pronghorn management meetings

[Tbar]

"SCI assisted the Wyoming Game and Fish Department in this case, opposing the position of Herrera.  SCI filed a “friend of the court” brief to defend the importance of state management authority over game on federal lands.  This same principle could apply 19 other treaties with similar language, spreading the impact to other Tribes and well beyond Wyoming."
This is where I draw that inference.  There is little confusion.  The state management comment leaves little ambiguity.  It's a disrespectful position to take, period. 

[Tbar]

You and I both know it's not the case but the precedent, nice deflection attempt.

[Bushcraft]

You and I both know it's not the case but the precedent, nice deflection attempt.

Pretty sure I'm not the one deflecting here TBar.

By any reasonable measure, Herrera was/is just another *censored* poacher that doesn't give two rips about sustainable, science-based game management.  That's hurts all of us as hunters, regardless of ancestry.

Carry on covering for him though. 

[Tbar]

You and I both know it's not the case but the precedent, nice deflection attempt.

Pretty sure I'm not the one deflecting here TBar.

By any reasonable measure, Herrera was/is just another *censored* poacher that doesn't give two rips about sustainable, science-based game management.  That's hurts all of us as hunters, regardless of ancestry.

Carry on covering for him though. 

Deflecting? Your organization made a statement. If you like the state's management so much why are you trying to puppet people to "get the word out of your pending lawsuit"? Also back to this topic, why are you USING tribes to circumvent the state and their science based management?

[Bushcraft]

You and I both know it's not the case but the precedent, nice deflection attempt.

Pretty sure I'm not the one deflecting here TBar.

By any reasonable measure, Herrera was/is just another *censored* poacher that doesn't give two rips about sustainable, science-based game management.  That's hurts all of us as hunters, regardless of ancestry.

Carry on covering for him though. 

Deflecting? Your organization made a statement. If you like the state's management so much why are you trying to puppet people to "get the word out of your pending lawsuit"? Also back to this topic, why are you USING tribes to circumvent the state and their science based management?

Yes. You are deflecting.  What Herrera did was wrong.

Poaching is not fair or equitable, nor grounded in any science-based approach to sustainable wildlife management.  His leaning on a treaty to try and get away with his poaching activity absolutely sets a precedence for abhorrent mismanagement practices of wildlife in the other 19 treaty instances with similar language.

Disrespectful? In my opinion there's absolutely nothing disrespectful about an organization like SCI that's working hard for appropriate wildlife management that benefits all hunters - and that includes tribal members.

As far as your "using" reference. No one is using anyone for the reintroduction of antelope in Washington. SCI is not "using" the tribes as you none-too-subtly are implying with your questions. Not in the slightest. Our interest in working together to reintroduce pronghorn to Washington was absolutely mutually beneficial.  It's been a fantastic working relationship.  Everyone get's what they want.  More pronghorn in Washington without decades of WDFW bureaucratic red-tape. It's a win for everyone. 

As an aside, I believe the tribes now employ some of the best biologists in the state, particularly when it comes to predator/prey issues.

[Tbar]

You and I both know it's not the case but the precedent, nice deflection attempt.

Pretty sure I'm not the one deflecting here TBar.

By any reasonable measure, Herrera was/is just another *censored* poacher that doesn't give two rips about sustainable, science-based game management.  That's hurts all of us as hunters, regardless of ancestry.

Carry on covering for him though. 

Deflecting? Your organization made a statement. If you like the state's management so much why are you trying to puppet people to "get the word out of your pending lawsuit"? Also back to this topic, why are you USING tribes to circumvent the state and their science based management?

Yes. You are deflecting.  What Herrera did was wrong.

Poaching is not fair or equitable, nor grounded in any science-based approach to sustainable wildlife management.  His leaning on a treaty to try and get away with his poaching activity absolutely sets a precedence for abhorrent mismanagement practices of wildlife in the other 19 treaty instances with similar language.

Disrespectful? In my opinion there's absolutely nothing disrespectful about an organization like SCI that's working hard for appropriate wildlife management that benefits all hunters - and that includes tribal members.

As far as your "using" reference. No one is using anyone for the reintroduction of antelope in Washington. SCI is not "using" the tribes as you none-too-subtly are implying with your questions. Not in the slightest. Our interest in working together to reintroduce pronghorn to Washington was absolutely mutually beneficial.  It's been a fantastic working relationship.  Everyone get's what they want.  More pronghorn in Washington without decades of WDFW bureaucratic red-tape. It's a win for everyone. 

As an aside, I believe the tribes now employ some of the best biologists in the state, particularly when it comes to predator/prey issues.

Your organization statement goes far beyond Herrera's specific incident. 

[Tbar]

Uhmm...groups???

Let's give some credit where it is due and GIVE A HUGE THANKS to SCI's Washington chapters and their network of hard-working volunteers who have spent a TON of time, money and energy spearheading the hands-on re-introduction of pronghorns back into Washington (with the help of the Yakama and Colville tribes to bypass WDFW's nonsensical bureaucratic red tape).

If it weren't for SCI, there would still be no pronghorns in Washington.  For that matter, if it weren't for SCI, I'd go so far as to say there wouldn't be any hunting in Washington. NRA for your gun rights. SCI for your hunting rights. It's just that simple people.

We hunters and landowners that want this re-introduction effort to succeed - so we can once again have a thriving and huntable population, need to pack these hearing rooms AND take the online survey.

Link to survey: https://wdfw.wa.gov/species-habitats/at-risk/species-recovery/pronghorn-antelope-management/survey?fbclid=IwAR3vtgT0b6o2hUdtRfoiUXk5SFoWf7M4YdG86d88KDpxy32bQ07_ZQzX6AY

Here's a short video I made of the most recent translocation project:

Even your statement is classless and disrespectful to the tribal partners you are working with. A HUGE THANK YOU........ (with help from). You are an excellent bridge builder(insert sarcasm here)!

[Bushcraft]

You and I both know it's not the case but the precedent, nice deflection attempt.

Pretty sure I'm not the one deflecting here TBar.

By any reasonable measure, Herrera was/is just another *censored* poacher that doesn't give two rips about sustainable, science-based game management.  That's hurts all of us as hunters, regardless of ancestry.

Carry on covering for him though. 

Deflecting? Your organization made a statement. If you like the state's management so much why are you trying to puppet people to "get the word out of your pending lawsuit"? Also back to this topic, why are you USING tribes to circumvent the state and their science based management?

Yes. You are deflecting.  What Herrera did was wrong.

Poaching is not fair or equitable, nor grounded in any science-based approach to sustainable wildlife management.  His leaning on a treaty to try and get away with his poaching activity absolutely sets a precedence for abhorrent mismanagement practices of wildlife in the other 19 treaty instances with similar language.

Disrespectful? In my opinion there's absolutely nothing disrespectful about an organization like SCI that's working hard for appropriate wildlife management that benefits all hunters - and that includes tribal members.

As far as your "using" reference. No one is using anyone for the reintroduction of antelope in Washington. SCI is not "using" the tribes as you none-too-subtly are implying with your questions. Not in the slightest. Our interest in working together to reintroduce pronghorn to Washington was absolutely mutually beneficial.  It's been a fantastic working relationship.  Everyone get's what they want.  More pronghorn in Washington without decades of WDFW bureaucratic red-tape. It's a win for everyone. 

As an aside, I believe the tribes now employ some of the best biologists in the state, particularly when it comes to predator/prey issues.

Your organization statement goes far beyond Herrera's specific incident.

Nonsense. Herrera is using a cheap legal trick to cover his heinous poaching behavior.  If successful it will lead to a waterfall precedence that will only make managing wildlife - and the hunting thereof,  more difficult.

Precedence

prec·e·dence
[ˈpresədəns, prēˈsēdns]

NOUN
the condition of being considered more important than someone or something else; priority in importance, order, or rank.
"his desire for power soon took precedence over any other consideration"

synonyms:
take priority over · be considered more important/urgent than · outweigh · supersede · prevail over · come before
the order to be ceremonially observed by people of different rank, according to an acknowledged or legally determined system.
"quarrels over precedence among the Bonaparte family marred the coronation"

synonyms:
priority · preeminence · rank · seniority · superiority · primacy · first place · pride of place · eminence · supremacy · ascendancy · preference · weightage

[Bushcraft]

Even your statement is classless and disrespectful to the tribal partners you are working with. A HUGE THANK YOU........ (with help from). You are an excellent bridge builder(insert sarcasm here)!

The bridge is already built and we have a great working relationship in this regard.  I'm unclear as to why you're trying to cast a negative blanket on these accomplishments.

And for what it's worth, I'm an unpaid volunteer - and a rank amateur video maker at best, and put that audience specific video together specifically for an SCI fundraising event to A) let the SCI members and their guests understand where their money is being put to work, and B) to encourage more people to open their wallets so that we can use those monies for future translocation efforts, tracking collars, aerial and ground counts, etc.

[Tbar]

Even your statement is classless and disrespectful to the tribal partners you are working with. A HUGE THANK YOU........ (with help from). You are an excellent bridge builder(insert sarcasm here)!

The bridge is already built and we have a great working relationship in this regard.  I'm unclear as to why you're trying to cast a negative blanket on these accomplishments.

And for what it's worth, I'm an unpaid volunteer - and a rank amateur video maker at best, and put that audience specific video together specifically for an SCI fundraising event to A) let the SCI members and their guests understand where their money is being put to work, and B) to encourage more people to open their wallets so that we can use those monies for future translocation efforts, tracking collars, aerial and ground counts, etc.

You are still the rep.,  the organization that you rep. took a position.  That position could and should be a wedge in any working relationships that may have been formed. The position is not premised solely on science based management, but on precedent.  It is not on a specific incident but the empowerment of the comanagement platform.  You may have been in a unique position to build bridges but that position to unify has been damaged.

[Bushcraft]

Even your statement is classless and disrespectful to the tribal partners you are working with. A HUGE THANK YOU........ (with help from). You are an excellent bridge builder(insert sarcasm here)!

The bridge is already built and we have a great working relationship in this regard.  I'm unclear as to why you're trying to cast a negative blanket on these accomplishments.

And for what it's worth, I'm an unpaid volunteer - and a rank amateur video maker at best, and put that audience specific video together specifically for an SCI fundraising event to A) let the SCI members and their guests understand where their money is being put to work, and B) to encourage more people to open their wallets so that we can use those monies for future translocation efforts, tracking collars, aerial and ground counts, etc.

You are still the rep.,  the organization that you rep. took a position.  That position could and should be a wedge in any working relationships that may have been formed. The position is not premised solely on science based management, but on precedent.  It is not on a specific incident but the empowerment of the comanagement platform.  You may have been in a unique position to build bridges but that position to unify has been damaged.

The position doesn't and shouldn't drive a wedge in any working relationship(s) that ultimately want(s) what's best for our fauna, flora, hunters and hunting. The only person trying to push a wedge seems to be you. That's unfortunate and doesn't need to happen.

Bear with me while I try to understand where you're coming from...What exactly is your beef with a co-management platform of federal/state/tribal interests? Any given population base is finite and is prone to management complexities beyond which any singular entity can or should claim sole responsibility and management of.  Why wouldn't you be in favor of an approach that emphasizes the maximum sustainable harvest opportunities of game animals on a fair and equitable basis?

[PlateauNDN]

My concern is the precedent this case would have set in regards to the Treaties themselves.  I don't Mr Herrera but his case involved 1 Treaty that would've set precedent and quite possibly affected many Treaties in many States.

I'm not sticking up for the bad apple, I'm sticking up for the right that was reserved and the State(s) that wish/want & continue to try to tear the Treaties up and not abide by deals made between Nations not States.

[Tbar]

Even your statement is classless and disrespectful to the tribal partners you are working with. A HUGE THANK YOU........ (with help from). You are an excellent bridge builder(insert sarcasm here)!

The bridge is already built and we have a great working relationship in this regard.  I'm unclear as to why you're trying to cast a negative blanket on these accomplishments.

And for what it's worth, I'm an unpaid volunteer - and a rank amateur video maker at best, and put that audience specific video together specifically for an SCI fundraising event to A) let the SCI members and their guests understand where their money is being put to work, and B) to encourage more people to open their wallets so that we can use those monies for future translocation efforts, tracking collars, aerial and ground counts, etc.

You are still the rep.,  the organization that you rep. took a position.  That position could and should be a wedge in any working relationships that may have been formed. The position is not premised solely on science based management, but on precedent.  It is not on a specific incident but the empowerment of the comanagement platform.  You may have been in a unique position to build bridges but that position to unify has been damaged.

The position doesn't and shouldn't drive a wedge in any working relationship(s) that ultimately want(s) what's best for our fauna, flora, hunters and hunting. The only person trying to push a wedge seems to be you. That's unfortunate and doesn't need to happen.

Bear with me while I try to understand where you're coming from...What exactly is your beef with a co-management platform of federal/state/tribal interests? Any given population base is finite and is prone to management complexities beyond which any singular entity can or should claim sole responsibility and management of.  Why wouldn't you be in favor of an approach that emphasizes the maximum sustainable harvest opportunities of game animals on a fair and equitable basis?

Your rhetoric sounds good but the statement by your organization pulls no punches in its stance.  There is a difference in honoring an agreement and moving forward to perpetuate a finite resource under comanagement and the statement made by SCI.

[Tbar]

Even your statement is classless and disrespectful to the tribal partners you are working with. A HUGE THANK YOU........ (with help from). You are an excellent bridge builder(insert sarcasm here)!

The bridge is already built and we have a great working relationship in this regard.  I'm unclear as to why you're trying to cast a negative blanket on these accomplishments.

And for what it's worth, I'm an unpaid volunteer - and a rank amateur video maker at best, and put that audience specific video together specifically for an SCI fundraising event to A) let the SCI members and their guests understand where their money is being put to work, and B) to encourage more people to open their wallets so that we can use those monies for future translocation efforts, tracking collars, aerial and ground counts, etc.

You are still the rep.,  the organization that you rep. took a position.  That position could and should be a wedge in any working relationships that may have been formed. The position is not premised solely on science based management, but on precedent.  It is not on a specific incident but the empowerment of the comanagement platform.  You may have been in a unique position to build bridges but that position to unify has been damaged.

The position doesn't and shouldn't drive a wedge in any working relationship(s) that ultimately want(s) what's best for our fauna, flora, hunters and hunting. The only person trying to push a wedge seems to be you. That's unfortunate and doesn't need to happen.

Bear with me while I try to understand where you're coming from...What exactly is your beef with a co-management platform of federal/state/tribal interests? Any given population base is finite and is prone to management complexities beyond which any singular entity can or should claim sole responsibility and management of.  Why wouldn't you be in favor of an approach that emphasizes the maximum sustainable harvest opportunities of game animals on a fair and equitable basis?

Maybe you could speak out in response to the SCI statement and propose moving forward with "an approach that emphasizes the maximum sustainable harvest opportunities of game animals on a fair and equitable basis?"
That's not what the press release says.

[Bushcraft]

My concern is the precedent this case would have set in regards to the Treaties themselves.  I don't Mr Herrera but his case involved 1 Treaty that would've set precedent and quite possibly affected many Treaties in many States.

I'm not sticking up for the bad apple, I'm sticking up for the right that was reserved and the State(s) that wish/want & continue to try to tear the Treaties up and not abide by deals made between Nations not States.

I can't, won't and don't profess to not know all the legal tangent minutiae tossed around in this case.  But I do know right from wrong.  Allowing some bad apple poachers like Herrera to use sometimes obtuse treaty language as a crutch for their selfish behavior is misguided and wrong. I wouldn't want any such gerrymandered legal precedent to stand and potentially be abused at the expense of all our finite resources, regardless of one's bloodlines. Having worked closely with SCI's head litigator on a variety of issues, I know her to be a very fair and forthright person that also keenly understands right from wrong and whose sole objective is to protect and preserve the rights of ALL hunters, regardless of their heritage or ancestry, such that we all can partake in the maximum sustainable harvest of fish and game for many generations to come.

It's up to us to work together to find common ground that's ultimately beneficial for the long haul.

That's my take on it anyway.