WDFW allows more tribal hunting on the coast

[fishdog]

Here is another thought. If the GMUs are managed like the fisheries with a 50/50 split. Then I can see why the Quileutes would have issue with the decision. They in effect are losing a % of a resource.  If WDFW is going to add additional harvest above what is sustainable them everyone should be ticked off. The question is whether the resource can handle additional commercial harvest?

[BOWHUNTER45]

No sense in whining  The only way we will be able to do something about it is when we all stop supporting them ...and buying a license every year does just that !!!!! 

[STIKNSTRINGBOW]

Anyone Who Shoots More Than One Animal A Year Is Abusing Their Rights, Except Of Course Damage Control Areas Where There Are Problems.
  I Doubt Any Of Those Areas Have problems

^ ^ ^ This was not part of my post. ^  ^ ^

Hunting in Washington State is a PRIVELEGE not a "right" unless you are a "Native" but still...
In my honest opinion, EVERY ONE OF YOU (objections) would harvest as many animals as the WDFW would allow you to harvest.
I see nothing wrong with the majority of native behavior, the inability to prosecute offenders is my only concern.
After all, they are Americans, unfortunately some hide behind the fact that they have dual citizenship with a sovereign nation, and everyone protects their "troubled children" so I do not fault the tribes, just the sovereign status.
ALL AMERICANS THAT LIVE ON AMERICAN SOIL SHOULD BE EQUAL UNDER THE SAME LAWS AND REGULATIONS . PERIOD

[duckmen1]

So for years recreational hunters and fisherman have complained about tribal rights. Natives say get over it. Until now when another tribe is going to affect there area. Then they don't like the fact that someone has more power then they do.
I say this you wanted separate rights so get over it.
We keep splitting parties up and things will never go equal.
So if you want it different then everyone needs to have the same rights. Not recreational vs Indian. And now recreational vs Indian vs Indian.

[Bullkllr]

Here is another thought. If the GMUs are managed like the fisheries with a 50/50 split. Then I can see why the Quileutes would have issue with the decision. They in effect are losing a % of a resource.  If WDFW is going to add additional harvest above what is sustainable them everyone should be ticked off. The question is whether the resource can handle additional commercial harvest?

This would make sense if WDFW had any power to manage tribal fishing and hunting.

Remember folks the tribes set the rules. Our game department just agree's with them. At our exspens.

no kidding!  I was gonna say, like wdfw can tell the tribes what they can and can't do!! What a joke.  The tribes are why the dickey went to over the counter back in 1999, which I'm glad the state put it OTC since the tribes have their way with the unit.

This.

[Tbar]

This appears to me a senseless attack on the wdfw much like the newspaper ad. This is a tribal/tribal issue. By signing a jurisdictional agreement the wdfw likely avoided litigation that they most certainly would have lost. They did not allow anything. This whole thread is propaganda driven by an agenda (I have no dog in this fight).
I'm sure director Andersons phone blew up, along with his email with ignorant questions about something he had little or no power to effect.
Fishdog did you run the ads also?

[Tbar]

Here is another thought. If the GMUs are managed like the fisheries with a 50/50 split. Then I can see why the Quileutes would have issue with the decision. They in effect are losing a % of a resource.  If WDFW is going to add additional harvest above what is sustainable them everyone should be ticked off. The question is whether the resource can handle additional commercial harvest?

This screams troll to me. The wdfw is not adding ANYTHING.  Is there currently commercial wildlife harvesting on the coast? If so please notify the tribe doing it (I know many of them have an emphasis on management), and I'm positive they will take action.

[seth30]

 

[asl20bball]

I say let them hunt there during any open season like the rest of us washington state citizens. problem solved.

[Elkaholic daWg]

http://www.jamestowntribe.org/govdocs/gov_treaty.htm

 Now I see fishing specifically mentioned but where am I missing hunting?

Article 4 in the link.
And the Boldt "decision" clarified it too.

ARTICLE 4. The right of taking fish at usual and accustomed grounds and stations is further secured to said Indians, in common with all citizens of the United states; and of erecting temporary houses for the purpose of curing; together with the privilege of hunting and gathering roots and berries on open and unclaimed lands. Provided, however, that they shall not take shell-fish from any beds staked or cultivated by citizens.

 show me the hunting reference.... Did Boldt write a new treaty?

[washingtonmuley]

I say let them hunt there during any open season like the rest of us washington state citizens. problem solved.

[Green broke]

http://www.jamestowntribe.org/govdocs/gov_treaty.htm

 Now I see fishing specifically mentioned but where am I missing hunting?

Article 4 in the link.
And the Boldt "decision" clarified it too.

ARTICLE 4. The right of taking fish at usual and accustomed grounds and stations is further secured to said Indians, in common with all citizens of the United states; and of erecting temporary houses for the purpose of curing; together with the privilege of hunting and gathering roots and berries on open and unclaimed lands. Provided, however, that they shall not take shell-fish from any beds staked or cultivated by citizens.

 show me the hunting reference.... Did Boldt write a new treaty?

No Boldt did not write a new treaty. It upheld a court decision that codified ambiguous and purposefully misleading verbiage in the treaties.

[pianoman9701]

I just received this interesting reply from Michele Culver. What do you guys think?

"Dear John,

This is in response to your e-mail to the Director of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and me, which is in response to an advertisement (not an article) paid for by the Quileute Tribe that recently ran in the Peninsula Daily News and is on the Tribe's wesite, regarding several co-management agreements WDFW has entered into with the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, and the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe for the remainder of this hunting season.

First of all, these are not "secret" agreement, but are the result of government-to-government discussions that WDFW has had with these Treaty Tribes listed above.  These Tribes have all hunted on the Olympic Peninsula for decades and the advantage of entering into such agreements is that there are certain overlapping State and Tribal jurisdictions and responsibilities relative to wildlife. WDFW and the respective tribes have certain authorities that potentially pertain to the same wildlife resource and there is a need for the State and Tribes to cooperate in the discharge of their respective authorities in order to ensure that healthy populations of wildlife continue to be available to State and Treaty hunters for harvest.

Each of the three Tribes has asserted that their treaty hunting right extends, at a minimum, to the geographic areas covered by our agreements.  In some areas, the geographic scope of our agreement overlaps with the Quileute Tribe's treaty hunting area. The Quileute Tribe has raised concerns with the three Tribes and with WDFW regarding the inclusion of the areas of overlap delineated in our agreements.   
The agreements were reached as part of several government-to-government meetings between WDFW the three Tribes referenced above. We did notify the Quileute Tribe of the agreements and moreover have requested that the Tribes meet amongst themselves and attempt to work together to address their intertribal disagreements.

The conservation of wildlife is a key component of WDFW's mission and is one of the primary reasons we enter into co-management agreements with the Tribes.  Conservation can be achieved through coordination with the Tribes, which includes shared conservation and/or herd objectives, the sharing of harvest data, coordination in setting hunting seasons and regulations, and enforcement efforts, all of which are addressed in our the co-management agreements that are being called into question.

We will continue to work with all of the Tribes on important wildlife conservation and enforcement issues and support any efforts made by the Tribes to ensure coordination is achieved among all of us seeking to have strong wildlife resources in the future.

Thank you for sharing your concerns with us.

Sincerely,

Michele K. Culver
Regional Director"

[bigtex]

Each of the three Tribes has asserted that their treaty hunting right extends, at a minimum, to the geographic areas covered by our agreements.  In some areas, the geographic scope of our agreement overlaps with the Quileute Tribe's treaty hunting area.

Unfortunately this is the "Buchanan test" coming into play. Basically a tribe simply has to provide evidence to WDFW that they hunted an area and WDFW is basically forced into approving the new hunting area.

“We’ve asked for what supporting material would support their assertion that that area was used and occupied over a period of time. That’s the Buchanan test, if you will,” Pamplin said. “We’re not in a position, nor do we have any authority to essentially adjudicate a tribe’s traditional hunting area. What we’re doing is looking at the evidence they’re providing and … essentially using our enforcement and prosecution discretion.”
http://huntnetwork.net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=7103&keywords=seas

[snowpack]

They seem to have a decent amount of that kind of info Bigtex.  The OP tribes were mostly settled on rivers or coastal features.  Except for some summer treks to the interior, historically, they rarely ever left the coast.  Much of their historically claimed territory is in a national park now--but the mouths of rivers have been their primary territories.
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/olym/schalk/chap4.htm