Yakama Nation Sheep Tags

[idahohuntr]

Only downside is we lose all that auction money that goes back to wild sheep. Which I guess is ok, because wdfw is overflowing with money to be spent on management.
(Insert passive aggressive sarcasm here)

This is where I assumed your auction concern   

When I use the term conservation concern, I'm using it roughly the way I've read court rulings.  The action must put the species in great peril for the state to have jurisdiction over a treaty tribe exercising a hunting right.  Preserving a unique resource, such as trophy rams, is not a conservation concern that warrants or has the ability to impede a treaty right.  If the sheep population will go extinct because of the 2 yakama tags, then it is a conservation concern...and if that's the case, the state can't discriminate against Indians in their regulation...meaning they would need to cut the state tags as well.

[PlateauNDN]

Only downside is we lose all that auction money that goes back to wild sheep. Which I guess is ok, because wdfw is overflowing with money to be spent on management.
(Insert passive aggressive sarcasm here)

This is where I assumed your auction concern   

When I use the term conservation concern, I'm using it roughly the way I've read court rulings.  The action must put the species in great peril for the state to have jurisdiction over a treaty tribe exercising a hunting right.  Preserving a unique resource, such as trophy rams, is not a conservation concern that warrants or has the ability to impede a treaty right.  If the sheep population will go extinct because of the 2 yakama tags, then it is a conservation concern...and if that's the case, the state can't discriminate against Indians in their regulation...meaning they would need to cut the state tags as well.

The only case that could be referenced is the green river watershed and the Mucks.

Unregulated over hunting of elk in that particular area led to the demise and almost complete extermination of the herd in there and the state won that case.

The difference is we are only distributing 2 permits. Theres no unregulated hunting of the sheep and if taking 1 without a permit is poaching for us. Penalties for that means losing hunting rights and not many hunters I know would risk that.

And I doubt wdfw would be ecstatic with opening a seat to the table. Heck, a hw member on here can speak about the attitudes of wdfw and tribal representatives.

[Oh Mah]

I must say that i'm shocked to read this but if you say so,You would know the attitudes of both sides better than i would.

In your opinion why?

[huntnphool]

Only downside is we lose all that auction money that goes back to wild sheep. Which I guess is ok, because wdfw is overflowing with money to be spent on management.
(Insert passive aggressive sarcasm here)

 Perfect time to announce the 15% price increase right?

https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,230156.msg3073459.html#msg3073459

[jackson7]

Gents,  I have to  tell you. As a novice on the topic, I have learned from both sides. Thank you for the education.
I think you all deserve Kudos on keeping it together...    Best, Jackson

[grundy53]

Only downside is we lose all that auction money that goes back to wild sheep. Which I guess is ok, because wdfw is overflowing with money to be spent on management.
(Insert passive aggressive sarcasm here)

This is where I assumed your auction concern   

When I use the term conservation concern, I'm using it roughly the way I've read court rulings.  The action must put the species in great peril for the state to have jurisdiction over a treaty tribe exercising a hunting right.  Preserving a unique resource, such as trophy rams, is not a conservation concern that warrants or has the ability to impede a treaty right.  If the sheep population will go extinct because of the 2 yakama tags, then it is a conservation concern...and if that's the case, the state can't discriminate against Indians in their regulation...meaning they would need to cut the state tags as well.

I don't think he's saying he wants WDFW to take jurisdiction over the tribal hunt. He wants the tribe to voluntarily work with the WDFW or at least let them know their plans so the WDFW can adjust their numbers.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[Time Immemorial 1855]

How do you all know the state did not know about this? Seems like someone would've known

[jackelope]

How do you all know the state did not know about this? Seems like someone would've known

Because the head guy that manages bighorn sheep, moose, Mountain goats and pronghorn antelope for the state told me so.

[baker5150]

Only downside is we lose all that auction money that goes back to wild sheep. Which I guess is ok, because wdfw is overflowing with money to be spent on management.
(Insert passive aggressive sarcasm here)

This is where I assumed your auction concern   

When I use the term conservation concern, I'm using it roughly the way I've read court rulings.  The action must put the species in great peril for the state to have jurisdiction over a treaty tribe exercising a hunting right.  Preserving a unique resource, such as trophy rams, is not a conservation concern that warrants or has the ability to impede a treaty right.  If the sheep population will go extinct because of the 2 yakama tags, then it is a conservation concern...and if that's the case, the state can't discriminate against Indians in their regulation...meaning they would need to cut the state tags as well.

The state doesn't need to intervene, the two sides should have been working together on this.
If the tribe didn't give the state a heads up on this (which seams to be the case) then it's fairly obvious they don't care about the resource as much as they say they do.  They only want "in common with" tag numbers.

[baker5150]

My biggest issue goes beyond just the animals. I understand the conservation discussion and its importance, but compared to the politics involved between the State and Tribe this is menial.

I'd advocate for cooperation if the State would keep its nose out of the other major issues its sticking its nose in.

A separate agency or the WDFW?

[jackelope]

Only downside is we lose all that auction money that goes back to wild sheep. Which I guess is ok, because wdfw is overflowing with money to be spent on management.
(Insert passive aggressive sarcasm here)

This is where I assumed your auction concern   

When I use the term conservation concern, I'm using it roughly the way I've read court rulings.  The action must put the species in great peril for the state to have jurisdiction over a treaty tribe exercising a hunting right.  Preserving a unique resource, such as trophy rams, is not a conservation concern that warrants or has the ability to impede a treaty right.  If the sheep population will go extinct because of the 2 yakama tags, then it is a conservation concern...and if that's the case, the state can't discriminate against Indians in their regulation...meaning they would need to cut the state tags as well.

Sure there is a concern about the revenue that would be lost, but it's definitely not one of my overall, or top concerns. Regardless of what kind of revenue or spending problem the state has, the money generated by auctions and raffles is significant and without it, those specific species would be losing money.


My idea of a conservation concern and your idea of a conservation concern are 2 totally different things clearly. I'd rather not wait until the last minute to save or attempt to preserve a herd. Also, this isn't about regulations for me either. My comments on that topic are pretty much all angled at getting the tribe and the state to sit down and work together. I'm 99.9% sure little old me isn't going to make a difference there, but 100 little old me's or a thousand might. Hopefully one day, the 2 sides see the light and are able to work together.

[jackelope]

Only downside is we lose all that auction money that goes back to wild sheep. Which I guess is ok, because wdfw is overflowing with money to be spent on management.
(Insert passive aggressive sarcasm here)

This is where I assumed your auction concern   

When I use the term conservation concern, I'm using it roughly the way I've read court rulings.  The action must put the species in great peril for the state to have jurisdiction over a treaty tribe exercising a hunting right.  Preserving a unique resource, such as trophy rams, is not a conservation concern that warrants or has the ability to impede a treaty right.  If the sheep population will go extinct because of the 2 yakama tags, then it is a conservation concern...and if that's the case, the state can't discriminate against Indians in their regulation...meaning they would need to cut the state tags as well.

I don't think he's saying he wants WDFW to take jurisdiction over the tribal hunt. He wants the tribe to voluntarily work with the WDFW or at least let them know their plans so the WDFW can adjust their numbers.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Thank you Grundy. I was beginning to think I was typing in some foreign language.

[Rainier10]

 
I would like to think had the tribe told WDFW that they would be issuing two additional tags in that area that WDFW would have adjusted their tags down and hopefully the tribe would have also.

Taking out 4 of the biggest sheep this year is going to put a hurt on that herd and if the same number of tags are given out next year that is really going to lower the average age of rams.  I just don't see that the herd can take the loss of 4 rams a year especially if you toss in the auction tag and loss from vehicle impacts.  The fence is helping but isn't complete.  Sheep still get lost to impacts with vehicles.

[jackelope]

I would like to think had the tribe told WDFW that they would be issuing two additional tags in that area that WDFW would have adjusted their tags down and hopefully the tribe would have also.

Taking out 4 of the biggest sheep this year is going to put a hurt on that herd and if the same number of tags are given out next year that is really going to lower the average age of rams.  I just don't see that the herd can take the loss of 4 rams a year especially if you toss in the auction tag and loss from vehicle impacts.  The fence is helping but isn't complete.  Sheep still get lost to impacts with vehicles.

Lots of things to be considered here that aren't being considered...not just hunting permits. Road kill, winter kill, etc. There's a list...

[idahohuntr]

Only downside is we lose all that auction money that goes back to wild sheep. Which I guess is ok, because wdfw is overflowing with money to be spent on management.
(Insert passive aggressive sarcasm here)

This is where I assumed your auction concern   

When I use the term conservation concern, I'm using it roughly the way I've read court rulings.  The action must put the species in great peril for the state to have jurisdiction over a treaty tribe exercising a hunting right.  Preserving a unique resource, such as trophy rams, is not a conservation concern that warrants or has the ability to impede a treaty right.  If the sheep population will go extinct because of the 2 yakama tags, then it is a conservation concern...and if that's the case, the state can't discriminate against Indians in their regulation...meaning they would need to cut the state tags as well.

Sure there is a concern about the revenue that would be lost, but it's definitely not one of my overall, or top concerns. Regardless of what kind of revenue or spending problem the state has, the money generated by auctions and raffles is significant and without it, those specific species would be losing money.


My idea of a conservation concern and your idea of a conservation concern are 2 totally different things clearly. I'd rather not wait until the last minute to save or attempt to preserve a herd. Also, this isn't about regulations for me either. My comments on that topic are pretty much all angled at getting the tribe and the state to sit down and work together. I'm 99.9% sure little old me isn't going to make a difference there, but 100 little old me's or a thousand might. Hopefully one day, the 2 sides see the light and are able to work together.

Has your buddy that is the head of sheep, moose, and goats ever proactively sat down with the Yakamas to discuss increases or changes in state harvest levels?  That would have been a good way to get to the collaboration most of us would like to see.  My point is, wdfw has no upper hand to force yakamas to the table. 

Also, I'm not advocating we all wait until the sheep herd is on the brink of extinction in describing "conservation concern", I'm merely explaining the point at which wdfw has the ability to step in...that's just a fact supported by case law. 

Once the wyoming crow tribe hunting case is settled in the Supreme Court next session I would predict more western states will start seeing the value of collaborating with tribes on harvest.