Case #1:
This case involved Anthony Moses Sr., Anthony Moses Jr., and Brian Moses. (Three Tulalips Charged in Elk Killings,1998) The court charged the three Tulalip Indians with
"hunting during closed season, wasting game, shooting from a public roadway and hunting with an
artificial light." (Three Tulalips Charged in Elk Killings,1998)
The men shot five elk around midnight on Febuary 18, 1998 on private land posted for no hunting or trespassing. (Three Tulalips Charged in Elk Killings,1998)
Why did the men face these specific charges?
They were charged with hunting during a closed season because state regulated hunting seasons had ended in the area.
During the hunt the three men proceeded to shoot five elk. Four of the elk died shortly after being shot, but the fifth remained alive
until dawn due to a shot in the stomach.(Three Tulalips Charged in Elk Killings,1998) This slow, agonizing death of the fifth elk prompted officials to
charge the men with animal cruelty. Not only did the men shoot too many elk on private property, they also shot the elk from the Spirit Lake Memorial Highway.
Shooting is not allowed on a public roadway, hunters must be off the road to shoot an animal. This rule prevents hunters from driving down the road and shooting
animals if they happen to see them along the road. This protects the safety of others travelling along the road; they have a smaller chance of being shot by stray bullets.
It was midnight when the men shot the elk. There was not enough light to shoot, so they used artificial light. Shooting in the dark endangers hunters and others in the area
because it is too dark to clearly see the target.
The men received a fair ruling in this case. They endangered themselves and others in the area by shooting the animals during the night.
They also had no right to hunt on private property. Treaties grant hunting rights on opened and unclaimed lands.
Private ownership of this parcel of land takes away the treaty right to the land. The Indians went beyond their rights.
Case #2:
This case is the most important case in illegal hunting ever tried in Washington State. ("Lawmaker Says Tribal Rights Supersede Constitution", 1998)
The case involves Donald Ray Buchanan, a member of the Nooksack tribe. In this case the state accused Mr. Buchanan of shooting two elk in the Oak Creek Wildlife Area in January 1995. ("Lawmaker Says Tribal Rights Supersede Constitution", 1998) This case has had a long history in the courts. The county court heard the case and ruled the "the kill was legal and Washington treaty tribes could travel anywhere in the state they wanted to hunt." ("Lawmaker Says Tribal Rights Supersede Constitution", 1998) The case then went before the State Court of Appeals which upheld the ruling by the county court. On Nov. 18, 1998 the Supreme Court of Washington State heard the case, but it has not issued any opinions.("Lawmaker Says Tribal Rights Supersede Constitution", 1998) Opinions will be addressed here when they become available.
Officials believe this case is so important to hunting in Washington State because it interprets the treaty rights of the Indians. Donald Buchanan hunted in this particular area because he thought it was part of his treaty right to hunt on opened and unclaimed lands in the state.("The State of Washington v. Donald Ray Buchanan", 1998) The government granted these treaty rights approximately 150 years ago, but they are still taken at full face value. Much of Washington State is no longer opened and unclaimed so the treaties need to be reevaluated to address these issues. Exact boundaries should be inserted, so the Indians know where they may or may not hunt.
An attorney for The Modern Firearms Hunters of Washington filed a brief with the Washington State Supreme Court asking the court to overturn the not guilty verdict for Mr. Buchanan. ("Lawmaker Says Tribal Rights Supersede Constitution", 1998) They felt he was guilty and deserved punishment for his actions. Before the final word is heard on this case, it is expected to travel all the way to the United States Supreme Court.
Sources of Information Used Above:
