Letter Regarding Colockum Elk - The Reel News "The Tribes Killed Elk"

[Backstraps]

Thanks for the info Inside!
    

[billythekidrock]

Thought I might chime in.

To start with, I have haven't seen the link to our tribal hunting site at http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/tribal/ yet. 

I'll wait for you to browse....

Done?

To summarize WDFW's position on tribal hunting:

We can't do jack #&$*.

What a lot of people don't understand is that the treaties that give the tribes the right to hunt on public land where with the US Government before Washington became a state.  Washington - and especially WDFW - have absolutely no control on tribal hunting.  This includes State Legislators.  Washington State public agencies have absolutly no say or jurisdiction when it comes to tribal rights.  Technically we could sue the tribe in a federal court, but we haven't had much luck going that route, and we are dealing with a slighly light wallet.  Litigation would most likely last years, cost millions of dollars, and end up going no where.

So why doesn't WDFW come out and say that?  It has to do with politics.  The Yakima tribe could kill every single bull, cow, and calf of the colockum herd and all WDFW could do is sit back and watch with the rest of you.   This is the last thing we ever want to see.  So for us to be able to work with the tribes regarding wildlife management (something they are not obligated to do) we have to play nice.  Also known as kissing ass.  This frustrates us even more then it does you due to the fact that our job at WDFW is managing Washington's wildlife, and we can't.

I do want to say that a majority of the tribes in Washington go the extra mile in assisting WDFW in managing wildlife.  A lot of good has come from tribal/state agreements.  Not all tribal members out to take advantage of their treaty rights.  Tribal partnerships have been some of the most rewarding that WDFW has had.

While I'm cloaked in anonymity, a few comments on Mr. Fulwiler's article.  Take another look at the article.  The first paragraph is regarding "secret meetings" WDFW held with the tribe, while the rest is a rant against tribal hunting.  Notice how he fails to mention the fact that tribal hunting rights are between the tribes and the US Government and that the state has nothing to do with them?  Mr. Fulwiler may have a personal vendetta against WDFW that for legal reasons I can not get into.  Also for the record, Arthur Coffin did not donate the land, but sold it.  Also according to Pete Lopushinski, the Wildlife Manager for the area, there are no areas of the Wildlife Area that are "Absolutely no trespassing" to "Non-tribal hunters".

Regarding that first paragraph.  Just as the State of Washington can not restrict treaty rights, we can't add anything to them.  All we can do is work with the tribes on how to best interpret them.  Again this is solely at the discretion of the tribe, remember what the Yakima tribe could do to the herd if they wanted?  These "secret" meetings that where held were open to public, the notes of which are available for anyone who asks.

O yea the purpose of the meeting?  The Yakima tribe basically told the state to f*^% off, and that they were going to do what they wanted to do with the herd, which by federal treaty the could.  There was alot of begging and pleading on our part.. about the only thing we could do.

So what can you do?  Contact your US rep or senator.  The US Government is the only one who can do anything about it.

Standard Disclaimer:  These are not the view of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.  These are the thoughts of one person written off the clock who works for WDFW.

Thanks.

[AlpineMuley]

why not organize a road reconstruction up in the clockum.  If the idiots want to use the roads, we can just make it difficult.  The idiots must be coming in from the Ellensburg side to shoot the elk.     

[colockumelk]

Inside thank you for that.  I realize why you have to remain anonymous.  I've know that two of the bioligists in Wenatchee two years ago are now gone.  I don't know if that has anything to do with this subject.  We have a website that has links to what the tribal thing from your website.  Let me be the first to say I appologize if we have seemed to attack the WDFW.  THere are things that we don't know about.  I did not realize your hands were so tied.  Our campaign is fairly complicated so I wont bore you with the details.  Thank you for your thoughtfull comments.  Realize that part of why we are going to do what we are is because we realize that there are some things we can say and do that you as a member of the WDFW can not do.  I'm going to send you a message with some questions.  None of which has to do with your identity.  It's just some questions I have.  Again thank you for your time. 

[runamuk]

Actually I'd say the WDFW having a bit more transparency and an open discourse with the public should also be near the top of the list of changes.......

That is a huge part of the problem as I see it.... The people we HIRED are down at the Dome telling the other people who work for US what to do and WE their employers have little to do with any of it.... They get told by Lobbyists paid by special interests...

How many businesses would succeed if managed like that??

[colockumelk]

runamuk is correct.  Alot of our anger is because we don't know many of these things.  Part of that reason maybe because you are afraid of offending the Indians.  This is where our group wants to help things out.  But the WDFW also has to be open with the public.  We obviously need to all work together.  The WDFW, the state BLM and hopefully the Tribes.  Most likely I don't see the tribes agreeing to losing their free reign of hunting.  So in order for this thing to work the WDFW needs to tell us everything they know.  This includes any back door dealings.  Even if it's like you said the WDFW begging and pleading with the Tribes. 

Remember we are not powerless.  We have numbers on ourside.  I still don't understand why something hasn't been done before.  If you read the treaty there is nothing in there about hunting all year round.  I even took it to my super liberal law professor who doesn't hunt and knows nothing abou this and asked him to interpret it how he read it and he interpreted it as they have the right to hunt like the common people of the territory.  Which would be non-tribal people.  That is unless the treaty has been annulled and re-written behind the publics back or other sorts of dealing that have given them this right. 

[Wenatcheejay]

Cloockumelk, I am going to give a disclaimer because I know that there are people on the site who have worked on this issue longer than me and understand more. With that said what I understand is that the current court will interpret the Treaty with every and any advantage given to the Tribes assuming that they were worldly traveled having full knowledge of North America the world and understood everything about everything. All of this with a 300 word working vocabulary. Every advantage in wordage must be given to in Tribes and every interpretation must liberally favor the Tribes. Until we have a change in the courts this will be the case.

[runamuk]

Cloockumelk, I am going to give a disclaimer because I know that there are people on the site who have worked on this issue longer than me and understand more. With that said what I understand is that the current court will interpret the Treaty with every and any advantage given to the Tribes assuming that they were worldly traveled having full knowledge of North America the world and understood everything about everything. All of this with a 300 word working vocabulary. Every advantage in wordage must be given to in Tribes and every interpretation must liberally favor the Tribes. Until we have a change in the courts this will be the case.

Part of this is caused by the Boldt decision, which made that interpretation.  Every time it has been challenged in the courts that decision has been upheld..... at least from all the reading I have done of cases since that decision it seems the precedent was set and in stone.

[Wenatcheejay]

Agreed, what I have read is the wordage, the "rose colored glasses" that must be put on when a case is before the court is rediculas. Like I said, every new interpretation MUST favor the Tribes.

[colockumelk]

Runamuk where do you find all the different cases that have been brought up since then?  How many times has the public tried to change how things are?

[elksnout]

After reading all of these posts I got mad and sent Phil Anderson an e-mail asking how much longer this will go without being addressed. Thank you guys for the information. Maybe if we flood them with enough of them it will get noticed ??

[runamuk]

Runamuk where do you find all the different cases that have been brought up since then?  How many times has the public tried to change how things are?

I just saw this soryy...my computer is having issues and my links are in it not my little midget laptop...LOL as soon as I get the computer fixed I will send them to you    I also told frank I was sending him some stuff...woke up to a dead monitor, things are not going my way today LOL

[colockumelk]

Sorry to hear that.  We will welcome all that information.

[hangumhi]

I don't know if you all remember but John Carlson ran against Governor Locke a while back and he took a stance that tribesmen would be limited to the same seasonal restrictions and hunting/fishing methods that everyone is are held to.  There are a lot of liberals who are dead set against limiting native rights but I actually think that now is a good opportunity to make such a move through legislation as Washingtonians are becoming fed up across both aisles. 

[colockumelk]

That's the plan.  We obviously want to try and work with the tribes first but if they are unresponsive and don't wish to work with us then I guess to the legislation it will go.  Oh and BTW for all the nay sayers.  The federal courts HAVE given the states powers in dealing with treaties, and even in the BOLD DECISION of 1973 it still gave the state the right to control figh and game regulations in the name of conservation. So WA does have the power to do something about the tribal harvest.  They just have to do it in the name of conservation. In other words the state can set harvest limits.