seems to me something has gone very very wrong....
You are especially evil because you side with us EWM. (Evil White Men.)
;)
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on June 13, 2011, 08:27:28 AM
Post by: Gamblin Guy on June 13, 2011, 08:31:38 AM
What we should do is sent these discussions to the governor so she can see what we are saying about this state ... make sense ?
And copy your elected reps, flood them with emails and voicemails on this thing, especially in light of them passing the Discovery Pass.
Post by: jstone on June 13, 2011, 08:32:26 AM
Post by: Gamblin Guy on June 13, 2011, 09:08:34 AM
It has been brought to the attention of the sportsman of this state that we are once again being treated as second class citizens by the Department of Natural Resources. I would like to say that I am surprised but sadly I am not. Please take a minute and read the following post:
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,77711.msg956038/topicseen.html#new (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,77711.msg956038/topicseen.html#new)
As you are aware, hunting over bait for bears was outlawed several years ago but it appears someone within the DNR has decided to allow a select group ignore that law on state owned lands.
As a long time resident and sportsman in Washington, it is becoming harder and harder for me to continue to purchase hunting and fishing licenses for myself and my two children when these types of decision are made.
Respectfully,
Post by: sebek556 on June 13, 2011, 09:21:38 AM
Post by: bucklucky on June 13, 2011, 09:30:13 AM
Post by: Alan K on June 13, 2011, 09:30:33 AM
What ever happened to the 'in common with' part of that treaty?
Post by: sebek556 on June 13, 2011, 09:35:12 AM
Post by: True Sportsman on June 13, 2011, 09:37:22 AM
I worked for a timber company and the company could get bear damage permits for areas where bears peeled trees. The company would then contact guys with hounds to come in, track down bears, and kill them. The company would issue gate keys to the hound hunters. There were a bunch of requirements that had to be met, for instance a bear had to be killed within a certain distance to the damage.
The DNR is state land, I know. I dont know the laws or precedent that the DNR has to follow regarding bear damage permits on DNR land.
It could be that the DNR has bear damage on its land, and they are getting damage permits, and the Muckleshoots are killing bears on those permits. And yes, they would need gate keys to access the area. If the DNR cannot issue damage permits on state land, and they are using the Muckleshoots through a loophole in the system, that is another story.
This might not be the huge deal everyone is making it out to be.
Post by: stw on June 13, 2011, 09:46:02 AM
Post by: saylean on June 13, 2011, 09:50:55 AM
Post by: bearpaw on June 13, 2011, 10:04:09 AM
The WDFW hands are somewhat tied because public hunters are not able to use baiting or hounds due to the initiative which was passed several years ago by voters. Legislators have not overturned that vote so it stands. Tribes are not bound by those restrictions, so it appears the DNR is bypassing WDFW management of wildlife.
However, if bear are such a problem there, was there additional spring tags issued? :dunno:
Post by: saylean on June 13, 2011, 10:08:46 AM
Post by: bearpaw on June 13, 2011, 10:19:10 AM
Dnr went to game department and game department Didnt do anything so thay gave the key to the tribes so its are good game department thats doing it to all of us hunters not Dnr
Can you provide any other info regarding this?
Post by: huntnfmly on June 13, 2011, 10:23:04 AM
It sounds to me that since the WDFW hasn't reduced bear damage that the DNR is bypassing state management and using the tribe. This is the way it was explained to me, not sure of the details, but I forwarded the same info to a few people who will likely check into the situation.Ruth just called me and that is exactly how she explained it to me.That we as non tribal members are bound by the no bait or hounds but tribal members are not so that is how the dnr is taking care of peeling.Ruth said they are very dissapointed with dnr decision are trying to come up with better ways to manage the problem.Aka more permits or longer seasons
The WDFW hands are somewhat tied because public hunters are not able to use baiting or hounds due to the initiative which was passed several years ago by voters. Legislators have not overturned that vote so it stands. Tribes are not bound by those restrictions, so it appears the DNR is bypassing WDFW management of wildlife.
However, if bear are such a problem there, was there additional spring tags issued? :dunno:
Post by: True Sportsman on June 13, 2011, 10:45:11 AM
It sounds to me that since the WDFW hasn't reduced bear damage that the DNR is bypassing state management and using the tribe. This is the way it was explained to me, not sure of the details, but I forwarded the same info to a few people who will likely check into the situation.Ruth just called me and that is exactly how she explained it to me.That we as non tribal members are bound by the no bait or hounds but tribal members are not so that is how the dnr is taking care of peeling.Ruth said they are very dissapointed with dnr decision are trying to come up with better ways to manage the problem.Aka more permits or longer seasons
The WDFW hands are somewhat tied because public hunters are not able to use baiting or hounds due to the initiative which was passed several years ago by voters. Legislators have not overturned that vote so it stands. Tribes are not bound by those restrictions, so it appears the DNR is bypassing WDFW management of wildlife.
However, if bear are such a problem there, was there additional spring tags issued? :dunno:
I know on private land, timber companies can use individuals to hound hunt on bear damage permits. Thise individuals dont have to be tribal. That might not be the case on DNR land. DNR might have to use tribal members because of some rule they have.
My guess is the DNR has quite a problem with bear damage and lots of damaged trees. They needed to find a solution immediately, so they went to the tribe to take out some problem bears. You can say they could have done more permit hunts and other options, but the fact is hound hunting is the most effective way to kill bears. Especially problem bears.
Post by: huntnfmly on June 13, 2011, 10:55:00 AM
correct private land they dont need to use tribal members but with dnr being public land they have to use tribal members to get around law.It was not me that said they needed more permits or longer seasons kt was ruth saying that they are working on that and yes the best way to manage the problem is with hounds i agreeIt sounds to me that since the WDFW hasn't reduced bear damage that the DNR is bypassing state management and using the tribe. This is the way it was explained to me, not sure of the details, but I forwarded the same info to a few people who will likely check into the situation.Ruth just called me and that is exactly how she explained it to me.That we as non tribal members are bound by the no bait or hounds but tribal members are not so that is how the dnr is taking care of peeling.Ruth said they are very dissapointed with dnr decision are trying to come up with better ways to manage the problem.Aka more permits or longer seasons
The WDFW hands are somewhat tied because public hunters are not able to use baiting or hounds due to the initiative which was passed several years ago by voters. Legislators have not overturned that vote so it stands. Tribes are not bound by those restrictions, so it appears the DNR is bypassing WDFW management of wildlife.
However, if bear are such a problem there, was there additional spring tags issued? :dunno:
I know on private land, timber companies can use individuals to hound hunt on bear damage permits. Thise individuals dont have to be tribal. That might not be the case on DNR land. DNR might have to use tribal members because of some rule they have.
My guess is the DNR has quite a problem with bear damage and lots of damaged trees. They needed to find a solution immediately, so they went to the tribe to take out some problem bears. You can say they could have done more permit hunts and other options, but the fact is hound hunting is the most effective way to kill bears. Especially problem bears.
Post by: Wenatcheejay on June 13, 2011, 11:00:37 AM
It sounds to me that since the WDFW hasn't reduced bear damage that the DNR is bypassing state management and using the tribe. This is the way it was explained to me, not sure of the details, but I forwarded the same info to a few people who will likely check into the situation.Ruth just called me and that is exactly how she explained it to me.That we as non tribal members are bound by the no bait or hounds but tribal members are not so that is how the dnr is taking care of peeling.Ruth said they are very disappointed with dnr decision are trying to come up with better ways to manage the problem.Aka more permits or longer seasons
The WDFW hands are somewhat tied because public hunters are not able to use baiting or hounds due to the initiative which was passed several years ago by voters. Legislators have not overturned that vote so it stands. Tribes are not bound by those restrictions, so it appears the DNR is bypassing WDFW management of wildlife.
However, if bear are such a problem there, was there additional spring tags issued? :dunno:
This is why these initiatives should be rescinded. Why can't our State understand that the reason Tim Eyman is so popular? They should be making revenue from bear baiting. People would pay. Instead you have private enterprise being harmed by nuisance bears, loosing revenue, and the State not making revenue where it should.
Post by: Gringo31 on June 13, 2011, 11:01:29 AM
Handing the keys to the tribe is.......playing with fire.
Post by: THunt on June 13, 2011, 11:02:06 AM
Post by: rebal69972 on June 13, 2011, 11:13:35 AM
I'm registered native American and i don't get all these perks but I'm from another part of the country and there we have to follow the same rules as everyone alse and it works just fine :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on June 13, 2011, 11:15:27 AM
Dale, I just got off the phone with DFW enforcement and our fears are justified. It is considered lawful for tribal hunters to bait and or use hounds or use body gripping traps on open and unclaimed land {forest service, DNR} that is within their usual and accustomed areas or ceded lands. This can only be changed by Congressional action. The keys for access can be influenced at the State level and I will continue to pursue that issue so that we all may have equal access.
Rep. Brian Blake
Post by: stw on June 13, 2011, 11:20:36 AM
Post by: bucklucky on June 13, 2011, 11:24:20 AM
It sounds to me that since the WDFW hasn't reduced bear damage that the DNR is bypassing state management and using the tribe. This is the way it was explained to me, not sure of the details, but I forwarded the same info to a few people who will likely check into the situation.Ruth just called me and that is exactly how she explained it to me.That we as non tribal members are bound by the no bait or hounds but tribal members are not so that is how the dnr is taking care of peeling.Ruth said they are very dissapointed with dnr decision are trying to come up with better ways to manage the problem.Aka more permits or longer seasons
The WDFW hands are somewhat tied because public hunters are not able to use baiting or hounds due to the initiative which was passed several years ago by voters. Legislators have not overturned that vote so it stands. Tribes are not bound by those restrictions, so it appears the DNR is bypassing WDFW management of wildlife.
However, if bear are such a problem there, was there additional spring tags issued? :dunno:
I know on private land, timber companies can use individuals to hound hunt on bear damage permits. Thise individuals dont have to be tribal. That might not be the case on DNR land. DNR might have to use tribal members because of some rule they have.
My guess is the DNR has quite a problem with bear damage and lots of damaged trees. They needed to find a solution immediately, so they went to the tribe to take out some problem bears. You can say they could have done more permit hunts and other options, but the fact is hound hunting is the most effective way to kill bears. Especially problem bears.
Some of the worst damage areas I have found was on DNR land and they would never issue us a permitt to run the dogs . Said they dont issue permitss for state land?? That was 5-6 years ago when I had my last Depredation permitt for bears. ?????
Post by: bigtex on June 13, 2011, 11:27:35 AM
Ya my friend talks to Dnr all the time . Dnr wanted a spring bear hunt wardens in 460 said thier wasn't enough evidents on damage and blow Dnr off so they gave the key to the tribes
I want to clarify this. It wasn't WDFW Officers ("wardens") that said there wasn't enough damage evidence. It was most likely the local wildlife biologists that came to that conclusion. WDFW Officers don't really get involved in the biological/scientific issues like they did 20 years ago, they are strictly law enforcement. And also, the area that DNR is giving the keys to the tribe is located in GMU 454
Post by: Gamblin Guy on June 13, 2011, 11:36:00 AM
There is one WDFW Officer in the 460 area that is very bear friendly and may have some influence on what stw has stated. Not saying that is normal, just know from first hand experience with this particular officer that he is very enamoured with bears.
Post by: buckhorn2 on June 13, 2011, 11:36:58 AM
Post by: stw on June 13, 2011, 11:38:33 AM
Post by: bigtex on June 13, 2011, 11:44:19 AM
And while they are in there what happens if a nice buck or a big bull elk walks across is it bear only or can they shoot what ever they want.
Well if it is their legal (open) season then they have the ability to shoot the animal legally under tribal laws.
Post by: bigtex on June 13, 2011, 11:45:04 AM
Thier are to main gates one is off of 18 and i90 and one is off of x27 to the right. That take u to the towers witch are in 460 east side of 18 before raging river is in 460
That's true, I was just saying that not all this area is 460
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 13, 2011, 12:01:19 PM
We can't hound/bait hunt because of a public vote in '96. That can't be rescinded without another vote, possibly legislative action. I don't see the legislature overturning a bill passed by the people, as they're unpopular enough.
The tribes hunt under federal treaties and I would imagine that's why DNR is choosing to offer them the hunts, because there's less paperwork and less a chance of the voters in the state to cry "foul".
I'm not a big fan of the DNR in all of its decisions, but this appears to be a more simple solution for a bear damage problem than otherwise available.
If this doesn't work for you, start a petition to get hounds/bait hunting back on the ballot or find a reason the law is unconstitutional and can be overturned by the state supreme court. Just my :twocents:
Post by: True Sportsman on June 13, 2011, 12:11:48 PM
It sounds to me that since the WDFW hasn't reduced bear damage that the DNR is bypassing state management and using the tribe. This is the way it was explained to me, not sure of the details, but I forwarded the same info to a few people who will likely check into the situation.Ruth just called me and that is exactly how she explained it to me.That we as non tribal members are bound by the no bait or hounds but tribal members are not so that is how the dnr is taking care of peeling.Ruth said they are very dissapointed with dnr decision are trying to come up with better ways to manage the problem.Aka more permits or longer seasons
The WDFW hands are somewhat tied because public hunters are not able to use baiting or hounds due to the initiative which was passed several years ago by voters. Legislators have not overturned that vote so it stands. Tribes are not bound by those restrictions, so it appears the DNR is bypassing WDFW management of wildlife.
However, if bear are such a problem there, was there additional spring tags issued? :dunno:
I know on private land, timber companies can use individuals to hound hunt on bear damage permits. Thise individuals dont have to be tribal. That might not be the case on DNR land. DNR might have to use tribal members because of some rule they have.
My guess is the DNR has quite a problem with bear damage and lots of damaged trees. They needed to find a solution immediately, so they went to the tribe to take out some problem bears. You can say they could have done more permit hunts and other options, but the fact is hound hunting is the most effective way to kill bears. Especially problem bears.
Some of the worst damage areas I have found was on DNR land and they would never issue us a permitt to run the dogs . Said they dont issue permitss for state land?? That was 5-6 years ago when I had my last Depredation permitt for bears. ?????
That is rather interesting. I never knew that no permits for state land. I didn't know you did damage permits either. That is pretty cool.
It sounds like the only option the DNR had would be the tribe to get rid of those problem bears. It seems like their hands are tied in some instances... I say good for the DNR to find a loophole and use it. I just hope the tribe conducts themselves professionally and respectfully.
Post by: PlateauNDN on June 13, 2011, 04:18:18 PM
why cant we all join a tribe. problem solved.
I'm registered native American and i don't get all these perks but I'm from another part of the country and there we have to follow the same rules as everyone alse and it works just fine :twocents:
If you don't mind me asking which Tribe are you "registered" with?
It sounds to me that since the WDFW hasn't reduced bear damage that the DNR is bypassing state management and using the tribe. This is the way it was explained to me, not sure of the details, but I forwarded the same info to a few people who will likely check into the situation.Ruth just called me and that is exactly how she explained it to me.That we as non tribal members are bound by the no bait or hounds but tribal members are not so that is how the dnr is taking care of peeling.Ruth said they are very dissapointed with dnr decision are trying to come up with better ways to manage the problem.Aka more permits or longer seasons
The WDFW hands are somewhat tied because public hunters are not able to use baiting or hounds due to the initiative which was passed several years ago by voters. Legislators have not overturned that vote so it stands. Tribes are not bound by those restrictions, so it appears the DNR is bypassing WDFW management of wildlife.
However, if bear are such a problem there, was there additional spring tags issued? :dunno:
I know on private land, timber companies can use individuals to hound hunt on bear damage permits. Thise individuals dont have to be tribal. That might not be the case on DNR land. DNR might have to use tribal members because of some rule they have.
My guess is the DNR has quite a problem with bear damage and lots of damaged trees. They needed to find a solution immediately, so they went to the tribe to take out some problem bears. You can say they could have done more permit hunts and other options, but the fact is hound hunting is the most effective way to kill bears. Especially problem bears.
Some of the worst damage areas I have found was on DNR land and they would never issue us a permitt to run the dogs . Said they dont issue permitss for state land?? That was 5-6 years ago when I had my last Depredation permitt for bears. ?????
That is rather interesting. I never knew that no permits for state land. I didn't know you did damage permits either. That is pretty cool.
It sounds like the only option the DNR had would be the tribe to get rid of those problem bears. It seems like their hands are tied in some instances... I say good for the DNR to find a loophole and use it. I just hope the tribe conducts themselves professionally and respectfully.
This topic has had a lot of good debate and it would be nice if people didn't just jump to conclusions and start ringing Tribes by the neck. A loophole was found and exploited, doesn't sound any different than the Antelope Re-introduction project down here on the Yakama Reservation. A loophole was found and exploited. It does play on the grounds of being unfair but still legal? As far as officers being the ones to make the decisions on if there is a bear problem highly unlikely. As mentioned before it was highly likely that it was a biologist that made that decision. That would be like a patrol officer having say on his/her shooting board for using deadly force. Not going to happen. Those types of decisions are left up to the admins. or elected officials.
Post by: uncoolperson on June 13, 2011, 04:45:23 PM
Quote
SECTION 12 SPECIAL PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES PROHIBITED. No law shall be passed granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or corporation other than municipal, privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens, or corporations.http://www.leg.wa.gov/LAWSANDAGENCYRULES/Pages/constitution.aspx (http://www.leg.wa.gov/LAWSANDAGENCYRULES/Pages/constitution.aspx)
Post by: Special T on June 13, 2011, 05:45:26 PM
Tribes ask and recieve... We ask and get shunned, belittled and taxed... Who is to blame? Those that ask? or those that make the decisions?
Post by: Wenatcheejay on June 13, 2011, 05:51:48 PM
Just like many things, we have spent our time and resources doing things outside of government. There are many places that need change in our state government. Everything from our local politicains, teachers, state reps and Gov act like they have little vested intrest in the sucess of our state. We need to take back our government by working in it... This isn't the fault of the tribes but rather our leadership... This is but the tip of the iceburg... It will be much easier to turn to the tribes to solve problems becasue of BS red tape that each agency has created themselves! :bash:
Tribes ask and recieve... We ask and get shunned, belittled and taxed... Who is to blame? Those that ask? or those that make the decisions?
:yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah:
Post by: bearpaw on June 13, 2011, 06:25:24 PM
If I was a tribal member I would be right there baiting and hounding too. It is our state that is flawed, you can't blame the tribe for taking the opportunity when it's handed to them on a golden platter. :twocents:
Post by: True Sportsman on June 13, 2011, 06:33:56 PM
:yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah:
If I was a tribal member I would be right there baiting and hounding too. It is our state that is flawed, you can't blame the tribe for taking the opportunity when it's handed to them on a golden platter. :twocents:
Very well said. My thoughts exactly...
Post by: Wenatcheejay on June 13, 2011, 06:45:45 PM
:yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah:
If I was a tribal member I would be right there baiting and hounding too. It is our state that is flawed, you can't blame the tribe for taking the opportunity when it's handed to them on a golden platter. :twocents:
Very well said. My thoughts exactly...
My how Tribal threads have changes since a few years ago. :)
Post by: bobcat on June 13, 2011, 06:46:43 PM
Just like they did for Capitol Forest, which is state DNR land, from 2005 to 2009. This is ridiculous. We could have had 100 or more permits for spring bear hunting, but instead this opportunity goes to the indians.
It is true, the state cannot issue depredation permits for hound hunting of bears on state land. That's why ALL state land should have a numerous amount of spring bear permits. If the indians still want to go in and hunt the same areas, they are free to do so. But us "non-natives" should also be given the opportunity.
I also do not feel it is right for the tribal members to have keys that allow them to drive in behind gates where we cannot.
Post by: trophyhunt on June 13, 2011, 06:47:02 PM
Post by: bobcat on June 13, 2011, 06:48:21 PM
:yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah:
If I was a tribal member I would be right there baiting and hounding too. It is our state that is flawed, you can't blame the tribe for taking the opportunity when it's handed to them on a golden platter. :twocents:
Very well said. My thoughts exactly...
My how Tribal threads have changes since a few years ago. :)
I'm not sure how this is a change. We have always put plenty of blame on our government for these problems, both state and federal.
Post by: Wenatcheejay on June 13, 2011, 06:58:38 PM
:yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah:
If I was a tribal member I would be right there baiting and hounding too. It is our state that is flawed, you can't blame the tribe for taking the opportunity when it's handed to them on a golden platter. :twocents:
Very well said. My thoughts exactly...
My how Tribal threads have changes since a few years ago. :)
I'm not sure how this is a change. We have always put plenty of blame on our government for these problems, both state and federal.
Because there are not endless pages of flaming natives. I meant it as a complement. Maybe I am wrong and that never happened in the past. :sry:
Post by: bobcat on June 13, 2011, 07:56:53 PM
Because there are not endless pages of flaming natives. I meant it as a complement. Maybe I am wrong and that never happened in the past. :sry:
No need to be sorry. I guess I just didn't understand your comment.
Post by: Jingles on June 13, 2011, 08:34:06 PM
Post by: asl20bball on June 13, 2011, 09:06:06 PM
Post by: rebal69972 on June 13, 2011, 09:28:47 PM
Post by: uncoolperson on June 13, 2011, 09:39:08 PM
i just don't know where to start and could use alittle guidance from someone with alittle more knowledge then i have
could buy me my next deer tag... that's one deer that ain't getting shot. :chuckle:
Post by: Special T on June 13, 2011, 09:44:44 PM
I give my time to my archery club Silver Arrow Bowmen in Mt Vernon and Pimp it every chance i get...
I don't vote for Jag-offs that don't use their noodle when making simple decisions that affect me.
I DON"T BUY FISHING LIC and vote my wallet. I hate the way the state runs fishing and have been treated badly so guess what? I DON'T FISH and gave my girl a bow instead of a pole.
The state can ignore my time and effort to convince them to do the right thing.
The state can count illegal votes and make end runs around my informed votes.
The State can TRY and bilk me for extra $$$ but it much harder... They need my money too and when enough other outdoors-men decide to quite or spend less, eventually someone will have to listen. :twocents:
Post by: MtnMuley on June 14, 2011, 07:53:37 AM
This type of tribal bear hunting has been going on for quite some time now. All the more reason WDFW management is horses*#t. It makes you wonder what's next, as they can pull this crap and fly by with it. >:(
Is it the Colville's you are referring too? I am aware the Colville's can hunt the north half but that is a different situation, the Colville's reserved hunting rights on the north half and I do not have issue with that. This situation in western Washington I am told is different.
I am referring to the westside. There are other members here that are also very aware of this, that know a lot more details about it than me.
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on June 14, 2011, 09:26:46 AM
director@dfw.wa.gov;
publicaffairs@dfw.wa.gov
wildthing@dfw.wa.gov
scott.brummer@dfw.wa.gov
dont forget Donny Martorello
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
donny.martorello@dfw.wa.gov he is the guy in charge in Western Washington, when it comes to bears and the Spring hunts.
Post by: PlateauNDN on June 14, 2011, 09:45:57 AM
Well first off unless they are hunting on Tribal lands ( reservation) they should be required to hunt in accordance with the laws that apply to the general public. Dates, Times, Weapons, and ALL restrictions. Second If they are supposedly hunting on Historic hunting grounds then they must use the weapons that they used during the same time period in history.
Thank you for the comment and if I may respond? To answer your first question about hunting on Tribal Lands in accordance with the Treaty of 1855 with the 14 Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation (Not referring to any other Tribe but the Yakama) was granted lands that stretched from the edge of Mt. Rainier east to present day Pasco north to Lake Chelan and south to the Columbia River.
I attached a map below outlining the original land base held by the Yakama Nation until it was Ceded by the US Government and declared open and unclaimed land by the then Governor of Washington and we were left with what is now the current Reservation. If the US Govt. had held true to their word then our Reservation would cover nearly half the State and be one of the largest Reservations in the Nation.
Things happened in the past that you nor I can do anything about and we are here dealing with the aftermath and making the best of it. It has been said here before many times and I'm going to repeat it again. If you want to blame somebody, then blame the Govt. Don't blame the "Indian" for exercising their rights granted by the US Govt.
I'm pretty sure the Muckleshoot Tribe did not approach the State DNR and say you have a bear problem and we want to fix it. According to what I have read on here it was the other way around. The Muckleshoot were presented with an opportunity and they took it. Anybody presented with this type of opportunity would jump on it as well. If they opened it up as to more tags or longer season then there would be more hunters applying for them and the State could've made more money on it but, it did not happen that way and this just happens to be the way it played out.
Who would be to blame? It sounds like to me the State DNR would be the ones to blame not the "Indians" so why continue to bash and blame the "Indian."
There are a lot of great ideas on how to best approach this issue and by all means why not try and correct a wrong? If you need to get involved politically and push out the politicians or change somebody who is in a position to make these types of decisions within the State DNR then why not do something about it.
If you want to enact change then don't sit around complaining about it and get up and do something about it. I do everyday, if I don't like something then I'm going to say something and try and find a solution to the problem. I'm not a person to take a licking and just lie down. I have proven that time and time again by helping my fellow citizen not just "Indian." I have been a public servant since I graduated high school and I enjoy everyday of it and will continue to serve the people in whatever arena I take on next.
I thank everybody for your comments and if you should have any questions please feel free to contact me at anytime.
Post by: dreamingbig on June 14, 2011, 09:58:11 AM
I agree. Which is why it was the wrong way to solve the problem. The Native Americans hit a grand slam with the rights they were granted in the court decision and are taking advantage of a thing that the rest of us can only dream of!
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on June 14, 2011, 10:01:33 AM
There are 3 ways to affect change. Time, $$$, and Vote... You can spend your free time many ways but working toward your end goal. Vote! Get involved in politics If you don't care why should they? $$$ I think this is the most important way a single person can affect change. Lets face it, $$$ is the one equalizing factor because EVERYONE cares about it, and we don't have to convince someone else what to do with our money...
I give my time to my archery club Silver Arrow Bowmen in Mt Vernon and Pimp it every chance i get...
I don't vote for Jag-offs that don't use their noodle when making simple decisions that affect me.
I DON"T BUY FISHING LIC and vote my wallet. I hate the way the state runs fishing and have been treated badly so guess what? I DON'T FISH and gave my girl a bow instead of a pole.
The state can ignore my time and effort to convince them to do the right thing.
The state can count illegal votes and make end runs around my informed votes.
The State can TRY and bilk me for extra $$$ but it much harder... They need my money too and when enough other outdoors-men decide to quite or spend less, eventually someone will have to listen. :twocents:
WELL STATED!!!!
It's too bad that hunters seem to be the easiest group to splinter apart and get many to do what Bearpaws signature warns of. So I see all sticking together on voting with their wallets as dreaming
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 14, 2011, 10:07:42 AM
Post by: PlateauNDN on June 14, 2011, 10:16:00 AM
"Anybody presented with this type of opportunity would jump on it as well. If they opened it up as to more tags or longer season then there would be more hunters applying for them and the State could've made more money on it but, it did not happen that way and this just happens to be the way it played out."
I agree. Which is why it was the wrong way to solve the problem. The Native Americans hit a grand slam with the rights they were granted in the court decision and are taking advantage of a thing that the rest of us can only dream of!
I'm sorry but maybe you're confused? The Native Americans were not granted anything through a court decision it was granted by and enacted by Congress and the Presidents' of the United States. Court decisions from thereafter were only to enforce what was promised by the US Govt. within the Treaties.
I know some "Indians" abuse their rights but I'm not one of them and when the time comes I'm going to fix things. I exercise my rights in accordance with the Treaty and will continue to do so for as long as I can still walk and breath. My ancestors fought and died for these rights and I will practice my traditions and pass them along to my children and in the hopes that they do the same for future generations to come. If I and others like myself don't try and save what's left of our culture then who will?
Our Elders across Indian Country are passing away at a rate of almost one a day and they are taking their knowledge and history with them. Not many young people take their hertige serious and if they don't grasp what's left then they will have no identity.
I not only have a responsibility of teaching my children but also quite a few of my nephews and nieces because their own parent or parents have not chosen to learn and have chosen to wait very long to want to learn or teach their children.
If there are any questions please don't hesitate to ask.
Post by: tlbradford on June 14, 2011, 11:33:27 AM
An executive order can be issued by the governor allowing whatever the hell she wants as far as hunting rights. There can be an emergency hunt allowed by executive order, that could allow baiting and hound hunting.
Multiple avenues could be explored to combat the problem but the apologist in our government who have their hand out during election time for campaign donations are bending over the general public again, and handing crap over to a special interest group.
Before anyone says that it is legal, and that I would jump on this as well if it was offered to me, just save it. Legality has nothing to do with this. It is the welfare nation that tribes have become accepting anything and everything that the government will give them. It is a nation that is not part of the United States asking for handouts. It is a race asking for special privileges and receiving them undeservedly.
To try to shift the blame completely away from thesetribes is unfair and misdirected. Pressure needs to be put on the lawmakers and the special interest groups equally.
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 14, 2011, 11:50:28 AM
In the meantime, many tribal members are also members of this site. Suggesting that all their people are a welfare state and that they're all there with their hands out for Government gimmes is over-simplification, inaccurate, and insulting, especially to those who practice fair chase and don't go out to "slaughter deer and elk". All of the people on this site are hunters and deserving of the courtesy we should be showing each other. All of us have common ground and want to see certain issues resolved in a way that benefits hunters. Dividing us hunters as a group, into smaller groups is foolhardy. Singling out Natives in here will accomplish nothing positive for our future as a group which advocates for hunting and the outdoor lifestyle. My :twocents:
Post by: PlateauNDN on June 14, 2011, 01:03:35 PM
The major problem that will happen that is going to piss off hunters beyond the initial bear problem, is access to these same lands so indians can go in and slaughter the deer and elk as well.
An executive order can be issued by the governor allowing whatever the hell she wants as far as hunting rights. There can be an emergency hunt allowed by executive order, that could allow baiting and hound hunting.
Multiple avenues could be explored to combat the problem but the apologist in our government who have their hand out during election time for campaign donations are bending over the general public again, and handing crap over to a special interest group.
Before anyone says that it is legal, and that I would jump on this as well if it was offered to me, just save it. Legality has nothing to do with this. It is the welfare nation that tribes have become accepting anything and everything that the government will give them. It is a nation that is not part of the United States asking for handouts. It is a race asking for special privileges and receiving them undeservedly.
To try to shift the blame completely away from thesetribes is unfair and misdirected. Pressure needs to be put on the lawmakers and the special interest groups equally.
Great response and some of what you said is true. Yes, multiple avenues could've been explored and there are certain executive orders that could've been issued but they weren't and that (in any other word would not do it justice) sucks. I don't know what occured in the past but I have some ideas floating around in my head but, your take on Natives has been tarnished and it's pretty obvious nothing I nor anybody else can say or do will ever change your mind.
I have not once tried shifting blame nor spoken for anybody but myself. My words and opinions are mine and mine alone.
If the Muckleshoot go in and "slaughter" deer and elk without permission and are not in their right to, then yes, it's poaching and should be reported. If the land was not theirs and they have no rights to it then by all means enforce the law and prosecute them.
Just because you think it's not legal doesn't mean it isn't legal. If they have rights to the land and the State DNR did what it did then the Muckleshoot are Legal to proceed with what they are doing by Federal Standards. The State is not above Federal and the Tribes are not above Federal either. It might not be right or fair to others but it's still Legal.
I've had this debate before and I don't mind having it again. If you're going to dislike a group dislike individuals not the entire group. I'm not, nor have I ever been, nor will I ever be on Welfare. The only handout I except is the 100.00 dollar per capita I get every month from the Tribe. I have worked since I graduated high school and my wife works as well. I push my children to be highly educated and excel at everything they do.
If your idea of me is some drunk, no job and collecting welfare "Indian" then you're sadly wrong. I've said it before and I'll say it again direct your frustrations at individuals not at groups. If you're upset at what has transpired then contact your local State Lawmaker and do something about it.
"It is a nation that is not part of the United States asking for handouts. It is a race asking for special privileges and receiving them undeservedly."
This statement pretty much sums it up. The original thinking of the Former Presidents' and Congress was to separate Tribes from the United States and its American citizens. We as Tribes were not considered American Citizens then and it's pretty obvious we are not considered Citizens now by some people. I don't ask for anything I don't deserve and I will continue to fight for it as long as I'm still alive.
I nor did my ancestors ASK for special privileges the US Govt. gave them to the Tribes when they made the Treaties so the "Indian" would stay away from the American Citizens.
As for undeserving, if this Great Nation of ours said Citizenship shall be granted only to those that have elected to serve then punch my ticket because I've served my Country have you? I earned the right to call myself a Marine and Citizen of this Great Nation when I marched across the Parade Deck at MCRD San Diego have you? I fly Old Glory and the Marine Corps Flag high with pride everyday.
I pray everyday my children will make the same choice I did and serve so they can say the got everything they deserve so that way when somebody tells them they don't deserve what their getting they can say "Yes I do!"
I keep myself professional and on duty all the time in case of emergencies or my services are needed and that's by choice not mandate. When performing my job duties I don't see the color of ones skin or the ethnic background at which they came from. I serve the general public and I do everything I can to serve them well.
Post by: dreamingbig on June 14, 2011, 01:29:18 PM
I was referring to the Boldt decision that greatly changed the landscape of hunting rights. There are a lot of ways to interpret the treaty. Weapons have changed since the treaty was signed, habitat for animals have declined since the treaty was signed, and the population has increased since the treaty was signed. If Native Americans were to look at the treaty with a fair eye they would agree that the environment it was meant for is not the environment we have today. Sure you have a legal right to continue to harvest in the amounts and numbers that you do but the rest of the state's citizens has restricted access to accomodate this right. Sportsmen get jealous when the herds they pay money for to manage are being overharvested out from underneathe them.
That is where I was coming from.
Post by: Special T on June 14, 2011, 01:33:15 PM
Do you know of any book(s) that talk about the treaty process in Wa state? If you do not, i think a book of the facts would be very informative...
There is a saying in the Business world that i think applies here. "The sweetness of a low price is long lost by bitterness of poor service." We have been poory served by some of our politicains. Some choices that were made so long ago it does little good to complain... The poor choices by our current politicains will affect our future so now is when we must act.
Call upon your representatives, and make sure you support those that make good decisions and Fire those who do not. :twocents:
Post by: tlbradford on June 14, 2011, 05:43:40 PM
Post by: boneaddict on June 14, 2011, 05:45:56 PM
Quote
There is a saying in the Business world that i think applies here. "The sweetness of a low price is long lost by bitterness of poor service." We have been poory served by some of our politicains. Some choices that were made so long ago it does little good to complain... The poor choices by our current politicains will affect our future so now is when we must act.
Call upon your representatives, and make sure you support those that make good decisions and Fire those who do not.
Post by: bobcat on June 14, 2011, 07:31:36 PM
Who would be to blame? It sounds like to me the State DNR would be the ones to blame not the "Indians" so why continue to bash and blame the "Indian."
I would not blame the DNR for this. I would blame the DFW- they are the ones who could have issued special hunt permits for this area, but they did not. Hopefully they will get an earful from hunters due to this injustice and perhaps next year we will have an additional GMU, or maybe more, with spring bear permits.
Post by: Wenatcheejay on June 15, 2011, 07:59:30 AM
The major problem that will happen that is going to piss off hunters beyond the initial bear problem, is access to these same lands so indians can go in and slaughter the deer and elk as well.
An executive order can be issued by the governor allowing whatever the hell she wants as far as hunting rights. There can be an emergency hunt allowed by executive order, that could allow baiting and hound hunting.
Multiple avenues could be explored to combat the problem but the apologist in our government who have their hand out during election time for campaign donations are bending over the general public again, and handing crap over to a special interest group.
Before anyone says that it is legal, and that I would jump on this as well if it was offered to me, just save it. Legality has nothing to do with this. It is the welfare nation that tribes have become accepting anything and everything that the government will give them. It is a nation that is not part of the United States asking for handouts. It is a race asking for special privileges and receiving them undeservedly.
To try to shift the blame completely away from thesetribes is unfair and misdirected. Pressure needs to be put on the lawmakers and the special interest groups equally.
Great response and some of what you said is true. Yes, multiple avenues could've been explored and there are certain executive orders that could've been issued but they weren't and that (in any other word would not do it justice) sucks. I don't know what occured in the past but I have some ideas floating around in my head but, your take on Natives has been tarnished and it's pretty obvious nothing I nor anybody else can say or do will ever change your mind.
I have not once tried shifting blame nor spoken for anybody but myself. My words and opinions are mine and mine alone.
If the Muckleshoot go in and "slaughter" deer and elk without permission and are not in their right to, then yes, it's poaching and should be reported. If the land was not theirs and they have no rights to it then by all means enforce the law and prosecute them.
Just because you think it's not legal doesn't mean it isn't legal. If they have rights to the land and the State DNR did what it did then the Muckleshoot are Legal to proceed with what they are doing by Federal Standards. The State is not above Federal and the Tribes are not above Federal either. It might not be right or fair to others but it's still Legal.
I've had this debate before and I don't mind having it again. If you're going to dislike a group dislike individuals not the entire group. I'm not, nor have I ever been, nor will I ever be on Welfare. The only handout I except is the 100.00 dollar per capita I get every month from the Tribe. I have worked since I graduated high school and my wife works as well. I push my children to be highly educated and excel at everything they do.
If your idea of me is some drunk, no job and collecting welfare "Indian" then you're sadly wrong. I've said it before and I'll say it again direct your frustrations at individuals not at groups. If you're upset at what has transpired then contact your local State Lawmaker and do something about it.
"It is a nation that is not part of the United States asking for handouts. It is a race asking for special privileges and receiving them undeservedly."
This statement pretty much sums it up. The original thinking of the Former Presidents' and Congress was to separate Tribes from the United States and its American citizens. We as Tribes were not considered American Citizens then and it's pretty obvious we are not considered Citizens now by some people. I don't ask for anything I don't deserve and I will continue to fight for it as long as I'm still alive.
I nor did my ancestors ASK for special privileges the US Govt. gave them to the Tribes when they made the Treaties so the "Indian" would stay away from the American Citizens.
As for undeserving, if this Great Nation of ours said Citizenship shall be granted only to those that have elected to serve then punch my ticket because I've served my Country have you? I earned the right to call myself a Marine and Citizen of this Great Nation when I marched across the Parade Deck at MCRD San Diego have you? I fly Old Glory and the Marine Corps Flag high with pride everyday.
I pray everyday my children will make the same choice I did and serve so they can say the got everything they deserve so that way when somebody tells them they don't deserve what their getting they can say "Yes I do!"
I keep myself professional and on duty all the time in case of emergencies or my services are needed and that's by choice not mandate. When performing my job duties I don't see the color of ones skin or the ethnic background at which they came from. I serve the general public and I do everything I can to serve them well.
Your posts are well thought out and appreciated. I believe many that have expressed an opinion here are not really upset with the Tribes. There is nowhere in the treaty that states the General population will be barred (locked gates) and denied effective means of hunting while allowing Tribes all but special rights to bear hunting. The problem here is DNR/WDFW wildlife mismanagement and anti-hunting activists misleading the public. It is not the Tribes fault or issue. The Tribes are actually doing a service removing nuisance bears. It is just to bad that the General Population is being denied the ability to participate. Our funds could potentially help wildlife issues. Instead it is an untapped revenue stream when our Government so desperately needs every dollar.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on June 15, 2011, 08:14:46 AM
Post by: bucklucky on June 15, 2011, 08:21:37 AM
Will we ever do anything to disrupt this type of bullsh$t ?? The only way to get our point agross is to QUIT BUYING LICENSES !!! One year of that would get their attention !!!
I used to think the same thing but after seeing that chart about revenue, I think the hunting side of the state is just a thorn in the side of our government. Pretty sure if we didnt buy tags they would be happy just to close it down . They will bring in more wolves to keep the game from over population,
Post by: Practical Approach on June 15, 2011, 08:31:18 AM
I dont really know If everybody should be freaking out yet.:yeah:
I worked for a timber company and the company could get bear damage permits for areas where bears peeled trees. The company would then contact guys with hounds to come in, track down bears, and kill them. The company would issue gate keys to the hound hunters. There were a bunch of requirements that had to be met, for instance a bear had to be killed within a certain distance to the damage.
The DNR is state land, I know. I dont know the laws or precedent that the DNR has to follow regarding bear damage permits on DNR land.
It could be that the DNR has bear damage on its land, and they are getting damage permits, and the Muckleshoots are killing bears on those permits. And yes, they would need gate keys to access the area. If the DNR cannot issue damage permits on state land, and they are using the Muckleshoots through a loophole in the system, that is another story.
This might not be the huge deal everyone is making it out to be.
Post by: Gamblin Guy on June 15, 2011, 10:38:41 AM
Thank you for emailing Rep. Kristiansen. The following is a link with some more information that may be of interest to you; http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2011/jun/14/muckleshoots-hunting-acces-dnr-land-investigated/ (http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2011/jun/14/muckleshoots-hunting-acces-dnr-land-investigated/) .
The House Republican Caucus Staff person who follows these issues is looking into this.
As you may know Rep. Kristiansen prime sponsored a bill this session, HB 1273;
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1273&year=2011 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1273&year=2011) that had a hearing, but the chair of the committee did not bring it up for a committee vote. The bill is still a viable bill next session, however in order for it to move through the process help from the public will be needed.
Again, thank you for emailing this to Rep. Kristiansen.
Post by: PlateauNDN on June 15, 2011, 12:51:05 PM
I received the following response from Rep. Kristiansen just a little bit ago.
Thank you for emailing Rep. Kristiansen. The following is a link with some more information that may be of interest to you; http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2011/jun/14/muckleshoots-hunting-acces-dnr-land-investigated/ (http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2011/jun/14/muckleshoots-hunting-acces-dnr-land-investigated/) .
The House Republican Caucus Staff person who follows these issues is looking into this.
As you may know Rep. Kristiansen prime sponsored a bill this session, HB 1273;
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1273&year=2011 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1273&year=2011) that had a hearing, but the chair of the committee did not bring it up for a committee vote. The bill is still a viable bill next session, however in order for it to move through the process help from the public will be needed.
Again, thank you for emailing this to Rep. Kristiansen.
Thanks for the info. This story just keeps getting better and better.
Post by: tlbradford on June 15, 2011, 02:47:11 PM
TL, it's our government who made the deals. Your anger is misdirected. The tribes have been given rights in exchange for giving up their stuff. If you don't like it, go to your US senators and representatives and see who'll put a bill forth to change the treaties.
My anger is not misdirected. My anger over the mismanagement of our fish and game in this state is distributed equally over our elected officials, bio's who are unwilling to listen to people who have field experience both in and outside the various agencies, tribal harvest that occur in ceded lands (not the reservation proper), poachers, and so on.
You are correct about who put forth the treaties. I am not oblivious to the fact that atrocities between settlers and indians occurred. I am also aware that the US Government did not negotiate these treaties for the most part and were getting the best parts of the deal at the time. I am also aware that the US Government could have taken everything at the time, so many people in the government did have the interest of the original tribes in mind, and helped broker these treaties to help this race.
Quote
In the meantime, many tribal members are also members of this site. Suggesting that all their people are a welfare state and that they're all there with their hands out for Government gimmes is over-simplification, inaccurate, and insulting, especially to those who practice fair chase and don't go out to "slaughter deer and elk".
A welfare state applies to a group of people as a whole. Individuals may be an exception to the rule. (ie: PlateauNDN and Coastal Native, who are valuable members and contributors to this site.) I have many friends who are tribal members. I know many individuals who do not live on a reservation who have opinions similar to mine regarding those that live on reservations. The best man at my wedding is a tribal member, had his college paid for by his tribe, and until last year was involved with tribal government in some for the last 10 years. I am well aware of good and bad individuals. The fact remains that the tribal nations receive much more than they put in, when it comes to there economic well being in this state. That is what a welfare nation is. It is over-simplifying, but not inaccurate. It is insulting to those that practice fair chase, work hard, and follow a higher set of moral standards, and I understand that. Hopefully, they will take that statement and use it as change within the tribes to show how some perceive the tribe, and that the only avenue for a change in that perception, is to clean up the dirty element.
Quote
All of the people on this site are hunters and deserving of the courtesy we should be showing each other. All of us have common ground and want to see certain issues resolved in a way that benefits hunters. Dividing us hunters as a group, into smaller groups is foolhardy. Singling out Natives in here will accomplish nothing positive for our future as a group which advocates for hunting and the outdoor lifestyle. My :twocents:
That is a wonderful view to have. I have the utmost respect for our membership, but we are not all going to agree on everything. I am not singling out tribal members, the topic that is being discussed did that. Tribes got rights to hunt to public land, and the general public did not. This is not a hunters vs government topic. This is a hunter vs government and tribes topic.
Post by: tlbradford on June 15, 2011, 03:19:45 PM
Great response and some of what you said is true. Yes, multiple avenues could've been explored and there are certain executive orders that could've been issued but they weren't and that (in any other word would not do it justice) sucks. I don't know what occured in the past but I have some ideas floating around in my head but, your take on Natives has been tarnished and it's pretty obvious nothing I nor anybody else can say or do will ever change your mind.
I have not once tried shifting blame nor spoken for anybody but myself. My words and opinions are mine and mine alone.
If the Muckleshoot go in and "slaughter" deer and elk without permission and are not in their right to, then yes, it's poaching and should be reported. If the land was not theirs and they have no rights to it then by all means enforce the law and prosecute them.
Just because you think it's not legal doesn't mean it isn't legal. If they have rights to the land and the State DNR did what it did then the Muckleshoot are Legal to proceed with what they are doing by Federal Standards. The State is not above Federal and the Tribes are not above Federal either. It might not be right or fair to others but it's still Legal.
I've had this debate before and I don't mind having it again. If you're going to dislike a group dislike individuals not the entire group. I'm not, nor have I ever been, nor will I ever be on Welfare. The only handout I except is the 100.00 dollar per capita I get every month from the Tribe. I have worked since I graduated high school and my wife works as well. I push my children to be highly educated and excel at everything they do.
If your idea of me is some drunk, no job and collecting welfare "Indian" then you're sadly wrong. I've said it before and I'll say it again direct your frustrations at individuals not at groups. If you're upset at what has transpired then contact your local State Lawmaker and do something about it.
"It is a nation that is not part of the United States asking for handouts. It is a race asking for special privileges and receiving them undeservedly."
This statement pretty much sums it up. The original thinking of the Former Presidents' and Congress was to separate Tribes from the United States and its American citizens. We as Tribes were not considered American Citizens then and it's pretty obvious we are not considered Citizens now by some people. I don't ask for anything I don't deserve and I will continue to fight for it as long as I'm still alive.
I nor did my ancestors ASK for special privileges the US Govt. gave them to the Tribes when they made the Treaties so the "Indian" would stay away from the American Citizens.
As for undeserving, if this Great Nation of ours said Citizenship shall be granted only to those that have elected to serve then punch my ticket because I've served my Country have you? I earned the right to call myself a Marine and Citizen of this Great Nation when I marched across the Parade Deck at MCRD San Diego have you? I fly Old Glory and the Marine Corps Flag high with pride everyday.
I pray everyday my children will make the same choice I did and serve so they can say the got everything they deserve so that way when somebody tells them they don't deserve what their getting they can say "Yes I do!"
I keep myself professional and on duty all the time in case of emergencies or my services are needed and that's by choice not mandate. When performing my job duties I don't see the color of ones skin or the ethnic background at which they came from. I serve the general public and I do everything I can to serve them well.
First off I will say that I appreciate your viewpoints, your past service to the United States, and I have respect for the values and what you are choosing to pass along to your children. I have given you support in multiple threads ad I truly wish that all tribal members thought along the same lines as you.
Just so you know where I stand on my opinion of tribes. I am favor in them doing whatever they want on their reservations. I am in favor of them having their own government. I am in favor of them being self sufficient, promoting private industry, utilizing their natural resources, etc. I do not believe in dual citizenship. A tribe for all intents and purposes is a foreign nation. I don't believe in a tribe receiving any type of support from the United States government, unless it is mutually beneficial to both nations. I feel the same way with foreign aid to all countries around the world as well. I feel our government should shrink a lot and let those that are on welfare, or are in need, be supported by charities and churches. I am not indicting just tribes, it is anyone that accepts government handouts without offering anything in return.
I believe the treaties were misinterpreted with the Boldt decision. I am not a court of law, but I believe it was not a numerical division that was intended, but a 50/50 split in the opportunity to pursue fish and game. That is purely an opinion that I have stated before, but it is the basis of my dislike for tribal policy concerning fish and game on ceded lands.
Other than that you took my statements personally, which is fair, and used yourself as an example to the contrary. You are an exception to the rule, unfortunately. Are tribal members also US citizens? Yes. Are they members of a sieving nation? Yes. Am I a US citizen? Yes. Am I a member of a sovereign nation, or do I hold dual citizenship? No.
If you can't see the difference between us than I feel you are the one that needs to have a more open mind. I do not have anything dividing my loyalties to the United States. If asked to defend or die for my country, I do not have to consider what country that is. If the US decided that they would abolish the treaties and envelop the reservations, what side would you be on, regardless of the fairness of it?
Back to the topic at hand. Our state could have continued hound hunting for the general public. They could have allowed various hound owners to maintain and pursue game in this state. They could have done a lot of things that would have allowed equal opportunity access to these animals. They didn't. Whose fault is that and where should the blame lie? I agree the blame lies with the elected official? How did those officials get elected? Did those decision makers get support from tribes, in exchange for special consideration when special opportunities arise? I believe they did, and that is why I believe the fault is shared.
Post by: bearpaw on June 15, 2011, 03:35:00 PM
I received the following response from Rep. Kristiansen just a little bit ago.
Thank you for emailing Rep. Kristiansen. The following is a link with some more information that may be of interest to you; http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2011/jun/14/muckleshoots-hunting-acces-dnr-land-investigated/ (http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2011/jun/14/muckleshoots-hunting-acces-dnr-land-investigated/) .
The House Republican Caucus Staff person who follows these issues is looking into this.
As you may know Rep. Kristiansen prime sponsored a bill this session, HB 1273;
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1273&year=2011 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1273&year=2011) that had a hearing, but the chair of the committee did not bring it up for a committee vote. The bill is still a viable bill next session, however in order for it to move through the process help from the public will be needed.
Again, thank you for emailing this to Rep. Kristiansen.
Thought I would post the langauge of the Bill.....
HOUSE BILL 1273
_____________________________________________
State of Washington 62nd Legislature 2011 Regular Session
By Representatives Kristiansen, Blake, Orcutt, Chandler, McCune,
Pearson, and Harris
Read first time 01/18/11. Referred to Committee on Agriculture &
Natural Resources.
1 AN ACT Relating to prohibiting public agencies from providing
2 specific segments of the general public with access to land for the
3 purposes of hunting and fishing; adding a new section to chapter 77.12
4 RCW; adding a new section to chapter 43.17 RCW; adding a new section to
5 chapter 79A.05 RCW; adding a new section to chapter 79.10 RCW; adding
6 a new section to chapter 36.32 RCW; adding a new section to chapter
7 35.21 RCW; adding a new section to chapter 35A.21 RCW; and creating a
8 new section.
9 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
10 NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. A new section is added to chapter 77.12 RCW
11 to read as follows:
12 Unless otherwise specifically authorized in statute, no public
13 agency, as that term is defined in RCW 42.30.020, may provide only a
14 specified segment or segments of the general public with access to land
15 owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by the public agency for the
16 purpose of hunting or fishing without providing the same access
17 opportunity to the general public. This section applies to rules or
18 regulations of the public agency, access contracts and agreements, and
19 all other forms of express or implied access permission.
p. 1 HB 1273
1 NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. Any public agency, as that term is defined
2 in RCW 42.30.020, that allows a specified segment or segments of the
3 general public to access land owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by
4 the public agency for the purpose of hunting or fishing as of the
5 effective date of this section must either suspend access permission to
6 the specified segment or segments or allow access to the general
7 public.
8 NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. A new section is added to chapter 43.17 RCW
9 to read as follows:
10 Any department listed in RCW 43.17.010 shall comply with section 1
11 of this act when granting access for hunting or fishing to any land
12 owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by the department.
13 NEW SECTION. Sec. 4. A new section is added to chapter 79A.05 RCW
14 to read as follows:
15 The commission shall comply with section 1 of this act when
16 granting access for hunting or fishing to any land owned, leased, or
17 otherwise controlled by the commission for hunting or fishing access.
18 NEW SECTION. Sec. 5. A new section is added to chapter 79.10 RCW
19 under the subchapter heading "Multiple Use" to read as follows:
20 The department shall comply with section 1 of this act when
21 granting access for hunting or fishing to any land owned, leased, or
22 otherwise controlled by the department.
23 NEW SECTION. Sec. 6. A new section is added to chapter 36.32 RCW
24 to read as follows:
25 A county shall comply with section 1 of this act when granting
26 access for hunting or fishing to any land owned, leased, or otherwise
27 controlled by the county.
28 NEW SECTION. Sec. 7. A new section is added to chapter 35.21 RCW
29 to read as follows:
30 A city shall comply with section 1 of this act when granting access
31 for hunting or fishing to any land owned, leased, or otherwise
32 controlled by the city.
HB 1273 p. 2
1 NEW SECTION. Sec. 8. A new section is added to chapter 35A.21 RCW
2 to read as follows:
3 A code city shall comply with section 1 of this act when granting
4 access for hunting or fishing to any land owned, leased, or otherwise
5 controlled by the code city.
--- END ---
Post by: bearpaw on June 15, 2011, 03:45:15 PM
It appears someone in a local DNR office made the decision to use the tribes. I don't really blame the DNR if the WDFW failed to address the problem. After all, the DNR is charged with providing maximum return from our state forests which support our school system. While I think a poor decision was made, I do give whomever made the decision credit for trying to do what they thought was best for our forests. It's my suspition they didn't realize the can of worms they were opening.
I am disappointed that the WDFW did not address the problem, however, I would imagine it gets addressed in the future as it is obvious the public and several legislators are not happy with the current handling or lack of handling of the problem by both agencies. :twocents:
Post by: gaddy on June 15, 2011, 04:05:43 PM
Post by: bigtex on June 15, 2011, 04:10:07 PM
Post by: PlateauNDN on June 15, 2011, 05:14:06 PM
The major problem that will happen that is going to piss off hunters beyond the initial bear problem, is access to these same lands so indians can go in and slaughter the deer and elk as well.
An executive order can be issued by the governor allowing whatever the hell she wants as far as hunting rights. There can be an emergency hunt allowed by executive order, that could allow baiting and hound hunting.
Multiple avenues could be explored to combat the problem but the apologist in our government who have their hand out during election time for campaign donations are bending over the general public again, and handing crap over to a special interest group.
Before anyone says that it is legal, and that I would jump on this as well if it was offered to me, just save it. Legality has nothing to do with this. It is the welfare nation that tribes have become accepting anything and everything that the government will give them. It is a nation that is not part of the United States asking for handouts. It is a race asking for special privileges and receiving them undeservedly.
To try to shift the blame completely away from thesetribes is unfair and misdirected. Pressure needs to be put on the lawmakers and the special interest groups equally.
Yes, I did take your statement personal. The above remarks warranted my type of response. I could lower myself to another standard and bash other ethnic groups and cause havoc and be a menace as some of my fellows "Indians" have done in the past but I choose not to. I choose to use my head and diplomacy. If you want to continue to bash "Indians" as a whole group then be prepared to provide a rebuttal to my responses as I have done with your responses.
You say legality has nothing to do with it and your own words, phrases and even rebuttals provide the back-up to it being all legal. So is it legal or not? You say it's not legal then you mention the Boldt decision and to me it seems you need to get your opinions in line before you make them.
If you want to take a stand against something then find your footing and hold on tight and be prepared for anything that gets thrown at you. Don't contradict yourself because in somebody else's eyes it make you look like you don't know what you're talking about and it makes you look foolish.
Yes, I did use myself as an example and that is my right to do so since you want to label all "Indians" as welfare bound and unable to move forward in life without the Govt.
"You are an exception to the rule, unfortunately." Now you have gone from labeling "Indians" to labeling me? I'm sorry it's unfortunate that I've become an exception to the rule and succeeded in life. I'm sorry that it's unfortunate that I've been able to provide for my family without being on welfare and I've slaughtered all the bulls in the Colockum, which by the way I have never been to nor hunted and do not plan on ever going that way and to reiterate that I do not honestly know the exact area of where this is located other than it's near Wenatchee.
I didn't join this site to debate the issues of Tribal Sovereignty nor have I or will ever single out a ethnic group but since the topic always seems to arise then, yes, I'm going to debate it. This difference between you and me has been a topic I have dealt with all my life. You grew up caucasian I assume? The color of your skin and your heritage have never been a problem for you as it has for me (not to say you haven't or will ever experience prejudice). I'm pretty sure you were not the minority growing up like I was. I was taught to defend myself only when it was the last resort and that I did quite a bit.
Because I was a "savage" who lived in a "teepee" and had hair longer than a girl or when I had to present almost every year during grade school and middle school on cultural heritage day they laughed and called me names for wearing my traditional regalia or spoke my own language. Don't misinterpret what I've said because I love this country but the atrocities are still occuring to this day. Even when I was going through Recruit Training I was constantly being told by other recruits that I shouldn't be there or why should they listen to me because I still live in a teepee and have an out-house for a bathroom and rode a horse all day.
I was a squad leader for almost the entire duration of Recruit Training and in the beginning that pissed a lot of other recruits off. I had to earn their trust and respect one day at a time. I know I'm not the only one dealing with racism and prejudice and it affects a lot of people from different nationalities but, when you question my loyalty I do take offense. When you question what my family has done as far as military service to this country then, yes I will take offense because you're calling all of us as a group "Welfare People."
The difference between the Tribes and other ethnic groups was we were here first and were not brought here on slave ships or migrated here illegally (granted it has been debated throughout history that the Native American migrated here from Asia but that's a whole other discussion). We were not civilized like our European bretheren and that disadvantage was exploited very heavily.
The Tribes were defeated and lost more battles than they won and were forced into signing Treaties to preserve their livelihood and way of life. At the time it was thought best to push the "Indians" to the ugliest parts of the land where there were no viable way for them to survive and leave them be as long as they didn't bother American Citizens. This turned out to be wrong. As it turned out those same ugly lands had natural resources that proved to be invaluable towards the advancement of this Nation. Why do you think land was CEDED (Taken back) by the US Govt. Precious Metals (gold, silver, copper etc.), Oil and Fresh Water to name a few. And recently discovered Natural Gas.
Yes, the US Govt. granted us a way of life and called us sovereign nations because they didn't want us assimilating with American Citizens. The debate over what the US Govt. at the time did or didn't do to "Indians" still carries on today and it will carry on for a very long time.
Your assumptions are mostly right about me. When this Great Nation is at War I support and will defend her if ever called upon. IF this Great Nation ever declared War on its Tribes then I won't have to draw the line or pick sides it will be picked for me and my personal experience and the history of this Country is proof. IF War was declared I would go back to being a "flea-bitten savage" no matter what I've done and no matter what I try to do to be diplomatic about the situation.
Even now with my job it shocks people when they meet me in person. Speaking on the phone and then meeting them they get this picture that I wasn't the one on the other end of the phone. They get this perception in their head that I'm going to stroll into their office or meeting wearing war-paint and wearing buckskin with moccasins. They look at me and ask why did I show up wearing a business suit when the 5 guys sitting to my left are wearing the same attire but were they asked the same question?
If you don't believe this look at the Japanese-Americans when Pearl Harbor occured and WE as a Nation entered World War II. Here's another shining example of being labeled: Japanese-Americans, Mexican-Americans, African-Americans and Native Americans. We did not give ourselves those titles they were given to us.
I have kept and will continue to keep an open mind when discussing issues here and if you don't think I have then obviously you have not read or followed any other topics I have debated and/or commented on.
And, I wasn't going to say anything but since you want to say "I" have taken this personal and taken it to heart and not kept an open mind, maybe you should re-evaluate your position as a MODERATOR. The last time I checked a moderator is supposed to be a person or persons who mediate and/or preside over other parties to ensure a fair and equal stance is taken. At least as far as the topic of Tribal Issues is concerned you're not a moderator exercising his best judgement or providing a fair and unbiased voice.
As far as others topics are concerned you in my opinion have provided some very good moderation and exercised your better jdugement just not this one.
I think we can agree to disagree that the debate will carry on for quite awhile and if you wish to continue this then we can exchange PM's and have the debate there or just end it here and now. I can let it rest if you're willing to do the same and let the original topic get back on track.
Post by: bearpaw on June 15, 2011, 05:48:22 PM
i dont know all the legal aspect of this but it seems to me that the wdfw could have said, well we have a bear problem in this area, lets do a depridation hunt with x # of tags with this set of rules, first come first served for this one time. look at the results & readress the situation at this time. take care of the bear problem & gain some revinue at the same time while offering more oppertunity for the hunting public. win, win, win. seems so easy to me but, again i dont know all the peramiters they have to work within.
I agree, they should have consulted the DNR about the damage, determined how many bear likely need removed, then set a spring hunt with enough permits that when considering the average success rate would result in the number of bear harvested as desired. :twocents:
Maybe the new bio just needs to get her feet wet before she recommends a spring season, hopefully next year... :twocents:
Post by: huntnfmly on June 15, 2011, 05:55:35 PM
:yeah: whats sad is when i talked to ruth the other day she said they were going to do more studies to figure out the best way to manage the problem bears.I dont think they need another study seems pretty simple :bash:i dont know all the legal aspect of this but it seems to me that the wdfw could have said, well we have a bear problem in this area, lets do a depridation hunt with x # of tags with this set of rules, first come first served for this one time. look at the results & readress the situation at this time. take care of the bear problem & gain some revinue at the same time while offering more oppertunity for the hunting public. win, win, win. seems so easy to me but, again i dont know all the peramiters they have to work within.
I agree, they should have consulted the DNR about the damage, determined how many bear likely need removed, then set a spring hunt with enough permits that when considering the average success rate would result in the number of bear harvested as desired. :twocents:
Maybe the new bio just needs to get her feet wet before she recommends a spring season, hopefully next year... :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on June 15, 2011, 05:58:31 PM
:yeah: whats sad is when i talked to ruth the other day she said they were going to do more studies to figure out the best way to manage the problem bears.I dont think they need another study seems pretty simple :bash:i dont know all the legal aspect of this but it seems to me that the wdfw could have said, well we have a bear problem in this area, lets do a depridation hunt with x # of tags with this set of rules, first come first served for this one time. look at the results & readress the situation at this time. take care of the bear problem & gain some revinue at the same time while offering more oppertunity for the hunting public. win, win, win. seems so easy to me but, again i dont know all the peramiters they have to work within.
I agree, they should have consulted the DNR about the damage, determined how many bear likely need removed, then set a spring hunt with enough permits that when considering the average success rate would result in the number of bear harvested as desired. :twocents:
Maybe the new bio just needs to get her feet wet before she recommends a spring season, hopefully next year... :twocents:
ABSOLUTELY, is this lady anti-hunter? :dunno:
Post by: Wenatcheejay on June 15, 2011, 06:57:27 PM
On behalf of Senator Parlette, thank you for bringing this issue to her attention. The Senator is travelling today and requested that I let you know that she contacted the Department of Natural Resources about this issue. The response we received is that headquarters was not aware of this move, and that it isn't in keeping with their policies. We were told that they would get back to us ASAP with details as to how they will be addressing the situation, and we'll relay that information upon receipt.
Thanks again for taking the time to contact Senator Parlette, and we'll look forward to following up soon.
Sean Graham
Legislative Assistant
to Senator Linda Evans Parlette
12th Legislative District
360.786.7622
Post by: bobcat on June 15, 2011, 07:08:02 PM
Natural Resources Tribal Summit sought common ground with tribes on state land access, management and stewardship issues
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 15, 2010
Natural Resources Tribal Summit sought common ground with tribes on state land access, management and stewardship issues
Goldmark issues Commissioner’s Order pledging partnership with tribes
OLYMPIA – At the conclusion of a two-day summit with tribal representatives from across the state, Commissioner of Public Lands Peter Goldmark said the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) will expand its efforts to communicate and work with the tribes on resource management issues that affect them and the state lands they use.
“This summit marks the beginning of a new era in how DNR works with our state’s native peoples,” Goldmark said. “As stewards of 5.6 million acres of state-owned lands, DNR works for trust beneficiaries like schools and counties, but we must also give respect to the tribes and the cultural significance that these lands have for them.”
The summit – held September 13-14 – was hosted by the Nisqually Indian Tribe. It marked the first time that DNR had invited all 29 federally recognized Indian Tribes in Washington State to discuss natural resources issues at one table.
Goldmark said the summit is only the beginning to an ongoing discussion with the tribes. DNR will continue to invite tribes to meetings where its regional managers can hear their concerns about the department’s management of resource lands. DNR also plans to conduct another statewide Natural Resources Tribal Summit next year.
Goldmark’s official Commissioner’s Order also confirmed that DNR recognizes the tribes’ separate rights and authorities and commits the department to maintain government-to-government relations with them. DNR’s tribal relations program is led by a full-time Tribal Relations Manager, Rodney Cawston, who is a member of the Colville Tribe.
The full text of the Commissioner’s Order on Tribal Relations is online at: http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/em_comm_tribalrelations_order_201029.pdf (http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/em_comm_tribalrelations_order_201029.pdf)
Photos from the Natural Resources Tribal Summit are on Flickr at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/wastatednr/sets/72157624839093043/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/wastatednr/sets/72157624839093043/)
Additional information about DNR’s Tribal Relations Office can be found online at www.dnr.wa.gov (http://www.dnr.wa.gov/) at the link to “Tribal Relations.” The direct link is: http://www.dnr.wa.gov/AboutDNR/TribalRelations/Pages/Home.aspx (http://www.dnr.wa.gov/AboutDNR/TribalRelations/Pages/Home.aspx)
DNR manages trust lands
DNR manages more than 5.6 million acres of state land:
- 2.9 million acres of trust lands, including forest, range, agricultural land, and commercial properties that earn revenue to build public schools, universities, prisons, and other state institutions, and help fund Westside county services.
- 2.6 million acres of ‘aquatic’ lands: the bedlands under Puget Sound and the coast, many beaches, and navigable natural lakes and rivers.
- 133,000 acres of natural areas that protect rare and threatened species as well as high-quality examples of the native ecosystems and landscapes of Washington.
Post by: stumprat on June 15, 2011, 07:15:03 PM
Post by: huntnfmly on June 15, 2011, 08:39:06 PM
Jayson,thanks for posting this and the contact number i just left her a voice mail asking for more info when they get it as in are they going to have any more wildlife officers to help making sure they dont basically do what they want and how unfair it is the mucleshoots have the keys to 2.9 million acre that they can drive around in and as non natives we have to park at the gates.Say good bye to any huntable pop. of elk and deer.To those of you that hunt behind those gates it dont look good :bash:
On behalf of Senator Parlette, thank you for bringing this issue to her attention. The Senator is travelling today and requested that I let you know that she contacted the Department of Natural Resources about this issue. The response we received is that headquarters was not aware of this move, and that it isn't in keeping with their policies. We were told that they would get back to us ASAP with details as to how they will be addressing the situation, and we'll relay that information upon receipt.
Thanks again for taking the time to contact Senator Parlette, and we'll look forward to following up soon.
Sean Graham
Legislative Assistant
to Senator Linda Evans Parlette
12th Legislative District
360.786.7622
Post by: tlbradford on June 15, 2011, 09:10:25 PM
Yes, I did take your statement personal. The above remarks warranted my type of response. I could lower myself to another standard and bash other ethnic groups and cause havoc and be a menace as some of my fellows "Indians" have done in the past but I choose not to. I choose to use my head and diplomacy. If you want to continue to bash "Indians" as a whole group then be prepared to provide a rebuttal to my responses as I have done with your responses.
You say legality has nothing to do with it and your own words, phrases and even rebuttals provide the back-up to it being all legal. So is it legal or not? You say it's not legal then you mention the Boldt decision and to me it seems you need to get your opinions in line before you make them.
-rebuttal - My opinions are perfectly clear and stated clearly. I am not arguing the legality (here is the definition: legality 1. (Law) the state or quality of being legal or lawful) I am arguing the ethics of giving a special interest group preference over another.
Quote
If you want to take a stand against something then find your footing and hold on tight and be prepared for anything that gets thrown at you. Don't contradict yourself because in somebody else's eyes it make you look like you don't know what you're talking about and it makes you look foolish.
-rebuttal - I did not contradict myself at any point. You obviously did not comprehend my statement correctly. I am fully prepared to back up each and every point I make. I educate myself on a topic before I form an opinion.
Quote
Yes, I did use myself as an example and that is my right to do so since you want to label all "Indians" as welfare bound and unable to move forward in life without the Govt.
As a group the tribes are a welfare nation. That is a fact. They take more than they give. For example it is correct to lable Haiti as a predominantly Catholic nation. Just because there are small percentage that aren't Catholic doesn't change the label of the nation as a whole. I do not label all individual indians as accepting welfare or handouts, and I have never said those words. I have clearly stated that in my previous posts. You are trying to put words in my mouth which are incorrect.
Quote
"You are an exception to the rule, unfortunately." Now you have gone from labeling "Indians" to labeling me? I'm sorry it's unfortunate that I've become an exception to the rule and succeeded in life. I'm sorry that it's unfortunate that I've been able to provide for my family without being on welfare and I've slaughtered all the bulls in the Colockum, which by the way I have never been to nor hunted and do not plan on ever going that way and to reiterate that I do not honestly know the exact area of where this is located other than it's near Wenatchee.
-rebuttal - Although it is easy to see that this is written with a sarcastic tone, I am unsure what your intent is here. I labeled you as a success, paid you a compliment for your service to the US, and stated that I think the lessons you are passing onto your children are to be admired. Can you honestly tell me that your thoughts, opinions, and attitudes are the prevailant attitudes for reservation members? Can you substitute "we" for "I" when arguing on the side of your tribe? Or are you in the minority with your thoughts?
Quote
I didn't join this site to debate the issues of Tribal Sovereignty nor have I or will ever single out a ethnic group but since the topic always seems to arise then, yes, I'm going to debate it. This difference between you and me has been a topic I have dealt with all my life. You grew up caucasian I assume? The color of your skin and your heritage have never been a problem for you as it has for me (not to say you haven't or will ever experience prejudice). I'm pretty sure you were not the minority growing up like I was. I was taught to defend myself only when it was the last resort and that I did quite a bit.
Because I was a "savage" who lived in a "teepee" and had hair longer than a girl or when I had to present almost every year during grade school and middle school on cultural heritage day they laughed and called me names for wearing my traditional regalia or spoke my own language. Don't misinterpret what I've said because I love this country but the atrocities are still occuring to this day. Even when I was going through Recruit Training I was constantly being told by other recruits that I shouldn't be there or why should they listen to me because I still live in a teepee and have an out-house for a bathroom and rode a horse all day.
I was a squad leader for almost the entire duration of Recruit Training and in the beginning that pissed a lot of other recruits off. I had to earn their trust and respect one day at a time. I know I'm not the only one dealing with racism and prejudice and it affects a lot of people from different nationalities but, when you question my loyalty I do take offense. When you question what my family has done as far as military service to this country then, yes I will take offense because you're calling all of us as a group "Welfare People."
rebuttal - I didn't question what your family has done as far as military service to this country. I am sure you had a much tougher road than I did growing up when it comes to social injustices. However, while you want to perceive my comments as racist remarks, it is not. I have never waivered in my stance that I agree that all men were created equal. I have never stated anything other than the fact that everyone should be given access to the same opportunities in life. I have never waivered that I believe that special rights given to someone because of race, religion, or sex is morally wrong.
Quote
The difference between the Tribes and other ethnic groups was we were here first and were not brought here on slave ships or migrated here illegally (granted it has been debated throughout history that the Native American migrated here from Asia but that's a whole other discussion). We were not civilized like our European bretheren and that disadvantage was exploited very heavily.
The Tribes were defeated and lost more battles than they won and were forced into signing Treaties to preserve their livelihood and way of life. At the time it was thought best to push the "Indians" to the ugliest parts of the land where there were no viable way for them to survive and leave them be as long as they didn't bother American Citizens. This turned out to be wrong. As it turned out those same ugly lands had natural resources that proved to be invaluable towards the advancement of this Nation. Why do you think land was CEDED (Taken back) by the US Govt. Precious Metals (gold, silver, copper etc.), Oil and Fresh Water to name a few. And recently discovered Natural Gas.
Yes, the US Govt. granted us a way of life and called us sovereign nations because they didn't want us assimilating with American Citizens. The debate over what the US Govt. at the time did or didn't do to "Indians" still carries on today and it will carry on for a very long time.
No need to rebut these statements because I conceded these same things in my previous post. In 1924 the US Congress extended citizenship to all tribal members. I disagree that there is much debate over what was negotiated by the US Government at the time. It is pretty much considered fact that the US got the better deal.
Quote
Your assumptions are mostly right about me. When this Great Nation is at War I support and will defend her if ever called upon. IF this Great Nation ever declared War on its Tribes then I won't have to draw the line or pick sides it will be picked for me and my personal experience and the history of this Country is proof. IF War was declared I would go back to being a "flea-bitten savage" no matter what I've done and no matter what I try to do to be diplomatic about the situation.
rebuttal - You keep putting derogatory terms into quotations. Although, they are terms you may have heard at some point, it hasn't been done in this thread, nor have any of the terms been used by myself. As this is supposed to be a rebuttal to my comments, I want to make it clear that these are terms I have not used and that I do not approve of those that use those labels.
Quote
Even now with my job it shocks people when they meet me in person. Speaking on the phone and then meeting them they get this picture that I wasn't the one on the other end of the phone. They get this perception in their head that I'm going to stroll into their office or meeting wearing war-paint and wearing buckskin with moccasins. They look at me and ask why did I show up wearing a business suit when the 5 guys sitting to my left are wearing the same attire but were they asked the same question?
I wasn't there so I can't speak to what their perceptions may have been. Do you go into meetings with others expecting them to look down upon you? Are you being fair to those sitting across from you? Are you labeling them, just as you accused me of labeling you, without knowing anything about them?
Quote
If you don't believe this look at the Japanese-Americans when Pearl Harbor occured and WE as a Nation entered World War II. Here's another shining example of being labeled: Japanese-Americans, Mexican-Americans, African-Americans and Native Americans. We did not give ourselves those titles they were given to us.
I have kept and will continue to keep an open mind when discussing issues here and if you don't think I have then obviously you have not read or followed any other topics I have debated and/or commented on.
rebuttal - I didn't say you didn't have an open mind. I said that if you can't see the difference between you and I in regards to our citizenships and your tribal membership, than you were not viewing my arguements with an open mind. I have followed your posts, have you followed mine?
Quote
And, I wasn't going to say anything but since you want to say "I" have taken this personal and taken it to heart and not kept an open mind, maybe you should re-evaluate your position as a MODERATOR. The last time I checked a moderator is supposed to be a person or persons who mediate and/or preside over other parties to ensure a fair and equal stance is taken. At least as far as the topic of Tribal Issues is concerned you're not a moderator exercising his best judgement or providing a fair and unbiased voice.
rebuttal - You are somewhat correct. What you have described is a Mediator, which is an unbiased third party. A Moderator is someone to watch over the discussions and make sure they remain civil. When one of us wants to carry out a more heated discussion than we do not moderate the subject but defer to the other mods or admin. I would never attempt to moderate what you have written as that would be an abuse of power in this discussion.
Quote
[/quote]
As far as others topics are concerned you in my opinion have provided some very good moderation and exercised your better jdugement just not this one.
I think we can agree to disagree that the debate will carry on for quite awhile and if you wish to continue this then we can exchange PM's and have the debate there or just end it here and now. I can let it rest if you're willing to do the same and let the original topic get back on track.
I wanted to make sure my responses were on a public forum so everyone would understand my position. I felt there were several points that needed to be addressed from your response. I hope you can understand that.
As far as the topic at hand, it truly looks like a monumental failure by the WDFW on behalf of the hunters. It also appears that the tribes were angling for increased opportunity for themselves on DNR land.
Post by: bobcat on June 15, 2011, 09:18:28 PM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on June 15, 2011, 09:33:43 PM
Post by: huntnfmly on June 15, 2011, 10:13:47 PM
Yours and my thinking and feelings are the same i agree with all you have said and you are well spoken :tup:
Post by: h20hunter on June 16, 2011, 08:55:54 AM
http://www.nwsportsmanmag.com/articles/2011/06/15/DNR+Investigates+Giving+Out+Of+Keys+To+State+Lands/ (http://www.nwsportsmanmag.com/articles/2011/06/15/DNR+Investigates+Giving+Out+Of+Keys+To+State+Lands/)
Post by: boneaddict on June 16, 2011, 08:58:39 AM
Public land is Public land. If you grant access to one, then it should be to all.
I guess as a human, I still have trouble understanding the who pays taxes and who doesn't. What is public land and what you now have to buy a permit for.
Toss in the fact that you go on the Rez and I can't even photograph in an area becasue I am white. WHOA
(WELL STATED TL...good discussion)
Post by: Special T on June 16, 2011, 09:27:54 AM
Post by: bucklucky on June 16, 2011, 09:37:35 AM
I had a discussion with Representative Blake. He indicated after researching this issue it appears it was the WDFW who dropped the ball. The DNR had gone to the WDFW and asked for them to address the bear damage with increased bear hunting and the WDFW didn't do it.
It appears someone in a local DNR office made the decision to use the tribes. I don't really blame the DNR if the WDFW failed to address the problem. After all, the DNR is charged with providing maximum return from our state forests which support our school system. While I think a poor decision was made, I do give whomever made the decision credit for trying to do what they thought was best for our forests. It's my suspition they didn't realize the can of worms they were opening.
I am disappointed that the WDFW did not address the problem, however, I would imagine it gets addressed in the future as it is obvious the public and several legislators are not happy with the current handling or lack of handling of the problem by both agencies. :twocents:
Great info! If I was the one in charge of that DNR land I would have done the same thing if Fish and wildlife dropped the ball like that.
Post by: PlateauNDN on June 16, 2011, 10:52:13 AM
As long as you continue to label (Racially Profile) "Indians" as a welfare nation you are continuing to label (Racially Profile) individuals as well. Sugar coated "Poop" is still just "Poop" with sugar on it. I'm not on here labeling (Racially Profiling) or slandering any other ethinc group whether it's "fact" or not. I'm not here saying the white man this or black man that, no, I have chosen to leave the generalization (Labeling, Racial Profiling) out of it and be specific.
I'm not here slandering the white man and then turning around and saying only you and a few others are an exception to the rule. I'm not labeling (Racially Profiling) all white men skinheads or KKK members just because it's a "fact" that there is a large number of them. These groups do not represent the entire ethnic group and I will not say or label (Racially Profile) the caucasian as such.
If you want to continue to misinterpret my open mindedness then I will offer even more information into my personal life aside from what you already know about me. There are 2 men in my life, 1 that is my dad who is the biological contributor to me and the other is my "Father" who raised me as his son and provided a shelter for me, food for me to eat and clothes to cover my back.
My "Father" is white and I'm proud to call him my "Father." I have modeled alot of what I do after him because he stepped up as a man and did a duty that all "Father's" would do, raise a child, even though I was not his child. I have a sister(step) and 2 brothers (step) and we grew up as siblings and as time progressed I and my "Father" grew closer than they were to their own father.
Even now I see him more and help him more and still refer to him as my "Father" and my children refer to him as their grandfather. His family although white, do not see me as an outcast, they see me as family. Now should I label (Racial Profile) them based off the consensus of just a few small groups? Should I say because of the skinheads or KKK members that the white group is as such?
If I one day at a family gathering said in front of everybody that I think the white ethnic group are racist, biased and prejudice because a small group of whites are? No, because that would definitely make me look very bad and hurt alot of feelings of my family members that I and them have come to accept and love as one another.
I haven't put any words in your mouth and only interpreted what you have written on here. I don't know you as an individual nor do you know me. You do however know my background from what I presented to yourself and other moderators on here. I have not taken anything out of context and I read thoroughly what is written and what I'm writing.
"-rebuttal - Although it is easy to see that this is written with a sarcastic tone, I am unsure what your intent is here. I labeled you as a success, paid you a compliment for your service to the US,..."
I appreciate your compliment and yes, it was read as a sarcastic tone and if you were conveying a compliment then please check your spelling and grammar.
"You are an exception to the rule, unfortunately."
If the above statement was made to compliment then it should have read, "You are an exception to the rule, fortunately." By removing the "UN" from this excerpt changes it from a negative to a positive. an example-"There was a serious vehicle accident today, unfortunately people were hurt" drop the "UN" and it becomes, "There was a serious vehicle accident today, fortunately no people were hurt."
"rebuttal - You keep putting derogatory terms into quotations. Although, they are terms you may have heard at some point, it hasn't been done in this thread, nor have any of the terms been used by myself. As this is supposed to be a rebuttal to my comments, I want to make it clear that these are terms I have not used and that I do not approve of those that use those labels."
Again, this is where clarity becomes a problem and it's my fault for not making it clear that these comments were not from here or made by anybody on here. If you were comprehending the story line I was giving then yes, you would see it was from personal experience in my personal history. I did not nor say anybody or anyone on this site made those comments.
"Do you go into meetings with others expecting them to look down upon you? Are you being fair to those sitting across from you? Are you labeling them, just as you accused me of labeling you, without knowing anything about them?"
No, I don't. From the time I wake up to the time I go to bed I have my head held high. I walk and talk with pride and confidence. I don't let anybody regardless of who they are talk down to me or belittle me. I expect the same respect and dignity I show to them as they show to me. As far as being fair, yes, I am. Everybody is shown gratitude and respect but it is up to that person if they wish to keep it.
Labeling (Racial Profiling) occurs everyday by everyone, myself included. When I go into public or private environments I am always assessing the situations around me. If I see some kid dressed up like a gang banger talking like a gangbanger then he must be a gangbanger. If I see a crackhead looking and acting like one then they must be one. If I see a gentleman dressed and acting professional then he must be professional.
Labeling (Racial Profiling) is and will always occur, but when you get to know someone is when things change whether it's for the better or worst. I don't know you on a personal level nor do I know anything about you but my conclusions were you don't like "Indians" because of the reasons you listed and the on-going debate we're having. I have shared my personal information with you and other moderators in the hopes of creating a thread or something that this type of discussion could be moved there in the hopes of disspelling or addressing these types of issues without interferring with the main topic.
"I wanted to make sure my responses were on a public forum so everyone would understand my position. I felt there were several points that needed to be addressed from your response. I hope you can understand that."
Yet again we have something in common. We keep this up then people are going to see a pattern here. I have not tried to hide what I have to say and I have made the request to create another category in the community section for everybody to see but, with the best of intentions the decision was made by the powers that be, the topic was not warranted and to continue to provide my comments as they come. I respect that decision because I'm not in a position of authority on this site and if I would like to continue to enjoy all this site has to offer then I'm going to play by the rules and guidelines and be an upstanding UNOFFICIAL representative of my people who is only speaking for hisself and providing his own opinion.
Again, just from what I've read on here and what little you have shared about yourself I can see we have quite a bit in common. Maybe, someday we would meet and possibly get to know eachother better and maybe become friends but, until differences are put aside I don't think it will happen anytime soon and that's unfortunate.
We have debated and rebuttaled this pretty good and I think we can put it to rest and agree to disagree if you would like? We have presented our cases and it's clear that neither one of us is going to back down or concede so, why don't we agree to a stalemate and wait for another opportunity and let this thread get back on track?
Post by: PlateauNDN on June 16, 2011, 10:58:23 AM
Special interest is special interest. One group gets keys another doesn't. It doesn't matter if its hispanic, blacks, whites, indians, crack whores, bisexuals, transvestites, whatever. I'm not sure why folks can't see what special interest means. Maybe they need to hand keys to only PETA members. I guess if you are a card carrying member, that makes it ok.
Public land is Public land. If you grant access to one, then it should be to all.
I guess as a human, I still have trouble understanding the who pays taxes and who doesn't. What is public land and what you now have to buy a permit for.
Toss in the fact that you go on the Rez and I can't even photograph in an area becasue I am white. WHOA
(WELL STATED TL...good discussion)
Well said Bone and I enjoy your photographs very much. I don't know if you're aware of it but for a small fee of $35 dollars a non-member can get an all day pass to the closed areas of the Reservation as long as you have a Tribal Member with you (i.e. friend?) Maybe we can find mutual ground amongst one another in the future and if you're willing to pay the fee we can go for a ride? If not me then at least you know there is a way for you to go up there legally. And please keep sharing your photos.
Post by: huntnfmly on June 16, 2011, 11:15:11 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 16, 2011, 11:18:44 AM
Non tribal members need to pay a fee and be babysat by a tribal member?How bout tribal members needing a babysitter when they are off the rez?It makes no sense and that is why there is such a division between trbal and non tribal members.Non tribal members have to follow rules on the rez but tribal members dont need to follow the rules off the rez.Very frustarating :bash:
Really? It's like private land going on a reservation. Private landowners can hunt public land, but you can't hunt theirs without permission. As far as Native rights...that horse has been saddled, rode, killed, and kicked long after its death.
Post by: huntnfmly on June 16, 2011, 11:37:14 AM
Post by: tlbradford on June 16, 2011, 12:14:11 PM
If I one day at a family gathering said in front of everybody that I think the white ethnic group are racist, biased and prejudice because a small group of whites are? No, because that would definitely make me look very bad and hurt alot of feelings of my family members that I and them have come to accept and love as one another.
This is not what I am doing. If the MAJORITY of whites were racist, then I would have to concede that point to you, and tell you that it isn't all of us, and that the minority is working to change the mindset of the larger, racist group.
Quote
"You are an exception to the rule, unfortunately."
If the above statement was made to compliment then it should have read, "You are an exception to the rule, fortunately." By removing the "UN" from this excerpt changes it from a negative to a positive. an example-"There was a serious vehicle accident today, unfortunately people were hurt" drop the "UN" and it becomes, "There was a serious vehicle accident today, fortunately no people were hurt."
Since you want to get into a grammar lesson, then your statement that is highlighted means the same thing. I meant it as a negative statement. It is unfortunate that all tribal members do not think and act the way you do. If they did, we wouldn't have near the problems we have today.
Quote
Labeling (Racial Profiling) occurs everyday by everyone, myself included. When I go into public or private environments I am always assessing the situations around me. If I see some kid dressed up like a gang banger talking like a gangbanger then he must be a gangbanger. If I see a crackhead looking and acting like one then they must be one. If I see a gentleman dressed and acting professional then he must be professional.
Labeling (Racial Profiling) is and will always occur, but when you get to know someone is when things change whether it's for the better or worst.
Labeling - Racial Profiling is perfectly acceptable to me. We may go into a situation with preconceived notions of how a person thinks, acts, and what makes them tick. Understanding their culture and background goes a long ways into understanding what their viewpoints might be, and how they were raised may give you insight into how their belief system has been established.
Quote
I don't know you on a personal level nor do I know anything about you but my conclusions were you don't like "Indians" because of the reasons you listed and the on-going debate we're having.
Just so we are clear I do not dislike tribal members. I have a dislike for many of their actions. This is no different than the strong dislike I have for the actions of some of my close friends. I have a friend that has a newer truck and a truck payment, cell phones, goes golfing a couple times a week, etc. Yet he feels the need to have the state pay for his family's health insurance. I dislike that choice. I don't hate anyone. I hate inequality.
Quote
I have shared my personal information with you and other moderators in the hopes of creating a thread or something that this type of discussion could be moved there in the hopes of disspelling or addressing these types of issues without interferring with the main topic.
Nobody on this forum has any doubt that you are, unquestionably, a man of great character and fortitude. I want to ask you something and would like your honest answer on this. Do you take such great pains to give us your background information, to come on this forum and deal with the negative response to tribal members concerning fishing and hunting practices, and to try to inform us on how you aer unlike many of your brethren, because we are misinformed about the tribes, or to show us that there are individual tribal members that have different opinions and thoughts than the majority of their tribe? Everything that I have read leads me to believe that you are trying to show the forum that you are an exception, and that you are trying to work to change the mindset inside the tribe. Maybe that is incorrect, so please feel free to clarify that point.
Quote
"I wanted to make sure my responses were on a public forum so everyone would understand my position. I felt there were several points that needed to be addressed from your response. I hope you can understand that."
Yet again we have something in common. We keep this up then people are going to see a pattern here. I have not tried to hide what I have to say and I have made the request to create another category in the community section for everybody to see but, with the best of intentions the decision was made by the powers that be, the topic was not warranted and to continue to provide my comments as they come. I respect that decision because I'm not in a position of authority on this site and if I would like to continue to enjoy all this site has to offer then I'm going to play by the rules and guidelines and be an upstanding UNOFFICIAL representative of my people who is only speaking for hisself and providing his own opinion.
As a whole this site wants to avoid "tribal bashing". We discussed this and felt that a forum would encourage negative threads, rather than encourage good discussion. We would like to see you bring up topics and post them in the forums that you see fit, regarding tribal issues as they apply to hunting and fishing. My initial comments about the tribes of this state, being a welfare nation, were unwarranted and not germane to the topic at hand. I shouldn't have tried to defend them. I apologize for that. I do not apologize for accusing them of having their hand out for special benefits or income. All special interest groups do that. Until there is a fundamental change in how our government is run, this will always be the case, and that too is unfortunate.
Quote
Again, just from what I've read on here and what little you have shared about yourself I can see we have quite a bit in common. Maybe, someday we would meet and possibly get to know eachother better and maybe become friends but, until differences are put aside I don't think it will happen anytime soon and that's unfortunate.
We have debated and rebuttaled this pretty good and I think we can put it to rest and agree to disagree if you would like? We have presented our cases and it's clear that neither one of us is going to back down or concede so, why don't we agree to a stalemate and wait for another opportunity and let this thread get back on track?
I would be proud to shake your and and know you, and debate these topics as friends. We may be coming at issues from opposite sides of the table, and never agree on anything but to disagree, but that is just the way it is on many topics shared between friends. Hell, probably 50% of the crap my wife and I discuss ends up that way. I have found that letting a thread go where it may, makes it much more interesting than others. This is a minority opinion, though when discussing it with the other mods. They are more anal than I am and like things to stay on track. :)
Post by: bucklucky on June 16, 2011, 12:18:18 PM
Post by: tlbradford on June 16, 2011, 12:20:49 PM
Hugs?? :chuckle:
Only if PlateauNDN turns out to look like Shania Twain. :chuckle: Otherwise I'm good with a handshake.
Post by: Special T on June 16, 2011, 12:57:35 PM
I think it is much harder quantify the ethics and morality of any given population. For example, if i went up river and went in to a rundown area with lots of crap in the yard and vehicles on blocks I would presume they are some dirtbag Meth heads... I have learned the hard way, that this is not necessarily the case.
I think the question by TLB "Do you take such great pains to give us your background information, to come on this forum and deal with the negative response to tribal members concerning fishing and hunting practices, and to try to inform us on how you aer unlike many of your brethren, because we are misinformed about the tribes, or to show us that there are individual tribal members that have different opinions and thoughts than the majority of their tribe?"
Is an interesting one. I have family friends that are Yakima's that do not think so highly of their tribal members as a whole... They have tried hard to unteach their grand kids some of the bad habits of their parents. Trying instead to promote that there is usually no need to take more than an elk and a deer per hunter to get the family by with meat.
I always find it interesting listening, and talking with Indians. I think our SHARED struggle is how do we pass along our Pride and hard work ethic when we are really so well off.
Post by: PlateauNDN on June 16, 2011, 02:33:41 PM
I mean exactly what has occured so far, a civil and unbiased debate providing factual answers and documentation to back-up what was referenced. I followed this forum during Dec. and Jan. and witnessed first hand what was occuring between Tribal and Non-Tribal hunters in regards to the Nile Point incident and the Wenas incident and various other incidents leading up to those and it just irked me when I would read the negative comments about Tribal Members as a whole.
To throw fuel on the fire Tribal Members would respond in a negative way and continue to fan the fire until it was out of control. I wouldn't say I go through great pains to share my background but when somebody asks me for information why not answer them and give them information? What do I have to hide? Also, if somebody wants to lump me in with the rest of the bad apples then I'm going to disspell that notion really quick.
T, I, just like your friends brother am consumed with pushing the stereotype back. I don't like my place of residence to look all trashy and unkept either. You come to my place you're going to see a well kept home. I have 2 Marine Flags hanging in my living room and a Marine wind sock on my porch. My truck can get a little dirty from my kids but I keep decent as much as possible and that has a big "Semper Fi" bumper sticker in the back.
We share a common interest and that is turning things around that are being done negatively by Tribal Members. If the law has been broken then justice needs to be served if not, then we are just leading ourselves into self destruction.
I find myself at times frustrated with my fellow Tribesmen because of the blatant disregard of our Treaty rights. I also do believe some abuse this privilege and examples need to be made. But, until somebody is elected on our Council believes this and has the political back-up to match then, I'm afraid it will not be addressed until it is to late.
I have to agree with you TL on the hugging aspect. Unless you look like Christina Aguilera it's not going to happen. Although Shania Twain is beatiful, or maybe the beautiful lead girl off of Pure Country 2! :chuckle: Until next time I leave you with a hand shake or this icon.. :brew: either one?
Post by: True Sportsman on June 16, 2011, 07:40:48 PM
I thought for sure by the last page there would be some good name calling, but no...
Post by: Coastal_native on June 17, 2011, 12:31:58 AM
To throw fuel on the fire Tribal Members would respond in a negative way and continue to fan the fire until it was out of control.
Interesting...I don't think there were any other natives besides me and "bigdogg" posting during the time period you're referring to. I don't know if I'd consider anything we said to be negative. You can use our names next time in place of "Tribal Members"... there's only half a dozen of us. You're not gonna hurt my feelings. :)
I don't think you and I are in 100% agreement on this topic, but I've appreciated hearing your perspective. I think I'm a lumper and you're a splitter. I'd rather see tribal poaching and wasting fall under the categories of poaching and wasting, rather than under the category of "tribal hunting issues". I think the "tribal hunting issue" is strictly a jurisdictional debate. I wouldn't necessarily support the idea of a "tribal hunting" section because it is verging on separatism. I think we all come here as hunters.
I would much rather hear you tell your story about how hunting is still of cultural significance to your tribe...and that there is a valid reason why your tribe has a unique view of regulating hunting within its jurisdiction that allows it's members to retain that cultural significance...that being the main difference between the management styles of the two different jurisdictions (state vs. tribe).
Post by: bucklucky on June 17, 2011, 08:30:27 AM
Post by: buckhorn2 on June 17, 2011, 08:54:02 AM
Post by: bearpaw on June 17, 2011, 09:33:43 AM
Yea it;s nice to have a discussion without name calling it is what it is and like he said we are all hunters.
:yeah: +3
Has anyone heard anything else on the issue of the gate keys?
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 17, 2011, 10:36:48 AM
Yea it;s nice to have a discussion without name calling it is what it is and like he said we are all hunters.
:yeah: +3
Has anyone heard anything else on the issue of the gate keys?
+4
Post by: Gringo31 on June 17, 2011, 01:35:19 PM
I think that if this could happen, it would make a world of difference. This will never happen if one side says tough crap, we can do what we want, deal with it...oh, and thumb your nose while at it. IF we could walk the walk of long term goals I think we would see eye to eye on these issues.
I appreciate those from the tribe speaking from their experience and having the balls to openly discuss :tup:
Post by: PlateauNDN on June 17, 2011, 11:00:30 PM
Post by: Special T on June 18, 2011, 11:59:19 AM
Post by: boneaddict on June 18, 2011, 01:37:08 PM
Has nothing to do with locked gates (or does it)
Speaking of an old racist or unpolitically correct saying. "Too many Chiefs..." You find that its accurate that if there are too many in charge of one thing, nothing productive gets done.
Post by: boneaddict on June 18, 2011, 01:39:35 PM
Post by: furbearer365 on June 18, 2011, 02:05:46 PM
Post by: Special T on June 18, 2011, 04:02:56 PM
Post by: GlennGTR on June 18, 2011, 04:46:48 PM
Post by: The100Road on June 18, 2011, 07:49:13 PM
Post by: dreamunelk on June 20, 2011, 06:30:22 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 20, 2011, 06:48:25 AM
I am missing something. Had anyone confirmed this with DNR? How is the WDFW at fault? Why is this now a tribal bashing thread?
Not sure why any thread turns into tribal bashing, but lots of them do.
It's my understanding that the bear damage was brought to DFW and they didn't do anything about it/dropped the ball. DNR stepped in and took the path of least resistance and opened the damage areas up to tribal hunters who could use hounds and bait to decrease the bears and the damage. I may not have all my facts straight, but that's been the gist of this thread.
Post by: bearpaw on June 20, 2011, 12:06:54 PM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on June 20, 2011, 04:47:06 PM
I was asked to make this topic known by someone who wishes to remain anonymous. I did not intend for it to becom a tribal bashing thread. I myself thought the concern should be that equal opportunity is not being provided to all. I honestly do not blame the tribe for taking the keys, anyone would take them if they were offered. :twocents:
There is no bashing when any group is given this type of access. It is perfectly acceptable to point out behavior that goes against DNR policy. It is just that the tribe was given special exclusive access that goes above and beyond any treaty. There is nothing wrong with pointing that out. There is nothing wrong with stating that FACT.
And YES I contacted Officials and YES this is against DNR policy and NO it does not appear it came from DNR Headquarters. DNR claims to be investigating. And, YES once again WDFW is silent and does not have the General Hunting populations back. I will not post another Representative's response in the same one that addresses "bashing." There is NO bashing to expect our Government bureaucrats to follow their own policy, to hold them to it. As a good citizen it is our job to make sure our own Government follows law and policy. I have stated in previous comments that the Tribe in this instance did nothing wrong, DNR did.
Good job Dale in allowing us to speak out when wrong is being done. To bow down or silence anyone for showing our Government for going against it's own policy, against it's word, if anyone should have our back on that it is should be the Tribes.
Post by: Wenatcheejay on June 20, 2011, 04:58:23 PM
Dear Jayson,
I know exactly what you mean and share your feelings. I appreciate you contacting me on this issue.
I have heard of the gated access for tribal hunting and I know two Representatives that have drafted a series of questions to DNR on the matter. I ask staff to contact DNR and they told him what happened with the regional manager to allow access for the Muckleshoot tribe was done without the knowledge of headquarters here in Olympia. Still, the tribe has access at this time to a couple of DNR's tracts of land (gated access) and DNR headquarters is trying to get a handle on the matter. DNR says they are investigating it. I have ask that they keep me informed.
Keep in touch,
Mike
Post by: bearpaw on June 20, 2011, 06:08:23 PM
Post by: The100Road on June 20, 2011, 06:11:50 PM
Post by: huntnfmly on June 20, 2011, 06:15:48 PM
:yeah:However if dnr was really concerned about it and it was really against thier policy they would shut it down then get the handle on it.Cant say i blame them for doing it but they are just blowing smoke when they say they are looking into it
Post by: The100Road on June 20, 2011, 06:18:02 PM
Yes, most likely blowing smoke. hoping we all forget about it.:yeah:However if dnr was really concerned about it and it was really against thier policy they would shut it down then get the handle on it.Cant say i blame them for doing it but they are just blowing smoke when they say they are looking into it
Post by: dreamunelk on June 20, 2011, 06:20:00 PM
Not sure if I attached the link correctly.
Post by: huntnfmly on June 20, 2011, 06:32:02 PM
Post by: bobcat on June 20, 2011, 06:32:16 PM
There is no bashing when any group is given this type of access. It is perfectly acceptable to point out behavior that goes against DNR policy. It is just that the tribe was given special exclusive access that goes above and beyond any treaty. There is nothing wrong with pointing that out. There is nothing wrong with stating that FACT.
I agree. I didn't see any tribal bashing at all in this thread and I'm baffled as to why some have said that there was. ???
Post by: Coastal_native on June 20, 2011, 06:59:09 PM
Sorry Coastal this was another case of misinterpretation. I was referring to the threads in Dec. Regarding Yakama members caught Poaching in the Nile and the Yakama and Colville members caught poaching in the Wenas. Both those threads had Yakama (I'm assuming) members posting negative comments and making borderline racial comments on here. I did not refer to you Coastal or Big Dog in my earlier posts and if I did, I would've just said your name or somebody else's directly. I read the posts with my own eyes and they weren't posted by either one of you 2. I followed these threads all the way to the end and then finally started posting after the dust settled. As I stated many times before I'm not here to threaten, discriminate or name call anybody. I'm here for the enjoyment of hunting and if called upon provide information regarding Tribal issues. I never expected to agree with anybody on here 100% whether they were Tribal members or not. We may be Tribal members but we're gonna have disagreements and our opinions regardless of ethnic background and Tribal Affiliation. I'm assuming that your definition of me being a "splitter" is separatist? I encourage you to read all my posts on this thread and other recent threads regarding Tribal issues and not once did I ever give the impression nor present myself as being a separatist or biased. As far as the "Tribal Hunting" issue you're referring to was not about what you're thinking. To inform you about my request to the Site Moderators was about creating a topic possibly called "Tribal Issues" or something related. A place where forum members could go to ask or post questions regarding "Tribal Issues." If there was a bit of confusion on your part about me then I hope you got a better understanding about me from this if not then again I encourage you to read this whole thread and if that still does not suffice then PM me and I can give you some insight into my background just as I provided to the Site Moderators upon request. I don't have nothing to hide.
No confusion, I didn't have to read too many of your posts to draw the conclusion that you're an asset to the hunting community in this state...and a stand up guy.
I'd like to see this "tribal issue" go away, because I don't think it's an issue. I wouldn't mind seeing a few threads of hunters venting their frustration about a difference in management and regulation setting between jurisdictions or co-managers, but all too often it turns into racial inequality, treaties are BS, trashy homes, Indians have no regard for the land or natural resources, etc. I think this state suffers from a serious case of the "Big Lie theory" when it comes to tribal hunting, and it's been passed down to the next generation of "post Boldt era" hunters/fisherman.
Generally, the foundation for the anti treaty hunting argument is based on cases of poaching, wasting, excessive harvesting, lack of enforcement, etc...and if that's the only argument, then it's not a "tribal issue", as those things are often overstated and are not specific to tribes. Very few people take the time to educate themselves on what tribal natural resources managers are doing it terms of population monitoring, habitat improvement, habitat protection, holding state/federal agencies accountable for abuse and mismanagement of Land and natural resources, etc. Everyone is so fixated on the liberal bag limits/season lengths and trying to argue that it is racial inequality, instead of acknowledging that it is separate jurisdictions servicing their citizens differently. The Feds do not set seasons and bag limits for tribes...they've given regulatory authority to the tribes. It is tribal governments that set regulations.
So, I guess my gripe would be...as a fellow native, lets try to move the discussion away from the status quo "tribal hunting issues", by no longer acknowledging that tribal hunting is an issue. We would better serve ourselves by trying to educate people on why tribes choose to set regulations like we do, and how we ensure that it is not to the detriment of wildlife populations. We need to be able to offer up perspective as to how we retain the cultural aspect of hunting while using modern technology? why do we feel we need 6 months to do it? where does all the meat go? Why does it "seem" as if we target trophy animals? How many tribal members actually hunt? etc...
If you share that opinion, then I was mistaken and we are 100% in agreement.
Post by: dreamunelk on June 20, 2011, 08:35:54 PM
I'd like to see this "tribal issue" go away, because I don't think it's an issue. I wouldn't mind seeing a few threads of hunters venting their frustration about a difference in management and regulation setting between jurisdictions or co-managers, but all to often it turns into racial inequality, treaties are BS, trashy homes, Indians have no regard for the land or natural resources, etc. I think this state suffers from a serious case of the "Big Lie theory" when it comes to tribal hunting, and it's been passed down to the next generation of "post Boldt era" hunters/fisherman.
Well said!
This is the first step in understanding is choosing not to be ignorant!
Post by: Special T on June 20, 2011, 09:28:27 PM
Post by: bloodhound on June 20, 2011, 09:54:51 PM
good example the Eskimos that kill whales every year have to do it in home made canoes with the same equipment they used back in the day. and im ok with that.
im not ok with indian rights for hunting in washington state
Post by: Coastal_native on June 20, 2011, 10:03:39 PM
(in good fun, not meant to be a mockery)
Post by: dreamunelk on June 20, 2011, 10:07:44 PM
Some of the Coastal tribes used pit traps. They were dug strategically in and area were elk were likely to travel or in an area were the elk could be herded into it.
So careful what you ask for!
Post by: Wenatcheejay on June 20, 2011, 10:20:32 PM
I believe the only argument is that WDFW did not address their concerns so DNR turned to an outside force without procedure. That decision violates it's policy. (I think that is what will come of it.)
The "Tribal Issue" is at best secondary and seems to be watering down the facts of the case. I for one won't stay quiet and will keep pointing that out. As hunters & citizens we should all be keeping our eyes on the Washington Government. I don't want to see them looking to designated agents to deal with this. I want general hunting seasons, or spring seasons. If there is also a Tribal season I have no issue, or at best, that's a totally a separate debate. But locked gates accept for only for some? NO!
Post by: Coastal_native on June 20, 2011, 10:33:35 PM
Actually they shoot them! Some harpoon and then shoot for a more traditional or cultural experience.
Some of the Coastal tribes used pit traps. They were dug strategically in and area were elk were likely to travel or in an area were the elk could be herded into it.
So careful what you ask for!
It'd definitely be a fun experiment :chuckle:. I wouldn't mind using a pack of dogs to chase elk into the water while a group of my hunting partners clubbed it over the head till it died...or have my pack of dogs hold an elk at bay so I could walk up and spear it or arrow it. Lot's of interesting ways to kill elk that would probably send quite a few running off mortally wounded. I don't know if that would look good for anyone...I'll give it a try next year and post pics of my results on the web with the title "Washington States preferred method for Tribal members to ethically harvest big game"...just joking.
It would be an amazing experience to harvest an animal with a hand made bow and arrows using some of the traditional building materials...I'll give ya that.
Sorry Wenatcheejay, I've been off topic ever since I started posting on this thread...sometimes it's hard to avoid. In regards to your post, I would just add that if a tribes ceded area overlaps DNR lands, then tribes should have a say in the management of both the lands and the resources. You should view that as a positive in most cases...example being, it will probably be the tribes who have the biggest voice of opposition in the "Wild Olympics" campaign...which will ultimately benefit all sportsman. Other than that, I don't really disagree with your post. If the tribal government has gate keys, it should only be for enforcement purposes like resource theft and poaching. If it's forest health through depredation hunting, it would make sense for this to be a joint effort from all stake holders.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 20, 2011, 10:44:55 PM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on June 20, 2011, 10:53:23 PM
Actually they shoot them! Some harpoon and then shoot for a more traditional or cultural experience.
Some of the Coastal tribes used pit traps. They were dug strategically in and area were elk were likely to travel or in an area were the elk could be herded into it.
So careful what you ask for!
It'd definitely be a fun experiment :chuckle:. I wouldn't mind using a pack of dogs to chase elk into the water while a group of my hunting partners clubbed it over the head till it died...or have my pack of dogs hold an elk at bay so I could walk up and spear it or arrow it. Lot's of interesting ways to kill elk that would probably send quite a few running off mortally wounded. I don't know if that would look good for anyone...I'll give it a try next year and post pics of my results on the web with the title "Washington States preferred method for Tribal members to ethically harvest big game"...just joking.
It would be an amazing experience to harvest an animal with a hand made bow and arrows using some of the traditional building materials...I'll give ya that.
Sorry Wenatcheejay, I've been off topic ever since I started posting on this thread...sometimes it's hard to avoid. In regards to your post, I would just add that if a tribes ceded area overlaps DNR lands, then tribes should have a say in the management of both the lands and the resources. You should view that as a positive in most cases...example being, it will probably be the tribes who have the biggest voice of opposition in the "Wild Olympics" campaign...which will ultimately benefit all sportsman. Other than that, I don't really disagree with your post. If the tribal government has gate keys, it should only be for enforcement purposes like resource theft and poaching. If it's forest health through depredation hunting, it would make sense for this to be a joint effort from all stake holders.
Understood. In my post I said that I have no issue with a Tribal Season. By that I am aware Tribes will set that themselves. If that becomes a conflict (At That Time) I'd see it as a secondary or separate issue than this one. It is not the same issue as this one is my point. It would be a shame if people lost site of that. I have said repeatedly that I do not see the Muckelshoot Tribe as the issue here. If the keys are taken from them I also do not see that as a Tribe loosing rights either.
Post by: Special T on June 20, 2011, 10:54:52 PM
CN i think part of many peoples frustration with natives is the perceived lack of dedication to the sport... I think that is why you get lots of comments about hunting with bows and such... And if i remember one of your older posts correctly that most deer and elk were killed with dead-falls and snares from west side tribes...
I think what jimmyhoffa said plays right into your point about traditional methods...
Post by: bloodhound on June 20, 2011, 11:51:27 PM
Post by: huntnfmly on June 21, 2011, 06:47:33 AM
I would like you to offer your perspective on your last paragraph if you dont mind.I am really curious this is not meant in a smart a$$ way eitherSorry Coastal this was another case of misinterpretation. I was referring to the threads in Dec. Regarding Yakama members caught Poaching in the Nile and the Yakama and Colville members caught poaching in the Wenas. Both those threads had Yakama (I'm assuming) members posting negative comments and making borderline racial comments on here. I did not refer to you Coastal or Big Dog in my earlier posts and if I did, I would've just said your name or somebody else's directly. I read the posts with my own eyes and they weren't posted by either one of you 2. I followed these threads all the way to the end and then finally started posting after the dust settled. As I stated many times before I'm not here to threaten, discriminate or name call anybody. I'm here for the enjoyment of hunting and if called upon provide information regarding Tribal issues. I never expected to agree with anybody on here 100% whether they were Tribal members or not. We may be Tribal members but we're gonna have disagreements and our opinions regardless of ethnic background and Tribal Affiliation. I'm assuming that your definition of me being a "splitter" is separatist? I encourage you to read all my posts on this thread and other recent threads regarding Tribal issues and not once did I ever give the impression nor present myself as being a separatist or biased. As far as the "Tribal Hunting" issue you're referring to was not about what you're thinking. To inform you about my request to the Site Moderators was about creating a topic possibly called "Tribal Issues" or something related. A place where forum members could go to ask or post questions regarding "Tribal Issues." If there was a bit of confusion on your part about me then I hope you got a better understanding about me from this if not then again I encourage you to read this whole thread and if that still does not suffice then PM me and I can give you some insight into my background just as I provided to the Site Moderators upon request. I don't have nothing to hide.
No confusion, I didn't have to read too many of your posts to draw the conclusion that you're an asset to the hunting community in this state...and a stand up guy.
I'd like to see this "tribal issue" go away, because I don't think it's an issue. I wouldn't mind seeing a few threads of hunters venting their frustration about a difference in management and regulation setting between jurisdictions or co-managers, but all too often it turns into racial inequality, treaties are BS, trashy homes, Indians have no regard for the land or natural resources, etc. I think this state suffers from a serious case of the "Big Lie theory" when it comes to tribal hunting, and it's been passed down to the next generation of "post Boldt era" hunters/fisherman.
Generally, the foundation for the anti treaty hunting argument is based on cases of poaching, wasting, excessive harvesting, lack of enforcement, etc...and if that's the only argument, then it's not a "tribal issue", as those things are often overstated and are not specific to tribes. Very few people take the time to educate themselves on what tribal natural resources managers are doing it terms of population monitoring, habitat improvement, habitat protection, holding state/federal agencies accountable for abuse and mismanagement of Land and natural resources, etc. Everyone is so fixated on the liberal bag limits/season lengths and trying to argue that it is racial inequality, instead of acknowledging that it is separate jurisdictions servicing their citizens differently. The Feds do not set seasons and bag limits for tribes...they've given regulatory authority to the tribes. It is tribal governments that set regulations.
So, I guess my gripe would be...as a fellow native, lets try to move the discussion away from the status quo "tribal hunting issues", by no longer acknowledging that tribal hunting is an issue. We would better serve ourselves by trying to educate people on why tribes choose to set regulations like we do, and how we ensure that it is not to the detriment of wildlife populations. We need to be able to offer up perspective as to how we retain the cultural aspect of hunting while using modern technology? why do we feel we need 6 months to do it? where does all the meat go? Why does it "seem" as if we target trophy animals? How many tribal members actually hunt? etc...
If you share that opinion, then I was mistaken and we are 100% in agreement.
Post by: PlateauNDN on June 21, 2011, 09:25:56 AM
Good luck CN. I heard that when one group wanted to do a hunt using traditional methods, things started to become a legal mess. For example, a whale hunt conducted a few years ago was supposedly planned as being as close to historically accurate as possible; but when word got out the HSUS filed all kinds of lawsuits in federal court based on animal cruelty. The story is the tribe was forced to use a large rifle to make it humane. I guess other groups got involved too, which is why it seemed so modern---USCG rules. This is just stuff I've been reading lately, but haven't found on any official sites.
JimmyHoffa, your story is true and I remember it very well. It was the Makah Tribe that was involved in this incident. They had been fighting in Federal Court for almost 80 years (I believe that's the correct amount of years?) to exercise their Treaty Rights to harvest whales on a yearly basis. After finally getting their Rights re-instated they were taken to court again and again and again by all kinds of animal rights groups and tree huggers etc...
I remember this story well because it was early in my career as an L.E.O. for the Tribal Police and the Makah Tribe put out a request to all Tribes in Washington to assist with security and policing (I wasn't one of the lucky ones selected) on their Reservation because all those groups moved into town and were causing all kinds of problems and threatened to do what ever it takes to keep them from harvesting a whale.
The mandate imposed by the court was for the hunters to use a harpoon to snare or kill the whale but, if that did not kill the whale immediately then they were to use a .50 cal. high-powered rifle. Another part of the mandate was they were not allowed to harvest a whale without permission from the Feds.
A couple of Tribal Members got into trouble the following year because they went out and harvested a whale without permission from the Feds and ended up in Federal Court for "killing a protected animal" or something like that and they ended up losing their hunting rights for life if I remember right?
WenatcheeJay, I know what you're saying about this topic being diluted. The request I made was for reasons like this. The issue here was DNR issuing keys without permission and then it turned into the Tribes this and the Tribes that, the Tribes, the Tribes, the Tribes....I asked for a thread regarding "Tribal Issues" not just pertaining to hunting but, everything because anything anybody says on here with the hint of Tribal in it, it takes off as being Tribal, Tribal, Tribal.
Whether it's hunting, fishing, taxes, Treaty Rights, fireworks, casinos, stores being opened on Tribal Lands they are all being mixed up with main topics and diluting what was actually trying to be said.
I'm all for tradition and I'm teaching my children our traditional ways and up until I became a member of this forum I had no interest in bow hunting. Sure it was something Tribes did almost 200 years ago but this was not something I was taught. I was taught how to use a rifle and that's how I've taught my oldest son. I've learned more about bow hunting on here then I have from the very few people I know that do bow hunt. It might be something I pick up in the very near future and from the looks of it I really might enjoy it more than rifle hunting.
Huntnfmly, if you're referring to CN's last post then in my opinion he was not being sarcastic. I have learned that if you want to reach somebody you have to kill them with "kindness" and educate the person/public on what it is you're trying to accomplish. I'll relate it to a project I'm just completing.
Let's say you own a business that serves the public (grocery store, gas station etc...) and I think it would be beneficial for my company to invest and partner with you to better serve my clients and yours as well. But, you're hesitant because you're not familiar with me or my company and so you say no. I come back and meet with you and also invite you to a meeting involving other organizations just like yourself and give a presentation on how successful partnerships with my company have been with organizations such as yours.
At this meeting you learn a great deal of how we operate and how we conduct ourselves with all of the organizations. Again, you're still hesitant and so you say no again. Since the meeting other organizations have partnered and I meet with you again to show you what has transpired and this time I bring "public opinion" with me and show you how this would benefit the public not just our organizations.
You finally agree and after I completed the project you start to notice a lot more people frequenting your business and a more positive attitude from the public. Now I got what I wanted through educating you on the benefits of the project and serving the people and you got what you wanted on increase in sales and positive feedback from the public.
That's an example of educating somebody on a subject they don't know anything about. I, just like CN (I'm assuming) have to give a report to Stakeholders on a quarterly basis to report my progress in servicing the public.
I'm also in agreement with a lot of you that DNR and WDFW could've found different ways to address this issue. Especially ways that would increase their revenue such as more permits and extended spring hunts. But, this didn't happen and it's a travesty. Maybe next time they'll think real hard about what they're about to do and not just jump in head first.
If it was me and I seen we had a problem area that needed to be addressed my first thoughts are how do we salvage this situation? If my employee was giving away free stuff I knew we could make money on then yes, I would definitely reprimand them. Losing out on revenue is not smart business thinking.
Post by: huntnfmly on June 21, 2011, 12:16:27 PM
I must of worded it wrong what i was trying to ask was how do the tribes retain cultural aspect while using modern tech?Why they feel it needs to take 6mths?and the reason it seems tribes target trophy animals is not a question but seems to be a fact.In 2009 i believe it was there was a topic on here that showed pics of 3 trophy bulls that one individual entered in the sportsmans show in yakima.From what i have read on your posts and how you think i dont think you believe that is ok or right but you have to agree those instances are what the majority of people hear.But i do understand tribes hunting for those whe cannot but what is the reason for 6mth seasonsGood luck CN. I heard that when one group wanted to do a hunt using traditional methods, things started to become a legal mess. For example, a whale hunt conducted a few years ago was supposedly planned as being as close to historically accurate as possible; but when word got out the HSUS filed all kinds of lawsuits in federal court based on animal cruelty. The story is the tribe was forced to use a large rifle to make it humane. I guess other groups got involved too, which is why it seemed so modern---USCG rules. This is just stuff I've been reading lately, but haven't found on any official sites.
JimmyHoffa, your story is true and I remember it very well. It was the Makah Tribe that was involved in this incident. They had been fighting in Federal Court for almost 80 years (I believe that's the correct amount of years?) to exercise their Treaty Rights to harvest whales on a yearly basis. After finally getting their Rights re-instated they were taken to court again and again and again by all kinds of animal rights groups and tree huggers etc...
I remember this story well because it was early in my career as an L.E.O. for the Tribal Police and the Makah Tribe put out a request to all Tribes in Washington to assist with security and policing (I wasn't one of the lucky ones selected) on their Reservation because all those groups moved into town and were causing all kinds of problems and threatened to do what ever it takes to keep them from harvesting a whale.
The mandate imposed by the court was for the hunters to use a harpoon to snare or kill the whale but, if that did not kill the whale immediately then they were to use a .50 cal. high-powered rifle. Another part of the mandate was they were not allowed to harvest a whale without permission from the Feds.
A couple of Tribal Members got into trouble the following year because they went out and harvested a whale without permission from the Feds and ended up in Federal Court for "killing a protected animal" or something like that and they ended up losing their hunting rights for life if I remember right?
WenatcheeJay, I know what you're saying about this topic being diluted. The request I made was for reasons like this. The issue here was DNR issuing keys without permission and then it turned into the Tribes this and the Tribes that, the Tribes, the Tribes, the Tribes....I asked for a thread regarding "Tribal Issues" not just pertaining to hunting but, everything because anything anybody says on here with the hint of Tribal in it, it takes off as being Tribal, Tribal, Tribal.
Whether it's hunting, fishing, taxes, Treaty Rights, fireworks, casinos, stores being opened on Tribal Lands they are all being mixed up with main topics and diluting what was actually trying to be said.
I'm all for tradition and I'm teaching my children our traditional ways and up until I became a member of this forum I had no interest in bow hunting. Sure it was something Tribes did almost 200 years ago but this was not something I was taught. I was taught how to use a rifle and that's how I've taught my oldest son. I've learned more about bow hunting on here then I have from the very few people I know that do bow hunt. It might be something I pick up in the very near future and from the looks of it I really might enjoy it more than rifle hunting.
Huntnfmly, if you're referring to CN's last post then in my opinion he was not being sarcastic. I have learned that if you want to reach somebody you have to kill them with "kindness" and educate the person/public on what it is you're trying to accomplish. I'll relate it to a project I'm just completing.
Let's say you own a business that serves the public (grocery store, gas station etc...) and I think it would be beneficial for my company to invest and partner with you to better serve my clients and yours as well. But, you're hesitant because you're not familiar with me or my company and so you say no. I come back and meet with you and also invite you to a meeting involving other organizations just like yourself and give a presentation on how successful partnerships with my company have been with organizations such as yours.
At this meeting you learn a great deal of how we operate and how we conduct ourselves with all of the organizations. Again, you're still hesitant and so you say no again. Since the meeting other organizations have partnered and I meet with you again to show you what has transpired and this time I bring "public opinion" with me and show you how this would benefit the public not just our organizations.
You finally agree and after I completed the project you start to notice a lot more people frequenting your business and a more positive attitude from the public. Now I got what I wanted through educating you on the benefits of the project and serving the people and you got what you wanted on increase in sales and positive feedback from the public.
That's an example of educating somebody on a subject they don't know anything about. I, just like CN (I'm assuming) have to give a report to Stakeholders on a quarterly basis to report my progress in servicing the public.
I'm also in agreement with a lot of you that DNR and WDFW could've found different ways to address this issue. Especially ways that would increase their revenue such as more permits and extended spring hunts. But, this didn't happen and it's a travesty. Maybe next time they'll think real hard about what they're about to do and not just jump in head first.
If it was me and I seen we had a problem area that needed to be addressed my first thoughts are how do we salvage this situation? If my employee was giving away free stuff I knew we could make money on then yes, I would definitely reprimand them. Losing out on revenue is not smart business thinking.
Thanks jim
Post by: PlateauNDN on June 21, 2011, 02:22:02 PM
My children know that my rifle and pistol are not toys and I have taught them that very hard. I showed them what they were and what they can do and told them and showed them and disciplined them not to play with or touch any of my weapons unless I said they could.
As I stated previously I'm seriously considering picking up bow hunting because it looks to be enjoying. The only answer I can give you was this just happened to be one of the things that was assimilated into Tribal Culture when there was battles and wars going on between the Govt. and Tribes. They put down the bow and arrows and picked up the rifle and have not looked back since.
I don't think it takes 6months to stock a freezer and as far as seasons go the Yakama Nation are allowed to harvest males throughout the year with the exception that the genitals of the deer/elk have to still be attached to it. Females are not allowed to be harvested from Jan. 1 to Aug. 31.
I have stated here before I don't support abuse of privileges or abuse of our Treaty Rights. I've said it before and I'll say it again. I know overharvesting takes place and I have said it before on here. I've also stated I would like to see our Tribal Council do something but until somebody with a strong political base is put in then there won't be a change for awhile.
I hunt with ethics and it does not take me 6 months to fill my freezer, my mother-in-laws freezer, my parents freezer and my grandmothers freezer. I and my wife and kids hunt for my in-laws because out of 5 sisters and 2 brothers they don't have any sons that hunt or show interest in doing so but, they fish occasionally. My mother has 4 brothers and 2 sisters with no children that are hunters, fishers or gatherers. Not saying any of them don't but they are at that age where my generation is supposed to be the primary providers now and passing down our Tradition to our children.
My dads side of the family has 2 brothers and 5 sisters with no children that hunt etc...except 1 younger cousin that hunts occasionaly. My grandmother is the eldest of my dads side of the family and I do everything I can to help her relive the old days by taking her to the mountains to gether roots and berries.
What she has taught me when I was a child I am now teaching my children and hopefully they will continue to do as such when they become parents. If we don't teach our children as it is evident in my family then we will become nothing but after thoughts of a dying culture. I see a lot of kids that don't understand that and it makes me frustrated. I shouldn't have to show my in-laws or my families kids how to be in touch with their culture if their parents are alive but I do because they are family and if I want our Culture to survive then somebody must.
Post by: Wenatcheejay on June 23, 2011, 03:41:05 PM
Jayson,
On behalf of Senator Parlette, thanks again for contacting her in regards to tribal access to DNR land. As promised, we've forwarded on the concerns we heard to DNR. At this point, they're still looking into the situation, but I wanted to write to provide what information we have at this time.
· Investigation into this matter is ongoing by DNR headquarters (in Olympia)
· Headquarters is taking interim action; upper level management (The Commissioner and his management team) was not aware of this arrangement
· In 2008 the previous administration granted access to two pieces of DNR land in the South Puget Sound Region. The purpose of this access was for cedar barking; there was written documentation that provide access on an annual basis, and instructed they could not damage the trees. This access was re-approved in 2009 and 2010 for the purpose of studying elk here in the area. Then, in the spring of 2011 the access was expanded to cover two additional parcels and the purpose was for “wildlife management”.
· The decision to allow access to these lands by the tribe was done at the regional level and without headquarters’ approval.
· Headquarters has asked all regions to provide them with all formal and informal access that has been granted to DNR lands in their respected areas
· Headquarters will be re-evaluating all the decisions the regions have made and have informed the regions that access issues are policy issues and need to be routed through headquarters
· Headquarters is working on an access agreement to be used so there is a written agreement for the terms, reason, and review of all access to DNR lands—especially government to government agreements. This may take a few months to finalize.
· It is not the current policy of this administration to grant access to tribes; all access, tribal or not, should have a written agreement/policy.
· The only agreement with a tribal entity this administration was aware of is with the Lummi Tribe, which started in 2006
I hope this information is helpful. We'll continue to keep you updated as we learn more.
Sean Graham
Legislative Assistant
to Senator Linda Evans Parlette
12th Legislative District
360.786.7622
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 24, 2011, 06:34:15 AM
Here is an update. I got this letter:
Jayson,
On behalf of Senator Parlette, thanks again for contacting her in regards to tribal access to DNR land. As promised, we've forwarded on the concerns we heard to DNR. At this point, they're still looking into the situation, but I wanted to write to provide what information we have at this time.
· Investigation into this matter is ongoing by DNR headquarters (in Olympia)
· Headquarters is taking interim action; upper level management (The Commissioner and his management team) was not aware of this arrangement
· In 2008 the previous administration granted access to two pieces of DNR land in the South Puget Sound Region. The purpose of this access was for cedar barking; there was written documentation that provide access on an annual basis, and instructed they could not damage the trees. This access was re-approved in 2009 and 2010 for the purpose of studying elk here in the area. Then, in the spring of 2011 the access was expanded to cover two additional parcels and the purpose was for “wildlife management”.
· The decision to allow access to these lands by the tribe was done at the regional level and without headquarters’ approval.
· Headquarters has asked all regions to provide them with all formal and informal access that has been granted to DNR lands in their respected areas
· Headquarters will be re-evaluating all the decisions the regions have made and have informed the regions that access issues are policy issues and need to be routed through headquarters
· Headquarters is working on an access agreement to be used so there is a written agreement for the terms, reason, and review of all access to DNR lands—especially government to government agreements. This may take a few months to finalize.
· It is not the current policy of this administration to grant access to tribes; all access, tribal or not, should have a written agreement/policy.
· The only agreement with a tribal entity this administration was aware of is with the Lummi Tribe, which started in 2006
I hope this information is helpful. We'll continue to keep you updated as we learn more.
Sean Graham
Legislative Assistant
to Senator Linda Evans Parlette
12th Legislative District
360.786.7622
Nice going, Jayson. Why aren't you on the legislative committee for WFW? You'd be a big asset to the team. Thanks for writing your rep. Keep up the pressure.
John