Enough of This BS

BuzzH said:

This has been going on for decades...it makes the news every so often, and nothing changes.

Good luck with your sunlight.

Click to expand...

This is truth right here. This issues comes up every year in the state I live in. People get all up in arms and demand to renegotiate the treaties.

Guess what? It won't happen. If someone came to you and said, "look, I know you own your land outright, but I want to renegotiate your deed and you give certain rights", you would tell them to go jump off a cliff. Treaty rights DON'T HAVE to be renegotiated if the tribes don't want to. And, why would they?

Like it or not, they are a sovereign nation in that regard and no state official can stop them from doing anything that is in accordance with their treaty. Yes, this is ugly. No, it doesn't seem right for them to whack bull elk on the winter grounds. No, they don't have to talk to FWP about any of it. Plain and simple.

Thinking anyone is going to compel them to purchase state licenses and follow state laws is an absolute waste of time.

I in no way say all of any race are to blame for the actions of a large majority. I've been around Indians growing up and throughout my life. Ute's, Seminoles, Chukchansi tribe and now Blackfoot's. I find that the majority share one thing in common. They are lazy. They feel because we took their land that they are entitled to everything for free. When we look at history how many country's defeated by another country get that kind of treatment? African's have warred and defeated many other African country's and taken their land and even worse for century's. Does the government pay them for losing a war? Umm, no. Is it because we are the greatest country in the world that we do this? Maybe. Is it because we still, to this day, feel bad about how it happened? Maybe. But in that justification wouldn't we also still be paying families whose ancestor's were slaves?? Im quite sure the majority of us have made some kind of remark against that idea. I, for one, don't understand in this day and age why they live separate from our laws. Whether they are the basic laws of murder, rape and child molestation or laws about hunting and fishing. What's good for the goose should indeed be good for the gander. That's my simple opinion. But I'm sure not all agree. That to me is what makes our country the greatest. We can all have our own opinion.

JLS said:

This is truth right here. This issues comes up every year in the state I live in. People get all up in arms and demand to renegotiate the treaties.

Guess what? It won't happen. If someone came to you and said, "look, I know you own your land outright, but I want to renegotiate your deed and you give certain rights", you would tell them to go jump off a cliff. Treaty rights DON'T HAVE to be renegotiated if the tribes don't want to. And, why would they?

Like it or not, they are a sovereign nation in that regard and no state official can stop them from doing anything that is in accordance with their treaty. Yes, this is ugly. No, it doesn't seem right for them to whack bull elk on the winter grounds. No, they don't have to talk to FWP about any of it. Plain and simple.

Thinking anyone is going to compel them to purchase state licenses and follow state laws is an absolute waste of time.

Click to expand...

Yes, all of that is true...and really nothing more needs to be said.

The last thing that the MTFWP should be concerning itself with is Indians hunting under their treaty rights near the park. It boggles the mind, that of all the things they do have control over, and fail to act on, they would choose this battle which they wont ever win.

I have grown accustomed to expecting absolutely nothing from the MTFWP, and they still disappoint me, every time.

Unbelievable.

IMO the FWP probably came out with this story so that blame was placed on the tribe and treaty and not on them.

And many of you wondered why the locals around Bears Ears felt slighted when Prez O and the Do Gooder crowd gave priority to Native American input. DNA doesn't make a particular person respect and appreciate Gods creations including wildlife.

Could DOE defund a tribe? Do Gooders would cry but it might force the tribes to enforce ethics and respect for wildlife.

BuzzH said:

Ben, you mean when the FWP realized they had 2.3 bulls per 100 cows in 313? Some real visionaries there, that BTC ratio didn't happen over night.

The same FWP that used that same blurry vision to continue issuing a few thousand antlerless permits for cow elk around Gardiner even though the populations were taking a dive, at the same time wolf, lion, black and grizzly bear numbers were still climbing?

That FWP that is now out-raged over the Indians killing 30 elk near the park?

Seriously?

Click to expand...

Time is not a stagnant thing.The wrongs of the past are not necessarily admissible for the wrongs of the present or the percieved wrongs that will happen in the future. I fully recognize the errors in allowing the gut hunt to go on for so long, and like you, think they should have pulled back long before the crash. They also were mandated by law to manage at or below objective, so they felt, wrongly as we both agree, that they needed to continue the slaughter until objective was reached, or they would find themselves (rightly) facing lawsuits on elk populations. There has been talk of limiting take in 313 for a long time, but the prevailing sentiment from the people, you know, the ones who lobby the commission to do what they want, was to leave opportunity on the table and simply go with a few fewer critters while placing all the blame on wolves. So, while it's nice to have the convenient whipping boy of the agency, you need to cast that steely gaze at the commission and the people of Montana, who ultimately were the ones who got what they wanted - opportunity over all else.

But, on the bright side, I did get a phone call from the MTFPW asking me about my NR deer combo license...they wanted to know how many grouse I shot this year. Good to see they still seem to "care" about grouse and ditch parrots. Oh, well, what? Not really, the last thing they ever changed was increasing opportunity by a month for those as well. You cant make this stuff up.

Didn't ask about deer though...another one that they didn't know they had, or will miss I suppose. Just one of those pesky whitetail bucks anyway.

Click to expand...

They called me when I was working and I ignored it. Can't disagree that their data collection is not technologically advanced, or that it presents real data. We recently had a discussion about mandatory reporting and there was significant pushback from some of the wildlife division folks, and some support from the licencing folks. Tell me how you would gather data, while also remembering that the agency is understaffed due to mandatory cuts that have nothing to do with revenue or need, and reduced flight time for spring counts.

Thanks though, for recognizing your wrong approach on the bison issue. I accept your silence on this as acquiescence to my point.

Another thing on this Ben...you cry about the FWP not being able to get anything done with elk management because they cant change the EMP, or the co-management of bison...but then you think they are being righteous in their "concern" over tribal hunters?

If they cant even get a grip on things like the EMP and make changes in regulation (which they essentially haven't done since 1954), I'd like for you to explain how they are going to do a single damn thing about tribal hunting near the Park? They cant tackle the EMP and set/change regulations, they cant stand up to the outfitters, the landowners, or the public...but they're going to challenge the Hellgate Treaty?

The FWP needs a truckload of smelling salts...

Click to expand...

I never said they were being righteous, just pointing out that you were being pugnacious in your dislike of the agency. Don't mistake my calling you out for barstool biology with defending the agency. The EMP is the guiding document for managing elk. It was out of date when it was adopted and it produces results that favor opportunity over increased trophy potential. Many Montanans support opportunity over a big rack. It's not that different than college. You settle for the person who is Ms. Right Now instead of Ms. Right. It's why every swinging dick has a forkie in the back of their $45,000 3/4 rig with the big rack stickers on it.

The agency has stood up to outfitters and landowners in the past, and it's taken 5 sessions for the furor of elk archery to die down. We've killed at least 6 elk archery bills that the outfitters have brought forward, and yet they have another one this session to legislatively set seasons. Under that kind of constant attack, what would the WGFD do? They'd negotiate. FWP was ransacked for purchasing habitat, most of it worthwhile, one of them questionable, and we fought for 5 sessions for the ability of Montana to continue to purchase winter ground and WMA's - something that WGFD is pretty near exclusively denied the right to do, instead being forced - legislatively - to use the 22 feed grounds (thanks for the brucellosis and impending CWD though).

Wildlife politics is not much different than any other politics. It's about the art of the possible. The political climate in Montana, especially with the majority, is such that getting things passed that we would like to do is next to impossible without some serious horsetrading and backroom deals. We have 150 legislators who for 90 days feel as they can simply override everyone, and if the majority party caucuses on it, then the bill will simply pass. Happy to provide examples this session, or any going back to 2009. What we are seeing though, is a gradual decline in the number of bills. In 2011, we had something along the lines of 200 wildlife specific bills. 150 in 2013, 12-130 in 2015 and 70 so far this session. The political environment is much more antagonistic that WY's when it comes to elk management. YOu don't have people like UPOM running around running legislative races on eliminating the public trust and public access.

Any day you want to trade a session in Wyoming for a session in Montana, I'll pick up stakes and camp out at the Plains. I just hope my old bartender is still there. He made a wickedly good martini.

Now, before you get all jacked up on me, read this with a smile on your face, as I'm certainly giggling while I type it.

macnshana said:

I in no way say all of any race are to blame for the actions of a large majority. I've been around Indians growing up and throughout my life. Ute's, Seminoles, Chukchansi tribe and now Blackfoot's. I find that the majority share one thing in common. They are lazy. They feel because we took their land that they are entitled to everything for free.

Click to expand...

There you go again with your sweeping generalizations that are pretty damn offensive. I think the R word is overused but seriously dude, that's racist.

macnshana said:

I, for one, don't understand in this day and age why they live separate from our laws. Whether they are the basic laws of murder, rape and child molestation or laws about hunting and fishing. What's good for the goose should indeed be good for the gander.

Click to expand...

Tribes are sovereign nations. Just as our laws don't apply to Canadians on their land, many laws don't apply to Indians on their reservations. Treaty rights and such. Not sure why this is difficult for you to understand.

macnshana said:

That's my simple opinion. But I'm sure not all agree. That to me is what makes our country the greatest. We can all have our own opinion.

Click to expand...

Yes we can. Your opinion just happens to be garbage and would be best not shared.

People say the same kind of stuff about the Amish around here. I personally have never seen it first hand but the knock is they put on huge deer drives, decimate the deer herds, catch all the fish, etc...

In Wisconsin their was a big story this summer about some members of the tribe shooting a moose off a road at night. The media ran some stories and a lot of people were not happy. Moose are pretty darn rare in Wisconsin. Some of the backlash even came from the Lac Du Flambeau tribe itself. In the end, the practice of hunting moose was banned on the reservation. So, I have to give the Lac Du Flambeau some props for doing what is right/ethical, rather than simply waving the middle finger.

http://outdoornews.com/2016/07/08/shooting-of-antlerless-moose-by-lac-du-flambeau-member-all-over-facebook/

http://wdez.com/news/articles/2016/jul/13/lac-du-flambeau-tribe-bans-moose-hunting/

I've never seen anything to make me think that tribal members engage in unsavory hunting behaviors at higher rates than the average Montana hunter. Some pretty poor generalizations in previous posts.

That said, game laws exist for a reason, and most hunters are aware of the reasons game laws exist, and outside of those who have a right to hunt by treaty, people who don't comply with game laws are condemned by society. It will always be difficult for people to condone behavior that they restrain themselves from doing, and condemn those who do, simply because their government made an agreement with the ancestors of modern day people 170 years ago.

I'm not saying treaties shouldn't be honored, or that tribal groups shouldn't have a right to engage in agreed upon behavior defined in the treaty. I'm just saying it will always cause tensions, especially when Big 3 animals are killed and a picture of some dude stabbing a bison with a knife goes viral on social media.

Nameless Range said:

I've never seen anything to make me think that tribal members engage in unsavory hunting behaviors at higher rates than the average Montana hunter. Some pretty poor generalizations in previous posts.

That said, game laws exist for a reason, and most hunters are aware of the reasons game laws exist, and outside of those who have a right to hunt by treaty, people who don't comply with game laws are condemned by society. It will always be difficult for people to condone behavior that they restrain themselves from doing, and condemn those who do, simply because their government made an agreement with the ancestors of modern day people 170 years ago.

I'm not saying treaties shouldn't be honored, or that tribal groups shouldn't have a right to engage in agreed upon behavior defined in the treaty. I'm just saying it will always cause tensions, especially when Big 3 animals are killed and a picture of some dude stabbing a bison with a knife goes viral on social media.

Click to expand...

Well said Nameless.

MJE2083 said:

People say the same kind of stuff about the Amish around here. I personally have never seen it first hand but the knock is they put on huge deer drives, decimate the deer herds, catch all the fish, etc...

Click to expand...

i've never had an issue with the amish, yes they shoot a ton of animals but they will do drives that are like 6-8miles long where a lot of other camps will do a drive that is 1/2-2miles.

also the amish are required to follow the same laws as you & I

This tread got my curiosity up so I went and read the Hellgate treaty. Hope I found the right one on line. This is the paragraph that applies to this tread.

The exclusive right of taking of fish in all streams running through or bordering said reservation is further secured to said Indians; as also the right of taking fish at all usual and accustomed places, in common with citizens of the Territory, and of erecting temporary building for curing; Together with the privilege of hunting, gathering roots and berries, pasturing their horses an cattle upon open and unclaimed land.


Now I am more confused that ever. Many of you have stated that the tribes have hunting rights. treaty describes fishing as a right but hunting as a privilege. Is there another document describing hunting as a right? I wonder what the meaning of "in common with the citizens of the Territory" is. Could that mean that out side of the reservation the tribes are subject to the laws of governing the citizens of the Territory? Is there and open and unclaimed land left? The word unclaimed implies that there is land available that a citizen can claim. I would like to know where that is so I can get my share.

antlerradar said:

This tread got my curiosity up so I went and read the Hellgate treaty. Hope I found the right one on line. This is the paragraph that applies to this tread.

The exclusive right of taking of fish in all streams running through or bordering said reservation is further secured to said Indians; as also the right of taking fish at all usual and accustomed places, in common with citizens of the Territory, and of erecting temporary building for curing; Together with the privilege of hunting, gathering roots and berries, pasturing their horses an cattle upon open and unclaimed land.


Now I am more confused that ever. Many of you have stated that the tribes have hunting rights. treaty describes fishing as a right but hunting as a privilege. Is there another document describing hunting as a right? I wonder what the meaning of "in common with the citizens of the Territory" is. Could that mean that out side of the reservation the tribes are subject to the laws of governing the citizens of the Territory? Is there and open and unclaimed land left? The word unclaimed implies that there is land available that a citizen can claim. I would like to know where that is so I can get my share.

Click to expand...

Heretic!

The open and unclaimed land phrase typically refers to public land.

No 2 ways to interpret treaty RIGHTS, the courts agree:

How do these treaty rights relate to state hunters hunting with a license issued by Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks to hunt bison?

Montana law and the tribal treaties address hunting in different ways. Under Montana law, hunting is a personal privilege. Under treaty law, hunting is a treaty right. The difference may seem subtle, but it is important. Montana hunters maintain the personal privilege of hunting allowed through state regulation. That privilege may be revoked for reasons such as the violation of state fish and game laws. Tribes as a group have a hunting right, protected by a treaty and recognized by the U.S. and Montana governments and further defined through court proceedings. This right isn’t a personal right, but rather a tribal right, with each tribe’s governance process determining who is allowed to exercise this right.

Antlerradar, for your reading pleasure on some of the court cases regarding Native hunting rights:

http://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2489&context=cuslj

I agree with the title of this thread, enough of this BS, but the BS is the FWP trying to interfere with native hunting rights.

They have a mountain of other issues to deal with that are much more important than this, they're pissing up a rope worrying about something that is already decided.

It would be nice to see the MTFWP worry as much about managing elk, deer, and pronghorn as they do wasting time with this...its a total waste of everyone's time and is a non-starter. I also believe the MTFWP is being irresponsible and complicit in doing nothing more than agitating this situation. Not how a State agency should act or respond to this situation, IMO.

nothing like confusing me more Buzz

I did some thinking on the open and unclaimed land. Scary I know.

Clearly back in 1855 most of the land owned by the federal government could be classified as open and unclaimed. The term public land is a recent term so I doubt it has much to do with a treaty that old. Back in 1855 open and unclaimed land was land that could be claimed by citizens from the Government as there own. The process was cumbersome and relatively expensive. The process changed in 1862 with the passage of the Homestead act. The Homestead act made it much easier for a citizen to claim their portion of the open and unclaimed land. Congress also removed land from the open and unclaimed land available for homesteading. A good example would be the railroad act.(not sure of the exact name). Congress also changed the status of land removing it form the open and unclaimed land available to be claimed under the homestead act.( National Parks, Military reserves and Forest reserves come to mind) In 1899 Congress created the Gallatin national forest by statute. Many forest reserves were exempt from the homestead act and individual could not stake a claim on forest reserve land. I don't know about the Gallatin as I haven't read the act. In 1976 Congress rescinded the Homestead act in the lower 48 eliminating the ability of a citizen to claim government land. This brings me back to my question. Is there any open and unclaimed land left? If so I as a citizen should be able to make a claim on some of said land. Could it not be argued that the citizens of the United States made a claim on the land through there representatives in congress when congress set aside forest reserves and by rescinding the Homestead act? Said land would no longer be be open and unclaimed land but land owned and claimed by the citizens of the United States.

antlerradar said:

I did some thinking on the open and unclaimed land. Scary I know.

Clearly back in 1855 most of the land owned by the federal government could be classified as open and unclaimed. The term public land is a recent term so I doubt it has much to do with a treaty that old. Back in 1855 open and unclaimed land was land that could be claimed by citizens from the Government as there own. The process was cumbersome and relatively expensive. The process changed in 1862 with the passage of the Homestead act. The Homestead act made it much easier for a citizen to claim their portion of the open and unclaimed land. Congress also removed land from the open and unclaimed land available for homesteading. A good example would be the railroad act.(not sure of the exact name). Congress also changed the status of land removing it form the open and unclaimed land available to be claimed under the homestead act.( National Parks, Military reserves and Forest reserves come to mind) In 1899 Congress created the Gallatin national forest by statute. Many forest reserves were exempt from the homestead act and individual could not stake a claim on forest reserve land. I don't know about the Gallatin as I haven't read the act. In 1976 Congress rescinded the Homestead act in the lower 48 eliminating the ability of a citizen to claim government land. This brings me back to my question. Is there any open and unclaimed land left? If so I as a citizen should be able to make a claim on some of said land. Could it not be argued that the citizens of the United States made a claim on the land through there representatives in congress when congress set aside forest reserves and by rescinding the Homestead act? Said land would no longer be be open and unclaimed land but land owned and claimed by the citizens of the United States.

Click to expand...

Art,

For the scope of treaty rights, open and unclaimed is anything that is not deeded to a private entity. Regardless of whether you call if public land, federal land, USFS land, or BLM land, current case law has held that treaty rights for open and unclaimed lands extend only to public lands. This could change in the near future, as private timberlands are a question mark. They are open, but technically they are not unclaimed. They are deeded to a private entity. Even if the timber company does not care if tribal hunters use that land, case law THUS FAR has held the tribes cannot extend these treaty rights to privately owned lands.