ga362: I think my family is originally from Denmark.

So you're one of the Kenniwicks?

PsychoLaurie: Because these hunts are not done from a position of malevolence, but rather from a highly spiritual & ritualistic position, I do NOT have a problem with these permits.

Next up: Allowing human sacrifice (if the victim is willing) as long as you do it for spiritual and ritualistic reasons.

ggecko: Gee, since it is in the name of "religious freedom", well, I'm an Aztec and I demand to be allowed to do human sacrifices, it is for my "religion".

Sorry, the Aztecs are not a sovereign nation within the boundaries of the USA with which the U.S. government has a treaty, so you have no standing to request a permit from the FWS. Try asking the Mexican government?

pag1107: I have no problem with this.

I am so glad because I like to eat dogs and cats on Fridays for my religious purposes, purr-fur-ably hand feed loved pet cats and dogs.

//where did you say you lived?

Fark the native american tribes. It's time for them to get into the 21st century, get rid of the damn reservations, and all their special rights.

KimNorth: I am so glad because I like to eat dogs and cats on Fridays for my religious purposes, purr-fur-ably hand feed loved pet cats and dogs.

//where did you say you lived?

I'm actually ok if people want to eat dogs, cats or horses. Now you can't go eating someone else's dog and cat, because that's theft.

Pretty crappy religion if you've got to ask the white man's permission to practice it.

canyoneer: By the terms of the 1851 Treaty of Fort Laramie between the United States and various tribes including the Cheyenne and Arapaho,[1] the Cheyenne and Arapaho were recognized to hold a vast territory encompassing the lands between the North Platte River and Arkansas River and eastward from the Rocky Mountains to western Kansas. This area included present-day southeastern Wyoming, southwestern Nebraska, most of eastern Colorado, and the westernmost portions of Kansas.[2] However, the discovery in November 1858 of gold in the Rocky Mountains in Colorado[3] (then part of the western Kansas Territory)[4] brought on a gold rush and a consequent flood of white emigration across Cheyenne and Arapaho lands.[3] Colorado territorial officials pressured federal authorities to redefine the extent of Indians treaty lands,[2] and in the fall of 1860 A.B. Greenwod, Commissioner of Indian Affairs, arrived at Bent's New Fort along the Arkansas River to negotiate a new treaty.[3] (new window)

Not only is this sort of limited permit for collection for religious reasons not controversial, the Cheyenne and Arapaho are entitled to much, much more. Like the entire eastern third of the State of Colorado (and parts of Wyoming, Nebraska, and Kansas, including Denver, Colorado Springs, and all the valuable real estate, natural gas, petroleum, timber, water, and farm production therein - it would be no exagerration to say that they had hundreds of billions of dollars stolen from them. So maybe you all should just put this in perspective rather than using this as another Fark opportunity to express thinly-veiled racism against American Indians.

Arapaho Tribe is to other Indians what Satanist are to the white man....

You know who else hates america?

ColSanders: Hmm, let's see. We slaughtered your people by the thousands, stole your land, and obliterated your way of life. I SUPPOSE we could give you some leeway now.

Yes brutaly slaughtering a group of people to take their land is indeed horrible, however it is not new. What is new is feeling bad about it later. As far as I can tell the Romans owe me...the dirty English after that...and mot recently the Republicans.

I dont have any real religious needs to be met so I'll take cash instead.

NewWorldDan: Fark the native american tribes. It's time for them to get into the 21st century, get rid of the damn reservations, and all their special rights.

And the welfare don't forget the welfare.

give me doughnuts: Javacrucian: "That's unacceptable," White said after the court hearing. "How would a non-Indian feel if they had to get their Bible from a repository?"

[img.photobucket.com image 134x133]

Well, if your people had managed to invent writing, maybe you'd just need a book.

The Echota did, actually.
/perhaps you should read more.

canyoneer: Not only is this sort of limited permit for collection for religious reasons not controversial, the Cheyenne and Arapaho are entitled to much, much more. Like the entire eastern third of the State of Colorado (and parts of Wyoming, Nebraska, and Kansas, including Denver, Colorado Springs, and all the valuable real estate, natural gas, petroleum, timber, water, and farm production therein - it would be no exagerration to say that they had hundreds of billions of dollars stolen from them. So maybe you all should just put this in perspective rather than using this as another Fark opportunity to express thinly-veiled racism against American Indians

Maybe you don't think granting of permits for Us citizens based on race isn't copntroversial, but many do.

So now the decendants of people who lost wars over 100+ years ago are entitled to what was lost in those wars?

DamnYankees: Assuming bald eagles are no longer endangered, I don't see why this shouldn't be permitted.

That's been explained. Not on ES List doesn't mean not still protected under several laws. Whether or not you think those laws are necessary any more is an entirely different matter. We did sign an international treaty to protect our migratory bird species, though.

Baron Harkonnen: Bald eagles have made an amazing recovery since the late 60s and early 70s, when they were being poisoned by DDT. There was serious concern that they would go extinct, which would have been... awkward for a nation that has the bald eagle as a national symbol. Their population at one point declined to about 1,000. Now they're flourishing again, and Native Americans killing a couple for ceremonial purposes is going to have no impact on the species at all. Triumphant fist bump, everybody wins, including the bald eagles.

Well, except for a couple. Those are not going to win at all. But hey, can't make a bald eagle omelet without breaking a few bald eagle eggs.

^ This.

I see them almost weekly and know of a few nesting spots here in Maine.

Aarontology: Herr Morgenstern: This is ridiculous. NOT killing something violates your religious freedom? Hey, guess what, NOT killing religious nutbags violates MY religious freedom. Now let me get my gun...

I'll bet you thought this was so clever

No, I knew it for exactly what it was, an angry post in reaction to something that pisses me off. If this were any other religious group demanding the blood of bald eagles people would be up in arms. But Native Americans get it because they're the underdog, and any voice against it gets labelled an arsehole.

I'm fairly tolerant of religions, but the ritualistic slaughter of animals provokes a knee-jerk reaction in me. I'd feel the same way if it was any other religion and any other animal.

ColSanders: Hmm, let's see. We slaughtered your people by the thousands, stole your land, and obliterated your way of life. I SUPPOSE we could give you some leeway now.

I did no such thing.

DamnYankees: gulogulo: DamnYankees: Assuming bald eagles are no longer endangered, I don't see why this shouldn't be permitted.

That's been explained. Not on ES List doesn't mean not still protected under several laws. Whether or not you think those laws are necessary any more is an entirely different matter. We did sign an international treaty to protect our migratory bird species, though.

But it is still protected - they had to get a permit. I'm not in favor of making it legal to just kill the birds whenever you want, but I don't really have a problem with granting a permit in this case.

True, and I feel the same way.

The Irresponsible Captain: Wow, the hate in this thread is unusually strong.

"Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering."

I know those poor suffering bald eagles! This tribes fear of the boggy man has lead them to the dark side of ritual sacrifices. You would think they would have evolved, maybe they need to get off the reservation now and again.

//sad very sad ( "

Strik3r: I see them almost weekly and know of a few nesting spots here in Maine.

Just wanted to point out that this logic is pretty fallacious in the world of wildlife populations. Greater visibility does not automatically confer higher populations. It could be a manifestation of increased local densities due to habitat disturbances elsewhere.

That said, bald eagles are doing great and the Bald Eagle -Golden Eagle Protection Act really isn't warranted any more. Any take should be administered under the Migratory Bird Species Act, just as it is for various waterfowl.

Herr Morgenstern: I'm fairly tolerant of religions, but the ritualistic slaughter of animals provokes a knee-jerk reaction in me. I'd feel the same way if it was any other religion and any other animal

Smart money says he is using a rifle or a compound bow. The Friday guy in the article shot the bird.

Wouldn't really call that ritualistic.

There are two bald eagle nesting sites within hearing distance of my house. Saw a couple of year-olds flying with a parent last week, too.

/not in the US

badhatharry: liam76: I am ok with very limited permits as long as they make no special consideration for your race.

I doubt that is the case here.



Also bothers me when they go on about it being part of their culture/religion but when they get these permits to go after whales they aren't doing it like their culture used to (canoes and spears" but with motor boats and rifles. farking pick one.

I'm with you there. If the tradition is so important they should hunt with primitive weapons.

Eh, that's a doubleedged sword. Rifles would arguably be more humane than a spear. I think canoes with rifles would be ok.

"That's unacceptable," White said after the court hearing. "How would a non-Indian feel if they had to get their Bible from a repository?"

That's a pretty racist thing to say, guy. Half of us non-Indians in the rest of the world don't care about the Bible.

gulogulo: Strik3r: I see them almost weekly and know of a few nesting spots here in Maine.

Just wanted to point out that this logic is pretty fallacious in the world of wildlife populations. Greater visibility does not automatically confer higher populations. It could be a manifestation of increased local densities due to habitat disturbances elsewhere.

That said, bald eagles are doing great and the Bald Eagle -Golden Eagle Protection Act really isn't warranted any more. Any take should be administered under the Migratory Bird Species Act, just as it is for various waterfowl.

If you don't realize that fark posts are nothing more than anecdotal, you should probably hand in your internet card...............

Of course - there would still be a gazillion bald Eagles if Native Americans weren't killed off by an invasion... so... irony it seems, is not without its sense of fate.

Purdue_Pete: Of course - there would still be a gazillion bald Eagles if Native Americans weren't killed off by an invasion... so... irony it seems, is not without its sense of fate.

-1

Strik3r: If you don't realize that fark posts are nothing more than anecdotal, you should probably hand in your internet card...............

Yeah yeah, I know, and I didn't mean to single you out. I saw probably 5 posts already of "i see em all the time." Biologist in me was just itching to point out, "but SCIENCE!" and "more study needed (patent-pending)"

vudukungfu: give me doughnuts: Javacrucian: "That's unacceptable," White said after the court hearing. "How would a non-Indian feel if they had to get their Bible from a repository?"

[img.photobucket.com image 134x133]

Well, if your people had managed to invent writing, maybe you'd just need a book.

The Echota did, actually.
/perhaps you should read more.

Funny, the article talks about Arapahos rather than Cherokees. Maybe you should tell them they got it wrong.

KimNorth: Purdue_Pete: Of course - there would still be a gazillion bald Eagles if Native Americans weren't killed off by an invasion... so... irony it seems, is not without its sense of fate.

-1

Hey, I am 12.5% Cherokee... I can stir the pot. I know the preferred term is "European colonization", just sayin'.

gulogulo: In order to protect the species, the conservative approach is to err on the side of caution and just make it unlawful to possess any part of the species without the appropriate permits.

That makes perfect sense for a species that is critically endangered, like the Bald Eagle *USED* to be. Now it makes zero sense, as the Bald Eagle is no longer an endangered species. The law shouldn't always be a one-way ratchet.

liam76: Herr Morgenstern: I'm fairly tolerant of religions, but the ritualistic slaughter of animals provokes a knee-jerk reaction in me. I'd feel the same way if it was any other religion and any other animal

Smart money says he is using a rifle or a compound bow. The Friday guy in the article shot the bird.

Wouldn't really call that ritualistic.

"Spiritual" slaughter, then. My point remains the same.

\semantics

JamesWhitsun: gulogulo: In order to protect the species, the conservative approach is to err on the side of caution and just make it unlawful to possess any part of the species without the appropriate permits.

That makes perfect sense for a species that is critically endangered, like the Bald Eagle *USED* to be. Now it makes zero sense, as the Bald Eagle is no longer an endangered species. The law shouldn't always be a one-way ratchet.

It's not and if it were just the Endangered Species act then you'd have a point (see opening of wolf hunts in other states). It's also protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (that's an internation treaty, btw), and without the appropriate permits you aren't allowed to possess a part of a migratory bird. You can get permits, but i fyou don't have them you're essentially poaching.

And if you think it's the agencies administrating the laws being unreasonable, think again. They are put under a lot of pressure by the public whenever some charismatic species is under threat of being harmed, even if there's no act. As wildlife is a public trust, they have to follow the public's will OR risk getting sued.

liam76: Maybe you don't think granting of permits for Us citizens based on race isn't copntroversial, but many do. So now the decendants of people who lost wars over 100+ years ago are entitled to what was lost in those wars?

You don't seem to know the actual history. Under the terms of the Treaty of Fort Laramie, the U.S. government agreed that all of the aforementioned land was deeded to the Cheyenne and Arapaho in perpetuity. Then when it was expedient, the U.S. government "renegotiated" the treay in bad faith by bribing a small number of chiefs to sign a new treaty which the overwhelming majority of the bands opposed, and declared it valid.

The land was not "lost in wars" but was stolen through legal chicanery and then the U.S. massacred most of the tribe(s) three years later.

It would be as if the U.S. bribed a few small town mayors in British Columbia to "renegotiate" the Oregon Treaty to incorporate all of the Oregon Country up to 54 40 into the United States, and declared it valid on that basis, thus taking British Columbia from Canada, and then made an example of any Canadians who objected by slaughtering their women and children.

As to the religious use of natural resources by American Indian tribes, that is covered by American Indian Religious Freedom Act (new window) of 1978, amended in 1994. If you find the provisions of that law to be controversial, I recommend you challenge it in court.

Oh boo frigging hoo. Two eagles isn't going to make a huge difference I bet more are killed by power lines ever year. Who cares if it's for religious purposes? Some people might say that eating meat is wrong and that enjoying the taste isn't a sufficient reason to kill livestock. Everyone has their own reasons, all that matters is the welfare of the species in question. Since the bald eagle population is now healty(er) then let them have their two eagles.

/atheist
//so white I blind people when I stand in sunlight

Well if you can authorize drone strikes on American citizens, what's a couple of birds?

liam76: Herr Morgenstern: I'm fairly tolerant of religions, but the ritualistic slaughter of animals provokes a knee-jerk reaction in me. I'd feel the same way if it was any other religion and any other animal

Smart money says he is using a rifle or a compound bow. The Friday guy in the article shot the bird.

Wouldn't really call that ritualistic.

When Europeans "colonized" the Americas they did it for land in the name of Christianity, killing millions of Natives in the process. At the time, while I agree Native American's were FAR less advanced - I don't know that they were less moral. Natives had human sacrifices and ritual killings, but Europeans were still burning people at the stake as well.

I was partly joking in my earlier post about "irony", this is Fark, lighten up. The past and right now was/is a mess of human murder, war, advancement and deceit... what we do today is what is important to me, and I don't feel that Bald Eagles should be killed unless for some reason they NEED to be hunted like deer, squirrels or coyotes in certain areas to decrease the population.

SilentStrider: Vodka Zombie: Kafka bugs me.

[PhillipJFry.jpg]

[Picturesare4queers.jpg]

gulogulo: And if you think it's the agencies administrating the laws being unreasonable, think again. They are put under a lot of pressure by the public whenever some charismatic species animal that we like to hunt is under threat of being harmed, even if there's no act. As wildlife is a public trust, they have to follow the public's will OR risk getting sued.


/I agree with your profile, BTW--about the environmental groups

Purdue_Pete: When Europeans "colonized" the Americas they did it for land in the name of Christianity, killing millions of Natives in the process.

Why is colonized in quotes?

Herr Morgenstern: liam76: Herr Morgenstern: I'm fairly tolerant of religions, but the ritualistic slaughter of animals provokes a knee-jerk reaction in me. I'd feel the same way if it was any other religion and any other animal

Smart money says he is using a rifle or a compound bow. The Friday guy in the article shot the bird.

Wouldn't really call that ritualistic.

"Spiritual" slaughter, then. My point remains the same.

\semantics

I get your point, I just don't like peopel ti give them a pass about claiming "way of life" ,"tradition", etc when they are doing it with modern technology.

gulogulo: Eh, that's a doubleedged sword. Rifles would arguably be more humane than a spear. I think canoes with rifles would be ok

I am not against it out of any "humane" reason. I just doubt they wokld be as gung-ho for it if it was as hard as it was.

canyoneer: liam76: Maybe you don't think granting of permits for Us citizens based on race isn't copntroversial, but many do. So now the decendants of people who lost wars over 100+ years ago are entitled to what was lost in those wars?

You don't seem to know the actual history. Under the terms of the Treaty of Fort Laramie, the U.S. government agreed that all of the aforementioned land was deeded to the Cheyenne and Arapaho in perpetuity. Then when it was expedient, the U.S. government "renegotiated" the treay in bad faith by bribing a small number of chiefs to sign a new treaty which the overwhelming majority of the bands opposed, and declared it valid.

The land was not "lost in wars" but was stolen through legal chicanery and then the U.S. massacred most of the tribe(s) three years later.

It would be as if the U.S. bribed a few small town mayors in British Columbia to "renegotiate" the Oregon Treaty to incorporate all of the Oregon Country up to 54 40 into the United States, and declared it valid on that basis, thus taking British Columbia from Canada, and then made an example of any Canadians who objected by slaughtering their women and children.

The colorado war wasn't a war? I thought that was fought by the tribes that didn;t agree with the change in the treaty.


canyoneer: As to the religious use of natural resources by American Indian tribes, that is covered by American Indian Religious Freedom Act (new window) of 1978, amended in 1994. If you find the provisions of that law to be controversial, I recommend you challenge it in court

So you can point out injustices from 100+ years ago and use that to claim that indians should get special rigths to stuff, and there is no problem.

I point out a policy that is based on race and you say I shoudl take it up in court.

Why don't you follow your own advice?

You caim into this tread ranting abotu racism, when in fact what is racist here is the policy giving special rights to peopel because of their race.