Makah tribe and the senseless killing of a whale

Cdubneeddeal

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 2003
7,476
3
81
Text

I hope these fuckers are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I'm from WA so this is a hot topic here in our state and has been for years (Makah Whaling)
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
No special rights... Federal Prosecution.. PLUS Tribal Courts.. defendants should be stripped of all tribal rights for life
 

Cdubneeddeal

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 2003
7,476
3
81
Originally posted by: dahunan
No special rights... Federal Prosecution.. PLUS Tribal Courts.. defendants should be stripped of all tribal rights for life

Yeah. And that guy had no remorse for it. Apparently the rifle they used could kill anything from four miles away.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
There was something in National Geographic in this months or last months issue talking about Tribal whale hunting and how they are allowed to do it as it is their custom. Thought this dealt with artic hunters and they were hunting the whale with a long bone from its nose. I dont remember the name.

The picture and the caption imo were hilarious. These eskimos want to keep their traditions while about 30 of them lined up at a hole in the ice with rifles shooting whales from point blank. Yeah, I am sure that was the custom they used for thousands of years



I'd have more respect for these customs if they performed them in the traditonal sense. Not line up like a firing squad with high powered rifles.

 

slsmnaz

Diamond Member
Mar 13, 2005
4,018
0
0
Originally posted by: Cdubneeddeal
Originally posted by: dahunan
No special rights... Federal Prosecution.. PLUS Tribal Courts.. defendants should be stripped of all tribal rights for life

Yeah. And that guy had no remorse for it. Apparently the rifle they used could kill anything from four miles away.

While I agree it was senseless, your statement on the gun is just wrong. It said it could fire a bullet 4 miles not kill anything from that distance.

They then shot the whale with a gun powerful enough to fire a slug four miles.
 
Feb 24, 2001
14,550
4
81
Originally posted by: slsmnaz
Originally posted by: Cdubneeddeal
Originally posted by: dahunan
No special rights... Federal Prosecution.. PLUS Tribal Courts.. defendants should be stripped of all tribal rights for life

Yeah. And that guy had no remorse for it. Apparently the rifle they used could kill anything from four miles away.

While I agree it was senseless, your statement on the gun is just wrong. It said it could fire a bullet 4 miles not kill anything from that distance.

They then shot the whale with a gun powerful enough to fire a slug four miles.

Yeah, a .22LR can fire for miles. BFD. FUD.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
Originally posted by: slsmnaz
Originally posted by: Cdubneeddeal
Originally posted by: dahunan
No special rights... Federal Prosecution.. PLUS Tribal Courts.. defendants should be stripped of all tribal rights for life

Yeah. And that guy had no remorse for it. Apparently the rifle they used could kill anything from four miles away.

While I agree it was senseless, your statement on the gun is just wrong. It said it could fire a bullet 4 miles not kill anything from that distance.

They then shot the whale with a gun powerful enough to fire a slug four miles.

Yeah, a .22LR can fire for miles. BFD. FUD.

Dunno if this is the same story but earlier this week the one I heard about they had a .50cal which is a "tad" bigger than a .22.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
Originally posted by: slsmnaz
Originally posted by: Cdubneeddeal
Originally posted by: dahunan
No special rights... Federal Prosecution.. PLUS Tribal Courts.. defendants should be stripped of all tribal rights for life

Yeah. And that guy had no remorse for it. Apparently the rifle they used could kill anything from four miles away.

While I agree it was senseless, your statement on the gun is just wrong. It said it could fire a bullet 4 miles not kill anything from that distance.

They then shot the whale with a gun powerful enough to fire a slug four miles.

Yeah, a .22LR can fire for miles. BFD. FUD.

Dunno if this is the same story but earlier this week the one I heard about they had a .50cal which is a "tad" bigger than a .22.

How are these indians able to afford .50 cal rifles? :confused:
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
Originally posted by: slsmnaz
Originally posted by: Cdubneeddeal
Originally posted by: dahunan
No special rights... Federal Prosecution.. PLUS Tribal Courts.. defendants should be stripped of all tribal rights for life

Yeah. And that guy had no remorse for it. Apparently the rifle they used could kill anything from four miles away.

While I agree it was senseless, your statement on the gun is just wrong. It said it could fire a bullet 4 miles not kill anything from that distance.

They then shot the whale with a gun powerful enough to fire a slug four miles.

Yeah, a .22LR can fire for miles. BFD. FUD.

Dunno if this is the same story but earlier this week the one I heard about they had a .50cal which is a "tad" bigger than a .22.

The article indicates that the rules are supposed to use a .50cal, they went out with a .460 and also did not follow other guidelines.

Is the whale kill supposed to be for food or just tradition. There may not be any reference of it being intended for food.

The person's statement"to keep the tribe alive" could be interpreted as tradition vs sustinance.

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,285
6,026
126
In my tribe we have a long long tradition of using high powered rifles to kill Native Americans. I hope these Eskimos don't have any objections to that.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
I don't like what happened to the American Indians or other Indian populations. However, the "rules" for them seem pretty silly in light of what's actually going on in the world.

I went fishing in northern MN last month. For us there were limits to how many fish we could catch and for Walleye there are "slots" in which fish that are in the slot have to be thrown back (17-28").

These rules don't apply to the tribes, they get unlimited catch regardless of slot and get to do it in more or less any way they want.

I understand the need for slots, but when you catch a fish that is in the slot and see it's near dead, but still have to throw it back, while American Indians are catching them by the dozens, it seems a bit preposterous.
 

MiniDoom

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2004
5,307
0
71
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I don't like what happened to the American Indians or other Indian populations. However, the "rules" for them seem pretty silly in light of what's actually going on in the world.

I went fishing in northern MN last month. For us there were limits to how many fish we could catch and for Walleye there are "slots" in which fish that are in the slot have to be thrown back (17-28").

These rules don't apply to the tribes, they get unlimited catch regardless of slot and get to do it in more or less any way they want.

I understand the need for slots, but when you catch a fish that is in the slot and see it's near dead, but still have to throw it back, while American Indians are catching them by the dozens, it seems a bit preposterous.

they're a sovereign nation. they shouldn't have to abide by our laws. now if this whale incident was a violation of international law, it's different.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: rdubbz420
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I don't like what happened to the American Indians or other Indian populations. However, the "rules" for them seem pretty silly in light of what's actually going on in the world.

I went fishing in northern MN last month. For us there were limits to how many fish we could catch and for Walleye there are "slots" in which fish that are in the slot have to be thrown back (17-28").

These rules don't apply to the tribes, they get unlimited catch regardless of slot and get to do it in more or less any way they want.

I understand the need for slots, but when you catch a fish that is in the slot and see it's near dead, but still have to throw it back, while American Indians are catching them by the dozens, it seems a bit preposterous.

they're a sovereign nation. they shouldn't have to abide by our laws. now if this whale incident was a violation of international law, it's different.


Gotta love double standards.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Originally posted by: rdubbz420
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I don't like what happened to the American Indians or other Indian populations. However, the "rules" for them seem pretty silly in light of what's actually going on in the world.

I went fishing in northern MN last month. For us there were limits to how many fish we could catch and for Walleye there are "slots" in which fish that are in the slot have to be thrown back (17-28").

These rules don't apply to the tribes, they get unlimited catch regardless of slot and get to do it in more or less any way they want.

I understand the need for slots, but when you catch a fish that is in the slot and see it's near dead, but still have to throw it back, while American Indians are catching them by the dozens, it seems a bit preposterous.

they're a sovereign nation. they shouldn't have to abide by our laws. now if this whale incident was a violation of international law, it's different.

If that's the case then I guess we can stop subsidizing all the native tribes, right?
 

MiniDoom

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2004
5,307
0
71
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: rdubbz420
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I don't like what happened to the American Indians or other Indian populations. However, the "rules" for them seem pretty silly in light of what's actually going on in the world.

I went fishing in northern MN last month. For us there were limits to how many fish we could catch and for Walleye there are "slots" in which fish that are in the slot have to be thrown back (17-28").

These rules don't apply to the tribes, they get unlimited catch regardless of slot and get to do it in more or less any way they want.

I understand the need for slots, but when you catch a fish that is in the slot and see it's near dead, but still have to throw it back, while American Indians are catching them by the dozens, it seems a bit preposterous.

they're a sovereign nation. they shouldn't have to abide by our laws. now if this whale incident was a violation of international law, it's different.

If that's the case then I guess we can stop subsidizing all the native tribes, right?

they get money for the gas and oil the government takes from their land.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,285
6,026
126
We could stop this by having a submarine go under the ice hole and pop up a slot machine.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Originally posted by: rdubbz420
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I don't like what happened to the American Indians or other Indian populations. However, the "rules" for them seem pretty silly in light of what's actually going on in the world.

I went fishing in northern MN last month. For us there were limits to how many fish we could catch and for Walleye there are "slots" in which fish that are in the slot have to be thrown back (17-28").

These rules don't apply to the tribes, they get unlimited catch regardless of slot and get to do it in more or less any way they want.

I understand the need for slots, but when you catch a fish that is in the slot and see it's near dead, but still have to throw it back, while American Indians are catching them by the dozens, it seems a bit preposterous.

they're a sovereign nation. they shouldn't have to abide by our laws. now if this whale incident was a violation of international law, it's different.

It was also their own laws that they broke.

 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,413
616
126
Originally posted by: rdubbz420
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: rdubbz420
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I don't like what happened to the American Indians or other Indian populations. However, the "rules" for them seem pretty silly in light of what's actually going on in the world.

I went fishing in northern MN last month. For us there were limits to how many fish we could catch and for Walleye there are "slots" in which fish that are in the slot have to be thrown back (17-28").

These rules don't apply to the tribes, they get unlimited catch regardless of slot and get to do it in more or less any way they want.

I understand the need for slots, but when you catch a fish that is in the slot and see it's near dead, but still have to throw it back, while American Indians are catching them by the dozens, it seems a bit preposterous.

they're a sovereign nation. they shouldn't have to abide by our laws. now if this whale incident was a violation of international law, it's different.

If that's the case then I guess we can stop subsidizing all the native tribes, right?

they get money for the gas and oil the government takes from their land.


Who does?
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Originally posted by: rdubbz420
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I don't like what happened to the American Indians or other Indian populations. However, the "rules" for them seem pretty silly in light of what's actually going on in the world.

I went fishing in northern MN last month. For us there were limits to how many fish we could catch and for Walleye there are "slots" in which fish that are in the slot have to be thrown back (17-28").

These rules don't apply to the tribes, they get unlimited catch regardless of slot and get to do it in more or less any way they want.

I understand the need for slots, but when you catch a fish that is in the slot and see it's near dead, but still have to throw it back, while American Indians are catching them by the dozens, it seems a bit preposterous.

they're a sovereign nation. they shouldn't have to abide by our laws. now if this whale incident was a violation of international law, it's different.

The vast majority of MN's 11,000+ lakes do not reside on Tribal land. Thus their soveirgn nation status shouldnt have anything to do with it.

 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Originally posted by: rdubbz420
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: rdubbz420
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I don't like what happened to the American Indians or other Indian populations. However, the "rules" for them seem pretty silly in light of what's actually going on in the world.

I went fishing in northern MN last month. For us there were limits to how many fish we could catch and for Walleye there are "slots" in which fish that are in the slot have to be thrown back (17-28").

These rules don't apply to the tribes, they get unlimited catch regardless of slot and get to do it in more or less any way they want.

I understand the need for slots, but when you catch a fish that is in the slot and see it's near dead, but still have to throw it back, while American Indians are catching them by the dozens, it seems a bit preposterous.

they're a sovereign nation. they shouldn't have to abide by our laws. now if this whale incident was a violation of international law, it's different.

If that's the case then I guess we can stop subsidizing all the native tribes, right?

they get money for the gas and oil the government takes from their land.

Most tribes get much more than that, not to mention the casino's.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: rdubbz420
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: rdubbz420
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I don't like what happened to the American Indians or other Indian populations. However, the "rules" for them seem pretty silly in light of what's actually going on in the world.

I went fishing in northern MN last month. For us there were limits to how many fish we could catch and for Walleye there are "slots" in which fish that are in the slot have to be thrown back (17-28").

These rules don't apply to the tribes, they get unlimited catch regardless of slot and get to do it in more or less any way they want.

I understand the need for slots, but when you catch a fish that is in the slot and see it's near dead, but still have to throw it back, while American Indians are catching them by the dozens, it seems a bit preposterous.

they're a sovereign nation. they shouldn't have to abide by our laws. now if this whale incident was a violation of international law, it's different.

If that's the case then I guess we can stop subsidizing all the native tribes, right?

they get money for the gas and oil the government takes from their land.

Most tribes get much more than that, not to mention the casino's.


Not to mention in the situation mentioned by Legendkiller. There arent a whole hell of a lot of gas and oil drilling going on in MN. Casino's yes, drilling no.


 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,413
616
126
Originally posted by: rdubbz420
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I don't like what happened to the American Indians or other Indian populations. However, the "rules" for them seem pretty silly in light of what's actually going on in the world.

I went fishing in northern MN last month. For us there were limits to how many fish we could catch and for Walleye there are "slots" in which fish that are in the slot have to be thrown back (17-28").

These rules don't apply to the tribes, they get unlimited catch regardless of slot and get to do it in more or less any way they want.

I understand the need for slots, but when you catch a fish that is in the slot and see it's near dead, but still have to throw it back, while American Indians are catching them by the dozens, it seems a bit preposterous.

they're a sovereign nation. they shouldn't have to abide by our laws. now if this whale incident was a violation of international law, it's different.

When off the reservation they sure as hell do have to abide by local, state and federal laws.