Tribes must be at the table when natural resources policies are written.

[Blacktail Sniper]

Did not see this posted yet, intersting comentary:

https://www.chronline.com/stories/commentary-tribes-must-be-at-the-table-when-natural-resources-policies-are-written,369687?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR1VWjIogQHEyqu1HaCYmH924nbuq7ohVzbSORuQzpZKVCveztQPZWnr0e0_aem_oJvA41u3d5wMFbxHAZLNmQ

Commentary: Tribes must be at the table when natural resources policies are written

Posted Wednesday, December 4, 2024 4:22 pm
By Ed Johnstone / Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission

Tribes in western Washington have asked the state to restructure the Fish and Wildlife Commission, which is standing in the way of true co-management.

The 1974 Boldt decision in U.S. v. Washington established tribes as co-managers of fisheries with the state through the departments of fisheries, for salmon, and game, for steelhead. The departments were later merged into the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW).

As sovereign nations, tribes are supposed to have a direct government-to-government relationship with the governor of the state. However, since 1995, the state’s natural resources management policies have been set by a Fish and Wildlife Commission, made up of nine citizens appointed by the governor. The director of WDFW answers to them.

This additional layer of management, where policies are made by an entity separate from a state agency, is a violation of the Boldt decision.

The legislation creating this commission incorrectly claims that fish and wildlife are the property of the state. According to the Boldt decision, subsequently upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, treaty fishing rights are property rights, which makes tribes co-owners of the resources in common with the state.

The Boldt decision requires the state to work with tribes to share equally in the harvest of the salmon that aren’t needed to meet conservation goals. However, policies set by the Fish and Wildlife Commission prevent WDFW from having the necessary flexibility to co-manage the available share.

The state’s Fish and Wildlife Commission is out of compliance with co-management because it is not appropriately structured for government-to-government consultation. The commission is subject to the Open Public Meetings Act, which does not allow for the full commission to consult with tribal leaders outside of its regular public meetings.

This one-sided approach treats tribes as stakeholders who can only offer public comment on policies that WDFW must then uphold with no authority to negotiate.

An example of this slippery slope was a recently proposed conservation policy with ambiguous wording. A policy without a clear objective makes it difficult for either the agency or the public to know whether they are in compliance or not. Ambiguous policies can be used to justify any action after the fact.

Tribes were concerned with the potential unknown effects of this policy on fishing and hunting regulations, and actions that could affect permitting of tribal restoration projects. We were assured that the policy wasn’t meant to interfere with tribes’ treaty-protected rights, but WDFW has a regulatory role in permitting some of our restoration projects, land use and enforcement interactions.

That’s the problem with trying to develop policy without tribal input. Regardless of the intent behind this conservation policy, its vague wording could stand in the way of tribes’ work to manage or recover salmon if misinterpreted by anyone trying to implement it.

After we learned of the proposed conservation policy, 11 tribes requested government-to-government consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Commission. No official action has taken place since then because the commission is not set up to do so.

Another problematic policy aims to provide direction on the use of best available science to inform Fish and Wildlife Commission decisions. This policy doesn’t follow existing standards or best practices for independent, objective science to inform policy, but instead blends the risks and benefits of policymaking with considerations of the best scientific information available. Without a distinction, it’s less clear when a decision was based on the recommendation of scientific experts and available data and when it was based on political considerations.

These are co-management decisions that can’t be made without having tribes at the table. The court doesn’t allow for the state to take unilateral action. It must make collaborative and cooperative decisions with the tribes.

The creation of a citizen committee broke the direct relationship between tribal governments and the head of state. It is the state’s obligation to reform this flawed administrative process by removing the obstacle to our government-to-government relationship.

True co-management can’t be achieved when tribes are not involved in the setting of policies that affect our shared resources.

•••

Ed Johnstone is the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission chairman.

[Humptulips]

Thank you for posting this. It seems like an endorsement of making the Directors job a Cabinet position and relegating the Commission to an advisory role as I have seen proposed.

[timberfaller]

Not surprised, seen it coming decades ago.  The Tribes have learned how to milk the system, hire better lawyers!!

They now control the government,  they tell the government to jump, the government responds, how high!!

Sometimes its for the good, but others its about how much fleecing can we get away with!

[HUNTIN4SIX]

Not surprised, seen it coming decades ago.  The Tribes have learned how to milk the system, hire better lawyers!!

They now control the government,  they tell the government to jump, the government responds, how high!!

Sometimes its for the good, but others its about how much fleecing can we get away with!

 

[jstone]

 

[hunter399]

Double edged sword ⚔️
I don't fully trust the tribes,yet I trust them more than our commission.
That says something.

[fishngamereaper]

This is going to get interesting...
With Ferguson selecting Casey Sixkiller to head the Dept of Ecology...
I can only imagine how much farther we'll go down the path of climate resilience, environmental justice and tribal first policies...

[actionshooter]

Double edged sword ⚔️
I don't fully trust the tribes,yet I trust them more than our commission.
That says something.

 At this point, I fully trust the tribes more than the commission...

[storyteller]

They have the clout to make some needed changes, we are not getting any that we want.   The state will have to listen to the tribes or end up in court again.  Maybe the commission  party is over, can only  hope.

[Rainier10]

Interesting read, thanks for posting. Curious to see what comes of this

[TriggerMike]

At this point, the Tribes are our only hope for saving hunting in this state. We need more sportsmen to realize this.

[storyteller]

 

[Special T]

I can only read into this on the hunting side of things.

Tribes are consumptive users of wildlife like sportsmen. They want predator management like we do.

Regardless of the split of the pie... if it's shrinking due to bad policy it effects tribes and sportsmen.

Wouldn't you like to see more predators  managed? I would. 

[templar021]

Hmmm, a soverign who has year round seasons, no bag limits,  no weapon restrictions, allows night hunting comanaging our seasons, what could go wrong.
Oh ya, no skin in the game either.

[Tbar]

Hmmm, a soverign who has year round seasons, no bag limits,  no weapon restrictions, allows night hunting comanaging our seasons, what could go wrong.
Oh ya, no skin in the game either.

Very uninformed and uneducated post. 

[HntnFsh]

Hmmm, a soverign who has year round seasons, no bag limits,  no weapon restrictions, allows night hunting comanaging our seasons, what could go wrong.
Oh ya, no skin in the game either.

Very uninformed and uneducated post.

What he's saying is a little ezlxtreme. But not real far off.

[Tbar]

Hmmm, a soverign who has year round seasons, no bag limits,  no weapon restrictions, allows night hunting comanaging our seasons, what could go wrong.
Oh ya, no skin in the game either.

Very uninformed and uneducated post.

What he's saying is a little ezlxtreme. But not real far off.

Way off.

[templar021]

Maybe try hunting when the nez poachers are out and about and you will see who is uninformec

[Meathunter06]

Maybe try hunting when the nez poachers are out and about and you will see who is uninformec

  I think Tbar may be way off

[KrisKamm27]

 Co-manage sounds fine with me if the ones asking are willing to cover half the management costs and abide by one uniform set of rules for everyone?

[Tbar]

Without the tribes hatchery production would be reduced or eliminated by this commission.  They continue to ask for significant reduction even even there are not ESA implications.

[ghosthunter]

Maybe try hunting when the nez poachers are out and about and you will see who is uninformec

  I think Tbar may be way off

I would bet that Tbar  is  better informed on Wildlife Management and wildlife issues than most folks on this forum. 

 

[Tbar]

Maybe try hunting when the nez poachers are out and about and you will see who is uninformec

  I think Tbar may be way off

You are welcome to think what you want.  As with this opposition to the current commission, I choose facts over feelings. That is with the caveat that "tribes" are not a monolith and levels of investment and engagement vary.  I would still maintain the position that tribes must be present.  They are adjudicated comanagers, full stop, not up for debate or opinions. 

[Tbar]

This forum topic is largely centered around malicious intent of the current commission.  At the center of this is(hopefully was) are policies like the conservation policy(and others) that on the surface look benign.  When you dig into them and consider the opponents play book it would very likely open many doors where things are open to multiple interpretation and lack clear intent.  That policy was written by people like Koontz, Beardslee, Allen, Davis and Moskowitz. All of them play unique roles on this shell of a commission.  If you have any desire to perpetuate the passions enjoyed  by the hook and bullet demographic you may want to think twice about who your enemies are and where threats lie. 

[trophyhunt]

Hmmm, a soverign who has year round seasons, no bag limits,  no weapon restrictions, allows night hunting comanaging our seasons, what could go wrong.
Oh ya, no skin in the game either.

Very uninformed and uneducated post.

for your tribe maybe, but please, please tell us this isn’t the truth for the yakamas ?  Go ahead..

[trophyhunt]

Can’t wait for the word salad..

[dwils233]

Maybe try hunting when the nez poachers are out and about and you will see who is uninformec

  I think Tbar may be way off

You are welcome to think what you want.  As with this opposition to the current commission, I choose facts over feelings. That is with the caveat that "tribes" are not a monolith and levels of investment and engagement vary.  I would still maintain the position that tribes must be present.  They are adjudicated comanagers, full stop, not up for debate or opinions. 

I mean that's it right? If you don't like it, if it makes you mad,  you think it's unfair, etc. etc. that I see all the time -it doesn't matter. The most foundational law of the land isn't changing because it upsets some folks. And if it does, we've got bigger problems than who shot an elk or caught some salmon. In the meantime, common sense showed we have a lot more in common, and a serious common threat to deal with it.

[HUNTIN4SIX]

Without the tribes hatchery production would be reduced or eliminated by this commission.  They continue to ask for significant reduction even even there are not ESA implications.

Now that I agree with because it was something my career involved.  I personally saw a major hatchery reduction in my career driven by lack of money, PUD and the wild salmon BS influence.  Some fisheries exist mostly due to tribal influence.  On the contrary I've seen tribes manipulate the state an say there were salmon in areas where they never existed just to try and introduce them.
I do believe tribal natural resource management in many case is a notch above WDFW, but that is not a reason to bring them to the table.  We need to fix our own stupid.  Maybe if actual tribal land was influenced by a policy, bring them in to the conversation, but of course some tribes think they own it all.  Tribes will always have their own best interest, and they should, hence is why they need to manage their own land, not the rest.      

[HntnFsh]

Maybe try hunting when the nez poachers are out and about and you will see who is uninformec

  I think Tbar may be way off

I would bet that Tbar  is  better informed on Wildlife Management and wildlife issues than most folks on this forum. 

 

I dont always agree with him, but I bet your right!

[hunter399]

Double edged sword ⚔️
My first post.....lol.

It's like everyone wants a piece of the pie.
Yet the pie has been sitting in the trash .
😂

It's not in the dumpster yet,but getting there.lol😂

[Special T]

I think part of the solution is involving tribes in predator control. I'd e poor slicing off some department funds for tribes to do some cougar control. I'm not really sure how that would work tho. Could point Elliot tribes band together to hire a few houndsmen and pay them on how many cats they harves off public lands? Some variation of this is what I'd like to see.