HB 1097 Would Require the Governor & WDFW To Meet w/ Tribes Whenever They Ask

[bigtex]

HB 1097 sponsored by Representatives Sawyer, Hansen, Fitzgibbon, Stanford, Jinkins, Frame, Gregerson, Santos, Tarleton, and Pollet would require the Governor and the WDFW Commission or WDFW Director to meet with tribes regarding tribal hunting within 30 days of a tribes request for such meeting.

http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2017-18/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1097.pdf

[The scout]

It would be like a booty call for the tribes if it passed, come here and bend over again state of WA

[Boss .300 winmag]

May be I'm slow, but I'm not getting what's going on here. Why are legislators sponsoring this?

[bigtex]

It would be like a booty call for the tribes if it passed, come here and bend over again state of WA

[trophyhunt]

Don't even know what to say, just give them control of the entire state and we can all move!  You think that would make the tribes satisfied?  They'd still want more!!!!     

[mfswallace]

"Any meeting convened pursuant to this section is not subject to the requirements
of the open public meetings act, chapter 42.30 RCW.

Shady deals need special privileges

[Knocker of rocks]

"Any meeting convened pursuant to this section is not subject to the requirements
of the open public meetings act, chapter 42.30 RCW.

That says a lot

[Firedogg]

This stinks of corruption in so many ways. The first thing that comes to bear is they are getting a big push right now to allow the public to observe the NOF meetings under the public open meeting laws. They are responding back with emails saying thise meetings don't fall under that. This introduced bill kind of tells me they might be wrong and are now getting it brought up this way to definitely shut the public out of the process. Anyone want go bet it covers more than the hunting seasons, gets amended in the process to cover all meetings?

 They do not want us to know what is going on.

[Skillet]

I'd like to hear what Senator Kirk Pearson's position is on this. Anybody in his district?

[JimmyHoffa]

This one seems to bug me.  Does the reverse happen?  Does a state agency summon a sovereign nation into secret meetings within 30 days?  But a sovereign nation can have the legislature pass that requirement on the state. 

I get some funny feeling about how this is going to be used.  If my example is wrong let me know.
Aug 10, some tribe requests a meeting with WDFW and the Governor.  Sep 5, Gov and WDFW meet with tribes; tribes claim herds in horrible shape, need more data.  Sep 6, WDFW emergency closure elk season in a certain GMUs within the complaining tribe's boundaries.  Bios get to work.  Tribes get some obscure federal permit to hunt elk ceremonially during the closure.  Oct 25, tribes and WDFW find elk are fine plan to re-open seasons.  Nov 15, tribes/WDFW/gov have the rest of their meeting.  Nov 16, seasons open and WDFW scrambling on how to accommodate hunters that missed early seasons and busy trying to get red tape through commission. 

[Tbar]

This one seems to bug me.  Does the reverse happen?  Does a state agency summon a sovereign nation into secret meetings within 30 days?  But a sovereign nation can have the legislature pass that requirement on the state. 

I get some funny feeling about how this is going to be used.  If my example is wrong let me know.
Aug 10, some tribe requests a meeting with WDFW and the Governor.  Sep 5, Gov and WDFW meet with tribes; tribes claim herds in horrible shape, need more data.  Sep 6, WDFW emergency closure elk season in a certain GMUs within the complaining tribe's boundaries.  Bios get to work.  Tribes get some obscure federal permit to hunt elk ceremonially during the closure.  Oct 25, tribes and WDFW find elk are fine plan to re-open seasons.  Nov 15, tribes/WDFW/gov have the rest of their meeting.  Nov 16, seasons open and WDFW scrambling on how to accommodate hunters that missed early seasons and busy trying to get red tape through commission. 

Are you aware of what it takes to get and implement a conservation closure? I don't see that scenario happening.

[JimmyHoffa]

For fishing it doesn't seem to take all that much.  Just a high guess from fish counters.
Why, what is driving the need for the tribes to need secret meetings within 30 days?

[bigtex]

For fishing it doesn't seem to take all that much.  Just a high guess from fish counters.

Fishing is a lot more political and has more case law behind it, including the Boldt Decision itself which layed out conservation closures. The feds also have a piece of the pie when it comes to fisheries decisions, not so much on the wildlife side unless it's a federally managed species, or on certain federal lands.

[JimmyHoffa]

bigtex, do you have a good example for how this legislation would be used if becomes law?  Including why the 30 days and not open to public?

[KNOPHISH]

Light em up!
director@dfw.wa.gov
commission@dfw.wa.gov
Legislative Hotline 1-800-562-6000

[bigtex]

Light em up!
director@dfw.wa.gov
commission@dfw.wa.gov
Legislative Hotline 1-800-562-6000

Wrong people to contact.

You need to contact your legislators not WDFW!

[mfswallace]

What's the point of this bill?

[Special T]

Requires the WDFW to meet with tribes behind closed doors with in 30 days of a request of the Tribe.

[KNOPHISH]

Light em up!
director@dfw.wa.gov
commission@dfw.wa.gov
Legislative Hotline 1-800-562-6000

Wrong people to contact.

You need to contact your legislators not WDFW!

the Hotline will get you there.

[JimmyHoffa]

recent news segment about similar woes the Fishermen face with WDFW and the tribes.
http://www.king5.com/mb/tech/science/environment/fishermen-demand-change-for-upcoming-season/386567141

[bigtex]

The bill passed out of the committee with bipartisan support.

[The scout]

Man I hope the tribes do something to piss off trump

[yum tag soup]

  ugh puke

[JimmyHoffa]

Has anyone heard what brought this about yet?  Something like this usually doesn't get written and pushed unless somebody wants to use it.
I've heard of two theories, but they didn't come from the horse's mouth so not sure if they are believable. 
Theory 1--Muckleshoot tribe is saying that so much of their UA hunting land is now built up/private/too many state hunters/habitat fragmented, that they want to be able to meet with the state to extend out their territory to the east.  The meetings would need to be closed because they think the Yakama tribe would object and protest the meeting.
Theory 2--A group of urban tribes from around Puget Sound are saying UA hunting land is too built up/private/etc, so they want to be able to deal with the state for areas outside of the UA lands.  They want to have statewide rights, amounting to each member basically having a governor's tag.  And the meetings would need to be closed because state hunters would throw a fit.
Just what I've heard floating around.

[timberfaller]

Correct me if I am wrong,  BUT isn't there a law on the books about ONLY the Federal Government can make "deals" with the "Tribes"?   Something about having a "tready" with them! and being labeled a "sovereign nation" status??

[Curly]

Makes no sense why there would be support for this.