1. Welcome to Taxidermy.net, Guest!
    We have put together a brief tutorial to help you with the site, click here to access it.

USFW allows 2 eagles to be killed

Discussion in 'Bird Taxidermy' started by txoutdoors, Mar 15, 2012.

  1. You're talking about traditions and ceremonies that go back further than the white man's arrival here. Freedom of religion can and should be supported and if it conflicts with the laws of the country, that's when it needs to be looked into and logically tackled, instead of completely blocked.

    Native Americans are not like any other minority in this country. It was agreed that they could retain reservations rather than be completely conquered via genocide or completely stripped of their ancestral lands. I cannot go along with thoughts of NAs not deserving their ancestral lands.. if a white man inherits a big farm from their dad, it'd be similar to the NA inheriting tribal hunting grounds from their parents, right? No one is coming in and conquering our private farms and homesteads the way that NA have been.. so it is more complex than just saying "oh, giving NA rights is racist against whites."

    As for not wanting to see our national symbol killed.. that is just goofy to me. The turkey almost became our national bird.. would that have barred turkey sandwiches? Go to Kodiak Island; bald eagles are like seagulls there. Not rare..
  2. Triple BB

    Triple BB New Member

    These are in addition to the ones they kill illegally. The tribe has been appealing a conviction from a couple years ago where one of their idiots poached an eagle. I wish they wouldn't have granted the license. Someone on another site indicated Obongo had to sign off on this deal. Both of the tribes up there pizz and moan constantly about being a sovereign nation at least up until the point they get their welfare and gov't assistance checks.

  3. Nancy C

    Nancy C Well-Known Member

    If I lived in a nation that lost a war I wouldn't be terribly surprised if the conquering nation took away everybody's private farms and homesteads. After all, that's what usually happens when one nation conquers another one. It's not pretty, but it's a well-known part of human history.
    What is NOT well established is the idea of a conquering nation keeping the losers as "wards" rather than simply absorbing them into their culture. It's as if they are zoo animals rather than human beings.
  4. Except for Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Grenada, Iraq, Afganistan....
    Americans generally have enough of a moral compass to not set out to enslave and pillage the conquered.
  5. Wouter

    Wouter Member

    There is nothing wrong with freedom of religion, and all officially recognized religions should be treated equal, including the Indians. However, this freedom is not without bounds. After all it is not acceptable in the US or Europe to marry 10 women, make human sacrifices, tatto/scar your young children or settle your arguments with you neighbour according to "an eye for an eye". In such cases, the law puts a limit on what you can get away with as "religious freedom", and that's what makes us a civilized society.
    The deliberate killing of eagles is one of those things for which religion simply isn't good enough as an excuse. Especially because there is an alternative especially created for the Indians, by letting them have the bodies of eagles that died naturally or accidentally via the federal eagle depository, you only have to wait your turn for a couple of years.
    This case is a clear example of giving someone a finger, and he takes the whole hand. It's hard to believe the USFW falls for that, knowing their usual hysterical attitude towards anything that involves living and dead native birds and their parts.

  6. NDNHunter

    NDNHunter 2007 World Chamionships, Reno

    I don't know what the arapahos' belief is regarding eagles, I guess I better speak up. It is our belief (Lakota Sioux) that it's VERY bad luck to kill an eagle. The eagle carries our prayers to the creator. How we got our eagle feathers in the past was to dig a pit on a hill, big enough for whoever was chosen to catch the eagles to hide in. The top of the pit had a natural looking cover. On one side was placed a carcass or gut pile. Usually it was a holy man that would wait in the pit, he would ask the eagle for some of his feathers, if the eagle landed, he would grab the eagle by the feet, pluck a few feathers, thank the bird and turn it loose. Feathers obtained this way is what gives them power. Feathers used in cerimonies need to be handled a certain way from the start, by a holy man only. But nowa days, feathers are obtained many ways including killing and the eagle depository. ::) I've seen what comes from there. Those feathers are for looks only, they have no power. Anything bought or sold is useless in cerimony, or feathers handled by unqualified people. That's probably why the arapaho want to get the eagles themselves. Every tribe has different ways or beliefs. How many tribes are there? That's how many different native religions there are. The Government has no business trying to dictate how native people should think or believe. ;) ;D
  7. Send them to MN and tell them to take as many as they want...they're like rats here. I remember as a kid my Dad would tell us that seeing an eagle was a sign of good luck, and it was somewhat rare and special. I'll see a couple dozen fishing that same stretch of river nowadays. You'll see them downtown flying between skyscrapers. They're everywhere.

    There's no reason they need the level of protection they still have. That goes for all raptors. Our laws should be more in-line with Canada. If someone finds a dead raptor they should be able to get a permit and possess one.
  8. Ted

    Ted Member

    In America we are all equal.. It's just that some groups are a little more equal than the rest of us. ..Animal Farm and 1984 are here!
  9. We in Minnesota have seen plenty of what can happen when you cater to the Natives. The love the land BS!
    They netted out Red Lake and we had to save the Red Lake Walleye strain from going extinct. We had to do it for them on the nations only sovereign reservation because the facility for stocking we built for them they vandalized and smashed all the windows. We give them so much money every year and their corrupt leaders make things worse. The more we give them the higher the crime rate goes and the more bad and child abuse we pay for (my wife works with social services for kids from the res) believe me its bad and they will not prosecute their own because the more members they keep the more $ they get. Now they want to net all the lakes off the res and say they should have hunting and gathering rights off the res also.
    Well they do. They get a free hunting and fishing license. That must not be enough they have to net out the lakes? Why can't they just follow the law and take the free license and shut it? I thought they were supposed to be great hunters and fishermen? Around here they get drunk and shoot out the car window and take fish with spotlight and spear and giant gill nets like a commercial fishery. Sympathy for what happened hundreds of years ago, only in America!
  10. Straight from the DNR...
    So they somehow saved the Red Lake walleye strain by stocking Vermillion strain fry?

    BTW, the MN DNR buys a lot of the walleye fry and fingerlings from the national fish hatchery located in Garrison, ND. A lot of "Minnesota Walleye" caught are actually from North Dakota.

    How do some of you have the audacity to bring up something as ridiculous as walleyes or how a tribe gets to kill a couple eagles and then claim that you are being treated unequally...what about the Dawes Act or how the federal goverment basically abducted children off the reservations until the 1980's and threw them into boarding schools? Two wrongs don't make a right but to infer that anyone who is not Indian is a second-class citizen because a single tribe gets to kill two eagles is absurd.

    If the USFWS was allowing a taxidermist to kill and possess a couple eagles I can't help to think that the reaction would be different. Any leniency in the regulations that allows any citizen to do this is a step in the right direction.
  11. Wouter

    Wouter Member

    Well Matt, I don't think anybody on this forum would approve of a taxidermist getting a lisence to KILL and mount an eagle (I sure as hell won't). If a taxidermist would get a lisence to mount a FOUND eagle, then yes, the reaction would be different, but so would be the situation.

  12. Ok, so write about the strain of walleye as if it is as important as the fact that they are a sovereign reservation. They want to be on their own with their corrupt leaders that keep them down. Well then we should quit paying to re stock the lakes that the recklessly net out and kill off.
  13. I would. There is no reason why non endangered raptors can't be managed the same as other "game" predators. DDT been gone a looong time.
  14. I would love to be able to shoot an eagle and mount it. That'd be awesome. I've also found two fresh dead eagles (one adult, one juvenile) that were not shot, that I would have gladly reported if I could have obtained them.

    I agree with bullwhipcracker 100%. We are getting to the point where raptors could, and should, be managed similar to game species. Start a lottery for tags and allow a limited harvest. Will it ever happen? Probably not. Especially when you have idiots like the guy/media on the video clip upset because of "40 years of conservation" bringing the eagle back only to have those "darn natives" kill 'em! What conservation? I didn't know banning DDT somehow conserved where eagles now nest today...kudos to that guy for his awesome spin.
  15. I didn't write about the strain of walleyes as if they were important...that was you who did that. Sorry for correcting you. I guess I wouldn't make an emotional post declaring it was my demographic that saved a strain of fish that doesn't actually exist.

    ...and since we are talking about emotions, demographics, and Red Lake fish management, here is my take. If I was head of the DNR I wouldn't have spent a dime on restocking Red with walleyes...and that has nothing to do with the hatred towards a race of people that lead you to that decision. MN is full of great walleye lakes; why the need to save one that was better off as a crappie lake? More people went to fish Red in the late 90's/early 00's to fish schools of 13-15" crappies that were miles long. It was as a unique of a fishery as we'll ever see in this state in our lifetime.

    There you go...a cost-effective, objective and non-emotional take on fishery management. You complain about the emotional/religious viewpoint from the Native Americans that drove this USFWS decision but you fail to realize you are every bit as guilty of doing the same. You're just on the other side of the fence for this and that is what upsets you.
  16. First of I agree with the crappie fishery idea and the lake would be a much bigger and more unique attraction (not to mention better for my business) if it were still producing the large numbers of giant crappies it once did.

    What upsets me is not a race or hatred. My wife takes care of native kids for a living, many were abused and have major problems. One had shaken baby syndrome and when she died (a day shy of 6 years old) my wife felt like she lost her own kid after taking care of her for 5 years! My problem is the harm the government is doing to the reservations in the name of Helping Them. On top of it all they are always complaining they should have more rights to hunt and gather (rape and pillage) off of the reservation. I have no problems with the race or any race. My problem is the mislead direction for their people because of their poor leadership assisted by liberal Minnesota politicians. Red Lake is a sovereign nation. Yet we fund almost every aspect of their lives. We cannot fish most of upper red or any of lower red yet we had to pay to re stock the lake. I think they should be happy with the free license off the res and the ability to net and spear on the res and leave it at that or we should cut the funding of a sovereign nation that we are not required to pay anyway.
  17. Let them subsistence hunt and fish all they want. But cut off the entitlements. Let them have casinos and pay their own way.
  18. Agreed but could you imagine the riots if you cut off the entitlements? But to me I believe subsistence hunt means within the state fish and game laws (off of the reservation don't care what they do within the res) Don't mind if season was open to them year around either I just don't see them needing 50 foot gill nets on non reservation lakes like they protested for on Lake Bemidji last spring.
  19. I could imagine the riots... most positive change can not occur with out pain.
    When the pain of change is greater than the pain of staying the same is when we improve ourselves. Which is why entitlements will never improve anything or anyone.
  20. First off, I'm sorry Gameovertaxidermy for taking the discussion too far. I shouldn't have said that it was hatred that lead you to your opinion. That was out of line. My apologies, and thanks for keeping it civil.

    It's hard to look at these issues with an objective viewpoint because it's an emotional issue. I bet if we sat down and discussed this over a beer we'd probably realize our opinions are the same across the board when it comes to MN tribal politics, and the state of some of the reservations (Red in particular). I agree that most of it sucks, is fueled by greed, and is regulated by corrupt tribal governments.

    You and I aren't going to change that and we certainly didn't cause it...we weren't around for what happened. Unfortunately the U.S. federal government was and they entered into agreements they're going to have to honor as long as this country is still standing. The 5-4 supreme court ruling in the late '90s stemming from the Ojibwe's hunting and fishing rights in the 1839 ceded territory was the nail in the coffin.

    IMO the state actually came out on top. The long and short of it was that most of the northern half of MN was one giant reservation given to the ojibwe and as the state was settled they ended up ceding most of it back to the federal government. The one stipulation was that they were allowed to hunt, fish, trap on their former land...which they had actually taken from yankton and santee Sioux tribes only a couple decades prior to signing the treaties. Anyways, that's neither here nor there...ojibwe inked the deal with the feds and the courts upheld it. We're lucky they didn't go after the land. Time to move on and accept they're going to have different rights than we are. Complaining at this point is really just sour grapes.

    I think they're like most hunter/fisherman in that they'd rather complain about their right to hunt/fish than actually go. There's areas I quit hunting 10-15 years ago because of all the native hunters who would burn it out before others could hunt that I've hunted the past couple years and haven't seen a single one. Apparently hunter numbers are declining for them too.

    My friend has a saying; the worst thing the government did for the Indians was putting them on reservations and the worst thing they did for blacks was give them welfare. I realize that's a very non-PC, and broad brush stroke to paint, but there's a lot of truth to it. A couple eagles or some walleyes seem pretty insignificant in the big picture.