# May not have to buy Hunting/Fishing license anymore.



## Oldcountryboy (Feb 23, 2008)

Since I'm half Cherokee ***** and live in the Cherokee Nation Reservation, which covers 14 counties in Oklahoma, I maybe excluded from ever having to purchase a state Hunting or Fishing license. So long as I stay within the boundries of the Reservation. Cherokee Nations website www.wildlife.cherokee.org tells us all we need to do is be a card carrying Cherokee and if we have any problems with the ODWC that we can turn the tickets into them and they'll handle the problem. However, way down at the bottom of the page they mention they may or may not be able to get us out of trouble if we're fined. 

It's gonna be interesting to see what happens this coming deer season. The ODWC doesn't like this at all.


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

Do you have to follow the game laws too? 

Out here the bighorn sheep will winter down low. One year at Christmas a local paper had a picture of a huge old ram on the end of the river road where the plow quit. Some ****** in southern ID saw it and hopped in their Suburban and made the 250 mile drive, shot the ram, and headed home. All because they could. I don't have a problem with no license fee for them, or even hunting year round for subsistence, but they better need what they shoot.


----------



## ||Downhome|| (Jan 12, 2009)

Ive got no problem with the natives taking what was rightfully thiers in the first place. Of course had the new comers not forced thier value system upon them well maybe they would only take what they needed because thats all they use to do in the first place, thats why game was so abundent they had respect for the land and took what they could use and left the rest. didnt really matter wich tribe or location. here they get thier nets messed with all the time wich is crap. and I dont think they have to be on the res or even in tribal waters they can hunt and fish where they choose bar private land if they dont have permission.


----------



## Oldcountryboy (Feb 23, 2008)

Yep, they tell us we still have to follow the ODWC game laws except for the licensing part. We no longer have to check our deer in at a check station, and all we have to do is call a certain number to record the kill.


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

Sounds good. Have fun.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

down home 
that is a load of crap. the "natives" extincted several species of large mammal in North America. the game populations were large because the native populations were devastated by several large scale epidemics which cut them to between 1/10-1/5 of the precolonial numbers. their use of fires & jumps resulted in high wastage. they developed several techniques that allowed them to make large harvests of fish & game. prior to the epidemics it was farming that supported the numbers of natives. hunting, fishing & trapping were vital supplements not primary food sources.


----------



## ||Downhome|| (Jan 12, 2009)

suppose you know cause you where there huh pops? 

are you talking about mammoths and other Ice age beasts? 

well some tribes may have been into heavy agriculture a lot more depended on hunting/gathering/raiding. more so where the climate is not so favorable for agriculture or because they where nomads following the herds . Also their where a few cannibalistic tribes so the native animals where not always the only thing on the menu. 

ya I see what your talking bout so many cliffs out there on the plains to run thousand of bison off or here in Michigan too for runing herds of elk,deer and moose (ya I know moose dont herd) off of. 
I know some used that method but not to the extreme you portray. 

I stand by my OP to this thread and the fact that my European ancestors and settlers where for the most part a group of ignorant people who where out to exploit everything they could and refused to accept and worked to destroy the people that where here originaly physically,spiritually, and culturally. 

they not only perpetuated genocide though maybe at times unknowingly (small pox and other diseases which was latter used purposely) on the people they carried out a similar assault on the land and animals. 

All the tribes where not the same in practices or beliefs though some may have been similar among them .so its one thing you cant really generalize about unless you are a bigoted person.

also this is not "general chat" if you don't agree with me you don't have to be negative. just say you disagree (I disagree , I beg to differ, even I belive that to be incorrect.) instead of using rude comments. its not that hard!


----------



## hillbillly (Jun 28, 2009)

> All the tribes where not the same in practices or beliefs though some may have been similar among them .so its one thing you cant really generalize about unless you are a bigoted person.


but aren't you generalizing ?



> European ancestors and settlers where for the most part a group of ignorant people who where out to exploit everything they could and refused to accept and worked to destroy the people that where here originaly


&



> they had respect for the land and took what they could use and left the rest. didnt really matter wich tribe or location.


pot. kettle. black.


----------



## ||Downhome|| (Jan 12, 2009)

you must not of read all of that or it didnt click.

"All the tribes where not the same in practices or beliefs though some may have been similar among them .so its one thing you cant really generalize about unless you are a bigoted person "

"the part of read puts this in perspective.they had respect for the land and took what they could use and left the rest. didnt really matter wich tribe or location."

when you depend on something for survival doesnt make much sense to destroy it. the settlers raised livestock and praticed a different style of agriculture they were not dependent on the woodlands and plains and waters for survival (at least in the interior the coastal fisherys provided life for many though still exploited). but that wastefull mentality lives on in many! 

and yes I generalized about the settlers Im sure some used resources diligently and only what they needed. on a percentage basis though how many did not? how many still dont? deer and other game where practicly nonexistant in much of the country from market hunters still conservation groups changed things. 

its a much different thought frame on mans place. europeans put themselfs above nature (for the most part) the natives understood they where part of nature. and many other ideals and concepts of things. 

I wasnt trying to turn this into "GC" I stated my belife was all ,thats what I belive! I have the right to that and to voice it! do I not? you dont have to accept it as gospel any more than I yours and thats another thing we are all intitled to. 

"I MAY NOT AGREE WITH YOU, I WILL STILL PROTECT YOUR RIGHT TO SAY IT":goodjob:


and thanks for pointing out the indescrepency hillbilly!


----------



## ||Downhome|| (Jan 12, 2009)

thinking about it a little bit and no ones 100% RIGHT about any of it, Including myself! I think everyones got some of it right!

its just connecting the right dots and thats more of a personel preference right or wrong.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

||Downhome|| said:


> suppose you know cause you where there huh pops?
> 
> are you talking about mammoths and other Ice age beasts?


no, i were not there. there is however ample evidence that camelids & ground sloths among others survived well past the end of the ice age and the bison herd in AK proves the mammoths (which were grazers unlike elephants that are browsers) could have survived if not over hunted. it's the simple process of overhunting caused extinction, the largest or most easily killed go first. look at our own history, the whitetail which prefers heavier cover outlasted the bison, elk & antelope everywhere their territories overlapped. 



> well some tribes may have been into heavy agriculture a lot more depended on hunting/gathering/raiding. more so where the climate is not so favorable for agriculture or because they where nomads following the herds . Also their where a few cannibalistic tribes so the native animals where not always the only thing on the menu.


even the nomads of the plains assisted the propagation of native plants by burnings, weedings & seedings, which activity is the precursor to full on farming. except for maybe eskimos, every society engaged in different levels of farming, the purpose of which is as it always was to eliminate the highs & lows of dependancy on wild food sources. cannibalism was primarily ritualistic not dietary, the primary exception that comes to mind is the caribe of the west indies who were dietary cannibals. 



> ya I see what your talking bout so many cliffs out there on the plains to run thousand of bison off or here in Michigan too for runing herds of elk,deer and moose (ya I know moose dont herd) off of.
> I know some used that method but not to the extreme you portray.


as a matter of fact, if you'd spent some time there you'd know the river bottoms have a flat area adjacent to the main flow. however the bottoms are enclosed by sheer walls (cut during floods) that are normally 4-20 ft drops. at the base of large hills (because the plains are not a giant flat lawn) these drops can be over 100 ft. further large repeatedly used jumps have been located in every state west of the mississippi.
jumps weren't the only means of high kill high wastage hunting. fires & fences were used both alone and together & even w/ jumps (depending on the game & area).
the adoption of the horse culture also brought on large scale killing that generated wastage (of course they also used their horse herds as food during periods of shortage so they were in fact farming).




> I stand by my OP to this thread and the fact that my European ancestors and settlers where for the most part a group of ignorant people who where out to exploit everything they could and refused to accept and worked to destroy the people that where here originaly physically,spiritually, and culturally.
> 
> they not only perpetuated genocide though maybe at times unknowingly (small pox and other diseases which was latter used purposely) on the people they carried out a similar assault on the land and animals.
> 
> All the tribes where not the same in practices or beliefs though some may have been similar among them .so its one thing you cant really generalize about unless you are a bigoted person.


i don't dispute what happened or how it happened, it's all part of the historical record and can be found. what i dispute is the BS romanticised notion that the first nations in north america were somehow different than human beings the world over who exploit their resources to the best of their ability in order to gain an edge in survival of themselves & their people. they were human beings w/ all the greatness & all the horror that goes along w/ that title. they were noble & evil. they were generous & greedy. they managed incredible feats of engineering & architecture, and they committed genocides and mishandled their resources ALL before europeans ever arrived. that too is part of the historical record & can be found if you want to find it. romanticising them as something different from other human beings is just as belittling and bigotted as any attempt to denigrate them as less than human.



> also this is not "general chat" if you don't agree with me you don't have to be negative. just say you disagree (I disagree , I beg to differ, even I belive that to be incorrect.) instead of using rude comments. its not that hard!


already covered the romanticising thing, which is in fact a load of crap. i am kind of blunt and tend to come across as rude. i don't deny it, but i also don't feel the need to codle other people when they are being silly.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

||Downhome|| said:


> *you must not of read all of that or it didnt click.*


 i admit i'm rude, but this is mighty arrogant assumption on your part and is in it's own way belittling.




> "the part of read puts this in perspective.they had respect for the land and took what they could use and left the rest. didnt really matter wich tribe or location."


 romanticised BS.



> when you depend on something for survival doesnt make much sense to destroy it. the settlers raised livestock and praticed a different style of agriculture they were not dependent on the woodlands and plains and waters for survival (at least in the interior the coastal fisherys provided life for many though still exploited). but that wastefull mentality lives on in many!


 in theory you're right. but the reality is that people (all of them) tend to be greedy, selfish & shortsighted and the first nations were no different. 



> and yes I generalized about the settlers Im sure some used resources diligently and only what they needed. on a percentage basis though how many did not? how many still dont? deer and other game where practicly nonexistant in much of the country from market hunters still conservation groups changed things.


 again a well though out accurate statement based in FACT. 



> its a much different thought frame on mans place. europeans put themselfs above nature (for the most part) the natives understood they where part of nature. and many other ideals and concepts of things.


 more romanticised BS. 



> I wasnt trying to turn this into "GC" I stated my belife was all ,thats what I belive! I have the right to that and to voice it! do I not? you dont have to accept it as gospel any more than I yours and thats another thing we are all intitled to.


 you absolutely have a right to your belief, but when your belief is based in the same reality of a practicing Jedi Knight, people are going to shove reality right back at you. 



> "I MAY NOT AGREE WITH YOU, I WILL STILL PROTECT YOUR RIGHT TO SAY IT":goodjob:


same here, but it doesn't mean i won't tell you if you're being a doofus.


----------



## tamsam (May 12, 2006)

Here in WV if you live here and are 65 or older you don't need a license but you have the same rules everyone else has. Sam
PS also a land owner and their kids that live in state can hunt their land without a license.


----------



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

Well its no different than my property I can kill Deer,Turkey and other Game without a license.The Goverment tried changing it this year but the people got them to leave it as it was.

I usually buy some license to hunt other properties.

big rockpile


----------



## tinknocker66 (Jul 15, 2009)

The indians say its their area and the can do it because they have the right.I live in washington where they use the motor driven sleds on the rivers , and use their nylon gill nets in the river.if they want to do what their ancestors did they should use canoes and hand woven nets.


----------



## Oldcountryboy (Feb 23, 2008)

big rockpile said:


> Well its no different than my property I can kill Deer,Turkey and other Game without a license.The Goverment tried changing it this year but the people got them to leave it as it was.
> 
> I usually buy some license to hunt other properties.
> 
> big rockpile


Well, I'll probably will keep on buying license myself even tho I'm half *****. Especially the fishing lincense cause theirs other places other then the Cherokee territory that I like to fish at once in a while. I may not buy a Hunting license anymore as I plan on doing all my deer hunting back behind my house. Why go deer hunting way off somewhere when there's plenty of deer raiding my garden outside. I need to control their population with hunting. But I don't have any fish in my backyard to control.


----------

