Post by: trophyhunt on October 26, 2011, 06:20:40 PM
Post by: huntergreg on October 26, 2011, 06:36:44 PM
Post by: Caliber on October 26, 2011, 06:42:00 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on October 26, 2011, 06:42:54 PM
Post by: huntergreg on October 26, 2011, 06:55:06 PM
http://sportsyakima.com/2011/09/hunting-where-their-ancestors-did/ (http://sportsyakima.com/2011/09/hunting-where-their-ancestors-did/)
Post by: trophyhunt on October 26, 2011, 06:56:44 PM
Post by: Coastal_native on October 26, 2011, 06:58:52 PM
they took 150 bucks out of there last year, which is more than the general season took out of several units combined.
I'm just curious where that number came from? I noticed the NWIFC only had 44 total deer reported for member tribes in the Little Naches.
Post by: huntergreg on October 26, 2011, 07:00:20 PM
they took 150 bucks out of there last year, which is more than the general season took out of several units combined.
I'm just curious where that number came from? I noticed the NWIFC only had 44 total deer reported for member tribes in the Little Naches.
Do they have to report any animal harvested?
Post by: longknife on October 26, 2011, 07:02:59 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on October 26, 2011, 07:08:56 PM
Post by: Coastal_native on October 26, 2011, 07:10:26 PM
Post by: longknife on October 26, 2011, 07:11:34 PM
Thats alot of overhunting in one specific area!! i saw they have to report within 10 days(after kill), but with the firewater flowing, it wont be for a couple weeks...
Post by: Caliber on October 26, 2011, 07:16:59 PM
The 150 number was reported by the Yakima area WDFW biologist, Jeff Bernatowitz, when talking about factors contributing to the low numbers of deer in the Yakima area, along with the deer lice, low fawn recruitement etc.
By the way I just added the buck harvest up from 2010 for the Little Naches, Nile, Bumping, and Bethel and came up with a whopping 129 Bucks harvested for all weapons for the "all citizens" hunting seasons-
Post by: trophyhunt on October 26, 2011, 07:22:20 PM
NWIFC only reports what is reported to them. Yakimas dont belong to the NWIFC.Was that 150 deer taken from just the mucks, yaks or both? Either way, WOW. That makes my stomach sick. If that's true, what the hell are they trying to prove?
The 150 number was reported by the Yakima area WDFW biologist, Jeff Bernatowitz, when talking about factors contributing to the low numbers of deer in the Yakima area, along with the deer lice, low fawn recruitement etc.
By the way I just added the buck harvest up from 2010 for the Little Naches, Nile, Bumping, and Bethel and came up with a whopping 129 Bucks harvested for all weapons for the "all citizens" hunting seasons-
Post by: wintersteelhead on October 26, 2011, 07:22:49 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on October 26, 2011, 08:50:44 PM
Post by: phishisgroovin on October 26, 2011, 08:57:35 PM
Quote
That was the Washington Supreme Court’s 1999 precedent-setting ruling in State v. Buchanan. The case stemmed from a January 1995 incident in which three members of the Nooksack Tribe in northwest Washington were found on state land within the Oak Creek Wildlife Area loading two bull elk into the bed of a pickup
if they hunted it in pre treaty times, then they should GET OVER there in pre treaty ways. WALK or ride a horse.
Post by: jstone on October 26, 2011, 08:59:08 PM
Post by: 270Shooter on October 26, 2011, 09:06:24 PM
Until we get this whole thing figured out, or the eastside goes permit only I think I'm done with big game in WA, I'll go to montana, and kill some ducks around here :tup:
Post by: hughjorgan on October 26, 2011, 09:19:55 PM
A quote from the article stated, "On top of that, muckleshoot tribal hunters harvested 130 bucks in the Yakima area Last fall and winter. Muckleshoot tribal regulations Don't include antler restrictions, so many of the younger bucks, which would make up many of the 3 point or better bucks this year, just won't be there for hunters this year."
Post by: huntnphool on October 26, 2011, 09:37:07 PM
Post by: igotbigbulls on October 26, 2011, 09:43:58 PM
The goal of the Wildlife Program is to assist in the perpetuation of game resources within both the Point Elliott and Medicine Creek treaty reserved areas, and within traditional hunting areas for current and future generations of Muckleshoot Tribal members. The Muckleshoot Wildlife Members and Wildlife Program staff accomplish this goal by conducting research on local game populations and working with local landowners to develop suitable habitat for these populations.
The following information is related to the services offered by the Wildlife Program:
Hunting Tags: Tags are $5 each, and free to elders age 50 and older. Designated hunters are automatically approved for woman and elders, so if you know who you want to hunt for you, then come to our office and get your tags. If at any time you have questions regarding your tags, please call me.
Opening Seasons:
Bear/Cougar: January 1st
Deer: August 1st, (no you may not get tags the day before, unless the 1st falls on
the weekend)
Elk: September 15 (one per household)
Meat Requests: Meat requests are automatically approved for tribal member memorials and funerals. All others are decided upon at the Muckleshoot Wildlife Committee meeting. There is an application to fill out, or please contact myself with the information. There are no "hardship" requests approved.
Designated Hunters: Designated hunters are chosen by tribal members, and are automatically approved if they do not have any outstanding fines or other issues with our department. Staff is not responsible for making sure your hunter fills your tags, and you are responsible for any payments in regards to processing your filled tags. I do have a list in my office for people who do not know anyone in the area, and I can add your name, and hope that a hunter comes in and wants to hunt.
The Enforcement Section is staffed by an enforcement officer and four Muckleshoot Tribal members that are responsible for ensuring that Muckleshoot Hunters comply with the Tribal Council approved Hunting Ordinance and Hunting Regulations, annually approved by the Muckleshoot Wildlife Committee. Enforcement staff is also responsible for the care of the tribal hounds used for management control purposes.
The Muckleshoot Wildlife Committee also is now offering a $1000 reward for the successful prosecution of Tribal members poaching. Please contact any Enforcement or Wildlife Program staff if you have any information. Also, please note that by not turning in the illegal harvest of animals, you are perpetuating the cycle of behavior that will lead to the decrease of the herds, especially those on the White River. Please help us in ensuring that the future generations of Muckleshoot Tribal members will have resources to hunt.
The Wildlife staff works to ensure wildlife resources, that Tribal members rely on, are healthy and sustainable. To accomplish this they survey and conduct studies of game animals. Staff also propose and implement management approaches to meet herd goals.
One of the key components to increasing deer and elk numbers is to make sure the habitat that they require is abundant and easy to obtain. We work to accomplish this by meeting with numerous agencies and private companies to help create, enhance and preserve big game habitat. The Wildlife Program also reviews forest practice applications, land use policies, and environmental documents that may diminish or alter available habitat for big game.
Post by: igotbigbulls on October 26, 2011, 09:54:58 PM
Post by: 7mag. on October 26, 2011, 10:09:12 PM
im here to defend my family that are muckleshoot. looks like the start of another one of "those" threads
Do you know why "those" threads come up all the time? Maybe you should think about it. Stereo types don't come by accident.
Post by: igotbigbulls on October 26, 2011, 10:14:38 PM
Post by: 7mag. on October 26, 2011, 10:17:35 PM
a tribe of less than 4000 who a small percentage of hunt kill off all the animals? come on man. tribal members like myself are fed up with the non factual comments. like 140 deer killed last weekend. all races have stereo types that man has labled them with. lets just hunt.
Sure, lets all just hunt.
Hey, can you guys save a few for the rest of us, for when our season opens? Thanks in advance.
Post by: willie_81 on October 26, 2011, 10:18:55 PM
im here to defend my family that are muckleshoot. looks like the start of another one of "those" threadsHonestly why should your family or any other tribal people for that matter have more hunting rights than anyone who is not tribal? I understand you guys where here first but that was what, 300 years ago? And what is the point of harvesting some crazy amount of deer when there's a large chance it wont all be used? And there sure as H*** are some other people that need it way more then they do.
Post by: PlateauNDN on October 26, 2011, 10:25:04 PM
Post by: igotbigbulls on October 26, 2011, 10:28:29 PM
Post by: igotbigbulls on October 26, 2011, 10:29:29 PM
Post by: huntnphool on October 26, 2011, 10:31:06 PM
Post by: Caseyd on October 26, 2011, 10:31:32 PM
Of course it will come back again. All types of problems remain present until they are resolved :dunno:
Post by: igotbigbulls on October 26, 2011, 10:32:46 PM
Post by: huntnphool on October 26, 2011, 10:33:22 PM
no i havent. where at?
Clemens
Post by: Huntbear on October 26, 2011, 10:40:29 PM
yup. another one of those threads. who are you to say that the meat probably wont be used? if you need meat so bad i ll share some steaks with ya. thread after thread people see all these truck loads of dear and elk. yet no pics or proof of it. all the talk and no pics is the number one no no on this site. you would think with as many accusations there have been people would start taking pics.
When the tribes follow the same hunting seasons and bag limits and point restrictions as the rest of us that hunt, these threads will disappear. I am so sick of special rights and privileges..... just because of something that happened 100 - 200 years ago.... get over it already. :bash: :bash: :bash:
Post by: igotbigbulls on October 26, 2011, 10:41:14 PM
Post by: igotbigbulls on October 26, 2011, 10:44:07 PM
Post by: Huntbear on October 26, 2011, 10:50:15 PM
tribal harvest numbers are lower than you would ever guess compared to the "rest of us" as you put it. you get over it. we will continue to hunt in our usual and acustomed places.
And that attitude is why certain areas of the rez is completely void of wildlife... so now you spill over to hunt on public ground... the idea of actual game management like the Apache and other tribes do, is as foreign to the "Natives" in this state as speaking Greek is to me.
Post by: mtbeav on October 26, 2011, 11:35:49 PM
tribal harvest numbers are lower than you would ever guess compared to the "rest of us" as you put it. you get over it. we will continue to hunt in our usual and acustomed places.
Then my I suggest you continue to hunt with your usual and accustomed weapons, and mode of transportation. As when the treaty was signed.
Post by: ICEMAN on October 27, 2011, 04:26:21 AM
Hate to say I told you so but guess what, its back. I mentioned it in the other post and sure enough it cycled around and here it is.
I do not see any end in the conflict between the two groups.... Do you? Show the way to end the conflict.
Post by: jason4429 on October 27, 2011, 05:54:47 AM
longknife, read the article huntergreg posted. I just did and it explains why the mucks think they should be able to hunt in the Nile area. I don't see how we can prove them wrong, but I wonder if the mucks and the yaks got along 150+ years ago?I don't know if they got along 150+years ago,but i do know they did not have rifles and pickup trucks.
Post by: lewy on October 27, 2011, 06:23:49 AM
i know how to end the conflict....make everyone abide by the same rulesHate to say I told you so but guess what, its back. I mentioned it in the other post and sure enough it cycled around and here it is.
I do not see any end in the conflict between the two groups.... Do you? Show the way to end the conflict.
Post by: trophyhunt on October 27, 2011, 06:37:48 AM
:yeah: That is the only answer to this f up problem. The mucks are the richest indians in this state, getting meat on the table is no problem for them. These type of topic's will allways pop up, why?? Because it's wrong what the indians do. I did miss type the title, sorry. It wasn't supposed to read "weekend'' I meant before our season.i know how to end the conflict....make everyone abide by the same rulesHate to say I told you so but guess what, its back. I mentioned it in the other post and sure enough it cycled around and here it is.
I do not see any end in the conflict between the two groups.... Do you? Show the way to end the conflict.
Post by: dirty24d on October 27, 2011, 06:38:30 AM
Let me first state that i normally ignore these threads because of what they turn into but i am curious.
Were these deer harvested on a reservation or tribal lands? Or Public Land?
If they were taken on tribal property or land then I say well thats within their rights, if they were taken on public land well then its definitely not right.
They should be allowed to wipe out their resources and then have to hunt public land and abide by the general public laws and regulations until they are able to create better rules around game management.
Just my :twocents:
Post by: trophyhunt on October 27, 2011, 06:38:55 AM
yup. another one of those threads. who are you to say that the meat probably wont be used? if you need meat so bad i ll share some steaks with ya. thread after thread people see all these truck loads of dear and elk. yet no pics or proof of it. all the talk and no pics is the number one no no on this site. you would think with as many accusations there have been people would start taking pics.Are you saying it's not happening?
Post by: trophyhunt on October 27, 2011, 06:44:19 AM
So I have a question to ask and a statement to make:From what I'm understanding the mucks don't have tribal land on the east side, they are just saying they used to walk or ride there horses across the chinnook trail 50 plus miles to hunt the nile area insted of hunting in there back yard. Whatever. I agree with you on the fact that they should be able to do what they want on reservation land, but once they step off they should go by our rules plain and simple.
Let me first state that i normally ignore these threads because of what they turn into but i am curious.
Were these deer harvested on a reservation or tribal lands? Or Public Land?
If they were taken on tribal property or land then I say well thats within their rights, if they were taken on public land well then its definitely not right.
They should be allowed to wipe out their resources and then have to hunt public land and abide by the general public laws and regulations until they are able to create better rules around game management.
Just my :twocents:
Post by: brianmtsinc on October 27, 2011, 06:48:28 AM
:yeah:
Post by: dirty24d on October 27, 2011, 06:50:03 AM
THATS ALL I GOT TO SAY ABOUT THAT.
Post by: jackmaster on October 27, 2011, 07:01:28 AM
Post by: sirmissalot on October 27, 2011, 07:08:09 AM
yup. another one of those threads. who are you to say that the meat probably wont be used? if you need meat so bad i ll share some steaks with ya. thread after thread people see all these truck loads of dear and elk. yet no pics or proof of it. all the talk and no pics is the number one no no on this site. you would think with as many accusations there have been people would start taking pics.Are you saying it's not happening?
His arguement is always the same. Basically prove it. He does have a point there are a lot of rumors of truck loads of deer and or elk but you never see pictures. We just talked about this on another fishing forum, guys complaining abotu indians and their nets, with half the fish going to waste. We all need to TAKE PICTURES of this stuff and bring it to the attention of the public, other tribal members and law enforcement. I'm lucky that not a lot of this stuff happens in areas I hunt, but if it did I would surely be on the look out and always ready to snap a photo, just like I am for people using ATV's in areas they aren't supposed to. Something has got to change and this would be a start.
Post by: lewy on October 27, 2011, 07:09:58 AM
Post by: igotbigbulls on October 27, 2011, 07:18:33 AM
Post by: lewy on October 27, 2011, 07:20:57 AM
Post by: igotbigbulls on October 27, 2011, 07:22:11 AM
Post by: lewy on October 27, 2011, 08:17:49 AM
Post by: Coastal_native on October 27, 2011, 08:28:53 AM
You know what's ignorant- not acknowledging the facts and watching our state go down the drain
Actually, to help everybody out lewy, you should define the word "fact" for us, just so we're all on the same page. This thread was started with a question about a rumor and then had another rumor introduced within the first couple posts. The hunters on here that are bringing forward all the "facts" about treaty hunting are not treaty hunters and they don't get their facts from an agency that has jurisdiction over treaty hunters. So where are all the "facts" coming from?
......I'll say it again, Hunt Wa don't know nutin' about treaty hunting. They just know they hate it.
Post by: woodswalker on October 27, 2011, 08:33:48 AM
I'd just as soon NOT have anything to report. However I've BEEN up in the woods and I've SEEN what others report...I'll try to have the evidence past my own witness.
Plateaundn, Coastal_native and Igotbigbulls, part of what gets "these threads" riled up IS a small percentage of tribal folks who stretch, strain and just flat blow out the values of fairness and sportmanship and turn it into oneupsmanship (See Yakima Sportsmans Show and a certain exhibitor who takes more branch bulls in one season than I've had tags for in MY LIFETIME of nearly half a century.) THAT is what gets folks wound up. That and seeing piles of salmon with the skeins in a bucket and the fish in a pile on the bank to rot. Its the ABUSES of the resources that tends to rile the rest of us who believe in not only playing by the rules, whatever they may be, but in fair play and in SPORTSMANSHIP and CONSERVATION of our resources. I want MY kids and grandkids to be able to hunt and fish as I have been able to do.
Post by: Craig on October 27, 2011, 08:35:24 AM
Post by: igotbigbulls on October 27, 2011, 08:42:35 AM
heres a real poacher. read this in a hunting mag couple weeks ago. PROOF.
Post by: dirty24d on October 27, 2011, 08:43:08 AM
Im pretty sure the majority of you if given the rights and chance to shoot 3 deer and 3 elk per year you probably would. You cant bash tribal hunters for doing what they have been told they are allowed to do. You need to be bashing the laws and rulemakers for allowing this to continue. If i had police flashers on my car and i was told i could use them twice a week so i didnt have to sit in traffic I'd be inclined to take advantage of that because it was privledge given to me, it may not be fair or ethical but if you've been given the right to do it then i guess i cant blame you for taking advantage of that.
Hate the policy not the hunter.
Post by: Coastal_native on October 27, 2011, 08:47:05 AM
It's amazing how Arizona, New Mexico and other states have world class hunting and game management on the reservations and Washington tribes seem not to really care. They would rather exploit the issue.
The fact that you even made a comparison between washington reservations and reservations in the SW shows me that you don't understand the issue.
Post by: woodswalker on October 27, 2011, 08:47:34 AM
http://www.petethomasoutdoors.com/2011/07/oregon-deer-poachers-to-spend-hunting-seasons-in-jail.html (http://www.petethomasoutdoors.com/2011/07/oregon-deer-poachers-to-spend-hunting-seasons-in-jail.html)
heres a real poacher. read this in a hunting mag couple weeks ago. PROOF.
short sentence...and not enough fines.
Post by: boneaddict on October 27, 2011, 08:58:34 AM
Post by: whiteeyes on October 27, 2011, 09:17:03 AM
Post by: Practical Approach on October 27, 2011, 09:17:29 AM
Can someone produce this "Nile newspaper article"??? Surely someone lives in the area or has the resources to dig it up. If after 5 pages of threads it hasn't been produced, I doubt it exists. :twocents:
Post by: buck man on October 27, 2011, 09:20:42 AM
That would save hundreds of deer and elk for the rest of us. I know that lots of tribes did eat horses when times were tough. Maybe its time to resurrect some of those ancient practices? :stirthepot: :twocents:
Post by: PlateauNDN on October 27, 2011, 09:26:26 AM
Just a thought ... since the Yakima rez has the largest free ranging horse herd in the nation and with everyone of these threads that I have read I have come to the conclusion that the natives only hunt for meat . Then why not hunt your 5000 plus horses and eat them? You have plenty to spare and I am sure the mucks would love some of that sweet horse flesh too.
That would save hundreds of deer and elk for the rest of us. I know that lots of tribes did eat horses when times were tough. Maybe its time to resurrect some of those ancient practices? :stirthepot: :twocents:
I know buck man some ancient tale you heard that Tribes ate horses is probably true somewhere but not here. I don't know if you have been here long but I have spoken about the wild horse herds and the reasons why we can't, on our own lands deplete the herds. If you by chance are somebody high up on the Federal Food Chain and can give us the go-ahead then please do so now and I would love to run up to the hills and knock some down. But, until then please don't begin to think because there is an abundant of one problem it can be solved with an easy fix without severe consuquences.
Post by: boneaddict on October 27, 2011, 09:30:47 AM
I hear you whiteeyes. I am very much against that practice as well, and trust me they have to listen to me biotching about it. I've probably lost friends over it. :chuckle:
Hey Plat, are you guys bound on the horse deal too. Sounds like it by your words? If you've posted that on here, sorry I missed it. There is a *censored*load of them on the Rez, and assumed if they were an issue they'd get dealt with.
Post by: Austrian Hunter on October 27, 2011, 09:52:21 AM
Post by: PlateauNDN on October 27, 2011, 09:58:10 AM
I looked through the Herald online....I assumed that was the paper that was being mentioned by the patient. I couldn't find it. I don't read the Herald as its not worth the paper its printed on....talk about a waste of resources.
I hear you whiteeyes. I am very much against that practice as well, and trust me they have to listen to me biotching about it. I've probably lost friends over it. :chuckle:
Hey Plat, are you guys bound on the horse deal too. Sounds like it by your words? If you've posted that on here, sorry I missed it. There is a *censored*load of them on the Rez, and assumed if they were an issue they'd get dealt with.
It's not so much the Feds holding it up more than the :tree1: . They have made it their mission to stop the senseless slaughter of herds that are beyond their control. They are not the ones having to deal with them and see the damage they are causing but since they are a "majestic" animal on our lands and they have the ear of the Feds who have control they are winning temporarily just like the sea-lions.
It was in the Yak-herald a couple of weeks ago about the amount of harvested bucks last year by the Muckleshoot and I believe it stated 139.
Post by: CedarPants on October 27, 2011, 10:17:47 AM
Post by: PlateauNDN on October 27, 2011, 10:23:30 AM
Post by: boneaddict on October 27, 2011, 10:27:43 AM
Post by: runamuk on October 27, 2011, 10:35:43 AM
Post by: trophyhunt on October 27, 2011, 10:40:11 AM
Thanks for finding the article, can you in anyway post it for us.I looked through the Herald online....I assumed that was the paper that was being mentioned by the patient. I couldn't find it. I don't read the Herald as its not worth the paper its printed on....talk about a waste of resources.
I hear you whiteeyes. I am very much against that practice as well, and trust me they have to listen to me biotching about it. I've probably lost friends over it. :chuckle:
Hey Plat, are you guys bound on the horse deal too. Sounds like it by your words? If you've posted that on here, sorry I missed it. There is a *censored*load of them on the Rez, and assumed if they were an issue they'd get dealt with.
It's not so much the Feds holding it up more than the :tree1: . They have made it their mission to stop the senseless slaughter of herds that are beyond their control. They are not the ones having to deal with them and see the damage they are causing but since they are a "majestic" animal on our lands and they have the ear of the Feds who have control they are winning temporarily just like the sea-lions.
It was in the Yak-herald a couple of weeks ago about the amount of harvested bucks last year by the Muckleshoot and I believe it stated 139.
Post by: trophyhunt on October 27, 2011, 10:42:37 AM
I swear, the longer I monitor some of these threads the more I lose respect for the opinions expressed by a large number of the users. I can't believe the mob mentality that some of these threads exhibit. If you don't have the document to share with the group, then don't start a rumor mill.plat found the article, and he is a native so I hope you believe him.
Can someone produce this "Nile newspaper article"??? Surely someone lives in the area or has the resources to dig it up. If after 5 pages of threads it hasn't been produced, I doubt it exists. :twocents:
Post by: Holg3107 on October 27, 2011, 10:46:49 AM
I think its already been posted on here. I assume this is what people are talking about anyway.
Post by: huntnphool on October 27, 2011, 10:50:19 AM
As for the Muck shooting\poaching a sheep, we have a member here who dealt with that, so I know thats fact. I hope they fry his a$$.
My point exactly Bone, notice how they are ignoring this one.
Post by: igotbigbulls on October 27, 2011, 10:53:01 AM
Post by: PlateauNDN on October 27, 2011, 10:53:34 AM
http://sportsyakima.com/2011/10/hunting-season-all-about-location-location-location/ (http://sportsyakima.com/2011/10/hunting-season-all-about-location-location-location/)
As for the Muck shooting\poaching a sheep, we have a member here who dealt with that, so I know thats fact. I hope they fry his a$$.
My point exactly Bone, notice how they are ignoring this one.
And who said I was ignoring this one. If the person did something illegal then by all means prosecute. I've said it before and I'll say it again provide the facts and I will glad to pass them along to L.E. if you don't want to but since Bone stated somebody already took care of it then why bother with it? Bone knows I'm all about the truth and will pursue it as far as I can and he knows I don't tolerate the illegal crap whether their Tribal or Non-Tribal.
Post by: Coastal_native on October 27, 2011, 11:26:44 AM
plat found the article, and he is a native so I hope you believe him.
I don't believe him :chuckle:
Plat found an article, but it's a far stretch to say that it's the article that was described in the OP...unless we're all OK with the level of misinformation provided in the OP.
I'm still curious where those numbers came from anyway. They didn't come from the NWIFC, or else there's some inaccurate reporting going on. Did the Mucks offer up the numbers to the Yakima Herald? or were they numbers based on anecdotal information from the interviewer and the interviewee? The article doesn't specify.
FACT: The newspaper reported x amount of deer harvested by the Mucks
FICTION: news papers always report accurately
Just trying to add some clarity, so that we all have a solid foundation for another 30 page "ignorant fest".
Post by: Ridgerunner on October 27, 2011, 11:43:23 AM
Post by: Ridgerunner on October 27, 2011, 11:44:50 AM
- Quote from: Craig on Today at 08:35:24 AM (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,86252.msg1080840.html#msg1080840)
-
It's amazing how Arizona, New Mexico and other states have world class hunting and game management on the reservations and Washington tribes seem not to really care. They would rather exploit the issue.
The fact that you even made a comparison between washington reservations and reservations in the SW shows me that you don't understand the issue. Please explain this to me and why our tribes, specifically the Yakimas and Colville cannot set up worldclass hunting on there reservations if they wanted to.
Post by: Coastal_native on October 27, 2011, 12:19:43 PM
- Quote from: Craig on Today at 08:35:24 AM (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,86252.msg1080840.html#msg1080840)
The fact that you even made a comparison between washington reservations and reservations in the SW shows me that you don't understand the issue. Please explain this to me and why our tribes, specifically the Yakimas and Colville cannot set up worldclass hunting on there reservations if they wanted to.
I wouldn't even attempt to answer that question for any tribe. My point was that there are many considerations, and the comparison was unjust. The only consideration that really matters in my opinion, is whether or not they want to. I'm still confused about why treating wildlife as communal resources to be managed for no other reason than the benefit of the people is considered exploitation, but instituting a worldclass guiding program for economic benefit is not considered exploitation. I don't have anything against what the SW tribes are doing. I've talked to some of the NR managers from White Mt. and San Carlos and they seem to have it figured out. IMO, the socioeconomic climate, political climate, resource value, land base, habitat, ownership patterns, etc... are very different between the two regions. All those considerations lend to the feasibility of a guiding program on a reservation. Having a land base and having wildlife on it are not the only two qualifications.
It's innappropriate to simply say "they have guiding programs on their reservations, therefor they're better game managers".
Post by: Practical Approach on October 27, 2011, 12:39:03 PM
Interesting read. I agree with Coastal, where did the numbers come from? They didn't come from the agency that the Muckleshoot tribe reports to. Something smells fishy.I swear, the longer I monitor some of these threads the more I lose respect for the opinions expressed by a large number of the users. I can't believe the mob mentality that some of these threads exhibit. If you don't have the document to share with the group, then don't start a rumor mill.plat found the article, and he is a native so I hope you believe him.
Can someone produce this "Nile newspaper article"??? Surely someone lives in the area or has the resources to dig it up. If after 5 pages of threads it hasn't been produced, I doubt it exists. :twocents:
Post by: trophyhunt on October 27, 2011, 12:40:24 PM
Post by: phishisgroovin on October 27, 2011, 12:52:36 PM
I totally agree with ridgerunner, the treaties are very much out dated. The tribes know this, but why would they volunteer any change. If the mucks were smart, when they buy hancock they will turn that into world class elk hunting. But I'm sure they'll have to wipe the elk and deer out before that happens. If I ever won a big lottery I would hire the best damn team of attorney's and get a law suit going on this treaty B.S.then wont every tribe in the USA join as one and bring in all their casino money to fight you to keep their horrendous privileges?
Post by: igotbigbulls on October 27, 2011, 12:58:42 PM
thats the best idea you had on how to spend your money. WOW! must really hate the treaty.
Post by: CedarPants on October 27, 2011, 01:06:22 PM
I just have a few questions I'm hoping can be answered ....... 1) If the treaty went away, would the non-tribal poachers that wipe out more animals than ever get mentioned in these threads suddenly just stop poaching? 2) If the treaty went away, would the tribal hunters that shoot as many animals as they want, just because they can, suddenly just stop shooting as many animals as they want? 3) If the treaty went away and neither 1 nor 2 above were to take place, at what point would ungulate numbers magically start increasing? 4) Don't those against the 2nd Amendment constantly point out that it's 'outdated', and don't we tell them where to go when they do so? 5) When did some of you decide Uncle Sam's word wasn't worth the paper it was written on?
Like I've said before, i don't have to like certain aspects of the treaty - but what kind of group of people are we if we think the US should just rip apart its agreements with other nations because those agreements don't benefit our personal wants? Sad really.
It's almost humorous to me that some of you think ripping up the treaty will accomplish anything in the form of improving ungulate numbers. All it will accomplish is making you feel better because everyone is now 'treated equally'. Nothing would change with the hunting though.
My :twocents: Now I'll sit back for the rest of the day and take my beatings. Ready, go ....
Post by: Coastal_native on October 27, 2011, 01:23:40 PM
I totally agree with ridgerunner, the treaties are very much out dated. The tribes know this, but why would they volunteer any change. If the mucks were smart, when they buy hancock they will turn that into world class elk hunting. But I'm sure they'll have to wipe the elk and deer out before that happens. If I ever won a big lottery I would hire the best damn team of attorney's and get a law suit going on this treaty B.S.
Save your money. Elected officials have been trying to undermind treaties with bogus legislation for decades. If 5% of the deer and elk and 50% of the salmon in the state of Washington is a big enough issue to consider "updating" the treaties. Then the federal goverment can give Indians back the territories they ceded and let them have 100% of the fish and wildlife in those areas.
I've never argued that treaties don't make management a little more tricky for the states, but consider this: The relationship between Indians and fish & widlife was so important to the tribes that even "on the eve of doom" they thought it was necessary to protect those rights and privledges specifically...in a document that was only a few pages long and that would seemingly seal their fate.
Regardless of what most people want to believe, even with the advent of modern technology there is still a fundamental difference between treaty hunting and state hunting that goes beyond the regulations, trophies, sport vs. subsistance, etc... There is no way the treaty signatories could have predicted how far technology would advance, nor could they have predicted how much habitat would be lost do to developement, or how many people would settle the area, or how state hunting would progress to what it is today, or...that at some point someone would suggest that because there are so many people and so few animals, Indians should have to hunt a 10 day season in competition with 4000 other hunters with a 10% chance of being successful. That would make the signatories role over in their graves more so than an Indian kid with a Jordan T-shirt on shooting a deer from his truck in august.
If you can except that, and give up on the inequality argument, then maybe you could focus on the bigger picture. It's been said over and over again that Indians are the cause of some sort of wildlife decline across the state of Washington. Really? Someone show me that report.
....CedarPants, I used the same 2nd amendment argument before and never got a response.
Post by: seaduckhunter on October 27, 2011, 01:30:10 PM
Post by: Glockster on October 27, 2011, 02:20:24 PM
Like it or not, it's the law of the land breakable only by war or act of congress. We are both hunters...with plenty of bad apples in each side's ranks. I honestly believe we have much more in common than not. Our fights against habitat degradation/loss and anti hunting forces are the same. Neither side wants the wolves back! The big difference is our chief, if you will; WDFW, chooses to ignore us, divide and minimize us and manage for minimum kill opportunity. The tribes manage for maximum (hopefully sustainable) kill opportunity. Which one do we have the ability to change?
Post by: PlateauNDN on October 27, 2011, 02:27:35 PM
We continue to question treaty acts and we have no control over yet I hear about more immigrant workers out poaching deer where we have control. So lets make small steps and stop the poaching we can control. Sorry not implying Indians are poaching.
:yeah:
Treaties are never outdated. ~The ability to make them goes out the window when one side decides to say "it's outdated" and we're not abiding by it anymore. Kind of like defaulting on the national debt....if you do it once, your credit and credibility to make agreements are gone forever. These are contracts made between the US gov't and sovereign nations...the first nations of this continent. The reasoning of the time was that the US Army was tired of the bloodshed after chewing through the plains and SE tribes and it was make a deal time once they reached the Washington territory.
Like it or not, it's the law of the land breakable only by war or act of congress. We are both hunters...with plenty of bad apples in each side's ranks. I honestly believe we have much more in common than not. Our fights against habitat degradation/loss and anti hunting forces are the same. Neither side wants the wolves back! The big difference is our chief, if you will; WDFW, chooses to ignore us, divide and minimize us and manage for minimum kill opportunity. The tribes manage for maximum (hopefully sustainable) kill opportunity. Which one do we have the ability to change?
And some more of :yeah:
I totally agree with ridgerunner, the treaties are very much out dated. The tribes know this, but why would they volunteer any change. If the mucks were smart, when they buy hancock they will turn that into world class elk hunting. But I'm sure they'll have to wipe the elk and deer out before that happens. If I ever won a big lottery I would hire the best damn team of attorney's and get a law suit going on this treaty B.S.
Save your money. Elected officials have been trying to undermind treaties with bogus legislation for decades. If 5% of the deer and elk and 50% of the salmon in the state of Washington is a big enough issue to consider "updating" the treaties. Then the federal goverment can give Indians back the territories they ceded and let them have 100% of the fish and wildlife in those areas.
I've never argued that treaties don't make management a little more tricky for the states, but consider this: The relationship between Indians and fish & widlife was so important to the tribes that even "on the eve of doom" they thought it was necessary to protect those rights and privledges specifically...in a document that was only a few pages long and that would seemingly seal their fate.
Regardless of what most people want to believe, even with the advent of modern technology there is still a fundamental difference between treaty hunting and state hunting that goes beyond the regulations, trophies, sport vs. subsistance, etc... There is no way the treaty signatories could have predicted how far technology would advance, nor could they have predicted how much habitat would be lost do to developement, or how many people would settle the area, or how state hunting would progress to what it is today, or...that at some point someone would suggest that because there are so many people and so few animals, Indians should have to hunt a 10 day season in competition with 4000 other hunters with a 10% chance of being successful. That would make the signatories role over in their graves more so than an Indian kid with a Jordan T-shirt on shooting a deer from his truck in august.
If you can except that, and give up on the inequality argument, then maybe you could focus on the bigger picture. It's been said over and over again that Indians are the cause of some sort of wildlife decline across the state of Washington. Really? Someone show me that report.
....CedarPants, I used the same 2nd amendment argument before and never got a response.
And definitely a very big :yeah: :yeah: Very well stated Coastal :tup: and everybody above. :tup:
Post by: runamuk on October 27, 2011, 02:52:20 PM
I care very much but I think I need to just quit.... all I manage to do is make myself sicker and sicker
now when they do the server upgrade if a way to ignore all native, and wdfw threads was instituted that would be great then the temptation for an addict like me would be gone :bash: :bash:
Post by: Gamblin Guy on October 27, 2011, 03:10:12 PM
Like usual, I see both sides on this topic.
I just have a few questions I'm hoping can be answered ....... 1) If the treaty went away, would the non-tribal poachers that wipe out more animals than ever get mentioned in these threads suddenly just stop poaching? 2) If the treaty went away, would the tribal hunters that shoot as many animals as they want, just because they can, suddenly just stop shooting as many animals as they want? 3) If the treaty went away and neither 1 nor 2 above were to take place, at what point would ungulate numbers magically start increasing? 4) Don't those against the 2nd Amendment constantly point out that it's 'outdated', and don't we tell them where to go when they do so? 5) When did some of you decide Uncle Sam's word wasn't worth the paper it was written on?
Like I've said before, i don't have to like certain aspects of the treaty - but what kind of group of people are we if we think the US should just rip apart its agreements with other nations because those agreements don't benefit our personal wants? Sad really.
It's almost humorous to me that some of you think ripping up the treaty will accomplish anything in the form of improving ungulate numbers. All it will accomplish is making you feel better because everyone is now 'treated equally'. Nothing would change with the hunting though.
My :twocents: Now I'll sit back for the rest of the day and take my beatings. Ready, go ....
Well said. There are some on the political left that would like to see the Constitution tossed because it's "outdated." Respect for the agreements between the States (or Feds) and the Tribes must come from both sides of the table or those agreements are worthless. Poaching that happens virtually daily across the state causes far more problems for us than the tribal harvest.
Post by: Ddog73 on October 27, 2011, 03:12:41 PM
Post by: igotbigbulls on October 27, 2011, 03:16:57 PM
Post by: FC on October 27, 2011, 03:23:47 PM
A Summary
Does anyone know anything about a news article I heard about...
blah
blah
blah
BLAH!!!
We want proof! Where is the proof!?!?
blah
blah
BLAHH FRIKKING BLAH!!!
Proof.
Proof?
Proof!
PROOF!
We don't like this proof.
That's not proof!
We can't handle the proof!
blah
blah
blah
Random statement by some new guy.
Now THIS is proof!
Some of you guys are so full of it...Full props to Plateau for posting that article.
Post by: igotbigbulls on October 27, 2011, 03:27:05 PM
Post by: PlateauNDN on October 27, 2011, 03:29:26 PM
Rofl...
A Summary
Does anyone know anything about a news article I heard about...
blah
blah
blah
BLAH!!!
We want proof! Where is the proof!?!?
blah
blah
BLAHH FRIKKING BLAH!!!
Proof.
Proof?
Proof!
PROOF!
We don't like this proof.
That's not proof!
We can't handle the proof!
blah
blah
blah
Random statement by some new guy.
Now THIS is proof!
Some of you guys are so full of it...Full props to Plateau for posting that article.
:lol4: :lol4: :lol4: FC, you never cease to amaze me sometimes! :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: I have to admit you summed it up pretty good! :tup:
Post by: FC on October 27, 2011, 03:30:55 PM
FC.....well....i got nothin for that rambling.
Too close to the truth?
Post by: igotbigbulls on October 27, 2011, 03:34:32 PM
Post by: FC on October 27, 2011, 03:48:15 PM
sure. still waiting for proof. lol. you got some of something. :bash: all talk and no action
You must mean...
We want proof! Where is the proof!?!?
Oh no! We suck again!
Oh no! We suck again! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4jGSvxCRp4#)
Proof.
http://sportsyakima.com/2011/10/hunting-season-all-about-location-location-location/ (http://sportsyakima.com/2011/10/hunting-season-all-about-location-location-location/)
Let me guess, it's still going to be...
We don't like this proof.
Am I right?
blah
blah
BLAHH FRIKKING BLAH!!!
Get it?
Post by: igotbigbulls on October 27, 2011, 03:53:58 PM
Post by: igotbigbulls on October 27, 2011, 03:58:34 PM
Post by: FC on October 27, 2011, 04:05:10 PM
go look at the 2011 post your bucks here thread and count the number of different bucks killed in one week on there. thats just people on this little ole web site who want to post em. oh yeah you call that game management.
Oh look it's diversion time! Really? Are you a liberal or something?
Post by: sirmissalot on October 27, 2011, 04:05:50 PM
Rofl...
A Summary
Does anyone know anything about a news article I heard about...
blah
blah
blah
BLAH!!!
We want proof! Where is the proof!?!?
blah
blah
BLAHH FRIKKING BLAH!!!
Proof.
Proof?
Proof!
PROOF!
We don't like this proof.
That's not proof!
We can't handle the proof!
blah
blah
blah
Random statement by some new guy.
Now THIS is proof!
Some of you guys are so full of it...Full props to Plateau for posting that article.
Funny thats what I was thinking. Someone finally provides the newspaper article and they say yeah but you can never believe those guys... next someone will have a picture of a truckload of deer and elk with natives driving and someone will say its photoschopped...
I don't think for a second its natives causing the problems. Poaching is poaching, I hate poachers more than anything because they cheat and steal from a resource I enjoy. The difference I see is non natives don't try and stick up for non native poachers. Natives seem to stick up for native poachers and always fall back on their "rights". This is my opinion and obviously not factual information, just something I have gathered from reading through all these rants on this website. When someone says "prove it" or "innocent until proven guilty" that to me seems to suggest some amount of guilt.
Post by: igotbigbulls on October 27, 2011, 04:10:28 PM
Post by: PlateauNDN on October 27, 2011, 04:11:37 PM
"Natives seem to stick up for native poachers and always fall back on their "rights". This is my opinion and obviously not factual information, just something I have gathered from reading through all these rants on this website. When someone says "prove it" or "innocent until proven guilty" that to me seems to suggest some amount of guilt."
I don't stick up for anybody that is abusing their rights, poaching or anything I believe to be unethical. I do however stick up for those that are being targeted as a whole and not individuals. If you have problems with certain individuals/groups such as the ones depicted then have it with them and not the entirety because I for one do not condone their actions.
Post by: sirmissalot on October 27, 2011, 04:20:18 PM
Post by: igotbigbulls on October 27, 2011, 05:07:37 PM
you have no valid points at all. and when asked questions i have answered. i make a comment on game management, post the hunting regs for the muckleshoot to show that the mucks cant shoot up everything like is being claimed, post a real article on a poacher who was recently caught and prosecuted but no one comments when there is actual proof of poaching or how disgusting it was what that family did. no, just keep pointing at the tribal members for the so called decline in big game. what good is gonna come from the arguments. none.
Post by: trophyhunt on October 27, 2011, 07:16:37 PM
Hello all, long time lurker don't post much. This is a crazy topic mostly because I am Muckleshoot. Just to calrify a couple things, we don't get 3 deer and 3 elk a year, a legal hunter gets 2 deer and one elk per house hold. We might shoot more than that but for single moms and elders of the tribe. The ram i do know was shot was done legal with a tag.Did you guys write the tag out on a piece of paper with crayon? If you are muck than you know the kind of bs your tribe members pull out there. How bout the big bull you guys took on private property a few years back in enumclaw during the middle of the night? The one where Bruce Richards was face to face with your chief. Or how about the time up on the 72 road in the dead of winter when you guys shot several elk only picking up 3 and the rest ran off to die approx 4 others, there was a blood trail to each dead wasted elk. And please answer this for me.... Did your ancestors really travel 50+ miles on horse back to hunt the naches area just to take a few deer back to the tent? Is that area really your old hunting grounds? I would think the enumclaw area would have held plenty of deer, with no need to travel so far. If I talked with Bruce and wrote down all his stories (being a muck I'm sure you know of Bruce) I would be on this computer for days. Close to 40 years on the job, you want fact's, Bruce would make you guys look very stupid and ignorant. One goal in my life is to get him to write a book about the mucks and all the travesties he has seen with the tribe. The only reason I don't want him to retire is you guys will go kill 10 bulls in celebration.
Post by: runamuk on October 27, 2011, 07:25:48 PM
Hello all, long time lurker don't post much. This is a crazy topic mostly because I am Muckleshoot. Just to calrify a couple things, we don't get 3 deer and 3 elk a year, a legal hunter gets 2 deer and one elk per house hold. We might shoot more than that but for single moms and elders of the tribe. The ram i do know was shot was done legal with a tag.Did you guys write the tag out on a piece of paper with crayon? If you are muck than you know the kind of bs your tribe members pull out there. How bout the big bull you guys took on private property a few years back in enumclaw during the middle of the night? The one where Bruce Richards was face to face with your chief. Or how about the time up on the 72 road in the dead of winter when you guys shot several elk only picking up 3 and the rest ran off to die approx 4 others, there was a blood trail to each dead wasted elk. And please answer this for me.... Did your ancestors really travel 50+ miles on horse back to hunt the naches area just to take a few deer back to the tent? Is that area really your old hunting grounds? I would think the enumclaw area would have held plenty of deer, with no need to travel so far. If I talked with Bruce and wrote down all his stories (being a muck I'm sure you know of Bruce) I would be on this computer for days. Close to 40 years on the job, you want fact's, Bruce would make you guys look very stupid and ignorant. One goal in my life is to get him to write a book about the mucks and all the travesties he has seen with the tribe. The only reason I don't want him to retire is you guys will go kill 10 bulls in celebration.
one thing here to note.....historically before the white man there wouldn't be any horses :dunno: I like how horses get thrown in but horses were brought to the americas by outsiders.....so they dont really add any historical merit if we are trying to be historical and think in a before the white man came scenario :dunno:
Post by: trophyhunt on October 27, 2011, 07:33:28 PM
Post by: Ddog73 on October 27, 2011, 07:35:12 PM
Post by: sirmissalot on October 27, 2011, 07:37:55 PM
Thanks, I'm not a historian on the complete history of the tribes. More just what's been going on in my life time. Thats interesting though, so they walked that far to hunt?
They also didn't have monofilament gill nets to clog rivers and bays with either for spawning salmon. Oops we aren't supposed to talk about that.
Post by: trophyhunt on October 27, 2011, 07:39:03 PM
Id buy that book from Bruce. I don't need to waste any energy answering those from you. You already have yofur mind made up about MuckleshootYou guys made up my mind for me. The last thing Bruce will do ever in his life is lie, and you know the truth as well as he does. I know you hear what happens out there, even if your not involved with the hunting. It has to bring some shame deep down inside you.
Post by: igotbigbulls on October 27, 2011, 07:40:23 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on October 27, 2011, 07:41:58 PM
Post by: Ddog73 on October 27, 2011, 07:43:41 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on October 27, 2011, 07:44:50 PM
just like all the shame you should feel for your people poaching and wasting resources also. :bash:Ok now we are getting somewhere. Yes, I hate, hate the guys any guys out there shooting at night with spotlights, taking multiple animals and out of season. Trust me, I don't give two rats a s s who it is. I hate poachers period, we are on the same page with that.
Post by: igotbigbulls on October 27, 2011, 07:47:02 PM
Post by: lewy on October 27, 2011, 07:49:36 PM
I know Bruce has seen allot, including white man breaking laws don't get me wrong, but i also would love to see him put a book out on the mucks negative influence on the white river herds (and others as well). Would shock and awe many people
Post by: trophyhunt on October 27, 2011, 08:00:57 PM
Post by: Ddog73 on October 27, 2011, 08:04:13 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on October 27, 2011, 08:06:13 PM
trophyhunt- i remember that bull, a true giant. seen him many times. yea he was shot at night and left, game warden was called to the scene and had to dispatch him. somehow the tribe got that bull back too, had to do with Bruce being told to turn it over or lose his job right....... :bash:Yes that was the bull, he was told just like you said to give it back or lose his job. I told him I would come get the antlers and he could say they were stolen but he wouldn't let me. I absolutely realize that non native poach also, I hate it either way. The difference is the natives get to do it Right in front of our face and there is nothing we can do about it but bi tch on some web site that will eventually nuke us. Yes, if he would ever write a book...wow. People might take notice, at least those who might do something about it.
I know Bruce has seen allot, including white man breaking laws don't get me wrong, but i also would love to see him put a book out on the mucks negative influence on the white river herds (and others as well). Would shock and awe many people
Post by: jstone on October 27, 2011, 08:06:54 PM
Post by: coachcw on October 27, 2011, 08:09:50 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on October 27, 2011, 08:13:35 PM
You sure know alot about Muckleshoots, but we dont get all the money you think we do.I used to know what each member got but time has taken it's toll on my memory, it was in the Seattle times I believe but that was years ago. As I recall each member received around 5 grand a month, anyone under 18 the money went to the adults or a fund not sure. I'm not trying to be a di ck but is that close? I remember the confederate tribes of the United States were in a lawsuit or talks with you guys about it and that's when you guys said basically '' stick it''. If you don't mind me asking, and my memory is wrong. What does each family member get each month from the casino?
Post by: trophyhunt on October 27, 2011, 08:18:00 PM
DDOG73 You better know the facts about the ram killed on clemans , just because the kid had a tag dosn't mean it was taken legally. lets start rig 600 yards off green dot road , two guys shooting with one tag not knowing who hit the ram ( the wrong one i might add)lets not forget the ewe that got shot threw the front shoulder and left to lie and waste . then drag it up the mountain with 1600 feet of rope totally ruiening the cape . i might add a young ram 3 1/2 . SO if all thats the definition of a legal harvest then i guess your right. lets just say my friend those mucks wern't the only guys on the mountain that sunday ! oh I forgot loaded longuns in the lil white rig ! Now thats some ethical tribal hunting .Wow, I never heard that detail about the incedent. That is just sickning.
Post by: igotbigbulls on October 27, 2011, 08:18:23 PM
if someone signed a contract with you now for your family to be protected and have the same rights you do now and nothing less and in 150 years from now all your family at that time with all the advancement of technology yet to come is benefiting more than other families in their eyes. you would want them to give up what you signed to protect as a way of life to please the "others" who think it is unfair for your family to have what your reserved for them. land, rights, or whatever? or you think it would be fair for whoever you signed the contract with to nullify that agreement?
our treaties are just that. like it or not. they arent going anywhere. but hopefully if poaching is done by a tribal member than they get what they got coming to them. i know tribal members who have been kicked out of the tribe and or had hunting rights removed because of poaching. so believe what you will but it does not go unnoticed by the tribes.
Post by: lewy on October 27, 2011, 08:19:04 PM
Post by: whiteeyes on October 27, 2011, 08:22:18 PM
We just want to move on as a society, as human beings. When your tribes continue to put yourselves above everyone else as if your a different nation within our God Blessed United States, it causes anger. It's time for the tribes to blend in (for lack of better words) with the rest of OUR country. The mucks are one of the richest tribes in the nation, even the rest of the tribes tried to get you guys to not give each family soo much money from the casino but the mucks said screw you, which I can understand your position on that. Like I have said in different posts, the tribes are not anymore special than anyone else in this country. Times have changed, it's been over 150 years man. They had no friggin idea when they wrote the treaties how life, land and technology would change. If they did the treaties wouldn't have been written like they were. Don't you think it's time for a change. End the hate, you guys deserve no more than any hard working person trying to take care of their family. Why do you deserve special treatment??
Really, your going to throw that out there CHANGE. I think we are all tired of that saying. There is no special treatment, its been on the books for more than 150 years. :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: igotbigbulls on October 27, 2011, 08:22:39 PM
Post by: Ddog73 on October 27, 2011, 08:23:20 PM
Post by: Ddog73 on October 27, 2011, 08:27:12 PM
Post by: coachcw on October 27, 2011, 08:37:51 PM
Post by: whiteeyes on October 27, 2011, 08:49:03 PM
guys i really don't think that we will get anywhere here exept pissed off. both sides have rule breakers and it sickins me , times change and the treatys are out dated . it seems pretty clear to me that the resources we have wont last if both sides don't come together and we wont have to worry once the game is lost . I've seen my seasons cut short . I think that the tribes should work to do the same . There's no way in hell any familly needs a truck load of deer thats just fact ! i really seems to me that alot of indians just don't care and to the others I truelly respect your stand it takes balls. I just hope your efforts will be enough to save the game for both of our future generations .
So you take a deer camp of ten family members that fill there tag. Thats a truck load of deer. So are you saying there is no way in hell any family needs a truck load of deer thats just fact. ???
Post by: The Weazle on October 27, 2011, 08:50:42 PM
well...another comment best left unsaid. you do know we pay taxes right? you cant be that....ummm. cant function. the funny thing is is that we are people too. bashing and insults are a little mans game. IBEW brother.
All Taxes? why is your gas cheaper than ours? Just a question. I would love to know exactly what taxes Tribal members pay, and to what entities. I understand the treaties, I understand the fighting will never accomplish anything, I never get into these arguments, I just really want to know about the taxes. Not trying to be an ass, just really want to know. Happy hunting!
Post by: trophyhunt on October 27, 2011, 08:52:26 PM
Post by: Ddog73 on October 27, 2011, 08:55:19 PM
Post by: runamuk on October 27, 2011, 08:58:39 PM
I pay taxes at grocery stores, the gas is only tax free at the specific gas station. If I go anywhere else I pay the same as everyone elsewashington doesnt tax food :dunno: Idaho does but thought we were talking washington
Post by: Ddog73 on October 27, 2011, 09:11:47 PM
Post by: The Weazle on October 27, 2011, 09:14:39 PM
I pay taxes at grocery stores, the gas is only tax free at the specific gas station. If I go anywhere else I pay the same as everyone elsewashington doesnt tax food :dunno: Idaho does but thought we were talking washington
There are other things bought at a grocery storeI am still waiting for an answer. How much of your pay goes to federal taxes?
Post by: coachcw on October 27, 2011, 09:17:58 PM
Post by: coachcw on October 27, 2011, 09:23:11 PM
Post by: igotbigbulls on October 27, 2011, 09:29:32 PM
Post by: The Weazle on October 27, 2011, 09:32:30 PM
Post by: igotbigbulls on October 27, 2011, 09:34:53 PM
Post by: The Weazle on October 27, 2011, 09:43:04 PM
unless i didnt get the memo on how not to pay them. ive been tricked before
Me too! Seriously, thanks for clearing that up for me.
Post by: Ddog73 on October 27, 2011, 09:45:30 PM
Post by: PlateauNDN on October 27, 2011, 09:52:40 PM
Oh and I'm not ducking or dodging any questions I've been celebrating my teenage sister-in-laws birthday and I'd be glad to answer more questions but I'd like to get some sleep after I help my kids with their homework.
Post by: FC on October 27, 2011, 10:34:56 PM
FC
you have no valid points at all. and when asked questions i have answered. i make a comment on game management, post the hunting regs for the muckleshoot to show that the mucks cant shoot up everything like is being claimed, post a real article on a poacher who was recently caught and prosecuted but no one comments when there is actual proof of poaching or how disgusting it was what that family did. no, just keep pointing at the tribal members for the so called decline in big game. what good is gonna come from the arguments. none.
Let's be clear here, I despise poachers and wasters of fish and game, care to guess where this is going next? Tribes may not be poaching under Wa state, US laws or even their own BUT they are the largest wasters of fish and game. Am I saying that you igotbulls, Coastal or Plateau do this? NO but you are well represented by enough of your members on these counts that you kind of get lost in the crowd.
For the record igotbulls, the poachers story that you pointed at was already being followed by many here, myself included. I think they should have been publicly gelded, caned and then shot.
http://sportsyakima.com/2011/10/hunting-season-all-about-location-location-location/ (http://sportsyakima.com/2011/10/hunting-season-all-about-location-location-location/)
a tribe of less than 4000 who a small percentage of hunt kill off all the animals? come on man. tribal members like myself are fed up with the non factual comments. like 140 deer killed last weekend. all races have stereo types that man has labled them with. lets just hunt.
You are right, according to that article it wasn't 140, it was 130...
To those of you who say that the treaties don't need and can't have any adjustments made to them or compare them to the Constitution...
Are you guys really serious? Maybe we should be reverting them to as they were 100 years ago when x number of a tribe off of the rez were to be considered a war party and shot on sight? The tribes have had no problem being endlessly litigious and continually seeking to gain more "rights" or to tweak the treaties to their liking, obviously in their favor the whole way.
The day will come when this practice will be seen for what it is and then the re-write will commence, I look forward to this day.
For too long many members of the tribes have wasted fish and game, greedily killing off entire runs of fish and herds of animals.
I couldn't possibly care less if any of the tribes kill off every animal and fish raised in hatcheries ON THE REZ that they live on! When you step off on to public land and start killing off the rest of the fish and animals I most definitely care! FWIW I am against ALL commercial fishing but the waste that goes on by typical tribal fishermen is inexcusable. For hunting I would like to see the tribes abide by the laws of the land once they leave their rez.
If this is the part where you ask for proof...get real! All of us who have spent any real amount of time on the water or in the woods already know better, we aren't diverted by or even interested in these arguments.
If you are going to say anything about "White Privilege"...LMFAO! Does anyone here know of any scholarships exclusively for white people? How about exclusive funding for caucasians? How about affirmative action....Anyone ever hear about preferential hiring?
I was trying to stay out of this aside from a little humor to try and lighten the mood, you apparently mistook this for a lack of knowledge or experience igotbulls, you have now been educated on that count.
PlateauNDN at least has been trying to keep it real, you should too.
Post by: whiteeyes on October 27, 2011, 11:24:50 PM
FC
you have no valid points at all. and when asked questions i have answered. i make a comment on game management, post the hunting regs for the muckleshoot to show that the mucks cant shoot up everything like is being claimed, post a real article on a poacher who was recently caught and prosecuted but no one comments when there is actual proof of poaching or how disgusting it was what that family did. no, just keep pointing at the tribal members for the so called decline in big game. what good is gonna come from the arguments. none.
Let's be clear here, I despise poachers and wasters of fish and game, care to guess where this is going next? Tribes may not be poaching under Wa state, US laws or even their own BUT they are the largest wasters of fish and game. Am I saying that you igotbulls, Coastal or Plateau do this? NO but you are well represented by enough of your members on these counts that you kind of get lost in the crowd.
For the record igotbulls, the poachers story that you pointed at was already being followed by many here, myself included. I think they should have been publicly gelded, caned and then shot.
http://sportsyakima.com/2011/10/hunting-season-all-about-location-location-location/ (http://sportsyakima.com/2011/10/hunting-season-all-about-location-location-location/)a tribe of less than 4000 who a small percentage of hunt kill off all the animals? come on man. tribal members like myself are fed up with the non factual comments. like 140 deer killed last weekend. all races have stereo types that man has labled them with. lets just hunt.
You are right, according to that article it wasn't 140, it was 130...
To those of you who say that the treaties don't need and can't have any adjustments made to them or compare them to the Constitution...
Are you guys really serious? Maybe we should be reverting them to as they were 100 years ago when x number of a tribe off of the rez were to be considered a war party and shot on sight? The tribes have had no problem being endlessly litigious and continually seeking to gain more "rights" or to tweak the treaties to their liking, obviously in their favor the whole way.
The day will come when this practice will be seen for what it is and then the re-write will commence, I look forward to this day.
For too long many members of the tribes have wasted fish and game, greedily killing off entire runs of fish and herds of animals.
I couldn't possibly care less if any of the tribes kill off every animal and fish raised in hatcheries ON THE REZ that they live on! When you step off on to public land and start killing off the rest of the fish and animals I most definitely care! FWIW I am against ALL commercial fishing but the waste that goes on by typical tribal fishermen is inexcusable. For hunting I would like to see the tribes abide by the laws of the land once they leave their rez.
If this is the part where you ask for proof...get real! All of us who have spent any real amount of time on the water or in the woods already know better, we aren't diverted by or even interested in these arguments.
If you are going to say anything about "White Privilege"...LMFAO! Does anyone here know of any scholarships exclusively for white people? How about exclusive funding for caucasians? How about affirmative action....Anyone ever hear about preferential hiring?
I was trying to stay out of this aside from a little humor to try and lighten the mood, you apparently mistook this for a lack of knowledge or experience igotbulls, you have now been educated on that count.
PlateauNDN at least has been trying to keep it real, you should too.
Since you know so much already, maybe you can add this to your knowledge bank. If it wasn't for the Tribes there wouldnt be any fisheries left on the Columbia.....
Post by: FC on October 27, 2011, 11:55:17 PM
Since you know so much already, maybe you can add this to your knowledge bank. If it wasn't for the Tribes there wouldnt be any fisheries left on the Columbia.....
You must be referring to that large body of water on the southern border of this state that is lined with tribal nets? If it wasn't for the tribes the runs wouldn't have been in such danger to begin with as you well know.
As for the funding for those hatcheries...Just where did all that dough originate? Grants and lawsuits...In other words the tribes got PAID to perform repairs on runs that they had destroyed...or are you next going to tell me that the tribes all worked for free and never netted a fish on that river system?
For a group of people that swear it's none of their doing it is pretty amazing how entire runs of fish disappear in less than 5 years of them stretching their nets from bank to bank.
Post by: Coastal_native on October 28, 2011, 12:36:03 AM
I'll admit your persuasive writing skills are second to none, but I just don't buy it. You place 100% of the blame for everything on Indians even if there isn't a need to place blame on anyone, and you do it while admitting that you don't need any concrete evidence. You say it's true, therefor it's true. Initially I thought you were ignorant or uninformed, but now I'm convinced you actually have ill intentions. On top of that, you're just as antagonistic as "little red wagon", you just disguise it with big words and proper English. The difference between what you're saying and what I'm saying is more than just a disagreement...one of us is full of it.
Post by: Yak-NDN on October 28, 2011, 01:24:58 AM
From what I have read even Bone yes the great moderator Bone said Yakima Harold is not worth the paper it is printed on. Have any of you been involved in anything that hit the papers? They seem to spice things up to sound a little different from the real truth. 130-140 bucks I don't see it. If the paper is correct Tribal hunting is only 3%-5% of animals harvested in the state. Why cant you all be happy with the Tribes harvesting 3-5%. I bet non Tribal poaching is more that 3%-5%
I agree you all should fight the Tribes so when it ends up in court they say the Tribes gets 50% of harvestable animals Then the Tribe can sell permits to the non Tribal members to keep the herds down. I think at that time the Tribe should send a bill to the Fed Gov and the State for 50% of any revenue that has ever come from ceded, open and unclaimed land. (Timber, Grazing,Discover Pass, and so on)
They are already talking about closing down units at certain times of the year for Tribal hunting access only because their were a few tough guys last year that were harassing some Tribal members.
How many state hatchery's are on the Columbia above Bon Dam? Three? I don't know not many. The Tribe has many, where's the money coming from? We all know most is Fed grant money. But if it wasn't for the Tribe fighting for it the Gov would find some stupid idea how to spend it. Then their would be no sport fishery on the Columbia. And if anybody don't see this as the truth you are ignorant.
And I pay Tax's most State and all Fed tax's and I pay allot.
Post by: hunter360 on October 28, 2011, 06:16:39 AM
:chuckle: FC, how do you come up with this stuff? Do you have some sort of anti-treaty propaganda handbook? Which one of the several known anti treaty organizations do you belong to? Were you a pre Bolt commercial fisherman?
I'll admit your persuasive writing skills are second to none, but I just don't buy it. You place 100% of the blame for everything on Indians even if there isn't a need to place blame on anyone, and you do it while admitting that you don't need any concrete evidence. You say it's true, therefor it's true. Initially I thought you were ignorant or uninformed, but now I'm convinced you actually have ill intentions. On top of that, you're just as antagonistic as "little red wagon", you just disguise it with big words and proper English. The difference between what you're saying and what I'm saying is more than just a disagreement...one of us is full of it.
Yeah, you!
Post by: farmin4u_98948 on October 28, 2011, 06:32:33 AM
Yes we pay taxes, federal income, federal withheld, gaming taxes, wal-mart I pay taxes, the mall I pay taxes, restaurants for meals I pay taxes. Sure the gas station on the rez is cheaper by about 12 cents a gallon but that's if I get gas there. The rez doesn't have wal-mart or a mall, a movie theater, toys r us, pizza hut and...as for Yakamas our 100 hundred dollar a month gaming per capita is taxed because the IRS defines it as income. Anything else?
Oh and I'm not ducking or dodging any questions I've been celebrating my teenage sister-in-laws birthday and I'd be glad to answer more questions but I'd like to get some sleep after I help my kids with their homework.
Come one Plat.... I have gone to many movies at the theater in the cultural center.... I think you need to spend more time on the rez..... Just like me.... :chuckle:
Post by: coachcw on October 28, 2011, 06:43:41 AM
I've seen two big horn capes wasted and one sheep left to rot . How much of that crap happens ?
Post by: Elkrunner on October 28, 2011, 06:57:02 AM
i am not quite sure why they feel a need to go to the east side of the state and get there elk. Oh yeah its because they are saving the herd in the cedar river watershed for after they decimate the herd on the east side. They are even collaring them so they know exactly where to locate them when they are ready to harvest.:yeah: That is the only answer to this f up problem. The mucks are the richest indians in this state, getting meat on the table is no problem for them. These type of topic's will allways pop up, why?? Because it's wrong what the indians do. I did miss type the title, sorry. It wasn't supposed to read "weekend'' I meant before our season.i know how to end the conflict....make everyone abide by the same rulesHate to say I told you so but guess what, its back. I mentioned it in the other post and sure enough it cycled around and here it is.
I do not see any end in the conflict between the two groups.... Do you? Show the way to end the conflict.
Post by: Elkrunner on October 28, 2011, 07:00:39 AM
OK, so the rumor that Tribal members dont pay taxes is Un-True. Thanks for clearing that up for me.I would like to see some real proof...I think I may look into this.
Post by: klickman on October 28, 2011, 07:22:06 AM
yup. another one of those threads. who are you to say that the meat probably wont be used? if you need meat so bad i ll share some steaks with ya. thread after thread people see all these truck loads of dear and elk. yet no pics or proof of it. all the talk and no pics is the number one no no on this site. you would think with as many accusations there have been people would start taking pics.
Here is the pic that you were looking for and the facts along with the picture. Not the greatest pic. (Cell Phone
Fact:
-A pick up load of branched antler bulls. 3 Bulls
-The hunters were showing off their animals at a gas station in Naches last winter
-They said it was a lot of work to get the bulls.
-All the bulls were brought out whole.
KLICKMAN
Post by: Yak-NDN on October 28, 2011, 07:30:40 AM
I've always heard that the indains use every bit of the animal and waste nothing . If that were the case i'd be ok with all the game that is harvested by them . in the last two weeks
I've seen two big horn capes wasted and one sheep left to rot . How much of that crap happens ?
Coach you got any info on this I would like to look into it? Was it Tribal members or non members? Im Sure you said it was Tribal. Also who cares about the capes, Just to let you all know I have never had anything mounted I have never sold a set of antlers. And I think that hitting another sheep and leaving it is a bunch of crap but I know that it happens allot non Tribal members also. I hear all the time that they shot a buck that they hope was close enough to legal size because it wouldn't stand to see.
Post by: Yak-NDN on October 28, 2011, 07:34:01 AM
Yes we pay taxes, federal income, federal withheld, gaming taxes, wal-mart I pay taxes, the mall I pay taxes, restaurants for meals I pay taxes. Sure the gas station on the rez is cheaper by about 12 cents a gallon but that's if I get gas there. The rez doesn't have wal-mart or a mall, a movie theater, toys r us, pizza hut and...as for Yakamas our 100 hundred dollar a month gaming per capita is taxed because the IRS defines it as income. Anything else?
Oh and I'm not ducking or dodging any questions I've been celebrating my teenage sister-in-laws birthday and I'd be glad to answer more questions but I'd like to get some sleep after I help my kids with their homework.
Come one Plat.... I have gone to many movies at the theater in the cultural center.... I think you need to spend more time on the rez..... Just like me.... :chuckle:
:yeah: I love the representation that you give for the Tribal people but this is what I was talking about. I guess if you didn't grow up on or live on the rez you wouldn't know about the cultural theater because they don't advertise.
Post by: Coastal_native on October 28, 2011, 07:35:36 AM
I have a serious question. I'm not denying that the picture is anything than what you described, but what is it proof of that we all don't already know? We know tribal members can harvest multiple animals in most cases. We know it is human nature for hunters to brag about their success. We know hunters load elk up whole in the back of their trucks from time to time. So, what argument does this picture go along with? I'm not saying there isn't one. I just want to know what it is.
Post by: coachcw on October 28, 2011, 07:39:58 AM
Post by: Yak-NDN on October 28, 2011, 07:44:52 AM
I just looked at the pic of the bulls in the back of that truck did they have tags on them?
Post by: sirmissalot on October 28, 2011, 07:48:45 AM
So I have a question. I have heard for years that washington state game wardens have no jurisdiction on tribal members. Is this true? I always figured it wasn't, but have also heard stories where there was witnesses and evidence but the game warden couldn't do anything about it. Just like the story about the bull killed on private property near enumclaw at night but Bruce couldn't do anything about it.
Post by: Elkrunner on October 28, 2011, 07:53:09 AM
Post by: Yak-NDN on October 28, 2011, 07:54:45 AM
Post by: sirmissalot on October 28, 2011, 07:58:35 AM
TO my understanding if they see someone breaking the law they are to either detain them until Tribal Game shows up or take all their info and they can send them a Ticket and or discuss it with the Tribal Game Dep.
So, isn't this what needs fixing? I understand if it happens on a reservation but if its off the reservation seems like it would be within the jurisdiction of a local game warden? Basically these guys know they can't be touched it seems like.
Post by: Yak-NDN on October 28, 2011, 08:03:11 AM
Post by: PlateauNDN on October 28, 2011, 08:22:15 AM
Do we have any Law enforcement on the site that knows for sure I have been stopped by Fish and Game many times I have never had any problem. I try not to break and laws.
Ok I'll admit it's been awhile since I've been to the CHC and yes I love their popcorn. The last movie I seen there was Hangover 2 and I love the sunday brunch although it's been a few months since I've had it. Again, Yak don't judge me based off the little bit of knowledge you have of me, I haven't presumed to know anything or proclaim anything about you so if you can't show the same courtesy then don't expect any back from me. As I've stated before I was born and raised here graduated school here (not the Tribal School) and only left when I was in the Marines but came back and still work for the Tribe. Just because I chose to live off it at the time to be closer to work doesn't mean it gives you free will to banter and slander. I'm not going to get into a pissing match to see who's more Native, that's a little childish in my opinion.
Since you were not active when I started here you might have missed the fact that I mentioned my prior Law Enforcement experience is over 5 years and majority with the Tribe. While in the Ceded Areas ALL TRIBAL MEMBERS must have IDENTIFICATION. The Yakama Nation has exclusive jurisdiction over Yakama Members and Tribal Law SUPERCEDES State Law.
They can stop and detain for Tribal Police if they believe a crime has been committed. I, for one have never had a bad experience with State Game Officers or any Wildlife Officials other than them checking for any violations. One might have been a little upset because he didn't find nothing one time and wasn't happy that I had the correct answers to his questions about fishing in a certain area but left and still said a courtesy remark as he was leaving.
Post by: coachcw on October 28, 2011, 09:01:56 AM
Post by: igotbigbulls on October 28, 2011, 09:19:31 AM
This is what I like to see Choachcw proof now I hope they bust them so we know who the culprits are you should have called me I would have tried to get her if I could so she didn't go to waist.
I just looked at the pic of the bulls in the back of that truck did they have tags on them?
look like tags to me.
Post by: igotbigbulls on October 28, 2011, 09:26:47 AM
Post by: Ddog73 on October 28, 2011, 10:01:02 AM
Post by: igotbigbulls on October 28, 2011, 10:03:32 AM
Post by: Ddog73 on October 28, 2011, 10:09:43 AM
Post by: Odell on October 28, 2011, 10:13:36 AM
Both of you, (igotbigbulls, and Ddog73) have stated that the tribal members who violate rules get "in trouble". I like proof just like you guys do, so could you please provide proof of the level of "trouble" that violators get? For example, what happened to the guys who shot the bull in Enumclaw?
Thanks!
Post by: igotbigbulls on October 28, 2011, 10:36:51 AM
FEDERAL AUTHORIZATION
All Tribal police officers assigned as game wardens must be able to meet, within one year of appointment, all requirements imposed by contracts with the federal government.
AUTHORITY TO ENTER PRIVATE LANDS
A Tribal police officer may, in the course of his duties, enter and remain on, while performing his duties, any lands or waters on the Reservation or any off-reservation lands or waters in which the Tribes have treaty hunting, trapping or fishing rights. Any such action by a warden or officer shall not constitute trespass.
SEIZURE
Tribal police officer may seize without warrant:
Any birds, mammals or fish, including parts, taken, killed, transported or possessed, contrary to this Code or any rules or regulations of the Commission; and
Any dog, gun, trap, net, seine, decoy, bait, boat, light, fishing tackle, motor vehicle or other device used in unlawful hunting, fishing or trapping or held with the intent to use in unlawful hunting, fishing or trapping.
The Tribal police officer who seizes personal property shall issue to the person, from whom it is seized, a receipt listing the serial number of any firearm seized and describing any other property seized. Each officer shall maintain a complete record of all property and wildlife seized, which describes each item and identifies its disposition. Any property seized shall not be disposed of except pursuant to the order of the Court.
HEARINGS AND TRIALS
The Court shall conduct hearings and trials for violations of this Code pursuant to the Tribes' rules of criminal or civil procedure depending on whether the violation imposes a criminal or civil penalty.
PENALTIES
CIVIL OFFENSES
Any person subject to civil jurisdiction of the Tribes who is charged with an offense under this Code, whether as an infraction or a crime, shall be subject to the procedures and remedies provided by this Code and other Tribal Civil laws.
Any violation of this Code or of a regulation adopted pursuant to this Code is a civil offense unless specifically limited to a criminal offense only.
For a civil offense the Court may:
Impose a fine of not less than $25.00 or more than $25,000 per violations
Exclude the person from the Reservation;
Suspend, confiscate or permanently revoke any Tribal hunting or fishing licenses or permits or identity cards issued by the Tribes, including the suspension or permanent revocation of a Tribal Member's aboriginal or treaty right to hunt or fish;
Forfeiture as defined by this Code, or
Any combination of the above.
CRIMINAL OFFENSES
Any person subject to the criminal jurisdiction of the Tribes who is charged with a criminal offense under this Code shall be prosecuted under Tribal criminal law and procedure and, if found guilty, penalized as a criminal offender.
FORFEITURES
The Court may subject to forfeiture, by court order, any contraband wildlife, or any personal property used in the commission of a violation and seized by the Tribal police, including, but not limited to, motor vehicles, watercraft, hunting rifles and gear, and fishing gear.
At the time any contraband wildlife or any personal property is seized, the game warden or Tribal police shall issue to the owner a field citation and notice of intent to forfeit which shall contain, at a minimum, the following information:
A date, no more than thirty (30) days after the date of seizure, on which the owner may appear in Court to contest the validity of the seizure and the intended forfeiture;
A statement that the owner's failure to appear on the date may constitute automatic grounds for forfeiture of the seized wildlife or personal property; and
A statement that the owner may be granted a continuance by the Court in order to adequately prepare his case.
If the owner of any seized contraband or personal property is unknown, the Court shall publish a notice of forfeiture in the Tribal newspaper for two (2) issues or, if the Tribal newspaper is unavailable, in any newspaper of general circulation in Umatilla County for four (4) successive issues, describing with specificity the contraband or personal property seized, and stating that the owner has fifteen (15) days from the last date of publication to appear at a hearing before the Court to contest the seizure and forfeiture.
After the hearing, the Court may forfeit the contraband or personal property. However, if no owner appears within fifteen (15) days following the last date of publication of the notice, the contraband or personal property is forfeited automatically,
REWARDS FOR ARREST AND CONVICTION
If funds are available and budgeted, the Commission may offer monetary rewards for information leading to the arrest and conviction of any person violating this Code.
Post by: PlateauNDN on October 28, 2011, 10:54:32 AM
Post by: Ddog73 on October 28, 2011, 11:33:32 AM
Post by: Yak-NDN on October 28, 2011, 12:07:23 PM
Do we have any Law enforcement on the site that knows for sure I have been stopped by Fish and Game many times I have never had any problem. I try not to break and laws.
Ok I'll admit it's been awhile since I've been to the CHC and yes I love their popcorn. The last movie I seen there was Hangover 2 and I love the sunday brunch although it's been a few months since I've had it. Again, Yak don't judge me based off the little bit of knowledge you have of me, I haven't presumed to know anything or proclaim anything about you so if you can't show the same courtesy then don't expect any back from me. As I've stated before I was born and raised here graduated school here (not the Tribal School) and only left when I was in the Marines but came back and still work for the Tribe. Just because I chose to live off it at the time to be closer to work doesn't mean it gives you free will to banter and slander. I'm not going to get into a pissing match to see who's more Native, that's a little childish in my opinion.
Since you were not active when I started here you might have missed the fact that I mentioned my prior Law Enforcement experience is over 5 years and majority with the Tribe. While in the Ceded Areas ALL TRIBAL MEMBERS must have IDENTIFICATION. The Yakama Nation has exclusive jurisdiction over Yakama Members and Tribal Law SUPERCEDES State Law.
They can stop and detain for Tribal Police if they believe a crime has been committed. I, for one have never had a bad experience with State Game Officers or any Wildlife Officials other than them checking for any violations. One might have been a little upset because he didn't find nothing one time and wasn't happy that I had the correct answers to his questions about fishing in a certain area but left and still said a courtesy remark as he was leaving.
Ok OK calm down Im sorry I have a bad habit to stir up crap. And ya I have not seen all your posts because I took a leave of absence from the site for almost a year.
Post by: colockumelk on October 28, 2011, 12:15:05 PM
The guy with the wrong tag got 1000 fine and hunting privileges were lost for one year. The kids who shot the elk were never prosecuted wasn't enough evidence
So basically a slap on the wrist. The contention is not that there are not rules set in place, its just that they are not really enforced and if they are enforced they get a slap on the wrist. What is in place to dissuade members from breaking the rules?
Post by: Ddog73 on October 28, 2011, 12:20:36 PM
The guy with the wrong tag got 1000 fine and hunting privileges were lost for one year. The kids who shot the elk were never prosecuted wasn't enough evidence
So basically a slap on the wrist. The contention is not that there are not rules set in place, its just that they are not really enforced and if they are enforced they get a slap on the wrist. What is in place to dissuade members from breaking the rules?
I don't have an extra 1000 laying around, punished is punished your not happy with that.
Post by: colockumelk on October 28, 2011, 01:02:56 PM
You want to know what would REALLY make all of us happy? If things were equal and if caught doing the same crime you would do the same time. And please I can't wait to hear a quality response to this question. Why do you think that its okay for a tribal member to get a much lower punishment than an American caught doing the same crime? Is this not discrimination? If you think its okay then why do you think discirmination is okay??
Post by: sirmissalot on October 28, 2011, 01:17:13 PM
Well if I were to do the same thing it would be a Class C Felony, I would lose my hunting priveleges for LIFE, and face up to 5 years in jail and up to a $51,000 dollar fine. So yeah he got a slap in the wrist. But then again it goes back to the equality thing and discrimination.
You want to know what would REALLY make all of us happy? If things were equal and if caught doing the same crime you would do the same time. And please I can't wait to hear a quality response to this question. Why do you think that its okay for a tribal member to get a much lower punishment than an American caught doing the same crime? Is this not discrimination? If you think its okay then why do you think discirmination is okay??
Exactly. We are finally getting somewhere with all this arguing... well said my man
Post by: Yak-NDN on October 28, 2011, 01:52:15 PM
Well if I were to do the same thing it would be a Class C Felony, I would lose my hunting priveleges for LIFE, and face up to 5 years in jail and up to a $51,000 dollar fine. So yeah he got a slap in the wrist. But then again it goes back to the equality thing and discrimination.
You want to know what would REALLY make all of us happy? If things were equal and if caught doing the same crime you would do the same time. And please I can't wait to hear a quality response to this question. Why do you think that its okay for a tribal member to get a much lower punishment than an American caught doing the same crime? Is this not discrimination? If you think its okay then why do you think discirmination is okay??
I don't think its ok but that's the way it is. Maybe they should change your fines so you could be in common with the Native Americans of the United States. SO is it discrimination because Washington's fines are not the same as Oregon? Are we not all Americans? Or are you Immigrant Americans from Oregon, Immigrant Americans from Washington and Native Americans from Yakama Reservation of the United States?
Post by: FC on October 28, 2011, 02:00:18 PM
Well if I were to do the same thing it would be a Class C Felony, I would lose my hunting priveleges for LIFE, and face up to 5 years in jail and up to a $51,000 dollar fine. So yeah he got a slap in the wrist. But then again it goes back to the equality thing and discrimination.
You want to know what would REALLY make all of us happy? If things were equal and if caught doing the same crime you would do the same time. And please I can't wait to hear a quality response to this question. Why do you think that its okay for a tribal member to get a much lower punishment than an American caught doing the same crime? Is this not discrimination? If you think its okay then why do you think discirmination is okay??
I was wondering how long it was going to take for someone to provide the appropriate response! A $1000 fine isn't even a slap on the wrist by comparison and hardly a deterrent.
Nice sidestep Yak!
You know as well as we do that poachers are almost certainly never caught more than a small fraction of the time. If the worst you have to face is a $1000 fine for getting caught IF your tribe prosecutes :dunno: (highly unlikely) that isn't much of a deterrent. If you had a very real probability of spending 5 years in the sh!thouse, a $51,000 fine AND lost your hunting privileges for life? THAT is a deterrent!
Post by: igotbigbulls on October 28, 2011, 02:08:56 PM
Post by: Ddog73 on October 28, 2011, 02:14:12 PM
Well if I were to do the same thing it would be a Class C Felony, I would lose my hunting priveleges for LIFE, and face up to 5 years in jail and up to a $51,000 dollar fine. So yeah he got a slap in the wrist. But then again it goes back to the equality thing and discrimination.
You want to know what would REALLY make all of us happy? If things were equal and if caught doing the same crime you would do the same time. And please I can't wait to hear a quality response to this question. Why do you think that its okay for a tribal member to get a much lower punishment than an American caught doing the same crime? Is this not discrimination? If you think its okay then why do you think discirmination is okay??
Don't drag me into the debate over discrimination, they asked what happened to the violater and i provided the information I know.
Post by: FC on October 28, 2011, 02:49:49 PM
posted some of the punishments to hunting crimes earlier. are those not stiff enough penalties.
No.
i know lots of non tribal members that fill the tags of there family for them.
Unless it’s for a handicapped person or some such and done with a special permit that is called “party hunting” aka poaching.
we can be kicked off our reservation and lose our hunting rights too.
Can you by chance cite for us the last time either one of those things actually happened? If you like I am sure we can post up plenty of particularly nasty cases of tribal poaching for you to match them up with.
Post by: igotbigbulls on October 28, 2011, 03:06:50 PM
oh and your comment about posting nasty cases of poaching. go ahead. i witnessed the so called way state hunters hunt a couple weeks ago and it was apalling and scary to think thats what you call hunting. trucks parked every 100 yards along a 2 mile strecth of road on a ridge. spread out flushing out the game who doesnt have a chance with all them rifles pointing at em.
Post by: runamuk on October 28, 2011, 03:12:35 PM
Post by: igotbigbulls on October 28, 2011, 03:15:54 PM
Post by: igotbigbulls on October 28, 2011, 03:37:54 PM
We do not choose to hunt like that we are forced to.....by our government who has limited where and when we areallowed to hu t
maybe its because there are more hunters in wa than any other western state.
Post by: colockumelk on October 28, 2011, 03:45:30 PM
Post by: Odell on October 28, 2011, 03:48:39 PM
and the pendulum goes back and forth. oh well. yeah i can tell you a cousin of mine has had his hunting rights taken away for poaching. it does happen never said it doesnt. just quit pointing fingers when you guys do the same things and get away with it as well. way more than tribal members. you know thats a fact. you all know the stats of what tribal hunters harvest give or take a percentage or two. thats from your state wildlife department. do you not believe those numbers? bottom line. we will continue to hunt and you will continue to be upset because its not fair in your eyes. the penalties are what they are. nothing we do will be good enough....unless its done your way.Again, everyone here hates poachers. No one is defending them. Don't defend tribal behavior by saying other people are worse. And by the way, that is no fact...I can't imagine how you would prove that.
oh and your comment about posting nasty cases of poaching. go ahead. i witnessed the so called way state hunters hunt a couple weeks ago and it was apalling and scary to think thats what you call hunting. trucks parked every 100 yards along a 2 mile strecth of road on a ridge. spread out flushing out the game who doesnt have a chance with all them rifles pointing at em.
As to hunting methods, I'm not sure you want to start comparing that, I've seen so much road hunting from tribal members ...and anyhow that isn't the issue.
I have no personal axe to grind but I have yet to see anything that makes me believe most tribal members can't do basically whatever they want with little fear of consequence. Something needs to change for the benefit of all.
Post by: dartondude on October 28, 2011, 03:53:52 PM
Post by: Ddog73 on October 28, 2011, 03:57:02 PM
Simple question. Why is it okay for the same crime to have two different penalties based SOLEY on the color of their skin. Simple question. But if you don't want to answer it because you know how it will make you look dog and igotbulls. That's fine. At least YAK made an attempt to answer it. He sidestepped the direct point I was making but at least he gave something.
I didnt make the rules on how much to fine the violater and I sure wasn't in the state part of how much the fines are to be to the violaters.
Post by: igotbigbulls on October 28, 2011, 04:01:21 PM
Simple question. Why is it okay for the same crime to have two different penalties based SOLEY on the color of their skin. Simple question. But if you don't want to answer it because you know how it will make you look dog and igotbulls. That's fine. At least YAK made an attempt to answer it. He sidestepped the direct point I was making but at least he gave something.
its not. you said you could face UP to 51000 so a first time offender is gonna get what? 1k 2k 3k.....jail time. doubt it colock. colock i will never side step your points. yak made an excelent point on the different states and whats a law in one may not be the same in the other. same thing we deal with.
guess i wasnt trying to defend the behavior odell because its not acceptable. but happens on both sides. the point i see you making is we have different seasons and harvest rules and that makes you upset.
Post by: Ddog73 on October 28, 2011, 04:03:57 PM
Post by: igotbigbulls on October 28, 2011, 04:04:41 PM
If the Natives are allowed to harvest game/fish levels higher than the rest of society, they should be restricted to the same harvest methods used before European settlement..(i.e., stick and a string).
the numbers for harvest arent even close. do your homework.
Post by: FC on October 28, 2011, 04:05:09 PM
oh and your comment about posting nasty cases of poaching. go ahead. i witnessed the so called way state hunters hunt a couple weeks ago and it was apalling and scary to think thats what you call hunting. trucks parked every 100 yards along a 2 mile strecth of road on a ridge. spread out flushing out the game who doesnt have a chance with all them rifles pointing at em.
I'll bite on your attempted diversion/sidestep. That sounds pretty bad and pretty much what I have seen in some isolated areas during the modern firearm season for deer.
How about those guys that like to hunt at winter feed stations? That's pretty sporting huh? Ever see or read about a group of guys "hunting" elk from the bed of a pickup with AK47's?
Did any of those guys get booted from their tribes? Are we done with the diversion game yet?
*crickets*
This whole thread got started over what appears to be a very serious discrepancy over harvested animals vs reported ones...did you forget?
Post by: igotbigbulls on October 28, 2011, 04:10:50 PM
Post by: PlateauNDN on October 28, 2011, 04:12:17 PM
The issue I see coming over and over again is the penalties. Would a non-tribal member doing the same thing get the maximum amount? Probably not, because the standards range is based off criminal history.
Take the young man from montesano who was posted on here for poaching "killing" in other words over a 100 big game animals in a month and got 5 months? Do I believe that was tough enough? NO. Is it going to stop him or deter anybody? NO, it just makes them a little more cautious and if their going to break the law they will do it regardless the punishment.
So yes the problem isn't isolated and can't be solved overnight and all our bickering is going to continue.
Post by: igotbigbulls on October 28, 2011, 04:13:12 PM
Post by: FC on October 28, 2011, 04:23:30 PM
dont know about the ak47 thing. never heard about it. winter feeding stations werent always feeding stations. unethical hunting and poaching are two different things. if someone wants to drive up in the middle of the day and shoot a big bull in a feeding station. very unethical in my book.
Oh I'm sorry I thought you wanted to compare the way different people hunted in this state. Winter feed stations weren't always there...that is your best answer for those pukes "hunting" there?
Post by: Elkslayer on October 28, 2011, 04:25:47 PM
I don’t think there is any one of us on here that could say that if we had the opportunity to go and legally shoot one of those big Hanford bulls that we would not do it. (I know I would have) Did the native that shot it have the legal right to do so? Yes! Did he shoot it because he needed the meat or because it was one of the biggest and most popular bulls in the state? I personally don’t know this guy so I cannot say for certain, but I am led to believe that it was because of the later. If he was hunting for meat why did he not go to an area that he has hunted in the past that was a lot closer to home where he had a much greater opportunity instead of taking a trip and going after a bull, or bulls that are very rarely in an area where they can be shot?
So my opinion is this! There are a few, like this guy that are abusing the system and making it look bad for everyone else. Just like the non-natives have a few that abuse the system.
The problem is this guy is using the treaty to his advantage, this makes him legal. Is this what the treaty was meant for? No! Is that what his forefathers had in mind when the treaty was signed? No! The only way any of this will stop is if the Tribes step up and put a stop to it themselves. The problem is they do nothing and it makes them as a whole look bad.
Post by: igotbigbulls on October 28, 2011, 04:29:36 PM
never once said it was right. what more you want me to say? your a funny character RC. punish for the crime. not saying ones who do stuff like that shouldnt be punished if they are breaking the law.dont know about the ak47 thing. never heard about it. winter feeding stations werent always feeding stations. unethical hunting and poaching are two different things. if someone wants to drive up in the middle of the day and shoot a big bull in a feeding station. very unethical in my book.
Oh I'm sorry I thought you wanted to compare the way different people hunted in this state. Winter feed stations weren't always there...that is your best answer for those pukes "hunting" there?
Post by: buck man on October 28, 2011, 06:17:53 PM
Post by: PlateauNDN on October 28, 2011, 06:24:07 PM
Post by: colockumelk on October 28, 2011, 07:11:44 PM
Colock ill make this short and sweet. Do I agree or like that the fines and penalties are lesser? NO. Do I agree they should be stricter? YES. Do I believe they are discriminatory? NO, because I nor anybody else on here wrote them or had a say in writing them. Our Tribal Councils from the past determined the level of punishments long ago and the present day Tribal Council Members are the only ones who can change it.
The issue I see coming over and over again is the penalties. Would a non-tribal member doing the same thing get the maximum amount? Probably not, because the standards range is based off criminal history.
Take the young man from montesano who was posted on here for poaching "killing" in other words over a 100 big game animals in a month and got 5 months? Do I believe that was tough enough? NO. Is it going to stop him or deter anybody? NO, it just makes them a little more cautious and if their going to break the law they will do it regardless the punishment.
So yes the problem isn't isolated and can't be solved overnight and all our bickering is going to continue.
One I agree with everything you said. Two I think poaching penalties are not nearly strict enough. I also think that penalties and fines should not ne different based on skin color. If a tribal member poaches a sheep on state land he should get the same punishment as a non-tribal member. It's not that way and its BS. Pure and simple.
And YAK did not have a good point. If I poached an animal in Oregon and a guy from Portland poached the same animal in Oregon we both get the same penalty. Jail time of 180 days, $3K fine and loss of hinting privelages for life along with the felony. If you do so you get a $1K fine and can't hunt for a year. Now how is that anywhere close to being fair? How is that right. Answer its not. Again preferential treatment based on race.
And this has nothing to do with hunting. This has to do with commiting a crime. If you commit the crime you should do the same time. I'm curious to know I thought if a tribal member commited a crime off the reservation than they were subject to tje same laws I am bound by. And I'm not saying tribal hunting is a crime. I mean DUIs, driving with a loaded firearm, poaching a sheep, murder, theft etc.
Post by: BeeMan on October 28, 2011, 07:28:23 PM
The problem is not the Treaty, the problem is todays society. Trophy hunting has become more and more popular over the years. Today everybody wants the biggest buck or bull on the mountain. Our fathers, grandfathers and great grandfathers didn’t hunt for horns back in the day. They hunted for meat because they needed it to survive, same as the natives. Sure, if a big buck or bull was the first opportunity they had they would shoot it. Not because of the size of its antlers but because it presented them with the opportunity to harvest some meat. Just like todays meat hunters, they will take the first opportunity they have to fill the freezer. I know a lot of old timers that have some very impressive racks just laying around out in the barn or an old storage shed or even tacked up on the barn and are now cracked and bleached out beyond repair. It wasn’t a popularity contest back then and it still isn’t for them. A lot of these old racks that were taken back in the 40’s or 50’s that are surfacing today are being showed off by their sons or grandsons, or some trophy collector.
I don’t think there is any one of us on here that could say that if we had the opportunity to go and legally shoot one of those big Hanford bulls that we would not do it. (I know I would have) Did the native that shot it have the legal right to do so? Yes! Did he shoot it because he needed the meat or because it was one of the biggest and most popular bulls in the state? I personally don’t know this guy so I cannot say for certain, but I am led to believe that it was because of the later. If he was hunting for meat why did he not go to an area that he has hunted in the past that was a lot closer to home where he had a much greater opportunity instead of taking a trip and going after a bull, or bulls that are very rarely in an area where they can be shot?
So my opinion is this! There are a few, like this guy that are abusing the system and making it look bad for everyone else. Just like the non-natives have a few that abuse the system.
The problem is this guy is using the treaty to his advantage, this makes him legal. Is this what the treaty was meant for? No! Is that what his forefathers had in mind when the treaty was signed? No! The only way any of this will stop is if the Tribes step up and put a stop to it themselves. The problem is they do nothing and it makes them as a whole look bad.
:yeah: Probably the best reply ive read in this thread!
Post by: BeeMan on October 28, 2011, 07:30:19 PM
Hey i have an idea!!! Lets all camo up and meet at say the obsevatory unit or maybe little naches and bring our paint guns,, divide into two teams and end this thread with a little paint ball action! After that we could go to naches and buy each otber a round and laugh about our "war wounds" and make treaties that we will do this everytime one these threads comes up. :chuckle: :dunno: any takers?
Sign me up, but I get first shot at u buckman and I get to freeze my paintballs first!! :chuckle:
Post by: igotbigbulls on October 28, 2011, 07:37:27 PM
ps. lets meet them there for the paintball war and talk man to man. i think i could reason a little better face to face. and then have a beer. but i can take a rain check for when you make it back to wa
Post by: dartondude on October 28, 2011, 08:13:51 PM
If the Natives are allowed to harvest game/fish levels higher than the rest of society, they should be restricted to the same harvest methods used before European settlement..(i.e., stick and a string).
the numbers for harvest arent even close. do your homework.
yeah, b/c there aren't nearly as many natives as white hunters. I meant per person. I know a guy from the Chehalis tribe who gets 4 or 5 blacktails a year.
Post by: igotbigbulls on October 28, 2011, 08:17:05 PM
Post by: longknife on October 28, 2011, 08:47:14 PM
Hey i have an idea!!! Lets all camo up and meet at say the obsevatory unit or maybe little naches and bring our paint guns,, divide into two teams and end this thread with a little paint ball action! After that we could go to naches and buy each otber a round and laugh about our "war wounds" and make treaties that we will do this everytime one these threads comes up. :chuckle: :dunno: any takers?
Sign me up, but I get first shot at u buckman and I get to freeze my paintballs first!! :chuckle:
Im game!! And Gobstoppers is the ammo for me!!!
Post by: huntandjeep on October 28, 2011, 08:48:44 PM
Post by: colockumelk on October 28, 2011, 09:23:21 PM
As fat as paintball I will only play if I can bring my Apache. Ill make it sort of fair. Everyone against me. The next time Im in wa Ill be in the Observatory killing a branch bull. :chuckle:
Post by: klickman on October 28, 2011, 09:29:50 PM
Klickman,
I have a serious question. I'm not denying that the picture is anything than what you described, but what is it proof of that we all don't already know? We know tribal members can harvest multiple animals in most cases. We know it is human nature for hunters to brag about their success. We know hunters load elk up whole in the back of their trucks from time to time. So, what argument does this picture go along with? I'm not saying there isn't one. I just want to know what it is.
Coastal,
The argument was there is never proof. I was posting proof and that was what igotbigbulls was asking for. He wanted to see a picture of a truck load of bulls. Three branched bulls is what I would consider a truck load. I've never seen a truck with three big bulls in it after one day of hunting. The one thing I neglected to add was this was the 22nd of December last year. Where are most of the elk in the Yakima area that time of year? They are either in or very close to a feeding station.
KLICKMAN
Post by: igotbigbulls on October 28, 2011, 09:36:24 PM
Post by: Coastal_native on October 28, 2011, 11:53:53 PM
:chuckle: FC, how do you come up with this stuff? Do you have some sort of anti-treaty propaganda handbook? Which one of the several known anti treaty organizations do you belong to? Were you a pre Bolt commercial fisherman?
I'll admit your persuasive writing skills are second to none, but I just don't buy it. You place 100% of the blame for everything on Indians even if there isn't a need to place blame on anyone, and you do it while admitting that you don't need any concrete evidence. You say it's true, therefor it's true. Initially I thought you were ignorant or uninformed, but now I'm convinced you actually have ill intentions. On top of that, you're just as antagonistic as "little red wagon", you just disguise it with big words and proper English. The difference between what you're saying and what I'm saying is more than just a disagreement...one of us is full of it.
This is the post I was refering to FC. I appologize for slandering you. That post was the product of an emotional reaction. The reason for my frustration is this...Saying that Indians are the reason for the decline of fish and game in Washington is a pretty serious claim, and I think it should come with a little more explanation as to why you think it. There are more things that need considering than the fact that we gill net and harvest multiple animals. I personally don't believe it, but other people who read this might and most of them are dying for an excuse to believe it anyway. There are some things that i agree with you on, but not this one. Keep in mind, I'm not a fan of commercial fishing either, but I don't come from a fishing family and I don't depend on it for my livliehood. I also don't see wasted fish where I'm from either. Our fisherman get every penny out of the fish they catch that they possibly can.
At any rate, I took a shot at you and you could've fired back, but you didn't. So, as long as you don't accuse me of "exuding the voice of the entitled" anymore, I'll offer you a fair share of respect. :chuckle:
Post by: colockumelk on October 29, 2011, 06:19:25 AM
dang colock dont you sleep. arent you on the east coast? well im headed to bed. big day of hoops and football. playing of course. get my but kicked by the twenty year olds.
Heck no bigbulls, old age and tenacity beats youth and enthusiasm any day. Use tbose old man tricks and smoke those kids. :chuckle:
Post by: boneaddict on October 29, 2011, 06:46:20 AM
Coastal, go take a drive up Hood Canal, and you would understand why there might be some animosity. Go spend one day in the next two weeks on the Skok.
Post by: colockumelk on October 29, 2011, 08:17:09 AM
Post by: Odell on October 29, 2011, 08:24:26 AM
So if we both poach a bull, we should face the same state charges.
Post by: colockumelk on October 29, 2011, 10:12:25 AM
Post by: krapmit on October 29, 2011, 12:03:56 PM
It is absolute horse shi* that they can slaughter these animals with high powered rifles..at the very most, they should be allowed these hunting rights with a compound bow, but that is at the very most!
on another not, I have a hard time believing they took 150 deer. I have a cabin in the nile and have hunted their my whole life and I doubt there is 150 deer in all of the country..Elk on the other hand, I think it is plausible that they took that many elk.
Post by: igotbigbulls on October 29, 2011, 12:12:31 PM
Post by: hughjorgan on October 29, 2011, 12:29:17 PM
Either way, I think it is bs that natives can go out and slaughter animals with high powered rifles. Sure their ancestors hunted there over the course of history, but they created their own broad heads and bows to hunt, ran around bare foot and stocked animals with in 30 yards for shots.
It is absolute horse shi* that they can slaughter these animals with high powered rifles..at the very most, they should be allowed these hunting rights with a compound bow, but that is at the very most!
on another not, I have a hard time believing they took 150 deer. I have a cabin in the nile and have hunted their my whole life and I doubt there is 150 deer in all of the country..Elk on the other hand, I think it is plausible that they took that many elk.
I can see them taking 130 deer.easily because the article said in the yakima area not just the Nile.
Any one know how they set tribal seasons? Do the tribes even collaborate with wdfw biologists to find out about the health of the herds. It is no secret that deer numbers are down big time in this area and doesn't need added hunting pressure.
Post by: Ddog73 on October 29, 2011, 01:04:33 PM
Sorry I couldn't resist that. I am not sure if my tribe meets with wdfw bios I can ask Monday. I know they meet with some people from the state but im not sure who is in the meetings.
Post by: boneaddict on October 29, 2011, 01:15:23 PM
As for every thread turning into this, its becasue it is a problem, but since the folks involved won't recognize it, it will probably escalate until something horrible and dumb happens.
Post by: FC on October 29, 2011, 01:20:56 PM
You place 100% of the blame for everything on IndiansFor the damage to many of our runs of fish, yes I do. After seeing runs disappear within 3-4 years of bank-to-bank fishing with nets.
while admitting that you don't need any concrete evidence.By concrete evidence I can only assume you mean studies or perhaps a statistic, such things are so self serving anymore that I know of none that aren't severely slanted, indians are certainly not a cause of this but they do it just the same as everyone else. I seem to remember reading some "study" recently that said we needed just a few hundred (15 breeding pairs or so) of wolves in this state.
Does anyone else here remember the damage done to the king salmon runs on the Samish river some years ago? I do! I got to see nets stretched from bank to bank and pulled down with at least 3 in the water at all times. That river wasn’t worth fishing for years afterward, incidentally after the Indians got booted out of the river too…
Did anyone else here enjoy fishing for the chums on the Skykomish river? We used to be able to catch and release all day, take our limit and go home, now they are illegal to even fish for after (if I remember correctly) 3 years of tribal netting. So much for a sustainable harvest!
Anyone who is familiar with Hood Canal knows better, we have all seen the carcasses stripped of roe left to rot, you mention that every penny is wrung from them. I myself don’t think of salmon as money, I think of them as food.
you're just as antagonistic as "little red wagon", you just disguise it with big words and proper English.A trait we share if we are to be truthful here.
I appologizeApology accepted.
That post was the product of an emotional reaction.I can understand that.
Saying that Indians are the reason for the decline of fish and game in Washington is a pretty serious claimAgreed.
There are more things that need considering than the fact that we gill net and harvest multiple animals.Agreed again! I never said anything against one type of net over another, my complaint is both how they are employed and the creative math used to figure out what a sustainable catch is where fish are concerned.
Where big game is concerned I take issue with taking multiple animals when hunting off of the rez as well as slaughtering them at feed stations. There really is no better term for this than slaughter either! The worst part is that not only does it seem like nothing but mature bulls and bucks get killed but the act itself pushes animals that are in trouble away from the food they need to survive!
The “enforcement” that takes place in my own experience is a joke! I turned a guy in for netting prior to season at night a few years back, the Gamie sighed and said “I’ve dragged his ass back to his tribe over 70 times in the last year already, they just won’t do anything about it”…Tribal enforcement must not be much of a deterrent I guess? I did see a non-tribal guy get nicked for fishing over the line at Potlatch (near Hoodsport), the tribal cop took all of his gear including his vest and fishing rod. About 75 yards away at the same time there was a couple of Indians with pitchforks filling wheelbarrows with fish and she didn’t say a word.
I also don't see wasted fish where I'm from either. Our fisherman get every penny out of the fish they catch that they possibly can.Again, I’ve never seen salmon as money, I see them as food and when I see piles it would take a D9 cat to move on the beach I see an awful lot of wasted food. Which of us really looks at these fish as a form of their “subsistence” now?
At any rate, I took a shot at you and you could've fired back, but you didn't. So, as long as you don't accuse me of "exuding the voice of the entitled" anymore, I'll offer you a fair share of respect. :chuckle:Deal, provided you don’t give me reason :P No one deserves anything over another in this country due to the color of their skin.
Post by: igotbigbulls on October 29, 2011, 01:31:39 PM
Post by: igotbigbulls on October 29, 2011, 01:34:54 PM
Post by: boneaddict on October 29, 2011, 01:42:55 PM
Quote
its becasue it is a problem, but since the folks involved won't recognize it, it will probably escalate
Post by: FC on October 29, 2011, 01:43:43 PM
Alot of it has to do with a difference in attitude. Such as we as Americans (not sure whether to call them black, hispanic, or white since it applies to all), going to spike only, shortened seasons, limited harvest, etc in order to manage or "protect" the herd, when there appears to be an arrogance about going out and shooting whatever whenever. Don't tell me there isn't an arrogance either bigbulls. Even the pm you sent to me had it in it about being able to go and shoot some more elk in the blues. You guys would be extremely niave to think this wouldn't cause negativity. Its like walking into a weightwatchers support group with a box of crispy creames and eating all of them.
As for every thread turning into this, its becasue it is a problem, but since the folks involved won't recognize it, it will probably escalate until something horrible and dumb happens.
Very well said Bone.
Post by: Ripper on October 29, 2011, 01:52:00 PM
Post by: igotbigbulls on October 29, 2011, 02:07:04 PM
Dixon and Lyman 1996, Harpole and Lyman 1999)
Elk were hunted regularly but not always extensively, by Indian tribes in both eastern and
western Washington (McCabe 1981). As European settlement expanded into this region, elk
harvest increased dramatically. By the beginning of the 1900s, most if not all of the elk in eastern
Washington had been eliminated. Small populations of Roosevelt elk persisted in southwestern
Washington and on the Olympic Peninsula (Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife 2005).
so now its our fault? we ve been hunting here managing game. looks like
Post by: igotbigbulls on October 29, 2011, 02:08:42 PM
Post by: FC on October 29, 2011, 02:16:45 PM
so now its our fault?
Yes. There are far more people in this land now and a management effort that is constantly avoided or undone by a few who choose to shoot or fish for what they like, pretty much when they like, report the numbers if they feel like it and then call it management.
Post by: Ddog73 on October 29, 2011, 02:31:16 PM
Post by: igotbigbulls on October 29, 2011, 03:08:35 PM
so because there is more of you than us we have to change our hunting rights. yeah right! makes sense that youd want us to give up rights we ve always had so your feelings dont get hurt.so now its our fault?
Yes. There are far more people in this land now and a management effort that is constantly avoided or undone by a few who choose to shoot or fish for what they like, pretty much when they like, report the numbers if they feel like it and then call it management.
Post by: FC on October 29, 2011, 04:00:31 PM
so because there is more of you than us we have to change our hunting rights. yeah right! makes sense that youd want us to give up rights we ve always had so your feelings dont get hurt.
It has nothing to do with feelings, it has everything to do with your apparent pride in the rape of OUR resources, not yours and not mine but OUR resources...Get it?
Will you still be proclaiming your "rights" when we are down to the last two salmon or will you be too busy squabbling over who gets the buck and who gets the hen?
There is no fault on the non native commercial fisherman. That fish too
You left out the /sarcasm on that one :) I agree, non-tribal nets are a big problem as well BUT they do NOT block off rivers using gillnets at least and they most certainly do NOT leave carcass piles all over the place, wasting the fish.
I fail to understand why you have such an issue with cooperative management on an equal level unless it really is just "all about the Benjamins".
Post by: igotbigbulls on October 29, 2011, 04:16:58 PM
Post by: NWBREW on October 29, 2011, 04:26:41 PM
so because there is more of you than us
That right there says it all. Until it is we....there will always be a problem. WE live here.......not you and us.
Post by: Ddog73 on October 29, 2011, 04:28:01 PM
Post by: Ripper on October 29, 2011, 04:50:38 PM
Post by: FC on October 29, 2011, 06:08:19 PM
Fc I wasn't being sarcastic. So your saying that the conference calls between the tribes and state every friday around 10 am isn't being part of cooperative management?
I bolded a pertinent part you may have missed there.
I fail to understand why you have such an issue with cooperative management on an equal level unless it really is just "all about the Benjamins".
Are you next going to tell me that the tribes in this state cooperate fully and report their harvest with complete transparency?
so because there is more of you than us
That right there says it all. Until it is we....there will always be a problem. WE live here.......not you and us.
You are 100% correct sir.
Post by: Ddog73 on October 29, 2011, 06:16:35 PM
Post by: FC on October 29, 2011, 06:21:06 PM
Nah im done with the stuff you post. I know what my tribe shares with the state so ill just leave it with that. Happy hunting.
Sucks to get backed into a corner where the only honest answer there is will burn you huh?
Post by: Ddog73 on October 29, 2011, 06:26:20 PM
Post by: Bob Williams on October 29, 2011, 06:36:13 PM
Maybe our wildlife management needs the squeeze put on them or their resources (Our donations, tag monies etc...) will be gone!
Just keepin shootin i guess until you have no more bullets and hope the sportsmen's contributions to the management will make it right for ya year after year.
Stop being so cynical and think what the position of all the tribes would be if you only hunted certain seasonal time..One deer a year (if you're lucky) No hunting with dogs, no night time hunting the list goes on and on.. You would be cryin foul and your full of scat if you say you wouldn't.
Post by: hughjorgan on October 29, 2011, 07:10:56 PM
I think my tribe just shakes that fortune 8 ball then goes from that.
Sorry I couldn't resist that. I am not sure if my tribe meets with wdfw bios I can ask Monday. I know they meet with some people from the state but im not sure who is in the meetings.
Nah im done with the stuff you post. I know what my tribe shares with the state so ill just leave it with that. Happy hunting.
Stop contradicting your self, first you don't know but now you say you do. So much for Indians being stewards of.the land. Seems you don't give a.flying you know.what about the herds and sustainability of.the.game.we.share.
Post by: Ddog73 on October 29, 2011, 07:15:25 PM
Post by: hughjorgan on October 29, 2011, 07:33:18 PM
We all agree we do not like poachers, and hunting with lights in our regs is poaching. So yes I do not like that but it happens both native and non native. How am I contradicting myself?
First you say you are.not sure what your tribe is meeting with wdfw about but in your next post you claim you know. So you tell me, you are the one saying two different things....
Post by: Ddog73 on October 29, 2011, 07:37:13 PM
Post by: igotbigbulls on October 29, 2011, 08:08:13 PM
Post by: hughjorgan on October 29, 2011, 08:14:21 PM
Ok the discussion was about hunting and some fishing. I do not know for sure on the hunting who meets with who.I know about fishing tho. The tribe meets with state bios about fishing tho good enough for you hugh
Good enough, I am just talking hunting. Didn't know you were talking fishing or at least how I.read.it.
Post by: hughjorgan on October 29, 2011, 08:18:18 PM
it dont matter ddog what you say. we might as well say that the herds would be tremendous like they used to be if the state hunters couldnt hunt anymore or had draw only for everything. thats where its headed if they keep killing off all the herds. all the poaching and wasting of resources. thats basically what your saying we do. so back at ya. who cares what they think. its all about the sport for them.
Right it is.all about sport to us... and not for you, what's that in your avatar a trophy mule deer?
Post by: ICEMAN on October 29, 2011, 08:19:39 PM
Post by: igotbigbulls on October 29, 2011, 08:42:32 PM
Post by: igotbigbulls on October 29, 2011, 08:42:57 PM
Post by: igotbigbulls on October 29, 2011, 08:45:18 PM
Post by: igotbigbulls on October 29, 2011, 08:47:56 PM
Post by: Bob Williams on October 29, 2011, 08:52:31 PM
Post by: colockumelk on October 29, 2011, 09:07:06 PM
cant get em in the books. so whats it matter. you know thats the only animal i saw all year.
Why can't you get them in the books? All you have to do is buy a hunting license and hunt during a hunting season. Sounds easy enough to me. :dunno:
Post by: ICEMAN on October 29, 2011, 09:09:25 PM
This is an unfortunatate attitude of those who once were thought of as needing help.So things swing completely the other way, not a fair medium, heavily slanted for a favored few ......in one nation under god.... This is what "bleeding heart" politics creates
Agreed.
Don't forget to add the media attention to the matter....or lack there of...
Post by: igotbigbulls on October 29, 2011, 09:34:54 PM
Post by: Bob Williams on October 29, 2011, 09:49:41 PM
Peace
Post by: colockumelk on October 29, 2011, 09:58:08 PM
Post by: Coastal_native on October 29, 2011, 10:04:36 PM
Bigbulls you don't seem as happy as usual. Don't tell me those punk 20 year olds whipped you at basketball. :'( It's okay look on the bright side even on your worst day you could still beat Coastal at basketball. Shoot my Grandma could do that. :chuckle:
I can't believe this just happened. You wouldn't even believe me if I told you, but I was just about to post the following after Bob's post, but I decided not to and I deleted it.
"This is the crutial turning point in these type of threads. Just when you think things are going to fizzle out............booooom! Colockumelk shows up and says something stupid"
I swear I had that all typed out, but I deleted it and when the thread refreshed, what do you know. :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: colockumelk on October 29, 2011, 10:10:21 PM
That means the Yakamas should help the WDFW and submit harvest reports and pay for feed and research. But we can't get them to do anything to help out.
You say we need to work together. But we do all the work and they do nothing. So its them that need to step up and help out not us. We do our part its time the Yakamas do ours. They need to learn from the coastal tribes that help out and do their part for wildlife managmemt. If the Puyallups and the Quinnalt can do it there is no excuse why the Yakamas can't do their part as well.
If tribal members here don't agree that they need to contribute then there's no point in trying and I'm done here. The state might as well open it up to any elk and deer and be done with it. Then there wouldnt be anything to fight over.
Post by: colockumelk on October 29, 2011, 10:11:53 PM
Bigbulls you don't seem as happy as usual. Don't tell me those punk 20 year olds whipped you at basketball. :'( It's okay look on the bright side even on your worst day you could still beat Coastal at basketball. Shoot my Grandma could do that. :chuckle:
I can't believe this just happened. You wouldn't even believe me if I told you, but I was just about to post the following after Bob's post, but I decided not to and I deleted it.
"This is the crutial turning point in these type of threads. Just when you think things are going to fizzle out............booooom! Colockumelk shows up and says something stupid"
I swear I had that all typed out, but I deleted it and when the thread refreshed, what do you know. :chuckle: :chuckle:
Because its the only place I know you'll see my sick burns I unleash on you daily :).
Post by: igotbigbulls on October 29, 2011, 10:19:24 PM
Post by: PlateauNDN on October 29, 2011, 10:28:31 PM
Post by: Ddog73 on October 29, 2011, 10:29:59 PM
Post by: colockumelk on October 30, 2011, 05:56:32 AM
Plateau once again well said. I agree. Game management in WA is poor for many reason and both tribal and non share the blame for that one. All we can do is like what you are doing. Try to respectfully make our voices heard and move forward one positive step at a time .
Bigbulls I will do that today when I'm sitting in the stand.
Post by: Yak-NDN on October 31, 2011, 09:11:02 AM
Simple question. Why is it okay for the same crime to have two different penalties based SOLEY on the color of their skin. Simple question. But if you don't want to answer it because you know how it will make you look dog and igotbulls. That's fine. At least YAK made an attempt to answer it. He sidestepped the direct point I was making but at least he gave something.
How did I sidestep? I answered your question. Why do you look at people by the color of their skin? who based anything on the color of anyone? I don't have any special rights because of what I look like. Hell If it was based on what I looked like I would be buying state tags like you. lol I can hunt the way I do because my great great great grandfather fought and then made an agreement with the Fed Gov (Not The State) that we can hunt and fish in usual and accustom places, in trade for our people to be placed on a small reservation.
Post by: colockumelk on October 31, 2011, 10:12:01 AM
You sidestepped by using different states give different penalties. I explained how that is not a fair representation.
To be specific. Lets say you and I go up and we each kill a Big Horn sheep (pretend you don't have a tag) and we both get caught doing so without a tag. Legal precedance has shown you will get a $1,000 fine and lose your rights to hunt for 1 year. Legal precedance has shown I will receive a Class C Felony, a $3,000 fine and my right to hunt will be taken for LIFE. How is this fair?
Post by: Yak-NDN on October 31, 2011, 10:21:38 AM
Well if I were to do the same thing it would be a Class C Felony, I would lose my hunting priveleges for LIFE, and face up to 5 years in jail and up to a $51,000 dollar fine. So yeah he got a slap in the wrist. But then again it goes back to the equality thing and discrimination.
You want to know what would REALLY make all of us happy? If things were equal and if caught doing the same crime you would do the same time. And please I can't wait to hear a quality response to this question. Why do you think that its okay for a tribal member to get a much lower punishment than an American caught doing the same crime? Is this not discrimination? If you think its okay then why do you think discirmination is okay??
I don't think its ok but that's the way it is. Maybe they should change your fines so you could be in common with the Native Americans of the United States. SO is it discrimination because Washington's fines are not the same as Oregon? Are we not all Americans? Or are you Immigrant Americans from Oregon, Immigrant Americans from Washington and Native Americans from Yakama Reservation of the United States?
Post by: colockumelk on October 31, 2011, 12:45:08 PM
Maybe they should change your fines so you could be in common with the Native Americans of the United States.
1. Well personally I think ALL poaching fines should be higher so it deters people more. So tribal fines should match the state fines. Not the other way around. Also the minority should match the majority not the other way around. Plus the WDFW does a much better job of managment and enforcement than the local tribes does.
SO is it discrimination because Washington's fines are not the same as Oregon?
2. This is an apples to oranges comparison. I explained why in a PREVIOUS POST!!! If I go to Oregon and poach an animal. And a guy from Oregon poaches an animal. We BOTH get convicted and punished in an Oregon court and both receive the same sentance. I don't get whisked away to WA and receive a much lower sentance. Where if you and I go poach a Ram in WA state. Legal Precedant says I get a Class C felony, 180 days in jail, a $3,000 fine and loss of hunting rights for life. You get protected by the tribe and only get a $1,000 fine and loss of privelages for a year. Sound fair?
Are we not all Americans?
I used the example of you are a Yakama (which is how you describe yourself) as to why you get off easier than me soley due to your race. I am an American, that's how I describe myself. How would you describe me? I refuse to use "Non-Native" since I am just as Native as you are. I wont use "whitey" since that's racist. Since we don't live under the same rules and are not subject to the same laws then I have to use a word to differentiate the two. Yakama hence a person of the Yakama Nation. And American since I am a citizen of the United States of America.
I don't think its ok but that's the way it is.
Then help change it because its BS. I still havn't received an answer yet ( Not directed at you YAK) but I don't see how it is legal and constitutional for different sentances to be doled out for the same crime SOLELY because of their race. It's BS.
The fact that we are debating whether or not tribal members should be held to the same legal standard as American's I think is absurd. (Again not directed at you YAK) We can all debate treaty rights until we are blue in the face, but I don't even see where or how it could be a matter of discussion on whether the racial discrimination is okay or acceptable. and it shows just how messed up the whole situation is when you have people who are not subject to the same laws as I am or if they do break the same law I do receive a much much much lower sentance. How is this not unconstitutional. Can someone please tell me how this is legal???
Post by: PlateauNDN on October 31, 2011, 01:39:22 PM
Should there be some change in the current laws? Yes, I believe they should be reviewed and updated as needed.
Am I or anybody else on this site in the position to do so? Probably not.
It's not discrimination, the Tribe itself is exercising it's rights to create and enforce its own set of laws and regulations. Again, as far as I know none of us are on any of our respected Councils so we don't have the authority to change the laws that have already been set.
I know we can debate this issue until we are all blue in the face and we've done it before. I agree somethings need to change but until somebody is in a position to do it then I don't see it changing any time soon.
Post by: whiteeyes on October 31, 2011, 03:29:07 PM
I'll answer each of your questions.
Maybe they should change your fines so you could be in common with the Native Americans of the United States.
1. Well personally I think ALL poaching fines should be higher so it deters people more. So tribal fines should match the state fines. Not the other way around. Also the minority should match the majority not the other way around. Plus the WDFW does a much better job of managment and enforcement than the local tribes does.
SO is it discrimination because Washington's fines are not the same as Oregon?
2. This is an apples to oranges comparison. I explained why in a PREVIOUS POST!!! If I go to Oregon and poach an animal. And a guy from Oregon poaches an animal. We BOTH get convicted and punished in an Oregon court and both receive the same sentance. I don't get whisked away to WA and receive a much lower sentance. Where if you and I go poach a Ram in WA state. Legal Precedant says I get a Class C felony, 180 days in jail, a $3,000 fine and loss of hunting rights for life. You get protected by the tribe and only get a $1,000 fine and loss of privelages for a year. Sound fair?
Are we not all Americans?
I used the example of you are a Yakama (which is how you describe yourself) as to why you get off easier than me soley due to your race. I am an American, that's how I describe myself. How would you describe me? I refuse to use "Non-Native" since I am just as Native as you are. I wont use "whitey" since that's racist. Since we don't live under the same rules and are not subject to the same laws then I have to use a word to differentiate the two. Yakama hence a person of the Yakama Nation. And American since I am a citizen of the United States of America.
I don't think its ok but that's the way it is.
Then help change it because its BS. I still havn't received an answer yet ( Not directed at you YAK) but I don't see how it is legal and constitutional for different sentances to be doled out for the same crime SOLELY because of their race. It's BS.
The fact that we are debating whether or not tribal members should be held to the same legal standard as American's I think is absurd. (Again not directed at you YAK) We can all debate treaty rights until we are blue in the face, but I don't even see where or how it could be a matter of discussion on whether the racial discrimination is okay or acceptable. and it shows just how messed up the whole situation is when you have people who are not subject to the same laws as I am or if they do break the same law I do receive a much much much lower sentance. How is this not unconstitutional. Can someone please tell me how this is legal???
Trick or Treaty !! :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: colockumelk on October 31, 2011, 04:44:59 PM
As far as being a soveriegn nation goes if that is the case then it should be all or nothing. If tje tribes were truly soveriegn than the reservations should be treated just like every other foreign country. To only claim the sovereign nation status only when it suites you is BS. And I'm not made at the tribes I'm mad at our government for not doing the rigjt thing which is treat you as a soveriegn nation like Canada or Mexico or treat like full on Americans like myself. No in between.
And we havnt debated this topic on this site yet. We've debated treaty hunting but nothing about actual crimes being commited.
Post by: PlateauNDN on October 31, 2011, 04:56:30 PM
We are treated as a Sovereign Nation, why do you think we have to report to the Federal Government and not the State. There is no in between, when States or the Govt. want to deal with the Tribe they deal with the Tribal Council on a Government-to-Government basis. Why do you think the Govt. has the final say in what we do.
Post by: colockumelk on October 31, 2011, 06:15:23 PM
Post by: ICEMAN on October 31, 2011, 06:36:40 PM
I was referring to Sovereignty Issues and through all your research you're telling me you never came upon any paperwork that showed you this? We are allowed to prosecute up to Gross Misdemeanors and everything above that statute is turned over to the Feds and prosecuted through Federal Court. If you are guilty in Federal Court you do Federal Prison, Misd's and below you do Tribal Jail.
We are treated as a Sovereign Nation, why do you think we have to report to the Federal Government and not the State. There is no in between, when States or the Govt. want to deal with the Tribe they deal with the Tribal Council on a Government-to-Government basis. Why do you think the Govt. has the final say in what we do.
Please quit....The tribes are not treated as a sovereign nation.... I don't have a nation status to compare the relationship, but it does not seem like a sovereign nation to me.
Here is a definition from the web;
The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which an independent state is governed and from which all specific political powers are derived; the intentional independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign interference.
Sovereignty is the power of a state to do everything necessary to govern itself, such as making, executing, and applying laws; imposing and collecting taxes; making war and peace; and forming treaties or engaging in commerce with foreign nations. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sovereign+nation (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sovereign+nation)
You are using US made american cash in your daily transactions, you have no border control, you have no trade tarrifs of trade arrangements with the US and rather ignore our tax laws, we come in and put out your fires on tribal lands, the sheriff will make and arrest and prosecute felonies...etc...etc...etc...
My point is, you are not a Sovereign nation so lets not call it that...
EDIT, just found it: Domestic Dependent Nation
Tribal sovereignty in the United States refers to the inherent authority of indigenous tribes to govern themselves within the borders of the United States of America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_America). The federal government recognizes tribal nations as "domestic dependent nations" and has established a number of laws attempting to clarify the relationship between the federal, state, and tribal governments. The Constitution and later federal laws grant local sovereignty to tribal nations, yet do not grant full sovereignty equivalent to foreign nations, hence the term "domestic dependent nations".
Post by: FC on October 31, 2011, 06:46:52 PM
Post by: whiteeyes on October 31, 2011, 06:58:49 PM
Post by: Alan K on October 31, 2011, 07:18:57 PM
i dont condone poaching at all and never will. poaching is hunting illegaly. right?
I'd think it's safe to say that everyone on here can agree to that. That right there however is why those of us who hunt by the states laws are always so enraged over these topics. If any of 'us' were to do what the tribal hunters do, it would be poaching!!! Sure what you guys do might be technically legal, but to us those practices are considered hunting illegally, which is why it makes most of us want to puke when we hear about it.
Now I understand it is all legal, but I know that to me poaching is just about as heinous as murder. (Again, what you guys do is considered legal, but in my mind it is poaching nonetheless because if I were to do it it would be considered such.) If it were legal for a select few to run wild committing murder via a treaty, it still wouldn't be right! That's the issue to me.
And as far as the number of animals go, it probably doesn't have as dramatic an effect on the populations as we might think, but where I get fired up is when I keep hearing the 'in common with' language in the treaties. I understand (I think) that it was written in there, or at least interpreted as such, to pertain to gear and technology. I would think though, that the 'in common with' language was included so that there would always be equality between the races with respect to these issues. To me 'in common with' should mean everyone abiding by the same rules with the same bag limits, weapon restrictions, dates, etc. on U.S. land anyways. As far as the reservation land goes, it wouldn't bother me one bit if tribal regulations were set however they chose.
Sort of jumping all over there, and there is probably a bunch more in the next 9 pages I could comment on, but I'm not sure that I'll get to all of it tonight.
Post by: whiteeyes on October 31, 2011, 07:24:12 PM
Post by: FC on October 31, 2011, 07:29:57 PM
:beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:
If it hurts your feelings to see the truth laid out then don't read it, go get yourself a tissue while you are at it :)
Post by: igotbigbulls on October 31, 2011, 08:41:35 PM
Post by: seth30 on October 31, 2011, 08:44:43 PM
Post by: whiteeyes on November 01, 2011, 08:03:14 AM
HaHaHa! now thats funny right there. Its obvious who is doing all the crying on here. Tissue is for cry babys and obviously you know what tissue is for. And yes the truth does hurt doesn't it. :):beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:
If it hurts your feelings to see the truth laid out then don't read it, go get yourself a tissue while you are at it :)
Post by: PlateauNDN on November 01, 2011, 08:48:36 AM
I was referring to Sovereignty Issues and through all your research you're telling me you never came upon any paperwork that showed you this? We are allowed to prosecute up to Gross Misdemeanors and everything above that statute is turned over to the Feds and prosecuted through Federal Court. If you are guilty in Federal Court you do Federal Prison, Misd's and below you do Tribal Jail.
We are treated as a Sovereign Nation, why do you think we have to report to the Federal Government and not the State. There is no in between, when States or the Govt. want to deal with the Tribe they deal with the Tribal Council on a Government-to-Government basis. Why do you think the Govt. has the final say in what we do.
Please quit....The tribes are not treated as a sovereign nation.... I don't have a nation status to compare the relationship, but it does not seem like a sovereign nation to me.
Here is a definition from the web;
The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which an independent state is governed and from which all specific political powers are derived; the intentional independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign interference.
Sovereignty is the power of a state to do everything necessary to govern itself, such as making, executing, and applying laws; imposing and collecting taxes; making war and peace; and forming treaties or engaging in commerce with foreign nations. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sovereign+nation (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sovereign+nation)
You are using US made american cash in your daily transactions, you have no border control, you have no trade tarrifs of trade arrangements with the US and rather ignore our tax laws, we come in and put out your fires on tribal lands, the sheriff will make and arrest and prosecute felonies...etc...etc...etc...
My point is, you are not a Sovereign nation so lets not call it that...
EDIT, just found it: Domestic Dependent Nation
Tribal sovereignty in the United States refers to the inherent authority of indigenous tribes to govern themselves within the borders of the United States of America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_America). The federal government recognizes tribal nations as "domestic dependent nations" and has established a number of laws attempting to clarify the relationship between the federal, state, and tribal governments. The Constitution and later federal laws grant local sovereignty to tribal nations, yet do not grant full sovereignty equivalent to foreign nations, hence the term "domestic dependent nations".
Really Iceman? So when you ask nicely in an appropriate manner it's okay but when I did the same thing back in the spring I was told to "grow a pair" or "if I don't like it then don't read it" or...I can go on with what was said but since you are asking, no ridicule? That's okay I'm not going to stoop that low and ridicule you for your request.
As long as the US GOVERNMENT recognizes the Tribes as SOVEREIGN NATIONS' I'm going to refer to myself and the Tribes as SOVEREIGN and whether you like it or not it doesn't matter to me. And like you told me back in the spring just because I can cut and paste doesn't mean its true or facts anybody can cut and paste.
The difference between you and me is I live and breathe who I am and I'm a Yakama and proud of it. I was born and raised here and with the exception of the last couple of years and the time spent away in the Marines I've lived here all my life. I didn't need to take some class in college on Indian Studies to know who or what I am, I know what and who I am because my grandparents taught me that and just like them I'm teaching my children the same. Just because you THINK you know, "but it does not seem like a sovereign nation to me" doesn't mean you do know.
As long as cases the Federal Govt. supports and says we are SOVEREIGN then I will identify us as such. Here I'll cut and paste for you from some notes I have regarding SOVEREIGNTY ISSUES.
The United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375, 381-82 (1886) Supreme Court of the US.
"[Indian Tribes] were, and always have been, regardes as having a semi-indepenent position when they preserved their tribal relations...as a separate people, with the power of regulating their internal and social relations, and thus far not brought under the laws of the Union or the State within whose limits they resided.
Indian Tribes ceded millions of acres that make the United States what it is today; in return, Tribes received the guarantee that the Federal Government would protect the Tribes' rights to govern their own people and their reservations as homelands for Tribal Cultures, religions, languages, and ways of life."
Commerce, because we use US Currency means we're not Sovereign. Well, a lot of countries use US Currency does that mean they are not their own Nations? No.
We use what we have and that's guaranteed by the US Govt.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, of the US Constitution empowers Congress "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among several States, and with the Indian Tribes."
President Nixon re-affirmed our Rights to Self-Determination in a speech to Congress, "Tribal Self-Determination is by far the most successful Federal Indian Policy in our Nation's history."
We can go back and forth if you'd like but at the end of the day just because you said it doesn't make it the Law of the Land and the Federal Govt. isn't going to change any time soon so as long as the Recognition is there by them, then the Tribes are still going to be SOVEREIGN and all we are going to have accomplished is bickering and complaining rather than finding solutions to the problems at hand.
Post by: igotbigbulls on November 01, 2011, 08:54:45 AM
Post by: whiteeyes on November 01, 2011, 09:03:42 AM
Post by: Coastal_native on November 01, 2011, 09:05:08 AM
Post by: Ddog73 on November 01, 2011, 09:45:57 AM
Post by: Austrian Hunter on November 01, 2011, 10:01:50 AM
Post by: colockumelk on November 01, 2011, 10:18:52 AM
well put indeed.
I promised I wouldn't do this but you leave me no choice. We need to start talking about the buck:doe ratio.
Post by: Coastal_native on November 01, 2011, 10:45:00 AM
well put indeed.
I promised I wouldn't do this but you leave me no choice. We need to start talking about the buck:doe ratio.
Moving on to deer now huh? So what should we expect from you this time...another research paper, or perhaps another celebrity guest appearance in the Yakima paper? With your extensive knowledge of ratios you might even qualify for one of those shows on the Discovery Channel..."Colockumelk's Wide World of Ratios"...
The only probelm I see is that I doubt people are going to want to see you in a mid-thigh high pair of cargo shorts...but on the other hand it might be entertaining if you were getting eaten by a giant snake...which would also be a great time for you to point out the ratio of how much of your body is sticking out of the snakes mouth compared to how much is being digested...Are you looking for a publicist?
Post by: colockumelk on November 01, 2011, 11:14:26 AM
Post by: 724wd on November 01, 2011, 11:47:23 AM
The difference between you and me is I live and breathe who I am and I'm a Yakama and proud of it. I was born and raised here and with the exception of the last couple of years and the time spent away in the Marines I've lived here all my life. I didn't need to take some class in college on Indian Studies to know who or what I am, I know what and who I am because my grandparents taught me that and just like them I'm teaching my children the same. Just because you THINK you know, "but it does not seem like a sovereign nation to me" doesn't mean you do know.
that's great plat, be a proud yakama! :brew: I was born and raised in this state, too. never left. lived here all my life. this paragraph sounds a lot like you beating your chest and shouting "I'M YAKAMA, HEAR ME ROAR!" :chuckle:
We can go back and forth if you'd like but at the end of the day just because you said it doesn't make it the Law of the Land and the Federal Govt. isn't going to change any time soon so as long as the Recognition is there by them, then the Tribes are still going to be SOVEREIGN and all we are going to have accomplished is bickering and complaining rather than finding solutions to the problems at hand.
and we have gone back and forth. so far the indians on this site proclaim to do everything they can to keep things the way they are, yourself included. problem areas have been discussed, but solutions from the indian members are few and far between. when the non-indians propose a change, the stonewalling with the treaty begins anew. until indians accept there is a problem with the way the treaties and/or big game regulations are administered, there will be no end.
WHO'S READY FOR ROUND 496? :chuckle: :boxin:
Post by: TwoFeet on November 01, 2011, 02:04:28 PM
Post by: PlateauNDN on November 01, 2011, 02:51:22 PM
"so far the indians on this site proclaim to do everything they can to keep things the way they are, yourself included. problem areas have been discussed, but solutions from the indian members are few and far between. when the non-indians propose a change, the stonewalling with the treaty begins anew. until indians accept there is a problem with the way the treaties and/or big game regulations are administered, there will be no end."
When have I ever stated I wanted to keep things the way they are? Not once, I've stated many times, "as long as I'm breathing I'm going to do everything in my power to make sure the Treaty isn't abolished" but not once have I stated things remain the same. I've stated numerous times that things should be reviewed and updated as needed and somethings should be changed to better regulate the harvest.
I've also stated that I am in no position of authority (Tribal Council) to make those changes and as far as I know nobody else on here is either. We didn't create, write or have a say in anything currently in the books but we do have a say now as to how things should be changed.
I for one have voiced my distaste for the overharvesting of animals such as 9 bulls in one year or dumping salmon by the truckloads to rot. Do I know firsthand or witnessed the salmon wastage? No, I only know what I hear and until there is some proof, (i.e. video or pictures) then it is only speculation. Do I see the overharvesting of elk? Yes and No, do I agree with what they are doing, no I don't but as long as it's legal then there is nothing that can be done.
I to thought this thread was put to bed but it hasn't been. TwoFeet if you believe it's BS then why read it? :dunno:
Post by: igotbigbulls on November 01, 2011, 03:19:18 PM
Post by: igotbigbulls on November 01, 2011, 03:27:28 PM
Post by: 724wd on November 01, 2011, 03:51:17 PM
724, if that's what you believe then okay. I beg to differ on your comment,
"so far the indians on this site proclaim to do everything they can to keep things the way they are, yourself included. problem areas have been discussed, but solutions from the indian members are few and far between. when the non-indians propose a change, the stonewalling with the treaty begins anew. until indians accept there is a problem with the way the treaties and/or big game regulations are administered, there will be no end."
When have I ever stated I wanted to keep things the way they are? Not once, I've stated many times, "as long as I'm breathing I'm going to do everything in my power to make sure the Treaty isn't abolished" but not once have I stated things remain the same. I've stated numerous times that things should be reviewed and updated as needed and somethings should be changed to better regulate the harvest.
I've also stated that I am in no position of authority (Tribal Council) to make those changes and as far as I know nobody else on here is either. We didn't create, write or have a say in anything currently in the books but we do have a say now as to how things should be changed.
I for one have voiced my distaste for the overharvesting of animals such as 9 bulls in one year or dumping salmon by the truckloads to rot. Do I know firsthand or witnessed the salmon wastage? No, I only know what I hear and until there is some proof, (i.e. video or pictures) then it is only speculation. Do I see the overharvesting of elk? Yes and No, do I agree with what they are doing, no I don't but as long as it's legal then there is nothing that can be done.
you're right Plat... i was generalizing. you and some other indians have come out against wanton waste of game. I know you're not on the council, just as i'm not a politician, but when you say things like "as it's legal then there is nothing that can be done," well, i don't agree with that. in fact, it seems a bit contradictory following your statement "but we do have a say now as to how things should be changed." ok, so what changes can we agree on? I say the treaties should be amended to say tribal members must abide by the WDFW regulations. Exceptions being: ceremonial harvest (marriage/birth/death - contact WDFW liasion to procure ceremonial tag) and the opportunity to kill additional animals for elderly family members unable to hunt themselves (with purchase of tag - perhaps at a reduced rate?). what do you say plat?
i know some people get all riled up about these threads (on both sides) but i think they're a great tool to open communication regarding the interaction between indians and the rest of us! i appreciate the constructive comments from plat, YAK, and yes, at times, even you, bigbulls! :chuckle: some of you guys also have decent senses of humor and can put up with clock! :yike:
heath
Post by: igotbigbulls on November 01, 2011, 03:58:24 PM
Post by: colockumelk on November 01, 2011, 05:53:51 PM
Post by: longknife on November 01, 2011, 06:50:11 PM
hey! i resemble that remark. im fairly new to these issues and threads. so im learning. i actually had no idea coming on here to look at hunting stories and such that tribal hunting was such a hot topic. that is the honest truth. so i am taken back at some of the comments that have lead me to retaliate. but i am for sure trying to get better at open and constructive talk between the differences.
So now that its such a bigger topic than you thought, why cant you talk with tribal council, and let them know whats happening, and why its such a big topic. You guys say your not on the board, but wont discuss the solutions to them either?
A great starting point between both of us, for equality....
Post by: ICEMAN on November 01, 2011, 06:58:24 PM
hey! i resemble that remark. im fairly new to these issues and threads. so im learning. i actually had no idea coming on here to look at hunting stories and such that tribal hunting was such a hot topic. that is the honest truth. so i am taken back at some of the comments that have lead me to retaliate. but i am for sure trying to get better at open and constructive talk between the differences.
It is a hot topic.
The problem as I see it is that tribal guys have no problem proudly claiming to have a tie to this area, and a hunting heritage. How is this any different than any other hunter here? Most of us grew up here as you have. Our mommas and daddies had babies in this state and we are the result, I am the result. I have a hunting heritage that goes back generations here, but my heritage is threatened every single session of the legislature. I am a native Washingtonian.
The tribal members seem to pound their chests about their heritage, their ties to the land, at everyone elses expense.
I too would like to harvest for my family irregardless of the season setting by others. I too would like to hunt for an elder neighbor who is down on their luck. But I cannot. I am getting forced out of the woods. My deer hunt is a few weekends long with page after page of regulation. Tribal hunters claim to be hunting for meat but often seem to take the trophy animals with the intent (IMHO) to rub their kills in the faces of Non-tribal hunters.
Would you tribal guys give up your hunting heritage for the survival of the herds? We are forced to, irregardless of who is causing the decline.
Post by: colockumelk on November 01, 2011, 07:15:45 PM
And yes I know non of you are on the council. But I can still talk about the problems that exist.
Post by: igotbigbulls on November 01, 2011, 07:41:41 PM
Post by: Arteman on November 01, 2011, 10:57:06 PM
Post by: hunterrcc on November 02, 2011, 12:12:14 AM
Also I will take pics off the showoff indians who will be out in full force this weekend. anybody on here should take pics to get there faces on the internet as bad guys. 1 gamie had stopped some indians just west of whistlin jacks going back to the westside with elk and deer in back. :bs:.this was sunday evening/night. Us whiteguys who hunt over here are fed up with the terrible numbers. We are blaming it partly on the muckleshoots. :bash:
I agree this is BS if the indians continue to shoot anything and everything with no rules then there will be nothing left pretty soon for anyone. This treaty BS needs to end this is not what the treaty was suppose to do. I watched indians driving around in jeans, tennis shoes and tshirts in their red ford bronoc in the firing center this last weekend when the wind was so fricking cold u had to have a jacket on in the moring if you got out and hunted at all. They get out and free hand shoot at deer over 300 yards away. I was watching the deer in my spotting scope until these aholes drove up and started shooting at them. and then ask for my help where they ran to and if they hit them. No joke never walked out to see if there was blood just drove off. Asked the wrong person for help...prefect example of all my indian experinces hunting...
Post by: Coastal_native on November 02, 2011, 12:14:09 AM
scientifically researched based laws
I have no beef with you Arteman, but I thought I'd pull this quote out, as most of what you've said has already been argued to no avail. I don't think "scientifically researched based laws" are anything to brag about these days. If there's one thing we've learned its that western science can lead to predetermined conclusions. There's too many examples of scientific research being influenced by personal beliefs. Tell me the answer you want and I'll use scientific methods to get it for you. I'd love to see a wolf recovery plan that was developed by scientists hired by defenders of wildlife.
Anyway, I would say most tribes have "scientifically researched based laws". I thought it was the scientifically researched based laws of WDFW that everyone is always complaining about on this site.
Post by: Arteman on November 02, 2011, 07:57:39 AM
most of what you've said has already been argued to no avail.Your right, and we can sit here and argue tell we are all blue in face but non of us have the authority to make a change. We can start a thread about Fords and Chevys and get about the same results. Maybe some day the high ups from both parties can meet on common ground, but until then we should just get back to congratulating people on their hunts, but or coarse we do have a few more days off until we can hit the woods again.
Post by: igotbigbulls on November 02, 2011, 08:20:10 AM
« on: Yesterday at 10:57:06 PM » Insert Quote
Wow, okay well I just read this all, talk about cheap entertainment! All I really would like to say to the natives is your welcome, your welcome in a since that me and thousands of other Washington hunters abide by scientifically researched based laws that are set to protect the wildlife herds and fish stocks so that you can hunt or slaughter at free will whatever you choose any never run out of these resources to do so. Could anybody imagine what would happen to our wildlife resources if we all had these same hunting privileges. You act like your ancestors were the only people that hunted to survive, I'm sure our early settlers didn't have to go purchase a tag to put meat on the table. Only in time as we become more civilized we realized we had to have laws set to protect these resources for the future. Now you still talk like you need these hunting privileges to survive? Come on, there is this thing called money... you make it with a job... There is a grocery store around every corner that sales lots of food in it. Nobody needs 3 deer and a elk every year to survive, hunting is a privilege this day and age, not a necessity. Not saying the natives on this thread are thrill killers, and taking full advantage of their laws to break our laws, but I do remember some time back when a bunch of natives went up Spirit Lake Highway by My. St. Helens and shot up a bunch of elk and leaving half of them laying dead or all shot up and dying and a lot of locals were ready to go back on their old customs and start their own lynch mob. All I'm saying is seriously get with the program, we don't play with rocks and sticks anymore. We all have to move forward sometime, its called progress. Laws change with progress, hell in my last contract with work they tossed in a no cell phone policy, do you think there was a no cell phone policy 20 years ago? You know... I however do have a good example of basically what you natives get away with now. When our settlers came and slaughtered all the buffalo for there hides because they could at free will, I'm sure your ancestors sat in there huts bi tchn about us settlers killing chit for no apparent reason. Only now its on the flip side.
like i posted earlier that im sure you read is that the herds decline started with european settlement. when there was no regulations.
heres a finding for you-U.S. vs. Washington states, "Indian tribes cannot rescind a treaty agreement or limit non-Indian fishing pursuant to the agreement, but off-reservation fishing by other citizens and residents of the state is not a right but a privilege which may be granted, limited or withdrawn by the state as the interests of the state or exercise of the treaty fishing rights may require."
as decided upon by the courts.
but dont compare the treaty, or other laws to a no cell phone rule that you have to follow.
we have agreed that there is a problem so that should be the main interest to start to tackle. not bickering. as you see there are a lot of rulilngs and laws that have been upheld for years that wont be so easily changed but amendments to laws can be made. thats what it seems like is being pushed for. not saying i disagree on some of these points after what ive read on here.
Post by: Arteman on November 02, 2011, 09:32:49 AM
Post by: Coastal_native on November 02, 2011, 11:26:45 AM
I just wanted to clarify that I wasn't questioning the scientific integrity of the work performed by WDFW staff. I was only trying to point out the undeniable relationship between science and policy. Science is the best tool we have available to weigh our impacts on the environment, but we as humans still have the ability to make decisions and influence decisions.
Post by: colockumelk on November 02, 2011, 12:08:54 PM
I wasn't trying to compare laws and treaties to a no cell phone policy, I'm just stating that during the process of progress and the development of technology over time these things impact are lifestyles and are what we are custom to. Slowly in time laws adapt to this progress to stay compatible with times, its how its always going to be, rather its laws to protect us or our resources from destruction. I'm sure there will be laws in the future we couldn't even fathom now. The people of these this nation as a whole need to do what is right not for us as individual parties but for the land we all share to insure its preserved for future generations after we all long and gone. I've read all your posts and know you all at least agree to that. The scientific facts I know has to do with conservation and preservation, if we take from the land more then it can produce we will eliminate its resources. I agree the WDFW isn't doing all the right things, but it is the best program in place now to protect our wildlife resources, the problem is they are trying to please everybody and make it fair for all walks of life. They issue so many tags a year its a madhouse out there and clearly not enough resources to satisfy everybody, I think everything should go to permit only so its controlled better, kind of like Oregons eastside, but that includes natives as well. But because of your native heritage it shouldnt give you the right to be allowed to take more then what is honestly needed. I'm not racists, and im not native bashing. The blood runs in my vains as well, my grandmas mother or grandmother was full native Indian, Idk know what nation but it was cleary visible in my grandmother. What's past is past, right or wrong its behind us now, the future is what we have to look at now and for what it has in store. We all eat, sleep, breath, and bleed the same, and should enjoy the same equal privileges as individuals. With all this said, my opinion is like a atom on a nats a$$, it don't mean nothing, just my opinion. Personally, their are more important issues going on in this country at the moment that needs fixed. All I can say now is happy hunting to everybody, be safe and enjoy the outdoors that we have now, and hope are grandkids can do the same.
:yeah:
Well said Arteman
Post by: Yak-NDN on November 02, 2011, 01:47:09 PM
Also I will take pics off the showoff indians who will be out in full force this weekend. anybody on here should take pics to get there faces on the internet as bad guys. 1 gamie had stopped some indians just west of whistlin jacks going back to the westside with elk and deer in back. :bs:.this was sunday evening/night. Us whiteguys who hunt over here are fed up with the terrible numbers. We are blaming it partly on the muckleshoots. :bash:
I agree this is BS if the indians continue to shoot anything and everything with no rules then there will be nothing left pretty soon for anyone. This treaty BS needs to end this is not what the treaty was suppose to do. I watched indians driving around in jeans, tennis shoes and tshirts in their red ford bronoc in the firing center this last weekend when the wind was so fricking cold u had to have a jacket on in the moring if you got out and hunted at all. They get out and free hand shoot at deer over 300 yards away. I was watching the deer in my spotting scope until these aholes drove up and started shooting at them. and then ask for my help where they ran to and if they hit them. No joke never walked out to see if there was blood just drove off. Asked the wrong person for help...prefect example of all my indian experinces hunting...
What were their names?
Post by: PlateauNDN on November 02, 2011, 02:00:11 PM
Also I will take pics off the showoff indians who will be out in full force this weekend. anybody on here should take pics to get there faces on the internet as bad guys. 1 gamie had stopped some indians just west of whistlin jacks going back to the westside with elk and deer in back. :bs:.this was sunday evening/night. Us whiteguys who hunt over here are fed up with the terrible numbers. We are blaming it partly on the muckleshoots. :bash:
I agree this is BS if the indians continue to shoot anything and everything with no rules then there will be nothing left pretty soon for anyone. This treaty BS needs to end this is not what the treaty was suppose to do. I watched indians driving around in jeans, tennis shoes and tshirts in their red ford bronoc in the firing center this last weekend when the wind was so fricking cold u had to have a jacket on in the moring if you got out and hunted at all. They get out and free hand shoot at deer over 300 yards away. I was watching the deer in my spotting scope until these aholes drove up and started shooting at them. and then ask for my help where they ran to and if they hit them. No joke never walked out to see if there was blood just drove off. Asked the wrong person for help...prefect example of all my indian experinces hunting...
What were their names?
Good question, did you get any information other than red bronco? Lic. plate, names, ages, description, pictures or video?
Post by: longknife on November 02, 2011, 06:25:18 PM
724, if that's what you believe then okay. I beg to differ on your comment,
"so far the indians on this site proclaim to do everything they can to keep things the way they are, yourself included. problem areas have been discussed, but solutions from the indian members are few and far between. when the non-indians propose a change, the stonewalling with the treaty begins anew. until indians accept there is a problem with the way the treaties and/or big game regulations are administered, there will be no end."
When have I ever stated I wanted to keep things the way they are? Not once, I've stated many times, "as long as I'm breathing I'm going to do everything in my power to make sure the Treaty isn't abolished" but not once have I stated things remain the same. I've stated numerous times that things should be reviewed and updated as needed and somethings should be changed to better regulate the harvest.
I've also stated that I am in no position of authority (Tribal Council) to make those changes and as far as I know nobody else on here is either. We didn't create, write or have a say in anything currently in the books but we do have a say now as to how things should be changed.
I for one have voiced my distaste for the overharvesting of animals such as 9 bulls in one year or dumping salmon by the truckloads to rot. Do I know firsthand or witnessed the salmon wastage? No, I only know what I hear and until there is some proof, (i.e. video or pictures) then it is only speculation. Do I see the overharvesting of elk? Yes and No, do I agree with what they are doing, no I don't but as long as it's legal then there is nothing that can be done.
I to thought this thread was put to bed but it hasn't been. TwoFeet if you believe it's BS then why read it? :dunno:
Do you go to the board of tribal council to try to make change? You say you are not on the board, but are you willing to talk?
This would definatly increase impact on wildlife, as well as relations with others...a win win for everyone.
Post by: colockumelk on November 02, 2011, 07:02:59 PM
You all expect Plateau to go to his council with these issues right. Well give him a reason, give him something with which to take to the council. He would look stupid if he went to the council with "I heard this or that took place.". I mean honestly what do you expect him to do with rumors. We need, he needs actual evidence. So stop nagging on him to make changes until you give him a leg to stand on. And for some do you go talk to the wdfw to make changes. Do you write letters to politicians?
Post by: longknife on November 02, 2011, 07:25:33 PM
OF COURSE THEY DIDN'T GET PICS OR INFO!!!!!! Come on people document this otherwise its just hearsey. We All KNOW IT HAPPENS but document it. Things will not change public opinion will not change arrests and citations will not change unless you take pics and get plate numbers.
You all expect Plateau to go to his council with these issues right. Well give him a reason, give him something with which to take to the council. He would look stupid if he went to the council with "I heard this or that took place.". I mean honestly what do you expect him to do with rumors. We need, he needs actual evidence. So stop tagging on him to make changes until you give him a leg to stand on. And for some do you go talk to the wdfw to male changes. Do you write letters to politicians?
I was stating the fact plateau says he dosent have a seat(tribal council) for conservation changes.He said he dosent believe its rite, and wants to change it, but he cant do anything, hands are tied.
I see evidence, it will be recorded, and i wont be going to the police/wardens/tribal cops, it will be the press! Politicians need something good to win elections!
Post by: colockumelk on November 02, 2011, 07:34:04 PM
Post by: igotbigbulls on November 03, 2011, 11:18:04 AM
Post by: hunter360 on November 03, 2011, 11:32:19 AM
but whats unethical colock? a tribal member with 2 cow elk in their truck? or 2 bulls? or 3 deer? if you take a pic of a tribal member with 2 cows and a deer is that unethical? just curious on the defintion of unethical. not trying to start anything just getting a consensus on the matter.
unethical is indians having anything more than what everyone else is allowed period. :tup:
Post by: whiteeyes on November 03, 2011, 12:03:15 PM
Post by: colockumelk on November 03, 2011, 12:07:01 PM
but whats unethical colock? a tribal member with 2 cow elk in their truck? or 2 bulls? or 3 deer? if you take a pic of a tribal member with 2 cows and a deer is that unethical? just curious on the defintion of unethical. not trying to start anything just getting a consensus on the matter.
That is a legitimate and good question igotbigbulls. To answer your question I don't know. It would be up to the person taking the picture. If they feel its unethical then send it to the press. My intent was not to start an ethics debate it was simply to say stop complaining about it and instead do something about it such as taking pictures.
As far as the examples you listed I don't think any one of them would be picture worthy. Unless maybe it was in an area such as the Colockum that has such a low bull to cow ratio then yes maybe a picture of 2 bulls in a truck could be unethical. If it was by a single tribal member. If 1 bull per tribal member than no. Maybe if the above example was near a place where the elk are fed. Again the purpose was to say "stop just talking about it and saying I saw this or that." Instead people should document it and take pictures if it bothers them and send it to the appropriate people. A sort of "put your money where your mouth is" kind of thing.
Post by: colockumelk on November 03, 2011, 12:07:37 PM
Unethical is Advanced Hunters slaughtering elk in the middle of sagebrush not hurting anything in the middle of January.
Got any pictures or evidence to back this up. Or is this just some more rumors and hearsey. ?????
whiteeyes I'll take your bait. So how is the above "slaughtering" considering that they can only shoot one cow per year per person? Compare that to how the Yakamas can go into the winter range in the sage brush and a single tribal member can harvest as many elk as they want. I think the second one is closer to "slaughtering" if you ask me. Your pretty much contradicting yourself aren't you?
Post by: longknife on November 03, 2011, 12:21:36 PM
I would really see/give more respect if you natives followed the same rules, and conservation we all have to, as Americans.
Post by: whiteeyes on November 03, 2011, 12:25:59 PM
Unethical is Advanced Hunters slaughtering elk in the middle of sagebrush not hurting anything in the middle of January.
Got any pictures or evidence to back this up. Or is this just some more rumors and hearsey. ?????
whiteeyes I'll take your bait. So how is the above "slaughtering" considering that they can only shoot one cow per year per person? Compare that to how the Yakamas can go into the winter range in the sage brush and a single tribal member can harvest as many elk as they want. I think the second one is closer to "slaughtering" if you ask me. Your pretty much contradicting yourself aren't you?
Contradicting no. Tribal don't shoot cows after December 31.
Post by: coachcw on November 03, 2011, 12:31:49 PM
Post by: colockumelk on November 03, 2011, 12:34:26 PM
In the same area that is really hurting for bulls and has a bull to cow ratio 4 times lower than what it should be. You think it is perfectly fine and NOT considered "slaughtering" for a tribal member to go into this same area and harvest multiple branch bulls. Basically a tribal member can shoot as many branch bulls as they want. No limit. And you don't think that you're contradicting yourself? :bash:
I'm literally blown away. I'd love to hear your reasoning for this. I really would. I don't think you're gonna win this argument, I really don't. And the term "slaughtering" is your term not mine. I'm really trying to understand your reasoning and help you out. But you're gonna have to come up with something else because you're not gonna gain much traction on this one. :bdid:
Post by: whiteeyes on November 03, 2011, 12:38:32 PM
why would you have to shoot any elk period after december 31st ? you must have a bunch of freezers pal and eat elk three meals aday .
If your directing that at me, I don't shoot anything after December 31 pal.
Post by: colockumelk on November 03, 2011, 12:53:16 PM
Okay so let me get this strait. So you consider it "slaughtering" for a licensed hunter to kill 1 cow per licensed hunter, in an area that has WAY WAY too many cows per bull. But.....
In the same area that is really hurting for bulls and has a bull to cow ratio 4 times lower than what it should be. You think it is perfectly fine and NOT considered "slaughtering" for a tribal member to go into this same area and harvest multiple branch bulls. Basically a tribal member can shoot as many branch bulls as they want. No limit. And you don't think that you're contradicting yourself? :bash:
I'm literally blown away. I'd love to hear your reasoning for this. I really would. I don't think you're gonna win this argument, I really don't. And the term "slaughtering" is your term not mine. I'm really trying to understand your reasoning and help you out. But you're gonna have to come up with something else because you're not gonna gain much traction on this one. :bdid:
Gonna ignore this post directed at you are we? Your entitled to your opinion I am just curious wjy you feel this way.
Post by: igotbigbulls on November 03, 2011, 01:38:44 PM
« on: Today at 11:32:19 AM » Insert Quote
Quote from: igotbigbulls on Today at 11:18:04 AM
but whats unethical colock? a tribal member with 2 cow elk in their truck? or 2 bulls? or 3 deer? if you take a pic of a tribal member with 2 cows and a deer is that unethical? just curious on the defintion of unethical. not trying to start anything just getting a consensus on the matter.
unethical is indians having anything more than what everyone else is allowed period.
what is the limit on animals one state hunter can harvest? big game wise? one deer one elk? asking a legit question.
Post by: colockumelk on November 03, 2011, 01:43:41 PM
Posted by: hunter360
« on: Today at 11:32:19 AM » Insert Quote
Quote from: igotbigbulls on Today at 11:18:04 AM
but whats unethical colock? a tribal member with 2 cow elk in their truck? or 2 bulls? or 3 deer? if you take a pic of a tribal member with 2 cows and a deer is that unethical? just curious on the defintion of unethical. not trying to start anything just getting a consensus on the matter.
unethical is indians having anything more than what everyone else is allowed period.
what is the limit on animals one state hunter can harvest? big game wise? one deer one elk? asking a legit question.
The simple answer is yes. 1 elk and 1 deer. As far as whether its a bull or cow or spike or 3pt min, or buck or doe or 3pt min or any buck it depends on the weapon, geography of the state and about a million other things. But the simple answer is 1 elk and 1 deer.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on November 03, 2011, 01:45:03 PM
what is the limit on animals one state hunter can harvest? big game wise? one deer one elk? asking a legit question.Depends on how lucky that person is with draws/raffles, the limit would be quite a bit.
But generally it would be one or two deer, one or two elk, two bear and one cougar.
But you leave out all the animals getting shot out of state/country too.
Post by: hunter360 on November 03, 2011, 01:54:37 PM
Posted by: hunter360
« on: Today at 11:32:19 AM » Insert Quote
Quote from: igotbigbulls on Today at 11:18:04 AM
but whats unethical colock? a tribal member with 2 cow elk in their truck? or 2 bulls? or 3 deer? if you take a pic of a tribal member with 2 cows and a deer is that unethical? just curious on the defintion of unethical. not trying to start anything just getting a consensus on the matter.
unethical is indians having anything more than what everyone else is allowed period.
what is the limit on animals one state hunter can harvest? big game wise? one deer one elk? asking a legit question.
The simple answer is yes. 1 elk and 1 deer. As far as whether its a bull or cow or spike or 3pt min, or buck or doe or 3pt min or any buck it depends on the weapon, geography of the state and about a million other things. But the simple answer is 1 elk and 1 deer.
Thanks :tup:
Post by: igotbigbulls on November 03, 2011, 02:02:24 PM
Post by: igotbigbulls on November 03, 2011, 02:03:18 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on November 03, 2011, 02:05:45 PM
Post by: igotbigbulls on November 03, 2011, 02:32:48 PM
Post by: hunter360 on November 03, 2011, 02:42:12 PM
so do you also think we should have to follow the same seasons as state hunters? or are our seasons that are already established not sufficient? or if we had a bag limit of 1 elk 1 deer 2 bear, what would be the thought of seeing 3 tribal members hunting together all tagged out on the road with all those animals in the back of our truck? is that not going to make other hunters mad as well? or is the main goal to have our treaty hunting rights totally abollished and adopt the hunting regs set up by WDFW that no one on this site is happy with? i read alot of "make it fair" reasoning on here. and i agree with one point and that is that there should be a better harvest tracking method by the tribes. i have even discussed with others about the problem with harvesting multiple bulls and bucks and what it says to others about some of the tribal hunters. but the opposition is there. it seems like this has and will continue to be an ongoing dillema until something gives.IMO
You asked so I will tell you my opinion. Yes the treaty rights should be abolished, and everyone should have the same exact hunting rights. This is America, we are all apart of it, and we are all supposed to be equal as far as rights go. Whatever happened a million years ago is a million years ago plain and simple and non of us had to go through it. I have never once heard of a race of people getting special rights once they were conquered by another race or country or whatever. And to answer your question about the three tribal members all tagged out with all the animals in the truck......the answer would be no I wouldn't be pissed because you and your buddies would have the same rights as I would so all it would mean to me is that you guys had a hell of a hunt. It is not often that I see some hunter going by the rules that WDFW tells us to that can go out and kill an elk, 2 bear, a deer, and one cougar all in the same trip. If you could do that, more power to you.
Post by: colockumelk on November 03, 2011, 02:56:23 PM
Further more if there was a limit to how many animals could be harvested this would shut a lot of people. Some tribes already have this. Say 1 bull and 1cow plus 1 buck and 1 doe per member. Then if more need to ne harvested for ceremony.ial purposes then issue special permits to do so but make it cow or doe only. Since many areas has a low boy to girl ratio. The above still keeps the treaty rigjts to hunt but also doesn't allow for the abuse of priveleges that happens too often.
Most of the anger and frustration is directed at the Yakamas since they do the worst at managmemt. It seems that most tribes do a decent job of management and cooperation with the wdfw. They also do studies and have limits on harvest. But the Yakamas do nothing.
The biggest issue is that around Yakama it takes 7-10 or more years to draw a special branch bull permit. Too often we see one Yakama shooting multiple branch bulls a year. How is this fair? We as licensed hunters has restricted our opportunities and emplaced limits to make the elk herd better. Only to have others take advantage of treaty rights and undo it all. A perfect example is a Yakama in the Colockum one year harvested 6 branch bulls. That year only 5 fell to ALL licensed hunters combined. If the shoe was on the other foot how would this make you feel. And yes the example I gave happened. If you went to the 2009 Yakima sportsmans show you would have seen them all. Just because someone has the legal right to do so doesnt make it right.
Post by: Elkrunner on November 03, 2011, 03:01:10 PM
Post by: igotbigbulls on November 03, 2011, 03:01:44 PM
hunter 360
are you saying that for hunting in our ceded area only or for on reservation rights too? you want WDFW to regulate the game on the reservation? or would you want us to give the reservation land back for all to hunt on also?
Post by: coachcw on November 03, 2011, 03:05:09 PM
Post by: igotbigbulls on November 03, 2011, 03:15:22 PM
Post by: 724wd on November 03, 2011, 04:10:53 PM
Post by: colockumelk on November 03, 2011, 04:35:26 PM
And in my last post bigbulls i was listing what most people frustrations are. And since you asked a few ideas that would help out. I don't think I have ever seen on this website someone advocating takomg tje reservations or the right to govern your reservations away.
Post by: igotbigbulls on November 03, 2011, 05:10:55 PM
Post by: longknife on November 03, 2011, 07:20:49 PM
We are tired of seeing our money that goes to conservation of meat in our freezer deminish, as we keep pouring money, it should pay off, but it hasent/wont til things change.
Coach,,,this is a place to start, to let them see what it is we have agenst what they do to our rights. Like bigbulls stated, its something he never thought was such a problem.
Post by: 724wd on November 03, 2011, 07:21:31 PM
I say the treaties should be amended to say tribal members must abide by the WDFW regulations. Exceptions being: ceremonial harvest (marriage/birth/death - contact WDFW liasion to procure ceremonial tag) and the opportunity to kill additional animals for elderly family members unable to hunt themselves (with purchase of tag - perhaps at a reduced rate?).
so what do the indians on this site think of this?
Post by: longknife on November 03, 2011, 07:38:35 PM
We cant hunt for our elders, unless they are present, and they have to have a disability(any limb problem). Yes, that means no disabilities rights to deaf people, people with one eye, ect.. it has to be limb related.
They have to be PRESENT while we hunt for them, or they are the only ones able to hunt from a vehicle. This is a long process, and is confirmed by doctors/game dept.
Post by: igotbigbulls on November 03, 2011, 08:03:12 PM
but you must realize too longknife that the findings are that there is a difference between rights and privileges. what we have are rights reserved for hunting and so forth but state hunting is a privilege that can be revoked by the state as they see fit. so its not just a one way street in getting change.there are things that you must do also to make a change for yourselves. and yeah i think its a stupid law that if an elder or disabled person must be present to be hunted for, makes no sense.
Post by: Coastal_native on November 03, 2011, 08:07:58 PM
I say the treaties should be amended to say tribal members must abide by the WDFW regulations. Exceptions being: ceremonial harvest (marriage/birth/death - contact WDFW liasion to procure ceremonial tag) and the opportunity to kill additional animals for elderly family members unable to hunt themselves (with purchase of tag - perhaps at a reduced rate?).
so what do the indians on this site think of this?
I would be opposed to anything that takes away the tribes ability to self regulate/govern themselves. I would not be opposed to a process that allows for tribes to conduct gov to gov co managment efforts in ceded areas. Both parties would chip in on population monitioring/management concerns and walk away with a baseline from which they can both develope regulations to meet the needs of their constituants and to ensure conservation.
Some of the the things I would like to see changed in my region are better enforcement, stiffer penalties for violations, a more strict process for determining eligible designated hunters, and a renewed effort to educate young tribal members on the cultural importance of fish and wildlife and determining what consitutes a need.
Post by: igotbigbulls on November 03, 2011, 08:13:15 PM
Post by: remington300mag on November 03, 2011, 08:29:56 PM
I would like to take this chance to say.....The last few comments by BigBulls and Coastal, not to mention Plats comments, Give me hope that one day things can be fixed! That maybe someday the Cowboys and the Indians can share the same camp fire and all play nice together! That is what I would hope happens......someday!
Hearing the dialog here lately has given me hope.......Thank you!
Post by: colockumelk on November 04, 2011, 03:42:44 AM
Coastal you basically said tje same thing but I made an oath to disagree with everything you say. So I think you are wrong. :chuckle:
Post by: hunter360 on November 04, 2011, 06:57:39 AM
colock i agree with you on the point of just cuz it legal doesnt make it right. i am not yakama so i can not speak for them on what they do or dont do. i am not one who would advocate taking more than 1 BAB a year either. no point in it. IMO
hunter 360
are you saying that for hunting in our ceded area only or for on reservation rights too? you want WDFW to regulate the game on the reservation? or would you want us to give the reservation land back for all to hunt on also?
Yes I'm saying make everyone equal. To make everyone equal either give everyone reservations, or get rid of them all. This isn't the united states of america with little indian countries inside of our country. We are all referred to as citizens of america, not citizens of the united states of indian reservations.
You said you have rights to hunting and I have privileges.....that's bullsh!t in itself. My great grandparents that went through the great depression used hunting as a huge (and sometimes only) source of food for our family. We have been hunting from the beginning of time too, there is no difference between your indian family and my white family.
Everyone screams equal rights until it comes down to taking special privileges away from themselves.
Do you really think you should have more rights than I do just because of your skin color? That would be discrimination against me now wouldn't it? Isn't this country against that?
Post by: CedarPants on November 04, 2011, 07:20:48 AM
Couldn't even finish typing it before it actually happened. So predictable
Post by: hunter360 on November 04, 2011, 07:28:34 AM
I was literally just typing this: "Glad to see we are all getting along on page 25 .... but this is the point where someone will derail the conversation yet again"
Couldn't even finish typing it before it actually happened. So predictable
I wasn't trying to start a fight. He asked me questions about what I thought, so I answered them. Do you want me to lie? It's also predictable to have someone that disagree's with someone else to try and make that person feel bad for what he believes in. How unfortunate.
Post by: coachcw on November 04, 2011, 07:29:08 AM
Post by: CedarPants on November 04, 2011, 07:48:56 AM
I was literally just typing this: "Glad to see we are all getting along on page 25 .... but this is the point where someone will derail the conversation yet again"
Couldn't even finish typing it before it actually happened. So predictable
I wasn't trying to start a fight. He asked me questions about what I thought, so I answered them. Do you want me to lie? It's also predictable to have someone that disagree's with someone else to try and make that person feel bad for what he believes in. How unfortunate.
I was referring to your delivery, not your points. Intent was not to make you feel bad
Post by: igotbigbulls on November 04, 2011, 07:58:35 AM
« on: Today at 06:57:39 AM » Insert Quote
Quote from: igotbigbulls on Yesterday at 03:01:44 PM
colock i agree with you on the point of just cuz it legal doesnt make it right. i am not yakama so i can not speak for them on what they do or dont do. i am not one who would advocate taking more than 1 BAB a year either. no point in it. IMO
hunter 360
are you saying that for hunting in our ceded area only or for on reservation rights too? you want WDFW to regulate the game on the reservation? or would you want us to give the reservation land back for all to hunt on also?
Yes I'm saying make everyone equal. To make everyone equal either give everyone reservations, or get rid of them all. This isn't the united states of america with little indian countries inside of our country. We are all referred to as citizens of america, not citizens of the united states of indian reservations.
You said you have rights to hunting and I have privileges.....that's bullsh!t in itself. My great grandparents that went through the great depression used hunting as a huge (and sometimes only) source of food for our family. We have been hunting from the beginning of time too, there is no difference between your indian family and my white family.
Everyone screams equal rights until it comes down to taking special privileges away from themselves.
Do you really think you should have more rights than I do just because of your skin color? That would be discrimination against me now wouldn't it? Isn't this country against that?
my comment is this.
i disagree with whats hilighted in red.
U.S. vs. Washington states, "Indian tribes cannot rescind a treaty agreement or limit non-Indian fishing pursuant to the agreement, but off-reservation fishing by other citizens and residents of the state is not a right but a privilege which may be granted, limited or withdrawn by the state as the interests of the state or exercise of the treaty fishing rights may require."
and as far as discrimination goes in this country. isnt that how this country came to be about, fighting wars with other countries and indiginous people for there own want and gain? thats how the treaties came about and reservations and so on. so that the people here first would still have a place to call home and contiue their practices for future generations.
Post by: hunter360 on November 04, 2011, 08:07:13 AM
I was literally just typing this: "Glad to see we are all getting along on page 25 .... but this is the point where someone will derail the conversation yet again"
Couldn't even finish typing it before it actually happened. So predictable
I wasn't trying to start a fight. He asked me questions about what I thought, so I answered them. Do you want me to lie? It's also predictable to have someone that disagree's with someone else to try and make that person feel bad for what he believes in. How unfortunate.
I was referring to your delivery, not your points. Intent was not to make you feel bad
Well if my delivery was bad I apologize. It wasn't intended to be bad.
Post by: hunter360 on November 04, 2011, 08:21:44 AM
Posted by: hunter360
« on: Today at 06:57:39 AM » Insert Quote
Quote from: igotbigbulls on Yesterday at 03:01:44 PM
colock i agree with you on the point of just cuz it legal doesnt make it right. i am not yakama so i can not speak for them on what they do or dont do. i am not one who would advocate taking more than 1 BAB a year either. no point in it. IMO
hunter 360
are you saying that for hunting in our ceded area only or for on reservation rights too? you want WDFW to regulate the game on the reservation? or would you want us to give the reservation land back for all to hunt on also?
Yes I'm saying make everyone equal. To make everyone equal either give everyone reservations, or get rid of them all. This isn't the united states of america with little indian countries inside of our country. We are all referred to as citizens of america, not citizens of the united states of indian reservations.
You said you have rights to hunting and I have privileges.....that's bullsh!t in itself. My great grandparents that went through the great depression used hunting as a huge (and sometimes only) source of food for our family. We have been hunting from the beginning of time too, there is no difference between your indian family and my white family.
Everyone screams equal rights until it comes down to taking special privileges away from themselves.
Do you really think you should have more rights than I do just because of your skin color? That would be discrimination against me now wouldn't it? Isn't this country against that?
my comment is this.
i disagree with whats hilighted in red.
U.S. vs. Washington states, "Indian tribes cannot rescind a treaty agreement or limit non-Indian fishing pursuant to the agreement, but off-reservation fishing by other citizens and residents of the state is not a right but a privilege which may be granted, limited or withdrawn by the state as the interests of the state or exercise of the treaty fishing rights may require."
and as far as discrimination goes in this country. isnt that how this country came to be about, fighting wars with other countries and indiginous people for there own want and gain? thats how the treaties came about and reservations and so on. so that the people here first would still have a place to call home and contiue their practices for future generations.
Yes I understand, but just because it says that doesn't mean it is right. They make laws all the time that I think are not right at all. If everyone in this country is equal like they all say we are, then you shouldn't have any more rights then I do and vice versa when it comes to things like this.
You really think if all the food got cut off from the united states that people wouldn't just go out and harvest animals to feed their families just because the government says we can't. Hell no! I know that would never happen, but I'm trying to make a point here. There is no reason to give you special rights just because your race. That is racism and discrimination.
As far as your discrimination statement, your race is not discriminated on in any way imo. I think it has to be the first time in history that someone was conquered in a war and got more rights then the people that conquered them.
"so that the people here first would still have a place to call home and contiue their practices for future generations"
You would still have a place to call home right here in America with our without your reservation or special rights. We are not kicking you out of the country. Three things on the "continuing your practices" statement. One, who says you were the only race to practice feeding your families by hunting? Second, was your "practices" to go out and attempt to harvest enough animals to fill their non existent freezers for ten years (serious question) Third, Do you realize that times have kind of changed and you don't need to kill enough animals to fill your freezers for ten years because there are such things as grocery stores and what not now?
I understand you're going to defend the special priviliges given to your ancestors, but that doesn't mean that it is right. Anyone can try to justify anything to benefit their agenda, but that doesn't mean it is right either.
I also want to tell you that in no way am I trying to be mean or try to start a fight or arguement, I am just giving you my opinion as asked. If I come off the wrong way for some reason like cedarpants suggested, I apologize.
Post by: Wenatcheejay on November 04, 2011, 08:24:17 AM
There is no money in going after the tribes so WDFW does not care. If they could get money by policing them I think they would. But tribes will fight everything in court, we just pay fines and move on. So we are suckers and well, they are not. The way to tackle this is head on. The Tribes are also all about money. Between fish and wildlife and casinos they are swimming in revenue that every other citizen could never dream of. Mostly because they are free of the socialism that we face. No taxes, no regulations, I envy them. I also admire them. They don't take it. We do. If you don't like the system, if you don't like the game vote. Most of us should have gotten a ballot. This year, next year are very important ones. VOTE. Change the game. Want to get their attention, tax their casinos, there is some revenue for WDFW.
What I would like the Tribes (Yakima) to do? Make some fair rules and hunting seasons, punish true Tribal crimes, enforce their own or loose the tax free gravy train, end of that sweet gambling money. Then tax them in all other industries as any other American Company OR as a Foreign Business working inside of the United States, whatever they classify themselves as.
Post by: CedarPants on November 04, 2011, 08:31:31 AM
Post by: Curly on November 04, 2011, 08:37:09 AM
Post by: Ddog73 on November 04, 2011, 09:29:56 AM
The way I see it is the problem with Washington is that it's government is corrupt. The purpose of WDFW enforcement is to fine it's citizenry for whatever it's Officers can make up. It's the same with cops and State Patrol. If they can't tax it or make us pay for a license an application, or registration then it is a tax in the form of petty laws. No ethics, no honor, just pay the Queen. (It is her deer.)
There is no money in going after the tribes so WDFW does not care. If they could get money by policing them I think they would. But tribes will fight everything in court, we just pay fines and move on. So we are suckers and well, they are not. The way to tackle this is head on. The Tribes are also all about money. Between fish and wildlife and casinos they are swimming in revenue that every other citizen could never dream of. Mostly because they are free of the socialism that we face. No taxes, no regulations, I envy them. I also admire them. They don't take it. We do. If you don't like the system, if you don't like the game vote. Most of us should have gotten a ballot. This year, next year are very important ones. VOTE. Change the game. Want to get their attention, tax their casinos, there is some revenue for WDFW.
What I would like the Tribes (Yakima) to do? Make some fair rules and hunting seasons, punish true Tribal crimes, enforce their own or loose the tax free gravy train, end of that sweet gambling money. Then tax them in all other industries as any other American Company OR as a Foreign Business working inside of the United States, whatever they classify themselves as.
I think we covered the tax thing...
Post by: hunter360 on November 04, 2011, 09:37:11 AM
No hard feelings Hunter360, and I apologize as well.
There is no hard feelings here. Thanks for understanding :tup:
Post by: 724wd on November 04, 2011, 12:57:46 PM
telling people who have hunted and fished since time immemorial that have faced opposition and reserved a right to continue to hunt and fish in there usual and accustomed places to now change there way drastically and suddenly is not going to fly.
So igotbigbulls, have non-indians not hunted since we oozed out of the primordial swamp, stood upright and started using tools, just like your ancestors? last i heard, non-indians didn't just spring-up one day shopping at safeway, or were dropped off by some benevolent aliens (except the scientologists...). my family used to dip net salmon on the columbia before the dams came in, they killed deer to feed the camps, traveled to california to cut redwoods, hunted and fished all over the country. if your logic holds true, why should i not be afforded the same opportunity? my ancestors did it, i should get to do it, right? and this wasn't just in the 1800's; my dad remembers traveling to california to cut redwoods, making millions of shakes to sell out of some monster trees. that was in the early 50's, and was a practice the family had done for generations.
I'm not advocating the abolishment of all treaty rights, but it's almost 2012. this isn't the wild west anymore. can you honestly say an indian family cannot survive without multiple animals stockpiled in the freezer? do trophy bulls taste better than a raghorn or cow? is the current mentality of horn porn so prevalent in our society that indians are driven to kill multiple trophy animals just because they can, similar to poachers? would the uproar over tribal hunting be what it is if indians were shooting cows and raghorns?
Would it be so oppressive to require the use of tags (let's assume these tags will be given for free or at a rate you already pay) and reporting to the WDFW like the rest of the population? if you're providing for elderly, how would anyone know if they've already been provided for unless there are tags involved? who's to say when you're seen shooting multiple animals that all you have to do is claim you're hunting for someone else, whether true or not. without tags there is no accountability. for ceremonial purposes, i don't see why the WDFW couldn't issue a free tag for the event to prevent multiple people from killing animals for one event. if there is a tag issued, it would be recorded and counted with the rest of the tags issued to the entire population. If someone calls in that indians were seen hunting out of season, there would be a record that they were legally involved in killing game for a ceremony. the wildlife of the state is a shared resource and needs to be managed in a unified manner between all groups if sustainability is our goal.
harvest reporting would be a great step, but without the use of tags, who's to say the numbers given are accurate? I understand anyone reporting a kill can lie about it, and i'm not sure there is any penalty if you lie on your report, say, claiming a 4 point when you shot a 6 point, etc, or even claiming you didnt kill anything. check stations would be the only way to curb the lying, and that would cost tons of money to staff and be a logistical nightmare - let's save that discussion for another time.
Coastal, your post
Quote
I would be opposed to anything that takes away the tribes ability to self regulate/govern themselves. I would not be opposed to a process that allows for tribes to conduct gov to gov co managment efforts in ceded areas. Both parties would chip in on population monitioring/management concerns and walk away with a baseline from which they can both develope regulations to meet the needs of their constituants and to ensure conservation. Some of the the things I would like to see changed in my region are better enforcement, stiffer penalties for violations, a more strict process for determining eligible designated hunters, and a renewed effort to educate young tribal members on the cultural importance of fish and wildlife and determining what consitutes a need."are all great points. the one thing i have issue with though, is your first sentence "I would be opposed to anything that takes away the tribes ability to self regulate/govern themselves." It's been stated here that in certain circumstances (murder, for one), the tribe does not govern themselves and relies on the US government to do it for them. why does the tribe not handle their matters solely on their own if truly soverign?
seems like on the reservation (your nation) you can make whatever laws you want and enforce them how you see fit, as is your right and I have no beef with that. but once you leave the reservation, shouldn't you have to abide the laws of the locality? It should be no different than a canadian coming to the US... they have to follow our laws. if wolves are shoot-on-sight vermin in canada, canadians can't come to the US and blast away, as much as we might like them to!
Post by: PlateauNDN on November 04, 2011, 01:17:14 PM
Coastal, your postQuoteI would be opposed to anything that takes away the tribes ability to self regulate/govern themselves. I would not be opposed to a process that allows for tribes to conduct gov to gov co managment efforts in ceded areas. Both parties would chip in on population monitioring/management concerns and walk away with a baseline from which they can both develope regulations to meet the needs of their constituants and to ensure conservation. Some of the the things I would like to see changed in my region are better enforcement, stiffer penalties for violations, a more strict process for determining eligible designated hunters, and a renewed effort to educate young tribal members on the cultural importance of fish and wildlife and determining what consitutes a need."
are all great points. the one thing i have issue with though, is your first sentence "I would be opposed to anything that takes away the tribes ability to self regulate/govern themselves." It's been stated here that in certain circumstances (murder, for one), the tribe does not govern themselves and relies on the US government to do it for them. why does the tribe not handle their matters solely on their own if truly soverign?
seems like on the reservation (your nation) you can make whatever laws you want and enforce them how you see fit, as is your right and I have no beef with that. but once you leave the reservation, shouldn't you have to abide the laws of the locality? It should be no different than a canadian coming to the US... they have to follow our laws. if wolves are shoot-on-sight vermin in canada, canadians can't come to the US and blast away, as much as we might like them to!
It's not that we rely on the US Govt. for the enforcement of Felonies it's the way the US Govt. set it up. Our court systems are allowed up to Felonies anything Felony and above is turned over to the Feds (FBI). On the rez Tribal Police have jurisdiction over Tribal Members unless they committed on offense on land/property that is owned by a different jurisdiction (that's a long discussion on its own so I'll skip the breakdown).
Off the Rez we are subject to the local jurisdiction except in the cases of hunting, fishing and gathering of traditional foods in Ceded Areas. The Tribe "RESERVED" those rights (not granted or given) and have exclusive jurisdiction over Tribal Members.
Coastal's post was about the best way to approach these types of issues right now.
Post by: PlateauNDN on November 04, 2011, 01:40:51 PM
I quoted a story that hit close to home with my grandmother in regarding the New Lic. Plates the Tribe has started issuing Tribal Members. If that wasn't racist or being discriminated against then I don't know what you'd call it.
I hear a lot on here as well regarding OUR Ceded Areas and why do we have to go so far? That's because our Ceded Land was home to the 14 different Tribes and Bands that make up the Yakama Nation. They all didn't live in one encampment and call it home they lived all throughout the Ceded Area and just so the US Govt. could save time they said we'll call you all one Tribe so we don't have to make more Treaties then we have to and we'll give you some land right in the middle of all your territories to relocate to and call your new home, Hence, the Yakama Reservation.
I've got a map if you'd like to see it showing the locations and names of the different Bands that make up the Yakama Nation at the time of the signing of the Treaty.
Just like Bigbulls, I to have spoken with many people here advocating some type of system that would reduce the overharvesting of big game and coming from the elders it probably won't happen in their life time because they've become accustom to this and to them it appears to infringe on their rights.
I'm not advocating changing the Treaties but, the reporting system is a good start and if the worst case scenario ever happened then that would be the best time to point out and prove what everybody already knew.
Colock, you're spot on with the evidence portion. I'm not going to put my neck on the line for hearsay, rumors or third party information. That would ruin the credibility of any information I passed on even if there was proof. If there's no proof then it never happened. If you have proof with pictures, video, notes, locations, dates, times and anything that would be helpful then yes, I would be willing to work with that.
The tax thing...? I believe that's been covered more than a couple of times recently.
Post by: 724wd on November 04, 2011, 02:16:42 PM
yes, reporting harvests would be a great start, but how will that stop people from exploiting their rights to the detriment of the herd by shooting multiple animals, shooting in wintering areas, etc?
you have stated several times with the leaders you have in place now that changes will not happen. what are indians afraid of? that you'll lose your sense of 'self', your heritage? last i saw, adhering to laws cannot change who you are. parental/familial involvement and sharing you past is the only way to retain your heritage, which you and others seem to do a good job of. you mention you take your family root gathering. that's awesome! but would you not be able to without treaty rights? are there regulations saying a US citizen can't pick roots in the forest? (honestly, i have no idea!)
with the proliferation of humans throughout the US and the world, i can see your ability to wander in your 'usual and accustomed places' shrinking, much like that of non-indians who wish to get away from civilization. you've stated in the past you refuse to hunt on the reservation, citing that if you don't continue to hunt off the reservation, you may lose the ability to do so. i'd counter that's not exactly true, as you could purchase a hunting license and tag and join us for whatever season you choose! I can see why indians would be hesitant to give up that freedom, but does it make sense in 2012 for you to have unfettered access to public land off the reservation while other tax paying citizens face stiff restrictions? true, we can lay the blame at the feet of our elected officials, but is there no middle ground? you see the passion that flows on both sides of this debate and with a level head have been a great advocate for indians in washington. what would it take to open talks with those in charge to see if there might be some resolution to these issues? could be difficult, i understand, given many indians want and see no need to change the way things are now. I would counter that the same thing might be said of when the Bill of Rights was amended to allow women to vote, or blacks be free.
off topic question, but as a soverign nation, can an indian possess a full auto weapon in washington on the reservation, or are you bound by some of the same laws as the rest of us? just curious, as possession of FA arms is legal on a federal level, but restricted at this state's level, while legal in idaho.
Post by: Wenatcheejay on November 04, 2011, 04:49:15 PM
The way I see it is the problem with Washington is that it's government is corrupt. The purpose of WDFW enforcement is to fine it's citizenry for whatever it's Officers can make up. It's the same with cops and State Patrol. If they can't tax it or make us pay for a license an application, or registration then it is a tax in the form of petty laws. No ethics, no honor, just pay the Queen. (It is her deer.)
There is no money in going after the tribes so WDFW does not care. If they could get money by policing them I think they would. But tribes will fight everything in court, we just pay fines and move on. So we are suckers and well, they are not. The way to tackle this is head on. The Tribes are also all about money. Between fish and wildlife and casinos they are swimming in revenue that every other citizen could never dream of. Mostly because they are free of the socialism that we face. No taxes, no regulations, I envy them. I also admire them. They don't take it. We do. If you don't like the system, if you don't like the game vote. Most of us should have gotten a ballot. This year, next year are very important ones. VOTE. Change the game. Want to get their attention, tax their casinos, there is some revenue for WDFW.
What I would like the Tribes (Yakima) to do? Make some fair rules and hunting seasons, punish true Tribal crimes, enforce their own or loose the tax free gravy train, end of that sweet gambling money. Then tax them in all other industries as any other American Company OR as a Foreign Business working inside of the United States, whatever they classify themselves as.
I think we covered the tax thing...
About as well as WDFW has. 26 pages of blame, ZERO fixing the problem. :tup:
Priceless.
But I am not worried, there is always hope for page 27......
Post by: runamuk on November 04, 2011, 05:00:00 PM
I'm up to 16 pages :dunno: you all must be set on defaults :chuckle:The way I see it is the problem with Washington is that it's government is corrupt. The purpose of WDFW enforcement is to fine it's citizenry for whatever it's Officers can make up. It's the same with cops and State Patrol. If they can't tax it or make us pay for a license an application, or registration then it is a tax in the form of petty laws. No ethics, no honor, just pay the Queen. (It is her deer.)
There is no money in going after the tribes so WDFW does not care. If they could get money by policing them I think they would. But tribes will fight everything in court, we just pay fines and move on. So we are suckers and well, they are not. The way to tackle this is head on. The Tribes are also all about money. Between fish and wildlife and casinos they are swimming in revenue that every other citizen could never dream of. Mostly because they are free of the socialism that we face. No taxes, no regulations, I envy them. I also admire them. They don't take it. We do. If you don't like the system, if you don't like the game vote. Most of us should have gotten a ballot. This year, next year are very important ones. VOTE. Change the game. Want to get their attention, tax their casinos, there is some revenue for WDFW.
What I would like the Tribes (Yakima) to do? Make some fair rules and hunting seasons, punish true Tribal crimes, enforce their own or loose the tax free gravy train, end of that sweet gambling money. Then tax them in all other industries as any other American Company OR as a Foreign Business working inside of the United States, whatever they classify themselves as.
I think we covered the tax thing...
About as well as WDFW has. 26 pages of blame, ZERO fixing the problem. :tup:
Priceless.
But I am not worried, there is always hope for page 27......
Post by: PlateauNDN on November 04, 2011, 05:08:56 PM
The way I see it is the problem with Washington is that it's government is corrupt. The purpose of WDFW enforcement is to fine it's citizenry for whatever it's Officers can make up. It's the same with cops and State Patrol. If they can't tax it or make us pay for a license an application, or registration then it is a tax in the form of petty laws. No ethics, no honor, just pay the Queen. (It is her deer.)
There is no money in going after the tribes so WDFW does not care. If they could get money by policing them I think they would. But tribes will fight everything in court, we just pay fines and move on. So we are suckers and well, they are not. The way to tackle this is head on. The Tribes are also all about money. Between fish and wildlife and casinos they are swimming in revenue that every other citizen could never dream of. Mostly because they are free of the socialism that we face. No taxes, no regulations, I envy them. I also admire them. They don't take it. We do. If you don't like the system, if you don't like the game vote. Most of us should have gotten a ballot. This year, next year are very important ones. VOTE. Change the game. Want to get their attention, tax their casinos, there is some revenue for WDFW.
What I would like the Tribes (Yakima) to do? Make some fair rules and hunting seasons, punish true Tribal crimes, enforce their own or loose the tax free gravy train, end of that sweet gambling money. Then tax them in all other industries as any other American Company OR as a Foreign Business working inside of the United States, whatever they classify themselves as.
I think we covered the tax thing...
About as well as WDFW has. 26 pages of blame, ZERO fixing the problem. :tup:
Priceless.
But I am not worried, there is always hope for page 27......
There is always hope for the future. The Tax issue was debated numerous times under "fuel tax", "Tribal Fuel Tax" and countless other threads over the last 10 months or so, so yes, its been :beatdeadhorse: and as mentioned the few of us on here have made attempts at home to try and reason with those in influential seats and as I've mentioned provide proof that I can use of illegal activity and I would be glad to help.
Post by: Dmanmastertracker on November 04, 2011, 05:27:41 PM
Post by: Ddog73 on November 04, 2011, 06:24:26 PM
Doesn't the Muck's hunting in the Yakama historic range piss off a lot of Yak's??
It doesn't seem to bother the yakimas that I talk to about hunting over there
Post by: longknife on November 04, 2011, 08:18:33 PM
Doesn't the Muck's hunting in the Yakama historic range piss off a lot of Yak's??
It doesn't seem to bother the yakimas that I talk to about hunting over there
So if over 100 years ago, and a yakima, saw another native hunting their land, wouldnt that have caused bloodshed?? serious question! If that was their(yakimas) hunting land, and another tribe was seen hunting the yakima land, wasnt that cause for tribal war?
Post by: PlateauNDN on November 04, 2011, 10:08:23 PM
Post by: hunterrcc on November 04, 2011, 10:52:38 PM
Post by: hunterrcc on November 04, 2011, 10:54:00 PM