[Tweeters] Legal vs Ethical

Mike Clarke transvolcanic at gmail.com
Fri Jan 29 14:38:16 PST 2016


Federal guidelines and the Endangered Species Act as well as the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act and other federal wildlife regulations do very much apply
on tribal lands. Tribal authorities have all power to set hunting
seasons, bag limits, etc...but only do so within the guidelines set by the
feds based on federal laws. This has always been my understanding of the
reading I have done on this in the past. There are a myriad of exceptions
to certain rules and limits on waterfowl hunting, eagle feather permitting
etc..., but, if this owl was shot and killed, this would have been a
violation of federal law that definitely would apply on the Colville
Reservation.

Mike Clarke
Pullman

On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Ronda Stark <rondastark18 at gmail.com> wrote:


> Tim and Teresa,

>

> I assume you are both aware the Hawk Owl was located on land belonging to

> a member of the Colville and it is the Colville tribe that has jurisdiction

> over prosecution of any alleged wildlife violation-- to the extent it is a

> violation of any tribal laws, since federal law would not apply.

>

> Tim, none of what you have posted re: free public access is applicable to

> lands belonging to members of the Colville tribe and while I am not

> conversant with the tribal code of the Colville Nation, it is the tribal

> code that applies.

>

> Ronda

>

> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 7:30 PM, Teresa Michelsen <

> teresa at avocetconsulting.com> wrote:

>

>> I’d also like to add a reminder that tribal lands and reservations are

>> not subject to the same laws as the rest of the United States, and should

>> be treated just as if you are in another country. Each reservation has

>> different rules, and you cannot assume that the same rights or customs

>> apply. Some are open to the public, others require pre-approval for access,

>> and some areas may be off-limits altogether. Aside from legal issues, they

>> may also have different cultural expectations that should be respected.

>> Among them, the 29 federally recognized tribes in Washington control

>> millions of acres, so be sure you know where you are and what rules pertain.

>>

>>

>>

>> Of course this is also true of various Federal and State lands, including

>> wilderness areas, reserves, military installations, Hanford, etc. I have

>> certainly encountered curtailment of access and photography rights on the

>> water (at gunpoint) in the course of doing my job (environmental cleanup of

>> harbors and rivers), even though waters of the State are technically

>> supposed to be navigable by the public. Just try that around an oil

>> refinery, navy base, or ferry dock these days and see what happens,

>> especially with binoculars or camera.

>>

>>

>>

>> Teresa Michelsen

>>

>> North Bend, WA

>>

>>

>>

>> *From:* tweeters-bounces at mailman1.u.washington.edu [mailto:

>> tweeters-bounces at mailman1.u.washington.edu] *On Behalf Of *Timothy R

>> Barksdale

>> *Sent:* Thursday, January 28, 2016 3:13 PM

>> *To:* TWEETERS

>> *Cc:* Kevin Lucas; Izzy Wong

>> *Subject:* [Tweeters] Legal vs Ethical

>>

>>

>>

>> Hello Tweets,

>>

>>

>>

>> I assume part of the motivation of posting of these is in relation to the

>> relatively recent demise of the Northern Hawk Owl.

>>

>>

>>

>> As a professional film-maker/Journalist / artist / author I have been in

>> touch with Mr. Krages personally. He may be the single most knowledgeable

>> photographers rights attorney in the US. I've never had to do much more

>> than assert my rights or show previous accreditation as a member of the

>> media and the press, but clarifying exactly what they are, while I am

>> carrying a camera within the United States- is. Being in a foreign country

>> is NOT the same as being in the USA and I would suggest that anything I say

>> below- may not apply in any foreign country - including Canada.

>>

>>

>>

>> While you are in the USA or any states, territories, etc- Photographers

>> have very broad rights to photograph nearly anything if the photographer is

>> in a clearly public place and after numerous court rulings, that includes

>> nearly anything, but invasion of privacy and even more special cases like

>> military bases or secret fighter jets you are going to lose.

>>

>>

>>

>> I have had my share of run-ins with morons over my 25 years of filming,

>> and have been harassed by unexpected sources in situations where a simple

>> request politely put, would have done so much more than screaming and

>> trying to surround me- while standing near the shoulder of a public

>> highway... Even occurring in Washington State on the Sammish Flats. I could

>> have sued and filed harassment charges, in that incident, but that is just

>> not my style.

>>

>>

>>

>> Recently there have been so many incidents of people confronting the

>> press in public places, from the University of Missouri Quadrangle to the

>> armed occupation of Malhuer National Wildlife Refuge. Threatening,

>> intimidating or preventing access to a member of the press to public places

>> is clearly illegal and just plain wrong. Whether Law enforcement officers

>> must provide access under all circumstances to crime scenes or areas or

>> restrictions is difficult to always assess. There may be some justification

>> where an officer may advise a journalist that hazards or other danger lies

>> beyond and into a restricted area. In most of these situations, the general

>> public may be denied access but a journalist may not. But if a journalist,

>> had a specific appointment -say with the nut-cases in the refuge, I suspect

>> the F.B.I. may not like it- but they would probably be required to allow a

>> legitimate journalist pass into blockaded areas. A court order to allow

>> access would most certainly be the final result, if the journalists could

>> show their safety was not in jeopardy and in some cases -even if it were.

>>

>>

>>

>> The fine line is always: what does cross into privacy.

>>

>>

>>

>> So in the situation, had I been standing on a given public road and

>> filmed a Bird of any species, on private land, and come back later to find

>> that bird in the act of being shot or already killed, I have that right as

>> an American citizen and even more so as a journalist because of specific

>> protections given to the press. In most cases, where you are in any public

>> situation- anyone does. You can be asked to leave certain areas of

>> questionable " public " ownership, say a Mall, but only if you are in

>> violation of laws or are involved in harassing someone who has an equal

>> right to expect a certain amount of privacy. In special venues which are

>> owned by corporations, you may be asked to abide by certain guidelines or

>> "rules". But you are still subject to your constitutional rights.

>>

>>

>>

>> If that road is private, anyone can be charged with trespassing.

>>

>>

>>

>> So Students camping in tents on the University of Missouri Quadrangle are

>> clearly in a public area. They may not restrict journalists of other

>> members of the public from passing freely on public ground. Do they have a

>> reasonable right to expect to NOT have a journalist or other member of the

>> public barge into a private tent on that public ground- I would say yes.

>>

>>

>>

>> But one is not barging into a private home on private property if a dead

>> bird is clearly viewed from public places. However, if photos were taken

>> with a long lens of a person inside of that building who can reasonably

>> expect privacy, then again you are not going to be able to use the film.

>>

>>

>>

>> But privately proving someone did something is not in most of our

>> interests. Providing material evidence which can aid in criminal

>> prosecution I would suggest is in everyone's interest, as long as it was

>> legally obtained. So any violation of wildlife codes, can be taken to the

>> appropriate governmental agencies. There are well trained people to handle

>> these cases with in appropriate divisions of government.

>>

>>

>>

>> Private property rights are clear and extensive, but preventing

>> photography from a public place is not one of them.

>>

>>

>>

>> Hopefully, this discussion is helpful.

>>

>> Very Best,

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> Tim

>>

>>

>>

>> Timothy Barksdale

>>

>> Birdman Productions

>>

>> P.O. Box 1124

>>

>> 65 Mountain View Dr.

>>

>> Choteau, MT 59422

>>

>>

>>

>> timothy -dot- barksdale -at- gmail- dot- com

>>

>>

>>

>> _______________________________________________

>> Tweeters mailing list

>> Tweeters at u.washington.edu

>> http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters

>>

>>

>

> _______________________________________________

> Tweeters mailing list

> Tweeters at u.washington.edu

> http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters

>

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/pipermail/tweeters/attachments/20160129/45ec8c4f/attachment-0001.htm


More information about the Tweeters mailing list