What leads you to believe that these treaties have not been read,or that
the terms of these treaties are not still in force ?

The treaty of Canandaigua reaffirmed the Iroquois Confederacy's
RIGHTS including hunting/fishing/trapping in their respective historical territories
within New York State.

It's still in force in New York State today.

w

Once again,

There were no Indian reservations in
New York State in the 1790's.

The treaties guaranteed hunting/fishing/trapping RIGHTS
to members of the Iroquois confederacy in perpetuity
within the historical territory they inhabited before Europeans arrived.

There were no boundary restrictions that were limited to reservations
because the concept of Indian Reservations did not yet exist
in the 1790's in New York State.

w
[/quote]

My question was not about the duration of these rights, or the boundaries of these rights, but what is specifically meant by the right to hunt, fish and trap? Does that automatically imply by any and all methods?

For example, MN passed a constitutional ammendment affirming the citizens right to hunt and fish. That right does not mean unregulated, anything goes, have at em by any means.

I know treaties and constitutional ammendments are not the same thing, but I would assume the treaties are silent on regulated or unfettered rights?

They follow their own customs,that they always did.
They dont recognize the rules of the foreigners.

Customs like Halogen lights, outboard motors, steel spear tips on fiberglass poles and electric freezers?

Yea,they used all technology as it was developed/invented.
None of their laws restrict any of that.

Any American citizen who begrudges unfettered hunting/fishing/trapping rights
to the small, remnant population of survivors of the genocidal policies of the
United States against North American Indians should be ashamed of themselves.

Whatever technique or technology they want to use is fine by me.

You anti-Indian hunting rights types are a bunch of belly-aching crybabies !!!

w

Walleyed
Are you an Indian?

Sounds like it or a soft headed lib.

I think with the new rules anyone can identify as whatever they want,

No.

Not an Indian or Liberal.

Scots-Irish with a bit of Polack.

Are you two anti-Indian crybabies, also ?

w

Anti Indian? Have to ask my Indian wife.

Same here. My wife is a member of the northern Cheyenne tribe and she hates to see the headless elk going to rot while her people sit around and watch direct tv an get high on meth with the horn money. Spout treaty rights all you want but the waste of a natural resource for drugs is just wrong.

I don't way in much that's controversial but I will on this.SO I see several who folks disagree with this gentlemen? Is this correct?

do you disagree with this because this is the original post? YES or NO

Do you think it is OK for the natives to come into an area and take out almost every last existing Moose like they did where I live?

I would like to here if you agree or disagree with the posts above. Not interested in hearing points being hashed over. I have heard that for all my life.

They're Americans, just like the rest of us. Should play by the same rules.

Does my asking an honest question about treaty language and what exactly is meant by the right to hunt and fish (unfettered or with reasonable conservation limitations) make me an anti-Indian, belly-aching crybaby?

You have stated fact and truth and I agree with you 100%. I'm not native but have lived close to reservations all my life and have seen the good and the bad.

I also seen the slob hunters from out of staters and locals that aren't native also.

If a person, ANY PERSON, is subsistence hunting, fishing or trapping, was really after subsistence would they pass up does, cows to shoot the biggest buck or bull an area just for the horns?Maybe my interpretation of subsistence and someone else's interpretation are polar opposite. Yet this what what we see here in WA and I'm sure in other areas as well.
I don't begrudge the natives ability to hunt or fish if they are in fact doing it for subsistence, however I do disagree with them having the privilege "right" to waste fish or game in the name of historical hunting fishing. We all know and pretty much can agree subsistence hunting and trophy hunting are not the same