| Previous :: Next Topic |
| Author |
Message |
joker
seeker
Joined: 12 Aug 2006
Posts: 7953 | TRs | Pics
Location: state of confusion |
|
joker
seeker
|
 Fri Nov 03, 2017 11:31 am |
|
|
| xrp wrote: | | Oh...I see, you want to use force on other people to fund the things you believe in, but that the other people may not believe in. |
Like EVERYONE who supports a single thing the government does. Because I guarantee another taxpayer does NOT support whatever that single thing is... While I don't buy into the "voluntaryist" vision for society, at least these folks aren't completely full of it when they make statements like this quoted one.
|
| Back to top |
  
|
|
cambajamba
Member
Joined: 05 Nov 2011
Posts: 339 | TRs | Pics
|
Also, xrp, I wasn't looking for a free pass, I was asking questions to suss out the level of disinformation being peddled by others. I have an annual national parks pass, and all the other damn passes and I paid for them all myself. I don't need a handout, I need people to stop spreading BS about native issues.
I also need you to stop being...the way you are, we're all embarrassed for you.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RodF
Member
Joined: 01 Sep 2007
Posts: 2593 | TRs | Pics
Location: Sequim WA |
|
RodF
Member
|
Fri Nov 03, 2017 2:16 pm |
|
|
| cambajamba wrote: | | I do have official tribal affiliation, yes, though through some quick research it appears the only way folks get a "waive through" is if they have applied for and been granted a tribal pass specific to the purpose of harvesting material like berries or grass in traditional harvesting grounds. |
Depends on the tribe, not on NPS. (Some tribes may issue permits or passes to their own members, some may not. NPS cannot require them.)
Pursuant to law (the 1855-6 Treaties of Point No Point, Neah Bay and Olympia, the 1938 establishment legislation for Olympic NP reserving treaty rights, U.S. v. Washington commonly known as the Boldt decision, and several laws and Executive Orders on tribal rights), the Tribes reserved hunting, fishing, and gathering rights to utilize the plants, animals, fish, and other resources of the Peninsula. These are recognized in the Memorandum of Understanding between NPS and the eight tribes possessing those rights within Olympic NP. NPS has no authority to require permits or charge tribal members access fees to exercise their reserved rights, nor to access or maintain several family burial plots within the Park.
Further, per 25 U.S.C. 3055, USFS must provide provide trees, portions of trees, or forest products to tribes free of charge for noncommercial traditional and cultural purposes, such as construction of cedar baskets, long houses or canoes, and for restoration projects such as construction of engineered log jams.
Further, per 36 CFR Part 2, members of non-treaty tribes may also have rights.
Further, members of the 24 tribes which have off-reservation traditional hunting and fishing rights, reserved under treaty, cannot be regulated by WDFW nor by NPS, but may be regulated by their respective sovereign tribal governments in cooperation with those agencies.
| moonspots wrote: | | That is SO wrong! It just furthers the "us and them" mentality that liberal thinkers like to push as being "fair". I saw it in action when I was working for the federal government. I didn't buy it then, and I don't now. |
Realize you're stating the 1855 treaties were unfair, and there are very definitely two sides to that question! (One shutters to imagine that our current President may well agree with you...)
"of all the paths you take in life, make sure a few of them are dirt" - John Muir
"the wild is not the opposite of cultivated. It is the opposite of the captivated” - Vandana Shiva
"of all the paths you take in life, make sure a few of them are dirt" - John Muir
"the wild is not the opposite of cultivated. It is the opposite of the captivated” - Vandana Shiva
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chico
Member
Joined: 30 Nov 2012
Posts: 2500 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lacey |
|
Chico
Member
|
Fri Nov 03, 2017 3:37 pm |
|
|
| RodF wrote: | | Further, per 36 CFR Part 2, members of non-treaty tribes may also have rights. |
Interesting. So, wondering if the Colville or Kalispel or even the Yakama's have rights on the peninsula.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RodF
Member
Joined: 01 Sep 2007
Posts: 2593 | TRs | Pics
Location: Sequim WA |
|
RodF
Member
|
Fri Nov 03, 2017 5:54 pm |
|
|
| Chico wrote: | | Interesting. So, wondering if the Colville or Kalispel or even the Yakama's have rights on the peninsula. |
Rights as far as who is concerned?
Rights as far as the US and state governments are concerned:
Rights to fishing and gathering, no. Rights to hunting (outside of Olympic National Park), yes. See the ruling in State of Washington v. Buchanan. He poached two bull elk out of season in a state game preserve. This ruling established that the state had no jurisdiction, and was affirmed in the state supreme court.
Rights as far as the tribes are concerned:
However, as I recall, Buchanan is Nooksak and was hunting within Yakama traditional hunting grounds. So there was an intertribal resolution of the matter. The Nooksak and Yakama nations agreed that Buchanan must apologize to the Yakama and return the two bull elk to them.
So, as it appears to stand for now, yes, members of any Washington tribe may exercise rights on the peninsula if they first ask and receive permission, not from the US or state gov't, but from the tribe having rights reserved by treaty in that area.
Bottom line: the tribes are sovereign nations, on equal standing with US. They recognize rights of their members and may share privileges with members of other tribes. Just as US recognizes rights of its own citizens, and may grant privileges to citizens of other nations.
"of all the paths you take in life, make sure a few of them are dirt" - John Muir
"the wild is not the opposite of cultivated. It is the opposite of the captivated” - Vandana Shiva
"of all the paths you take in life, make sure a few of them are dirt" - John Muir
"the wild is not the opposite of cultivated. It is the opposite of the captivated” - Vandana Shiva
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Randito
Snarky Member
Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9513 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment. |
|
Randito
Snarky Member
|
Fri Nov 03, 2017 6:31 pm |
|
|
As far as I'm concerned anyone with a tribal identity card should get free admission to all federal lands. They should be able to get something like a "golden age" pass with tribal membership.
Seems like "the right thing to do" and any possible reduction in gate revenue seems inconsequential.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chico
Member
Joined: 30 Nov 2012
Posts: 2500 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lacey |
|
Chico
Member
|
Fri Nov 03, 2017 8:24 pm |
|
|
| cambajamba wrote: | | I need people to stop spreading BS about native issues |
Perhaps it's time you helped to enlighten us with little to no knowledge. We of course understand some or maybe a lot of it already. Everyone just seems to want to tip toe around for fear of waking the sleeping giant (so to speak).
Perhaps a thread in the Saloon forum since this forum is supposed to be for trail related topics.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chico
Member
Joined: 30 Nov 2012
Posts: 2500 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lacey |
|
Chico
Member
|
Fri Nov 03, 2017 8:35 pm |
|
|
| RodF wrote: | | Rights as far as who is concerned?
Rights as far as the US and state governments are concerned:
Rights to fishing and gathering, yes. Rights to hunting (outside of Olympic National Park), yes. See the ruling in State of Washington v. Buchanan. He poached two bull elk out of season in a state game preserve. This ruling established that the state had no jurisdiction, and was affirmed in the state supreme court.
Rights as far as the tribes are concerned:
However, as I recall, Buchanan is Nooksak and was hunting within Yakama traditional hunting grounds. So there was an intertribal resolution of the matter. The Nooksak and Yakama nations agreed that Buchanan must apologize to the Yakama and return the two bull elk to them.
So, as it appears to stand for now, yes, members of any Washington tribe may exercise rights on the peninsula if they first ask and receive permission, not from the US or state gov't, but from the tribe having rights reserved by treaty in that area.
Bottom line: the tribes are sovereign nations, on equal standing with US. They recognize rights of their members and may share privileges with members of other tribes. Just as US recognizes rights of its own citizens, and may grant privileges to citizens of other nations. |
Rights to gather whatever on the peninsula. It wasn't their native grounds. Sure they would have traded with the natives living on the peninsula. But given how far to the east they were I'm doubting they would have set foot there.
Or does it work that way? The right to hunt/gather in an area not historically theirs? So the Makah, Quinault and the others who have a history of living near the ocean have the "right" to hunt/gather there. And the Colville and other natives to the east have the right to hunt/gather where they historically lived and traveled.
Am I "all wet" and spouting foolishness? Just don't know enough about it and am open to learning.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ski
><((((°>
Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12832 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma |
|
Ski
><((((°>
|
Fri Nov 03, 2017 9:34 pm |
|
|
^ the Yakama and Klickitat had trading routes that were pretty extensive both east and west - the old "Klickitat Trail #7" just south of Randle was originally a Native American trail.
Archaeological evidence from various places around the State would lead one to conclude that there was extensive trading going on in pre-Columbian times that ranged over a broad geographic area. Bear in mind they had the horse by the early 1700's.
But, as mentioned, this is really beyond the scope of the subject at hand. 
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RodF
Member
Joined: 01 Sep 2007
Posts: 2593 | TRs | Pics
Location: Sequim WA |
|
RodF
Member
|
Sat Nov 04, 2017 10:20 am |
|
|
| Chico wrote: | | The right to hunt/gather in an area not historically theirs? |
(1) Please also do not confuse rights to gather or fish with rights to hunt. The court found that the treaty language differentiates between the scope of these two reserved rights. However, both rights include reserved right of access.
(2) Please actually read the appeals court ruling in State v. Buchanan. The court simply read the plain text of the treaty.
| Quote: | | Contrary to the State's argument, the Point Elliot treaty, by its express terms, does not limit hunting rights to the ceded lands or to traditional hunting grounds. Although fishing is reserved only on “usual and accustomed grounds and stations,” hunting rights extend anywhere in the territory that is “open and unclaimed.” |
Also see the Washington State Supreme Court ruling. It found, as you argue:
| Quote: | | The geographic scope of the hunting right cannot be resolved from the language of the treaty alone. We hold that application of the reservation of rights doctrine is the more legally sound approach to interpreting the hunting rights provision of the Treaty of Point Elliott. Under such an analysis, open and unclaimed lands within the aboriginal hunting grounds of the Nooksack Tribe are reserved under the treaty for hunting by tribal members, so long as the lands remain open and unclaimed. The geographic area available for hunting would certainly include the territory ceded to the United States and described in article I of the Treaty of Point Elliott, and may include other areas if those areas are proven to have been actually used for hunting and occupied by the Nooksack Tribe over an extended period of time. Because the trial court did not so limit the geographic scope of the Nooksack's treaty, we reverse the dismissal of the charges against defendant Buchanan. |
This case was ultimately resolved not in state courts, but in an intertribal council.
To get back on the point of this thread, this case established that it's not within the authority of US or state courts or government agencies to determine whether a member of any Washington territorial treaty tribe has rights in a specific area (a specific national or state park, forest or preserve). This authority rests with the tribal governments and their agencies. (For now, at least... this area of law remains unsettled and is subject to interim agreements, and it's likely this isn't the last case we'll see litigated... but it may be decided in tribal courts, not state or US courts.)
"of all the paths you take in life, make sure a few of them are dirt" - John Muir
"the wild is not the opposite of cultivated. It is the opposite of the captivated” - Vandana Shiva
"of all the paths you take in life, make sure a few of them are dirt" - John Muir
"the wild is not the opposite of cultivated. It is the opposite of the captivated” - Vandana Shiva
|
| Back to top |
|
|
moonspots
Happy Curmudgeon
Joined: 03 Feb 2007
Posts: 2456 | TRs | Pics
Location: North Dakota |
|
moonspots
Happy Curmudgeon
|
Sat Nov 04, 2017 5:38 pm |
|
|
| Cyclopath wrote: | | Pot, meet Kettle. |
| DIYSteve wrote: | 
but don't expect him to grasp the irony |
Yeah, that's good.  Does that illustrate the depth of your logic?
If one doesn't have a legitimate rebuttal to an opposing opinion or comment, then an attempt at humor works, I suppose.
Ok, I'll phrase it slower this time. I get it, ~200 years ago the "whites" overran the "Indians" and ushered them into reservations. Dumb idea as we see it now, no arguments from me on that. Dumb idea then as well.
But to try and undo the wrongs done to ancestors by now giving a group complete unfettered access to parks in an attempt to make us feel good by now "doing right"? Not passing muster in any sense of the word. We're all in this together or not. Separating groups into various sections of "ancestral wrong-doings" is just dumb. Or SO wrong, as I said previously.
By that logic, I should be given complete fee-free access to any park in Scotland, Ireland, Sweden, England, wherever. I'm sure that some of my ancestors were "wronged" in some fashion there back when.... It seems that my ancestors were specifically run off the land by the Highlanders in Scotland, so let's start there.
Good grief... And these comments were made by those of you who I had previously considered to be quite mature and well thought of.
"Out, OUT you demons of Stupidity"! - St Dogbert, patron Saint of Technology
"Out, OUT you demons of Stupidity"! - St Dogbert, patron Saint of Technology
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RodF
Member
Joined: 01 Sep 2007
Posts: 2593 | TRs | Pics
Location: Sequim WA |
|
RodF
Member
|
Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:10 pm |
|
|
| moonspots wrote: | | Good grief... And these comments were made by those of you who I had previously considered to be quite mature and well thought of. |
What you're complaining about are Stevens treaty rights, which are not reparations. Far worse was said of Judge Boldt, and of the tribes, and of their members asserting these rights, and of his ruling recognizing these rights, but it has been affirmed on multiple appeals all the way to the US Supreme Court and it stands. Maybe it's time to get over it?
"of all the paths you take in life, make sure a few of them are dirt" - John Muir
"the wild is not the opposite of cultivated. It is the opposite of the captivated” - Vandana Shiva
"of all the paths you take in life, make sure a few of them are dirt" - John Muir
"the wild is not the opposite of cultivated. It is the opposite of the captivated” - Vandana Shiva
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DIYSteve
seeking hygge
Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 12655 | TRs | Pics
Location: here now |
|
DIYSteve
seeking hygge
|
Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:45 pm |
|
|
| RodF wrote: | | What you're complaining about are Stevens treaty rights, which are not reparations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cambajamba
Member
Joined: 05 Nov 2011
Posts: 339 | TRs | Pics
|
Did moonspots just argue for a statute of limitations for genocide?
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Malachai Constant
Member
Joined: 13 Jan 2002
Posts: 16093 | TRs | Pics
Location: Back Again Like A Bad Penny |
The First Nations people had the whole bloody state and had ran it in a substainable manner for thousands of years. Then our ancestors came and killed most of them intentionally or inadvertently took their land and depleted the resources in a wasteful manner. Those who survived got small reservations on less than the best land and these rights "for as long as the rivers run ya da, ya da, ya da" in return for all THEIR land and resources. It is the height of greed to attempt to deprive them of their partly compensation.
"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate NWHikers.net earns from qualifying purchases when you use our link(s). |
