Umatilla tribes to revive ancestors'

[sandman]

Umatilla tribes to revive ancestors' hunt for bighorns
Tradition - Tribal members are invoking an 1855 treaty to go after two sheep and one goat
Sunday, August 27, 2006
JAYSON JACOBY
The Oregonian
BAKER CITY -- The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation will revive one of their ancestors' ancient traditions this summer.

For the first time in more than half a century, tribal members will hunt bighorn sheep and mountain goats in northeastern Oregon, under a right the tribes reserved in a treaty they signed with the U.S. government 151 years ago.

That was in 1855, four years before Oregon became a state.

Umatilla tribal members, whose forebears for millennia hunted sheep and goats to get food, hides and other products, hope to kill two bighorns and one mountain goat in Baker County outside their reservation between late August and late September.

Baker County is unique among Oregon's 36 counties in that it harbors herds of mountain goats and both subspecies of bighorn sheep native to the Rocky Mountains and California.

The Umatilla tribes are asserting their right to hunt for bighorn and mountain goats in Baker County.

Elsewhere in Oregon in recent years, the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs have taken a similar course in hunting bighorn sheep and antelope in Eastern Oregon, according to Ron Anglin, ODFW Wildlife Division administrator.

The Umatillas' planned hunts are limited to tribal members: three lottery tags will be distributed to tribal members, who can't sell the hunting rights to a non-tribal hunter.

One tribal member will hunt for California bighorns in the Burnt River Canyon between Durkee and Bridgeport and another will go after Rocky Mountain bighorns on Lookout Mountain near Huntington, said Carl Scheeler, who manages the wildlife program for the Umatilla. Another tribal hunter will try to bag a mountain goat in the Elkhorn Mountains west of Baker City, Scheeler said.

Although the Umatillas' 1855 treaty guarantees them the right to hunt and fish, Oregon officials have at times tried to regulate tribal hunting and fishing, said Stephanie Soden, a spokeswoman at state Attorney General Hardy Myers' office.

Scheeler, though, contends the 1855 treaty supersedes the state's authority.

Regardless, the state doesn't contest tribal hunting unless the hunting could cause the extinction of a species in Oregon, Soden said.

The Umatillas' hunts pose no such threat to Baker County's bighorns and mountain goats, according to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

"The state tries to respect that (hunting) is a culturally significant thing for the tribes to do," Soden said. "As long as the herds are maintained, it's allowed."

Scheeler said tribal officials would not have asserted their treaty rights had any of the affected herds been struggling. In fact, he thinks the Umatilla have been admirably patient. He points out that Fish and Wildlife has allowed nontribal hunters to pursue mountain goats and bighorns in Baker County for more than a decade.

The bottom line, Scheeler said, is that the tribes want to work with, not against, state Fish and Wildlife.

"The tribes will be coordinating with the state to assure all data collection and pre-hunt orientation that (non-tribal) hunters adhere to will be done by the tribal hunters," Scheeler said.

For instance, Fish and Wildlife requires nontribal hunters who kill a bighorn or mountain goat to take the animal to a state office within 72 hours so state biologists can examine the carcass and compile data, such as the animal's age, that help the agency keep track of how herds are doing.

The Umatilla tribal hunters will have to comply with the same schedule, Scheeler said.

The Confederated Tribes, who have a 172,000-acre reservation near Pendleton, comprise the Umatilla, Walla Walla and Cayuse peoples.

The tribes once occupied 6.4 million acres in Eastern Oregon, but in 1855 they signed a treaty that gave the federal government control over most of that land.

In exchange, the tribes kept their comparatively small reservation and retained the right to hunt, fish and gather berries on what are known as "ceded territory" -- lands outside the reservation but inside the tribes' original 6.4-million-acre homeland, which includes most of Baker County, Scheeler said.

The Umatilla tribal hunts will not force the state wildlife agency to cut the number of sheep or goat tags it sells this year to nontribal hunters, said Ryan Torland, a wildlife biologist at Fish and Wildlife's Baker City office. The agency has awarded five tags to nontribal hunters.

Torland said that plucking only one animal from each of the three herds, as the Umatilla tribal hunters intend to do this year, probably would not have a noticeable effect on any of those herds.

But what's not clear is how long the addition of tribal hunting would remain benign, said Jim Cadwell, a biologist in the Baker City office.

"We cannot handle a tremendous amount of additional hunting on these herds without it having an effect on (nontribal) hunters," Cadwell said.

Avoiding such effects is precisely why the Umatillas' fish and wildlife commission waited until this year to schedule bighorn and mountain goat hunts in northeastern Oregon, Scheeler said.

"We have been coordinating with the state of Oregon to make sure we're taking into consideration any biological issues," Scheeler said.

Today, about 170 mountain goats roam the Elkhorns, according to Fish and Wildlife. The Burnt River Canyon bighorn herd numbers about 70, and an estimated 90 sheep live on Lookout Mountain.

Permits to hunt bighorns or mountain goats are among the more coveted tags the state agency sells. In 2004, for instance, 2,484 people applied for one of the two mountain goat tags in the Elkhorns.

[sandman]

I think we all should be on a level playing field(Hunting or fishing).Whats your take?

A treaty is a treaty...but maybe it is time to update it since it is over 150 years old.

[Ethical hunter]

The tribes have a right to hunt these animals, for us non tribals it is just a priviledge.

EH

[Bill Monroe]

They have every right to this opportunity...And BTW, it takes two sides to renegotiate a treaty. I can't imagine one of the two sides willing to give anything up. Fact is, they could have asserted this long ago, but have been patient with the state's management. The Warm Springs hunts have gone very well and the Deschutes herd continues to grow. It would be nice, in fact, to get the tribes involved in some better control of disease-carrying domestics across some of those ceded lands. THAT's the headache for wildlife managers.

[Rank Amateur]

Well they have a treaty right, while I might not like it, we need to honor it. I think the point needs to be made though, if they abuse this treaty, don't expect the non-tribal members of society to continue to fund the sheep and goat programs.

That's a crock about not affecting the rest of us. If they are truly managing the herds then every animal is accounted for. Over the long run it will affect us, quit feeding us B.S.

[jschainsaw]

Same old stuff... I better not get started

[lentz]

Living over here i see both sides of the issue. My personal take is the fact that the right to hunt when they want was a good idea 150 years ago considering the fact that they had to hunt to get meat. It's now 2006 and they have other means. Secondly, none of the tribal members that were around then are still around today. I don't mean to sound harsh, i have plenty of indian friends. My dad used to work with one of the chiefs, they worked for the forest service. He was a very funny guy and my dad learned alot from him.

[duckboy]

A deal is a deal, Our leaders of today may elect to draft future contracts with sovereign Nations in a manner which would allow for periodic review and adjustment (say every 20 years or so, but certainly not in perpetuity.

[Swamp Puppy]

hey lentz, your argument could be made for all of us. what was once the way we survived is now just a hobby.

i mean c'mon..it's 3 stinking tags. so what? nobody is talking about wild indians just running rampant and slaughtering sheep and goats at random.

[jschainsaw]

hey swamp puppy- If thats the case, they can put in for tags just like us. Drawn at random! My ancestors use to shoot whatever they wanted too.. I guess I should try to get my family rights back.

[Swamp Puppy]

as far as i know..we still have all the rights of the constitution of the USA that our families had. with the exceptions of the ones we've allowed our elected representatives to take away from us. therefore...we have no one to blame for that but ourselves.

as far as the Draw goes...it will be a random lottery. among the tribe members.

but hey...what do i know? maybe we should just toss them some blankets infected with some horrible disease. that should solve the debate.

[Joe Schwab]

Here it is

In 1855 the U.S. Government and the Cayuse, Umatilla, and Walla Walla Tribes signed a treaty. In the Treaty, the tribes gave up, or ceded, to the United States more than 6.4 million acres in what is now northeastern Oregon and southeastern Washington. In exchange, a parcel of land was designated as the Umatilla Indian Reservation which the tribes would retain as a permanent homeland. As a result of U.S. Congressional legislation in the late 1800s that diminished its size and allowed purchase and ownership by non-Indians, the Umatilla Indian Reservation now consists of 172,000 acres. Nearly half is owned by non-Indians.

Also in the Treaty of 1855, the tribes reserved rights to fish, hunt, and gather traditional foods and medicines throughout the ceded lands. The Tribes still protect and exercise those rights within the 6.4 million acres of ceded land in what is now northeastern Oregon and southeastern Washington.

It is important to understand that the U.S. Government and the Treaty did not "give" the Tribal people those rights to fish, hunt, and gather foods and medicines. They are rights that we have had and exercised since time immemorial. In the Treaty, our ancestors RESERVED those rights to ensure that the tribe's future generations would be able to maintain and exercise our traditions and customs.

Because of those reserved treaty rights in the 6.4 million acres, the tribes maintain a keen interest and involvement in the activities that occur in that area.

Please read this carefully. So many people think we "gave" away rights to the Native American. In essence they gave the rights to us and preserved their own.

So it is written!

[rimrock]

I think it's great. They have been waiting a long time. Good for them!

[lentz]

After reading some of the post that we have had, i thought about something. I find it funny that when its something that we are interested in, then we all have our opinions. I know that sounds funny/stupid but here is a good example. A few years ago when the tribe up north wanted to hunt for whales, i could have cared less if the got to hunt or not. If they wanted to take 10, so what. Now when it comes to something that we all can picture ourselves doing then its a different story, myself included. Just thought about it and wanted to let it out.

[adobe wall]

I just wish some of the tribes would revisit their traditional sea lion hunt. Or start a new tradition.

jmho, aw

[Old Coot]

I second the motion.

I am proud,albeit surprised, that my government is still honoring rights guaranteed by treaty. "In perpetuity" does not mean, "Until inconvenient."

OC

[JCJ]

You know maybe Adobe has hit on an idea to control the sea lion population.If the tribes could be convinced to pursue the idea of reclaiming their tribal rights to hunt them then no way would any of the complaining done by the earth muffins about how cruel or harsh it is would work.They have the right to do away with the seals for religious reasons.Cool!

[Bugle4em]

In 1855 the U.S. Government and the Cayuse, Umatilla, and Walla Walla Tribes signed a treaty. In the Treaty, the tribes gave up, or ceded, to the United States more than 6.4 million acres in what is now northeastern Oregon and southeastern Washington. In exchange, a parcel of land was designated as the Umatilla Indian Reservation which the tribes would retain as a permanent homeland. As a result of U.S. Congressional legislation in the late 1800s that diminished its size and allowed purchase and ownership by non-Indians, the Umatilla Indian Reservation now consists of 172,000 acres. Nearly half is owned by non-Indians.

Also in the Treaty of 1855, the tribes reserved rights to fish, hunt, and gather traditional foods and medicines throughout the ceded lands. The Tribes still protect and exercise those rights within the 6.4 million acres of ceded land in what is now northeastern Oregon and southeastern Washington.

It is important to understand that the U.S. Government and the Treaty did not "give" the Tribal people those rights to fish, hunt, and gather foods and medicines. They are rights that we have had and exercised since time immemorial. In the Treaty, our ancestors RESERVED those rights to ensure that the tribe's future generations would be able to maintain and exercise our traditions and customs.

Because of those reserved treaty rights in the 6.4 million acres, the tribes maintain a keen interest and involvement in the activities that occur in that area.

Where do casino's fit in?

[PullShootExplode]

I would love to see the tribes use the primitive weapons that were around back in 1855. I would have a better outlook if they followed in their ancestors footsteps in that way. I would love to see them build their own arrows and bows and watch the stalking of the goats for a close shot. That would be a great video to watch and what a cool documentary it would be.

I agree that the tribes should also take up the sea lion hunts, maybe then the sea lions might become a little less bold.

[sandman]

I would love to see the tribes use the primitive weapons that were around back in 1855.

Did they have bow and arrow that long ago?? :grin:I think times have changed.Fish and game have managed these heards with are tax/hunting license dollars now where giving away free hunts?If it was on there land,I wouldn't have anything to say about it,but its not!

[ehunter]

That is my only augument with the hunts they have the rights no problem but if they are doing them for cultural reasons use the primative weapons that they ancestors used. Other than that I don't have a problem with it. We are lucky they didn't push the issue when those herds were just getting started.

[Joe Schwab]

Where do casino's fit in?

What's that got to do with anything? I like the casinos. Bring em on!

Did they have bow and arrow that long ago?? I think times have changed.Fish and game have managed these heards with are tax/hunting license dollars now where giving away free hunts?If it was on there land,I wouldn't have anything to say about it,but its not!

The old tired argument about ancient weapons, blah, blah,--Don't you think civilization advanced even back then?

Their hunting grounds are ceded land. Look it up. They never gave up the right to hunt on "your" land.

[jschainsaw]

WOW!

[Swamp Puppy]

We are lucky they didn't push the issue when those herds were just getting started.

it's a credit to them that they didn't. i'm sure that they have been watching and waiting for a time when the herds (there are 3 of them) were healthy enough to support the taking of one animal from each.

[jvp]

When do we all become citizens of the same country???????????????????????????????????????????

[jschainsaw]

When do we all become citizens of the same country???????????????????????????????????????????

That's what I am saying- Thay can put in for Tags just like us.

[sandman]

When do we all become citizens of the same country???????????????????????????????????????????

That's what I am saying- Thay can put in for Tags just like us.

Amen!

[younggun20]

Amen!

I agree. If there case for hunting is they want to revive their ancestory, then I feel they should be using traditional hunting methods and gear. None of their ancestors drove vehicles from their houses, wearing full camo, with a GPS, radio, rifle with scope capable of great distances, etc. So if they get special tags because their ancestors hunted (whose didn't?), then they should have to do it the same way they did it.

[Salmo trutta]

Just read the article and I know Carl Scheeler. He's a good guy and darn good biologist. He is probably the reason they waited and didn't go after the treaty rights from the get go.
I don't think it's a big deal. Not worth loosing any sleep over. Beside that domestic sheep pose a bigger threat to bighorns that a few Native tags.

[rimrock]

They are their own nation fellas.

[sandman]

I don't think it's a big deal. Not worth loosing any sheep over.

:whazzup: :grin:

[Salmo trutta]

You had me there for a second!! I had to take a double take on it!!
Way too many hours at work!

[Bugle4em]

What's that got to do with anything? I like the casinos. Bring em on!

If we are honoring 150 year old treaties, then we should follow them exactly. I have not read the whole treaty, but I am pretty sure the word "casino" wasn't mentioned. What was the intent of the treaty?

I am curious how the harvest of dear and elk work with the tribe. Do they work on a quota??

Everyone has personal opinions on this subject. I hope this thread doesn't turn into a nightmare.

[rimrock]

Again they are their own nation. If that's not understood it will be hard to get the rest of it. Generally speaking Federal laws apply but State law and regs don't apply to the Nations.

[Limbhanger]

Generally speaking Federal laws apply but State law and regs don't apply to the Nations.

So, they could hunt cougars with dogs if they wanted too?

Anybody have the phone number to the big chief??

[rimrock]

0

[BrianMaguire]

Is there any difference from mineral rights, water rights, land grants or any other right that was granted long ago? The ranchers sure cry bloody murder about grazing rights and water rights. The government (we the people) keep having to buy them out. If we want it to stop we would need to buy them out. Other than that, they negotiated fair and square and we should all be more than willing to honor the agreement. From what I have read they have been patient and respectful of the resource. If they really wanted to shoot every last sheep on the mountain they could, but they don't.

That said do I like it, no, it is marginally less opportunity for all of us, but then again why should a rancher on the John Day be able to charge $5000 access fees?

[sandman]

why should a rancher on the John Day be able to charge $5000 access fees?

Please start a new thread on this brian,I don't want to get off the topic

[Ezrider]

I'm tired of being discriminated against. When do I get to hunt whales and sea lions and big horns without a tag. Speaking of casinos, I want one of those too.

[Elkhunter]

it's a credit to them that they didn't. i'm sure that they have been watching and waiting for a time when the herds (there are 3 of them) were healthy enough to support the taking of one animal from each.

Ya I'm sure that's what they were thinking! It's a bunch of crap.

[j24m]

We have a history of honoring treaties unless some thing of great value is found on the indian land. Take gold, as soon as it was found the indians were forced to move. As much as we may not like it we should live up to this treaty. We have a poor track record.

[Bill Monroe]

If there case for hunting is they want to revive their ancestory, then I feel they should be using traditional hunting methods and gear. None of their ancestors drove vehicles from their houses, wearing full camo, with a GPS, radio, rifle with scope capable of great distances, etc. So if they get special tags because their ancestors hunted (whose didn't?), then they should have to do it the same way they did it.

None of your ancestors did, either...shouldn't you be limited as well? Or do native Americans simply have no rights to technology?

[duckboy]

EZRider, I hear what you are saying.

The Native peoples signed contracts securing these rights (forever).

It is all in writing, and old Uncle Sam AOK'd the whole thing.

A contract is a contract.

Although the Native peoples contracts apply to sections of the USA, there is a special circumstance granted to their situation.

These folks are a soverign nation. Look it up/ I am perplexed by the legal rammifications of this... I do not know if they pay taxes, or any of that jazz.

I am fairly certain that if they reside and exist on thir reservations, then they are bound by the laws and enforcement on those lands.

Which is why the reservations have thier own cops etc.

They are essentially a nation within a nation.

[rimrock]

None of your ancestors did, either...shouldn't you be limited as well? Or do native Americans simply have no rights to technology?

Don't ya know we are "real" hunters here, at least that's the argument typically from some that goes on and on and on...

Nice post Bill! thanks

[Krijack]

While there is a treaty right to these animals, this may not mean we do not have the means to pressure them not to excercise it. While the treaty may guarantee them the right to hunt for the animals, it may not guarantee them the right to federal funds for their schools, roads, federal hatcheries,or other necessities, the right to have casinos off reservation, or any other number of things that they receive from the federal government that may be more important to them then the right to hunt certain animals. Every time something like this comes up, it gets my temper up. Here in Tacoma the Puyallup's are recieving a monthly casino check (I think it is about $2,800 per member), but I am almost certian still recieve federal money for their medical clinic, police, schools, hatcheries and other items. A few years ago a congressman wanted the tribes to produce a budget showing that they needed the funds before the BIA issued them. He promised that they wouldn't lower the funds but rather would redistribute them according to needs. The tribes with Casino's put up such a fuss they dropped the whole idea and just continued funding the same as if the casino's didn't exist. I am not sure how much is the same now, or if the tribes are required to show how much they are making.
The whole indian BIA funding is really a joke. The tribes often base their enrollment on how the members will effect their income. In other words, tribes with casino money may require you to have 1/4 ancestory, but tribes with no money will allow anyone with any ancestory amount to join. There was an article in the paper here about the tribal clinic in puyallup that said it was illegal for them to discriminate against anyone with any indian blood, no matter how little the amount. Since my wifes great Grandmother was Cherokee, my wife and my kids would all qualify for free medical care and maybe free college. To let you know what a joke this is, my wife, who is 34, just found out last month what tribe her great-grandmother was from. It seems her grandmother was ashamed of being indian and tried to hide it from everyone. So as a result, my wife never even knew what tribe her grandmother was from. Now, if we want it, we can start trying to claim she has special rights. Thats right folks, since 7 of her 8 ancestors supposedly treated the 8th one bad, you can all pay for it.
In the end, we need to use the same treaties they use to our advantage. And the tribes must realize at some point that unless they are willing to live a traditional life (no tv, long houses, etc.) they can not expect to work in a traditional manner. Since they do want to live modern lives, we can, and should use this to our advantage. Not breaking any treaty, but again, using them to our advantage.

[j24m]

we took the land and life style from them. Now thay are taking our money in the casino's.

[MountainLion84]

I voiced my concerns on what I was seeing in the Chesnimus unit a few years ago. The "native Americans" were killing elk during our rifle deer season. Every Elk was in one piece (road Hunted,) and the great stewards of the land had them hanging unbagged in 90 degree heat with flies and yellow jackets. I tried to contact both senators as well as the governors office to voice my concerns. I did get a response from ODFW, as their bilogist was kind enough to call me. I told them that of all the factors that affect game herds (fire, predators, native americans, and us (the license/tag buying public,) there was only one controllable factor - and that is us. Where do we say enough is enough, and have them incorporate into society. Most of these folks that are hunting in the chesnimus unit are from Idaho to boot. Their campsites in the campground were an absolute disaster when they left, garbage everywhere, broken lawn chairs etc. It is just sickening to see our license/tag dollars going to build a herd that I can hunt every other year at best, but that they can take at will. I think the term they like to use to make it sound more respectable is subsistence. So our license fees, as well as auction hunts will go to build the sheep/goat herds which they will now hunt without contributing anything. Something is definately wrong here.

[Crappie Chaser]

Are these tags good only on state or federal lands or do they allow the tagholder access to private property as well? Would the property owner have the same rights to keep hunters out as the reservation does? The Lookout Mt. sheep herd lives on private property all year long.

[lentz]

Some thing that i have never understood is the whole thing of "off reservation" things like casinos. The whole hunting thing i don't understand is the fact that these hunts are not on the reservation land, it is actully quite a long ways away. How does this work? Can somebody shed a little light on this for me.

[BrianMaguire]

Some thing that i have never understood is the whole thing of "off reservation" things like casinos. The whole hunting thing i don't understand is the fact that these hunts are not on the reservation land, it is actully quite a long ways away. How does this work? Can somebody shed a little light on this for me.

Part of the original treaty was that they give up the land but retain the rights to hunt the land. Thats it, the Govt agreed (was a really good deal for the Govmt.) so now they are finally cashing in the chips. Fair and square deal.

[gottafish]

I think it would be fine if indians actualy did the hunting.

"The Umatillas' planned hunts are limited to tribal members: three lottery tags will be distributed to tribal members, who can't sell the hunting rights to a non-tribal hunter. Sounds like they can't sell the tags. like they do in other states. Ive herd tell that the tribes down south sell there desert bighorn tags for like 50K.

[younggun20]

None of your ancestors did, either...shouldn't you be limited as well? Or do native Americans simply have no rights to technology?

I guess my whole point went right over your head Bill. ALL of our ancestors hunted, they had to to survive (subsistence is what Indians still plead, oh please), but am I getting special tags because of this? NO, I have to pay money to apply for a tag with a 1% chance or less of drawing. So like I said, if they get special tags for something that ALL of our ancestors did, then they should have to do it like they did.