collapse

Advertisement


Author Topic: Makah's do it again!!!  (Read 24401 times)

Shadow Cat

  • Guest
Re: Makah's do it again!!!
« Reply #45 on: November 20, 2007, 12:39:17 PM »
Researching treaties and laws and then looking for a lawyer to take the fight to. I also want to hit the congressional representitaves... I doubt to many indians vote.

Offline WAcoyotehunter

  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (+5)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Apr 2007
  • Posts: 4437
  • Location: Pend Oreille County
Re: Makah's do it again!!!
« Reply #46 on: November 20, 2007, 01:05:02 PM »
Im in. 

Offline EMPyre

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Scout
  • ****
  • Join Date: Sep 2007
  • Posts: 283
  • Location: Mount Vernon, Wa
Re: Makah's do it again!!!
« Reply #47 on: November 20, 2007, 02:54:05 PM »
I'll give up a few hours if you've got a game plan.  I'll be a worker bee, just not sure about how to organize any kind of effort on a matter such as this.
Erich with an H

Offline Kent Hunter

  • Political & Covid-19 Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Longhunter
  • *****
  • Join Date: Apr 2007
  • Posts: 687
Re: Makah's do it again!!!
« Reply #48 on: November 21, 2007, 12:41:07 AM »
I'll stand with Bofire. I got your back brother, any time!! You tell  the truth and some people don't like it. They just flap their pie holes with no intelligent response. I'm 51 yo and they can have a go at us two old geezers any time. >:(

Offline popeshawnpaul

  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jul 2007
  • Posts: 3583
  • Location: Bellevue, WA
    • http://www.facebook.com/smccully
    • Nature Photography
Re: Makah's do it again!!!
« Reply #49 on: November 22, 2007, 05:19:44 AM »
It's not that I don't agree with you guys, but as a lawyer when I interpret the treaties, I believe the Indians have a valid claim.  I guess it's who interprets that contract and how liberally it is applied.  So far almost every case I've reviewed supports the treaty...

Offline addicted

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: Jul 2007
  • Posts: 5265
  • Location: A forest near you
  • The famous FootDog
Re: Makah's do it again!!!
« Reply #50 on: December 12, 2007, 06:18:54 PM »
just saw on the news that the makah poachers plead not guilty. :dunno: they still have more trials to go through. the punishment they talked about was time in the tribal prison
"Right now, I am thinking that If my grandmother was here, she would be lecturing me about how there are poor people in Africa, that would just love to have a Ruger, I would just say "Great, granny, lets just ship all the Rugers to Africa!"


Loving life in the Great Northwest one day at a time.

It sounds like it's time to get a new gun.

Offline wastickslinger

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Aug 2007
  • Posts: 2860
  • Location: pluto
Re: Makah's do it again!!!
« Reply #51 on: December 12, 2007, 10:19:54 PM »
My 2 cents on the tribal hunting of elk off the reservation:

I grew up in Omak right on the reservation and have many friends that are Indian. I know that many of them feel the same way I do about the hunting of elk by Indians in the Clockum, Yakima feeding stations, Blues, ect. I do not claim to know it all but I do have a few thoughts about this. Many of my friends know they could go right off the reservation and kill mule deer if they want and the state could not touch them. But they abide by the regulations you and I have to when they leave their reservation. Why can't all tribal members grasp this?

Indians claim that they have the right to hunt the seeded ground off the reservation because it was a tradition. From what I understand and have researched, elk were planted in those areas in the early 1900's (1913, to be exact in Yakima) by our government. So if the elk were not native how can the Indians call it tradition to hunt them now. Our dollars(tax payers) that go to feeding, growing and managing the elk heards have taken the elk numbers from hundreds to tens of thousands. What has the tribe contributed to this that makes them think they have the right to fill a truck with heard bulls every year?

So if I feed my cattle, raise them, over the years establish a nice cattle heard on seeded ground; does a tribal member have the right to come on my property and kill them. It is tradition to hunt on the seeded ground, what exactly do they have the right to hunt? Planted elk by our Game Department? I don't think so.

Very frustrating topic always for me.  :bash:

I could be way off here but I would like to hear more thoughts along this line.

Offline ICEMAN

  • Site Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Explorer
  • ******
  • Join Date: May 2007
  • Posts: 15575
  • Location: Olympia
  • The opinionated one... Y.A.R. Exec. Staff
Re: Makah's do it again!!!
« Reply #52 on: December 13, 2007, 07:05:00 AM »
So if I feed my cattle, raise them, over the years establish a nice cattle heard on seeded ground; does a tribal member have the right to come on my property and kill them. It is tradition to hunt on the seeded ground, what exactly do they have the right to hunt?  :bash:

Go ask the oyster farmers who developed oyster and clam beds where they never were before. The get screwed by tribal members raping their beaches of their livelihood.

I do not think you are "way off track". The problem is this; We live in Washington State. This is about the most liberal state filled with White Guilt there ever has been, and ever will be. Until Indians come jumping peoples fences, kicking doors in and raping their daughters, the idiots in this state will never change. The facts of life are, differing peoples have warred since the beginning of time. Happened then, happens today. I take your land, you take mine. Indians did it too. Our forefathers made the grave mistake of signing treaties that were later "interpreted" differently than the framers had intended. No one ever intended to give the indians anything of value. Never. Would not have even come to mind. This is not how people thought at that time. Even the indians know this.

Every one of you guys who hates these issues, and then turns around and enters a Casino or Venue sponsored by the tribes, is helping to pay the way for more Indian litigation, more lawyers, more lawsuits.

I will never ever step foot in an indian casino or indian event.

Crap, now I am all pissed off and I am not even at work yet!!! CRAP! >:( >:( >:(
molṑn labé

A Knuckle Draggin Neanderthal Meat Head

Kill your television....do it now.....

Don't make me hurt you.

“I don't feel we did wrong in taking this great country away from them. There were great numbers of people who needed new land, and the Indians were selfishly trying to keep it for themselves.”  John Wayne

Offline quacker whacker

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hunter
  • ***
  • Join Date: Oct 2007
  • Posts: 233
  • Location: Whitefish, MT
Re: Makah's do it again!!!
« Reply #53 on: December 13, 2007, 07:44:53 AM »
Agree with everyhing said. I also dont support the tribe with any sort of money (casinos, events, Non-Member hunting/fishing licenses). Treaties are very dated, how can they claim to want all there historic hunting rights/privilages, but they drive down modern highways(state funded highways) in their modern trucks, down modern dirt roads then step out of their truck in their modern camo clothing and shoot their modern rifle at the game their hunting? Theres nothing historic about the way they hunt either. If anything, (still against any special privilages) they should be required to hunt the way they did when the treaties were written. No vehicles, bow and arrow, etc., etc.

Edit: There's probably more white hunters who bow hunt than indians who bow hunt.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2007, 10:49:44 AM by quacker whacker »

Offline EMPyre

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Scout
  • ****
  • Join Date: Sep 2007
  • Posts: 283
  • Location: Mount Vernon, Wa
Re: Makah's do it again!!!
« Reply #54 on: December 13, 2007, 12:14:14 PM »
Here's some stuff I've been thinking about... Just read the news articles about Judge Redden in Oregon and the fight over the Salmon management on the Snake and Columbia Rivers.  The fight concerns the dams and a suitable plan to mitigate further damage to the ESA listed salmon species.  So...

Instead of focusing efforts to negate the treaties, why not focus efforts to have them again 're-interpreted'?  Could it be possible to argue in court that the current interpretation (which as far as I know) doesn't take into consideration the ESA listing of wild salmon.  If so wouldn't that force a new management plan that (as it appears Redden will do to BPA, Or, Wa, Id, and the Fed) force the state and tribes to develop a plan that actually prevents further damage to the salmon? 

From there it seems a simple argument to make that netting on the rivers, and 50% take on runs that cannot support themselves even with hatcheries is not a viable management effort.  This of course doesn't help in the case of game, but it would seem to level the playing field in the fisheries.

Maybe Pope will chime in here and give us a legal interpretation of my thought process, and the potential implications of what Redden is doing.  I know its a bit different than criminal law, but you certainly know more than I on this topic.
Erich with an H

Offline EMPyre

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Scout
  • ****
  • Join Date: Sep 2007
  • Posts: 283
  • Location: Mount Vernon, Wa
Re: Makah's do it again!!!
« Reply #55 on: December 13, 2007, 12:17:10 PM »
Here are the articles I'm referring to:

From Saturday's Clark County Columbian Newspaper - Plot thickens?

Saturday, December 08, 2007
BY ERIK ROBINSON, Columbian staff writer

The federal judge who has twice rejected federal plans to balance imperiled salmon against dams in the Columbia River basin signaled Friday that dam managers are doing no better with their latest plan - and consequences could be severe.



U.S. District Judge James Redden raised the possibility that, without substantial changes in favor of salmon, federal dam operators could even be held criminally or civilly liable.

Redden, in a letter sent Friday in advance of a status conference scheduled for next week in his Portland courtroom, wrote that he is unlikely to send the latest plan - a biological opinion, or BiOp - back for federal agencies to try again, and hinted at repercussions if he doesn't.

"If I decide not to remand the BiOp, but decide to simply vacate the opinion instead, would this not result in wrongful 'taking' by the Corps of Engineers, the Bonneville Power Administration, and the Bureau of Reclamation?" Redden wrote. "What are the consequences of such 'takings?' "

To "take" under the Endangered Species Act means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect a member of a threatened or endangered species.

The law provides for both civil and criminal penalties for taking a species protected by the law, with criminal fines up to $50,000 and/or a year in prison. Civil fines of as much as $25,000 per violation are also possible.

Thirteen stocks of Columbia basin salmon and steelhead have dwindled nearly to the point of extinction, and Redden has made it clear he expects federal authorities to ensure dams do not jeopardize their survival. He's ruled two federal dam management plans illegal, one submitted by the Clinton administration in 2000 and one by the Bush administration in 2004.

Federal officials say they will offset harming salmon in the dams with a variety of expensive measures to improve salmon survival.

But Redden has repeatedly raised concern that many of these mitigation measures - including habitat restoration, hatchery improvements and new fish slides to reduce the number of ocean-bound young salmon killed in crossing the dams - are not reasonably certain to occur. In Friday's letter, he said the latest plan appears to repeat many of the flaws of the plan he rejected in 2004.

"I instructed Federal Defendants to consider all mitigation measures necessary to avoid jeopardy, including removal of the four lower Snake River Dams, if all else failed," the judge wrote. "Despite those instructions, the (biological opinions) again appear to rely heavily on mitigation actions that are neither reasonably certain to occur, nor certain to benefit listed species within a reasonable time.

"Moreover, Federal Defendants seem unwilling to seriously consider any significant changes to the status quo dam operations."

Scott Simms, a BPA spokesman in Portland, said the agency had no immediate response to the missive from Redden.

"We just received the letter and we are reviewing it," he said late Friday.


Judge rips latest plan to help salmon
Hydroelectric dams - A meeting with Judge James Redden is federal managers' last chance
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
MICHAEL MILSTEIN
The Oregonian
The federal judge holding the government's feet to the fire to restore Northwest salmon says the latest federal strategy to help fish falls so far short it may be worse for salmon than the plans he's already rejected.

In a blunt letter to attorneys who will appear in his Portland courtroom Wednesday in a landmark salmon lawsuit, U.S. District Judge James A. Redden signaled that the government is close to fumbling its last chance to help fish hammered by federal hydroelectric dams on the Columbia and Snake rivers.

He also offered an unsettling glimpse of what that would mean for the Northwest: a dam system that suddenly becomes illegal to operate and is taken over by the courts, with orders to divert extra water for protected fish and perhaps even drain reservoirs at what would likely be tremendous cost to the region.

Such action would compromise the capacity of hydroelectric dams to supply inexpensive electricity to the Northwest and could have repercussions on everything from irrigation to recreational fishing.

The Endangered Species Act requires the government to remedy the damage dams do to salmon if it wants to keep operating the dams legally. Redden has said he is reluctant to take control of the region's hydropower system and make those fixes himself.

But he also made clear that he might have to do for salmon what the federal government will not.

The federal plan Redden is reviewing is still a draft, set to be made final next year. But Redden told government attorneys they should be ready on Wednesday to explain what more they can do for fish in the final version, because so far it looks as if they're providing even less protection for salmon than before.

Brian Gorman, a spokesman for the National Marine Fisheries Service, which has prime responsibility for protecting salmon, cautioned against reading too much into Redden's warnings.

"He's simply raising all the appropriate questions," Gorman said. "We have legitimate answers to all of those questions."

Two plans rejected

Redden warned the government is unlikely to get another chance to do the right thing for salmon.

The judge has thrown out two previous federal proposals to remedy the damage dams do to salmon, saying they were based on flimsy and far-off promises that wouldn't provide the timely help salmon need.

The government could not persuade an appeals court to overrule Redden.

Federal agencies then responded last fall with what top officials described as their best and most comprehensive program for salmon ever, tailored to the needs of each species and population. They promised upgrades at dams to safeguard fish and habitat improvements in streams and the estuary near Astoria.

But the judge isn't buying it. He said much of the federal plan still depends on uncertain funding and may not help salmon soon enough.

He wrote attorneys late Friday outlining issues he wants to discuss Wednesday. He said federal agencies appear to have not only produced another faulty plan, but they also ignored his instructions to consider all options for helping salmon -- including tearing out four hydroelectric dams on the Lower Snake River.

"I instructed federal defendants to consider all mitigation measures necessary to avoid jeopardy (to salmon), including removal of the four lower Snake River Dams, if all else failed," he wrote. "I also instructed federal defendants to ensure that any mitigation measures were reasonably certain to occur."

"Despite these instructions," the judge wrote, the federal plans "again appear to rely heavily on mitigation actions that are neither reasonably certain to occur, nor certain to benefit listed species within a reasonable time.

"Moreover, federal defendants seem unwilling to seriously consider any significant changes to the status quo dam operations," Redden wrote.

Dam breach turned down

The Bush administration has flatly refused to consider removing the four dams on the Snake River.

But Redden told attorneys to prepared to discuss the consequences should he decide to reject the new federal salmon blueprint, leaving the dams with no legal operating plan.

He underscored many of the concerns the State of Oregon, Native American tribes on the lower Columbia River and conservation groups voiced in their court filings. Oregon officials have been some of the strongest critics of the federal approach, telling the judge that the federal plan "manipulates science to justify policy objectives that subordinate the needs of protected fish.

"Indeed, in some significant respects, the new plan provides even less protection for listed fish than did its predecessor," David Leith, an Oregon Department of Justice attorney, wrote on behalf of Attorney General Hardy Myers.

Washington and Montana officials, along with some upriver tribes and utility customers, were more complimentary, though. Washington benefits more than Oregon from inexpensive electricity generated at the dams.

Redden hinted in his letter that he is also skeptical of the government's salmon science, saying he may appoint his own panel of independent scientists to advise him on measures to help salmon.

"We have an opportunity to get this right," he wrote at the end of his letter. "I remain hopeful that the parties will do what needs to be done."

Michael Milstein: 503-294-7689; michaelmilstein@news.oregonian.com



©2007 The Oregonian


http://www.oregonlive.com/news/orego...200.xml&coll=7
Erich with an H

 


* Advertisement

* Recent Topics

10th Annual - 2024 YOUTH TURKEY HUNT CONTEST (enter by Mar 14) by bearpaw
[Yesterday at 11:27:12 PM]


World Record Archery Blacktail by huntnnw
[Yesterday at 10:09:06 PM]


Let’s see your best Washington bull by huntnnw
[Yesterday at 10:06:34 PM]


Fishing with kids in Wenatchee by HardCorpsHuntr
[Yesterday at 10:03:34 PM]


Let’s see your best Washington buck by jjhunter
[Yesterday at 09:12:44 PM]


Hunting Dog Memorial by ghosthunter
[Yesterday at 08:55:30 PM]


Pairs by Dan-o
[Yesterday at 08:15:34 PM]


Springer 2024 Columbia River by Blacklab
[Yesterday at 06:50:06 PM]


Holster for FNS 40C by bb76
[Yesterday at 06:37:56 PM]


Bangers and mash by elkrack
[Yesterday at 04:32:06 PM]


Wenatchee Hydro Park Fishing by Jake Dogfish
[Yesterday at 03:40:17 PM]


Owners of Ireland Farms Dogs by ASHQUACK
[Yesterday at 12:24:39 PM]


1x scopes vs open sights by andersonjk4
[Yesterday at 09:23:28 AM]

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal