Question on access for native americans

[meatwhack]

I don’t believe any treaty ever guaranteed access in a 4wd vehicle on roads paid for by tax payers to access their ceded hunting grounds.

[KFhunter]

favorable courts did that

[Buzzsaw461]

 

I don’t believe any treaty ever guaranteed access in a 4wd vehicle on roads paid for by tax payers to access their ceded hunting grounds.

[Buzzsaw461]

 

favorable courts did that

[Platensek-po]

I don’t believe any treaty ever guaranteed access in a 4wd vehicle on roads paid for by tax payers to access their ceded hunting grounds.

Hmmm I’m pretty sure it does exactly that. It allows them access to hunt that land in the same way their ancestors did. The fact that their are roads and cars now is irrevelant. Should the second amendment not include semi autos because they didn’t exist when it was written???

[KFhunter]

This isn't a native bash thread, don't be posting stuff like what was deleted. 

[meatwhack]

I don’t believe any treaty ever guaranteed access in a 4wd vehicle on roads paid for by tax payers to access their ceded hunting grounds.

Hmmm I’m pretty sure it does exactly that. It allows them access to hunt that land in the same way their ancestors did. The fact that their are roads and cars now is irrevelant. Should the second amendment not include semi autos because they didn’t exist when it was written???

If a road is closed for public travel you’re saying they should still have access in a vehicle not by foot? 

[h20hunter]

Imo....there is a better way to make an opinion known. Just because a comment is negative towards ANY group doesn't mean it can't stay.

[Platensek-po]

I don’t believe any treaty ever guaranteed access in a 4wd vehicle on roads paid for by tax payers to access their ceded hunting grounds.

Hmmm I’m pretty sure it does exactly that. It allows them access to hunt that land in the same way their ancestors did. The fact that their are roads and cars now is irrevelant. Should the second amendment not include semi autos because they didn’t exist when it was written???

If a road is closed for public travel you’re saying they should still have access in a vehicle not by foot?

I don’t know. If it’s open to public travel then of course. Otherwise that might depend. The treaties guarantee access in order to hunt. Can they set up camps for months at a time and hunt their like they used too?? Who built the roads? What are they for? Remember that as a country we promised them they would always be able to have access to hunting and gathering in order to be allowed to live here. As much as hunter like to brag about bringing animals back from
Extinction it wasn’t natives who took them to the brink. They didn’t dam the rivers, they don’t harvest tons and tons of fish on offshore giant vessels. They don’t have a city of millions of people dumping raw sewage into the rivers and sound. I get they do things you don’t agree with. I bet we do all sorts of stuff with resources and land that they don’t agree with either. Focusing on minor issues while ignoring the bigger pictures of things gets everybody nowhere fast.

[bigtex]

@bigtex   This question has come up and you might be able to answer it.

Can a tribal member take a regular non-tribal hunter and run hounds, tree cougar or bear, trap wolves.. etc, the tribe would issue a tag to that non-tribe person, and let that non-tribal member harvest it?

This question is regarding off reservation "in common with" land or ceded lands. 

My opinion - the non-tribal member will be bound by all WDFW rules and regulations, thus the tribe could not guide a hunt for a non-tribal member unless they follow all the WDFW rules for that non-tribal hunter, or the hunt is conducted on the reservation where WDFW has no jurisdiction. 


Thanks BT

KF - You are correct in your opinion/assumption.

[TD3939]

This thread is deteriorating into rhetoric.  As much as I appreciate both sides of this issue, the one fact here is if everyone was playing by the same rules the resource would be magnified such that we would all benefit.  I understand the treaties and all are set in stone.  But what about the tribes regulating the resource in concert with the state?  I feel personally it's not going to happen because some members of the tribes view this as some sort of pay back and love sticking to all of us that have to follow the rules.

[Meathunter06]

This thread is deteriorating into rhetoric.  As much as I appreciate both sides of this issue, the one fact here is if everyone was playing by the same rules the resource would be magnified such that we would all benefit.  I understand the treaties and all are set in stone.  But what about the tribes regulating the resource in concert with the state?  I feel personally it's not going to happen because some members of the tribes view this as some sort of pay back and love sticking to all of us that have to follow the rules.

I believe the treaties are only set in stone if you get the right lawyers and judges anything can be decided one way or another just look what judge Boldt did for them what if he had ruled the opposite way, we wouldn't be having this discussion

[Stein]

I'll go out on a limb here which I'll probably regret.  Managing the resource in concert with the state would assume the state was a willing, able and effective partner.  From any perspective, how many feel the state is actively and effectively managing big game huntable resources?

I don't know the first thing about big game biology so I can't comment on that to a large degree.  I can at least compare interactions, documents and plans from this state to other western states and can say it appears to me WA isn't the leader of the pack.  I stopped buying big game license and tags for myself because given limited resources I just couldn't justify the investment in time or money in this state when I can drive a day and get to better hunting, better management and a brighter outlook in the future.  I would love to hunt local but I just don't see it as a logical choice now or in the future.

I have no doubt both sides can improve.  I also have no illusions about "our" side of the issue here.  I wish it were different or there was at least some light at the end of the tunnel to aim at.

My biggest wish might be that the treaties for hunting looked more like the treaties for fishing.  It's not awesome over there for sure but at least there is a notion that we split the available resource and on paper we are both part of the same team in terms of winning or losing together.  It seems the hunting treaties either assume the resource will always be there or doesn't care.  When they were written, "we" placed value on fish but not so much value on elk and deer.

Looking far into the future, it's hard to see how the "good" states aren't simply states where what happens here will happen there eventually.  More people, less habitat and the state (or citizen's initiatives) picking and choosing wildlife winners and losers based on public opinion.

[Goosegos]

FYI it was just a question and we have all the razors and quads there.  Getting frustrating

[Buzzsaw461]

Boy you hit the nail on the head with your comment. What a concept we all play by the same rules for the benefit of all. Who would of thought.

This thread is deteriorating into rhetoric.  As much as I appreciate both sides of this issue, the one fact here is if everyone was playing by the same rules the resource would be magnified such that we would all benefit.  I understand the treaties and all are set in stone.  But what about the tribes regulating the resource in concert with the state?  I feel personally it's not going to happen because some members of the tribes view this as some sort of pay back and love sticking to all of us that have to follow the rules.