https://www.oregonlive.com/new...hunting-dispute.html

Link has photo.



Massive bighorn sheep killed by tribal member snubbed for Idaho state record over hunting dispute

Posted May 28, 9:13 PM


By The Associated Press

BOISE — The Idaho Department of Fish and Game will not recognize a bighorn sheep killed by a Nez Perce Tribe member as a state record because the agency said the ram was shot in violation of state hunting regulations, even though those regulations don’t apply to tribe members hunting on ancestral lands.

But the Boone and Crockett Club hunting group has recognized the kill by hunter Gary Sublett in September 2016 as being within his tribe’s 1855 rights and has invited him to the club’s Big Game Awards banquet in early August in Springfield, Missouri, where the bighorn’s head will go on display.


The animal's massive horns rank No. 1 for Idaho and No. 26 for the U.S. and Canada on Boone and Crockett's list of largest Rocky Mountain bighorns.

"It is the largest that we have recorded from Idaho," said Justin Spring, director of Boone and Crockett Club's Big Game Records. "From what we've seen, there were no reasons why we wouldn't accept that entry."

Idaho Fish and Game had closed the area to bighorn sheep hunting and Sublett said he was heavily criticized after he killed the bighorn at the end of a three-day hunt in Hells Canyon. The canyon forms part of the Idaho-Oregon border and Sublett was on the Idaho side of the canyon about 40 miles west of the Nez Perce Tribe’s reservation in northern Idaho but within the tribe’s ancestral lands.

"There were people calling me everything but a human being," said Sublett. "In this canyon there are petroglyphs and arrowheads. My tribe has lived in that canyon for over 10,000 years."

Fish and Game spokesman Roger Phillips said state officials recognize the treaty but won't recognize the bighorn as being the biggest killed in Idaho.

"We're not going to call it an illegal kill," said Idaho Fish and Game spokesman Roger Phillips. "But for our state records, they have to be in accordance with our fish and game laws."


The 1855 treaty gives Nez Perce Tribe members access to federal public land on about 26,500 square miles of the tribe’s ancestral areas that are now part of Idaho, Oregon, Washington and Montana. About 3,500 tribal members can use those rights retained when the tribe ceded the land to the U.S. government.

The Boone and Crockett Club said it recognizes Sublett's ram because of the treaty and because the tribe has a management plan for sustainable hunting of bighorns.

The tribe was notable for helping Lewis and Clark's Corps of Discovery as it traversed through the region in the early 1800s. The tribe is also known for its unsuccessful flight from the U.S. military to Canada in 1877. Sublett said he's a direct descendant of Nez Perce leader Looking Glass, killed in the Bear Paw Mountains in a battle during that attempted flight.

Sublett said he has used the treaty rights to hunt bighorns in Hells Canyon and some neighboring areas since the mid-1970s. He said he has killed 10 bighorns and that nine of them rank as trophies by scoring more than 180 points in Boone and Crockett scoring.

Non-tribal hunters in Idaho face long odds of winning a tag to hunt Rocky Mountain bighorns or California bighorns, the other species in the state. Non-tribal hunters can kill one of each in their lifetimes.

Bighorn poachers in Idaho face stiff penalties. In 2016, Paul Cortez of Nampa received a fine of $10,000, 30 days in jail and a lifetime hunting ban for killing a trophy bighorn sheep along the Salmon River in Idaho.

Sublett said there was a lot of publicity about his bighorn ram before he killed it, including speculation it might be a potential trophy for Idaho's annual bighorn ram auction tag that could sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars. But that ended after Sublett, 62, killed the ram.

"They acted like I basically robbed the bank and got away with it," he said.

The Nez Perce Tribe declined to comment about the bighorn.

The tribe has played a leading role in Idaho in attempting to preserve bighorn sheep habitat. Among those efforts, the tribe was part of a federal lawsuit that concluded in 2010 and forced the removal of domestic sheep from parts of the Payette National Forest, including portions of Hells Canyon. Domestic sheep carry diseases that can wipe out bighorn herds.

Meanwhile, Idaho lawmakers in 2009 passed legislation favoring domestic sheep producers and limiting Idaho Fish and Game’s ability to transplant bighorns to expand bighorn populations to suitable bighorn habitat in the state.


-- The Associated Press

What a bunch of losers!

Killed in the State, legally, so where is the problem??

It's easy to debate whether it was killed under special rules......


.

oh boy.
the wording of many of the treaty's are still under scrutiny.[as are the legality of the persons that signed them]
this whole thing opens a can of worms I don't even want to try to comprehend.

I agree with the state on this one. Indians hunt year round, don't pay fees and claim it is "meat" hunting to feed families. It's all BS.
There should not be special rules for anyone claiming to be an American hunter.

Ski+3
Whitefish, MT

The same tribe that has sold off close to 90% of "it's lands", to the white man. Check a land owner map (blm or onX).

I was working construction about 10 years ago, in Orofino, and one of the crew was a local indian. It was almost Thanksgiving, and he was bragging that his deer count was "over 40" and his elk count was "over 20", for that year. None shot on the reservation...all on national forest, at anytime of the year. My reply was, "you and the wolf are truly blood brothers!".

They pay nothing into the system, and take MUCH more than those that do. Wrong at many levels!

Andy#3

Much of their land was stolen from them and their ancestors were murdered for resisting the stealing of their lands.

I am happy for this man that he had the opportunity to hunt and take a nice trophy.

I agree....by other tribes, then the white man.

You can't tell me killing 10 bighorn rams, 9 of which scored over 180" is subsistence hunting.

Andy#3

Ridiculous abuse of the game management system in the US.
This guy hunts without buying a license, pays no attention to established hunting seasons, hunts the species that is hardest for anyone else to get any opportunity to hunt, kills 10 of them and most avid hunters don't even get one chance in a lifetime.
Total bullshit.
No he should get NO recognition for his "trophy" he cheated the system to get it.

Lindy2 I can't even come close to agreeing with your justification. There are winners and losers in any migration and occupation. What about the poor Neandertals that were killed, displaced and their bloodlines diluted by Homo Sapiens? Do you feel the same for them?
Please how long will we handle native Americans as if they are made of glass. Its about time we ALL follow game laws and not turn a blind eye to one group or another.

Thank God this guy is 62 years old and nearing the end of his Sheep poaching career.

I don't see why these native people should be restricted to "subsistence" hunting. Again, if they are hunting on land that was theirs in the fist place and the federal government gave them the right to continue hunting on I don't see why they shouldn't be able to hunt the way they want by their own rules.

As for how long this should go on. Well, we stole their land forever, so they should be able to hunt the way they want forever.

So Lindy,

What makes it "theirs" in the first place?

Because they were there first? How far does that extend?

When that Nez Pearce Indian lived in his teepee and one day he hunted 5 miles to north does his land now extend 5 miles to the north? If the following week he hunted 7 miles to the north does he now own another 2 miles?

Does he get to climb to a mountain top and say my land is as far as I can see?

This is a total disregard for conservation and totally undermines the efforts of game management. Doesn't pay anything into the system, and has taken 9 rams over 180. That is nothing but pure greed.

If he is going to use tools created by the white man, then he should have to hunt the seasons that the rest of us hunt. These "Native Americans" seem to forget that they lived in the stone age and had not even created the wheel before Europeans arrived. When you have an oral history and no written records, then all of a sudden every mountain range that is advantageous to the tribe has religious significance.

If he wants to walk from his house, use a long bow with flint or obsidian arrowheads, wear traditional clothing and stay in a traditional shelter then have at it.

They should be allowed to hunt on the land that the federal government gave them. Whether its 7 miles one way and 6 miles the other way, or up and down a mountain, it was the federal government that made this treaty based on the lands that the people occupied at the time of the treaty.

The white man forced his ways on these people and should not expect them to relearn their own ways and hunt primitively as they once did.

A treaty (contract) was made between our government and them. There was no time limit placed on it. They have a right to hunt and fish in conformance with the treaty. We should not be jealous of it. And I hope this man enjoys taking many more majestic rams in his lifetime.

I think the Government should honor the deal they made allow Indians to hunt that land. The Rez I hunt is teaming with all manner of wildlife. I have been hunting there over 20 years and have seen little to none of the poor management of wildlife people talk about on reservations. Yes they shoot some does year round. Who really cares? The area can support it otherwise it would not have the game densities it does. 10 Rams in 40 plus years.....good for him!

Lindy,

Accept I am not arguing about the treaty.

You said "we stole their land forever".

What made it their land in the first place?

What were the boundaries of their land before the treaty existed?

What makes their claim of a boundary legitimate?

Because they hunted their once and they believe nobody else did?

Let's see if your response will actually be on point.

There can be no logical claim to the land but the treaty was signed with a group of people who held it during the cycle of time in which our government signed a contract. Treaty’s have consequences. Of course we have in our history walked away from some. It is a choice and there is a process. Our shame would be better spent if we focused on the result of making this group of people into a extra dependent class of people through those times and treaties. Of course if we did that we would also have to examine our efforts to do the same to other people’s in our country. No end to the digging in that hole.

quote:

Originally posted by lindy2:
I don't see why these native people should be restricted to "subsistence" hunting. Again, if they are hunting on land that was theirs in the fist place and the federal government gave them the right to continue hunting on I don't see why they shouldn't be able to hunt the way they want by their own rules.

As for how long this should go on. Well, we stole their land forever, so they should be able to hunt the way they want forever.

The minute they break the treaty by moving off that land they should lose all the rights of the treaty.

Indians in Wisconsin enjoy a pre fishing season fish spearing season.They always like to spear the largest walleye and musky which happen to be the egg filled females.They don`t spear them for substance as you can buy them on the res for a buck a pound.They are spearing to sell for drug money.They could care less about the fishery or any type of conservation.If you ride through the reservation you are lucky to see any living animal.They kill everything.I am not painting all indians as doing this,but a great many feel to be entitled.They are doing what they do not because of a want,but because they can.Screw em.

What made the land theirs in the first place is that they were there first In time and occupied it.

This was under a different system of laws than was forced upon them by the United States.

I am well aware of cases like Johnson v. M'Intosh, 21 US 543 (1823) and others like it.

But in this particular case, the fact is that these people occupied this land since it was discovered by their ancestors. That was their law. So not only did we steal their land, but we also forced them to live under a different set of laws!

So while the Federal government was forcing the taking of the land it still acknowledged that fact by making an agreement with these people. It gave them certain rights under a new system of law. The system of law we basically live in today.

Or in other words, they occupied the land and called it their own. The U. S. Federal Government in essence did the same thing in return. It occupied the land and called it its own, but under a different system of law. The government offered a treaty and the native people took it.

That treaty gave them the right to hunt and fish as they see fit. And I hope they continue to do it.

Loony2,there is a bar in Kashina Wi.It is called the War Bonnet.You should go there sometime and proclaim your brolove for the Injuns inside.

Lindy,

Your still missing the point. What does occupy mean?

Like I mentioned above they have a teepee - you want to call the 100 or 200 acres around the teepee occupied? fine

But don't try and assert that any place they were ever the first to set foot constitutes occupying and ownership and don't try to assert that when the treaty was signed where both parties agreed and that included several tens of thousands of acres that the land was "stolen from them" when there is a high likelihood that the tribe only walked thru many portions of the land granted to them a handful of times a year or that their claim of occupation was because I can see that valley from the mountain top I am now or my grandfather hunted that valley 50 years ago.

By the way, just as bogus is LaSalle's claiming all the lands drained by the Mississippi for France.

I might be missing your point, which I don't consider relevant because the Federal Government conceded some sort of ownership when they made the treaty. I am not here to argue the semantics of the word occupy. Nor am I an expert in early native law.

But these people did not willingly give up their lands which makes the lands stolen, and they were forced to live under a new set of laws that did not favor them.

They, and their progeny, deserve everything they got, including very liberal hunting and fishing laws. Again, I hope the fellow that shot the big ram is recognized for his accomplishment, and that he takes many more just like it.

You keep using the word stolen which requires that they owned it. That is the only way something can be stolen is if another person owned it.

But you refuse to respond to any question about how did they actually own it? What gave them ownership rights? and how legitimate are those claims?

Certainly you don't expect everyone to believe they owned it just because they said so.

quote:

Certainly you don't expect everyone to believe they owned it just because they said so.

I certainly do.

Ours is not the only system of law that defines ownership. First in time was used throughout the world in earlier times, as was simple occupation.

And again, it matters not for this discussion because as I noted, the Federal government conceded some sort of ownership or they would not have offered hunting, fishing, and other rights under a treaty. I think its wonderful that some of these people are still taking advantage of what they were given by using these hunting and fishing rights to enjoy their lives. I hope this gentleman takes many more big rams.

quote:

Originally posted by nmhunter4life:
If he is going to use tools created by the white man, then he should have to hunt the seasons that the rest of us hunt. These "Native Americans" seem to forget that they lived in the stone age and had not even created the wheel before Europeans arrived. When you have an oral history and no written records, then all of a sudden every mountain range that is advantageous to the tribe has religious significance.

If he wants to walk from his house, use a long bow with flint or obsidian arrowheads, wear traditional clothing and stay in a traditional shelter then have at it.

Love this! So true. I will be repeating it often. Stone age, no wheel, oral history, flint arrows, buckskin clothes. Now all the land is "theirs".

Thank you sir!

What we should have done with the Injuns is treat them the same way they treated other Injun tribes they vanquished in battle.Kill all the adult males and male children over 5 years old and enslaved the rest.But no we were mister nice guy and gave them a place to live and food and now it is biting us on the ass.

All I can say is what I said before. I hope this gentleman takes many more big rams from those treaty hunting grounds.

quote:

Originally posted by SkiBumplus3:
I agree with the state on this one. Indians hunt year round, don't pay fees and claim it is "meat" hunting to feed families. It's all BS.
There should not be special rules for anyone claiming to be an American hunter.

Ski+3
Whitefish, MT

Completely agree....I'm sick and tired of the "stole their ancestral lands" horseshit. EVERY native inhabitant on every patch of land the world over has been invaded or had "their" land stolen at one time or another over the course of history. Enough is enough. He and his buddies prolly ran it down in a truck and shot it out the window after they pushed all the empty beer cans outta the way.

Petitio Principii

Lindy,

Why do you keep talking your self in circles?

You just said that first in time ownership principle (or words to effect) was simply occupation but you refuse any discussion of what constitutes occupation in either proximity or duration.

My argument is not about the hunting rights or what the government may or may not have conceded.

My argument is about the assertion made by you that land was stolen.

You may wish to consider that you might want to stop

Any so called native that wants to invoke treaty rights needs to be given a DNA test.

If they are not 50plus percent they need to be take off tribal roles.

I can tell you not many in Wis would make it.

"Why do you keep talking your self in circles?"



Lets put it this way. I think that most native American tribes had their land taken against their will. If you don't, for whatever reason agree, that's fine. Different strokes for different folks. My main point has always been that this man and his family and tribe should continue to take as many sheep as they want based on their Federal treaty rights.

I would prefer you not use words like stolen given you won't define how they had ownership.

I would prefer that when you say ownership was based on occupation that you not refuse to discuss the meaning of occupation.

Because so far your logic has been:

1) It was stolen
2) When asked, why do say that?
3) You respond: Because it was theirs.
4) When asked, why was it theirs?
5) You respond: because they occupied it first
6) When asked: How do you define occupy?
7) You respond in various ways but essentially say: I don't want to talk about that.
8) When confronted with: Then you can't really say it was stolen.
9) You respond: It was theirs cause they occupied.

Pretty funny actually.

the comments about my argument are fair,
The comments about me personally are ad hominem and appeal to ridicule.

The concept of property ownership by early native americans was far different than our concept of ownership.
For them the concept of ownership was more of what the land provided, rather than the land itself, its size, or its boundaries, etc. In other words, if we can get a deer over here, and a fish in that stream, and we can continue to do that, then since we are here that is "our" land. Not, we have a deed and we paid for it and the boundaries are here and here and here. The land went with the way of life because it was necessary for the way of life. So yes, a whole different concept of land ownership, more communal, and not easily explained in common terms. The land was worth protecting not because it was land, but because it provided the necessities of life. Ownership wasn't proven by a registered deed, but rather a state of mind and occupation.
Regardless, for most tribes that was taken away against their will. People were forced onto reservations if they didn't go willingly. Many were killed if they didn't go willingly. And most were poorly compensated for what was taken from them.

I guess the question to ask everyone is... If YOU had the right to hunt the same land without restriction, would you do it?

quote:

Originally posted by Alec Torres:
I guess the question to ask everyone is... If YOU had the right to hunt the same land without restriction, would you do it?

Yes we would I think it's fair to say....
This is also what the recent Supreme Court ruling was about (that folks didn't seem to care much about a week ago???)
Expect to see more and more of this... the Treaties seem to, in many cases, supersede State Game Laws...
Now suddenly, this stirs interest in the topic

what part is ad hominem?

Nothing is personal or ridicule of you.

The comment regarding "funny" is directed at the logic. The other comments are a recitation of what you said.

quote:

I guess the question to ask everyone is... If YOU had the right to hunt the same land without restriction, would you do it?

I might enjoy being on the land without restriction, but I would not kill without restriction.

Indians never had a concept of land ownership.
or money but that's another discussion.
they used what they found wherever they happened to be at the time.
they may have went to point A from time to time to make some more arrow heads, or point B to catch a migration, but they never considered the land as theirs.