Dangerous Precedent- DNR Gives Gate Keys To Tribes for Bear Hunting, What's Next

[bearpaw]

i dont know all the legal aspect of this but it seems to me that the wdfw could have said, well we have a bear problem in this area, lets do a depridation hunt with x # of tags with this set of rules, first come first served for this one time. look at the results & readress the situation at this time. take care of the bear problem & gain some revinue at the same time while offering more oppertunity for the hunting public. win, win, win. seems so easy to me but, again i dont know all the peramiters they have to work within.

I agree, they should have consulted the DNR about the damage, determined how many bear likely need removed, then set a spring hunt with enough permits that when considering the average success rate would result in the number of bear harvested as desired. 

Maybe the new bio just needs to get her feet wet before she recommends a spring season, hopefully next year... 

whats sad is when i talked to ruth the other day she said they were going to do more studies to figure out the best way to manage the problem bears.I dont think they need another study seems pretty simple

ABSOLUTELY, is this lady anti-hunter? 

[Wenatcheejay]

Jayson,

On behalf of Senator Parlette, thank you for bringing this issue to her attention.  The Senator is travelling today and requested that I let you know that she contacted the Department of Natural Resources about this issue.  The response we received is that headquarters was not aware of this move, and that it isn't in keeping with their policies.  We were told that they would get back to us ASAP with details as to how they will be addressing the situation, and we'll relay that information upon receipt.

Thanks again for taking the time to contact Senator Parlette, and we'll look forward to following up soon.

Sean Graham
Legislative Assistant
to Senator Linda Evans Parlette
12th Legislative District 
360.786.7622

[bobcat]

This is from last September:

 Natural Resources Tribal Summit sought common ground with tribes on state land access, management and stewardship issues       
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
                                                                                                         
September 15, 2010
Natural Resources Tribal Summit sought common ground with tribes on state land access, management and stewardship issues
Goldmark issues Commissioner’s Order pledging partnership with tribes
OLYMPIA – At the conclusion of a two-day summit with tribal representatives from across the state, Commissioner of Public Lands Peter Goldmark said the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) will expand its efforts to communicate and work with the tribes on resource management issues that affect them and the state lands they use.
“This summit marks the beginning of a new era in how DNR works with our state’s native peoples,” Goldmark said. “As stewards of 5.6 million acres of state-owned lands, DNR works for trust beneficiaries like schools and counties, but we must also give respect to the tribes and the cultural significance that these lands have for them.”
The summit – held September 13-14 – was hosted by the Nisqually Indian Tribe. It marked the first time that DNR had invited all 29 federally recognized Indian Tribes in Washington State to discuss natural resources issues at one table.
Goldmark said the summit is only the beginning to an ongoing discussion with the tribes. DNR will continue to invite tribes to meetings where its regional managers can hear their concerns about the department’s management of resource lands. DNR also plans to conduct another statewide Natural Resources Tribal Summit next year.
Goldmark’s official Commissioner’s Order also confirmed that DNR recognizes the tribes’ separate rights and authorities and commits the department to maintain government-to-government relations with them. DNR’s tribal relations program is led by a full-time Tribal Relations Manager, Rodney Cawston, who is a member of the Colville Tribe.
The full text of the Commissioner’s Order on Tribal Relations is online at: http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/em_comm_tribalrelations_order_201029.pdf
Photos from the Natural Resources Tribal Summit are on Flickr at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/wastatednr/sets/72157624839093043/ 
Additional information about DNR’s Tribal Relations Office can be found online at www.dnr.wa.gov  at the link to “Tribal Relations.” The direct link is: http://www.dnr.wa.gov/AboutDNR/TribalRelations/Pages/Home.aspx
DNR manages trust lands
DNR manages more than 5.6 million acres of state land:
 

• 2.9 million acres of trust lands, including forest, range, agricultural land, and commercial properties that earn revenue to build public schools, universities, prisons, and other state institutions, and help fund Westside county services.
• 2.6 million acres of ‘aquatic’ lands: the bedlands under Puget Sound and the coast, many beaches, and navigable natural lakes and rivers.
• 133,000 acres of natural areas that protect rare and threatened species as well as high-quality examples of the native ecosystems and landscapes of Washington.

Media Contact: Aaron Toso, Director of Communications and Outreach, 360-902-1149, aaron.toso@dnr.wa.gov 

[stumprat]

My fears lie in the fact. That I grew up watching the Muckleshoots reckless disregard of any game laws. And total waste of the resource!!!!!!

[huntnfmly]

Jayson,

On behalf of Senator Parlette, thank you for bringing this issue to her attention.  The Senator is travelling today and requested that I let you know that she contacted the Department of Natural Resources about this issue.  The response we received is that headquarters was not aware of this move, and that it isn't in keeping with their policies.  We were told that they would get back to us ASAP with details as to how they will be addressing the situation, and we'll relay that information upon receipt.

Thanks again for taking the time to contact Senator Parlette, and we'll look forward to following up soon.

Sean Graham
Legislative Assistant
to Senator Linda Evans Parlette
12th Legislative District 
360.786.7622

thanks for posting this and the contact number i just left her a voice mail asking for more info when they get it as in are they going to have any more wildlife officers to help making sure they dont basically do what they want and how unfair it is the mucleshoots have the keys to 2.9 million acre that they can drive around in and as non natives we have to park at the gates.Say good bye to any huntable pop. of elk and deer.To those of you that hunt behind those gates it dont look good

[tlbradford]

Yes, I did take your statement personal.  The above remarks warranted my type of response.  I could lower myself to another standard and bash other ethnic groups and cause havoc and be a menace as some of my fellows "Indians" have done in the past but I choose not to.  I choose to use my head and diplomacy.  If you want to continue to bash "Indians" as a whole group then be prepared to provide a rebuttal to my responses as I have done with your responses.

You say legality has nothing to do with it and your own words, phrases and even rebuttals provide the back-up to it being all legal.  So is it legal or not?  You say it's not legal then you mention the Boldt decision and to me it seems you need to get your opinions in line before you make them.

-rebuttal - My opinions are perfectly clear and stated clearly.  I am not arguing the legality (here is the definition: legality 1. (Law) the state or quality of being legal or lawful) I am arguing the ethics of giving a special interest group preference over another.

If you want to take a stand against something then find your footing and hold on tight and be prepared for anything that gets thrown at you.  Don't contradict yourself because in somebody else's eyes it make you look like you don't know what you're talking about and it makes you look foolish.

-rebuttal - I did not contradict myself at any point.  You obviously did not comprehend my statement correctly.  I am fully prepared to back up each and every point I make.  I educate myself on a topic before I form an opinion.

Yes, I did use myself as an example and that is my right to do so since you want to label all "Indians" as welfare bound and unable to move forward in life without the Govt. 

As a group the tribes are a welfare nation.  That is a fact.  They take more than they give.  For example it is correct to lable Haiti as a predominantly Catholic nation.  Just because there are small percentage that aren't Catholic doesn't change the label of the nation as a whole.  I do not label all individual indians as accepting welfare or handouts, and I have never said those words.  I have clearly stated that in my previous posts.  You are trying to put words in my mouth which are incorrect.

"You are an exception to the rule, unfortunately."  Now you have gone from labeling "Indians" to labeling me?  I'm sorry it's unfortunate that I've become an exception to the rule and succeeded in life.  I'm sorry that it's unfortunate that I've been able to provide for my family without being on welfare and I've slaughtered all the bulls in the Colockum, which by the way I have never been to nor hunted and do not plan on ever going that way and to reiterate that I do not honestly know the exact area of where this is located other than it's near Wenatchee.

-rebuttal - Although it is easy to see that this is written with a sarcastic tone, I am unsure what your intent is here.  I labeled you as a success, paid you a compliment for your service to the US, and stated that I think the lessons you are passing onto your children are to be admired.  Can you honestly tell me that your thoughts, opinions, and attitudes are the prevailant attitudes for reservation members?  Can you substitute "we" for "I" when arguing on the side of your tribe?  Or are you in the minority with your thoughts?

I didn't join this site to debate the issues of Tribal Sovereignty nor have I or will ever single out a ethnic group but since the topic always seems to arise then, yes, I'm going to debate it.  This difference between you and me has been a topic I have dealt with all my life.  You grew up caucasian I assume?  The color of your skin and your heritage have never been a problem for you as it has for me (not to say you haven't or will ever experience prejudice).  I'm pretty sure you were not the minority growing up like I was.  I was taught to defend myself only when it was the last resort and that I did quite a bit. 

Because I was a "savage" who lived in a "teepee" and had hair longer than a girl or when I had to present almost every year during grade school and middle school on cultural heritage day they laughed and called me names for wearing my traditional regalia or spoke my own language.  Don't misinterpret what I've said because I love this country but the atrocities are still occuring to this day.  Even when I was going through Recruit Training I was constantly being told by other recruits that I shouldn't be there or why should they listen to me because I still live in a teepee and have an out-house for a bathroom and rode a horse all day.

I was a squad leader for almost the entire duration of Recruit Training and in the beginning that pissed a lot of other recruits off.  I had to earn their trust and respect one day at a time.  I know I'm not the only one dealing with racism and prejudice and it affects a lot of people from different nationalities but, when you question my loyalty I do take offense.  When you question what my family has done as far as military service to this country then, yes I will take offense because you're calling all of us as a group "Welfare People."

rebuttal - I didn't question what your family has done as far as military service to this country.  I am sure you had a much tougher road than I did growing up when it comes to social injustices.  However, while you want to perceive my comments as racist remarks, it is not.  I have never waivered in my stance that I agree that all men were created equal.  I have never stated anything other than the fact that everyone should be given access to the same opportunities in life.  I have never waivered that I believe that special rights given to someone because of race, religion, or sex is morally wrong.

  The difference between the Tribes and other ethnic groups was we were here first and were not brought here on slave ships or migrated here illegally (granted it has been debated throughout history that the Native American migrated here from Asia but that's a whole other discussion).  We were not civilized like our European bretheren and that disadvantage was exploited very heavily.

The Tribes were defeated and lost more battles than they won and were forced into signing Treaties to preserve their livelihood and way of life.  At the time it was thought best to push the "Indians" to the ugliest parts of the land where there were no viable way for them to survive and leave them be as long as they didn't bother American Citizens.  This turned out to be wrong.  As it turned out those same ugly lands had natural resources that proved to be invaluable towards the advancement of this Nation.  Why do you think land was CEDED (Taken back) by the US Govt.  Precious Metals (gold, silver, copper etc.), Oil and Fresh Water to name a few.  And recently discovered Natural Gas.

Yes, the US Govt. granted us a way of life and called us sovereign nations because they didn't want us assimilating with American Citizens.  The debate over what the US Govt. at the time did or didn't do to "Indians" still carries on today and it will carry on for a very long time. 

No need to rebut these statements because I conceded these same things in my previous post.  In 1924 the US Congress extended citizenship to all tribal members.  I disagree that there is much debate over what was negotiated by the US Government at the time.  It is pretty much considered fact that the US got the better deal.

 
Your assumptions are mostly right about me.  When this Great Nation is at War I support and will defend her if ever called upon.  IF this Great Nation ever declared War on its Tribes then I won't have to draw the line or pick sides it will be picked for me and my personal experience and the history of this Country is proof.  IF War was declared I would go back to being a "flea-bitten savage" no matter what I've done and no matter what I try to do to be diplomatic about the situation. 

rebuttal - You keep putting derogatory terms into quotations.  Although, they are terms you may have heard at some point, it hasn't been done in this thread, nor have any of the terms been used by myself.  As this is supposed to be a rebuttal to my comments, I want to make it clear that these are terms I have not used and that I do not approve of those that use those labels.

Even now with my job it shocks people when they meet me in person.  Speaking on the phone and then meeting them they get this picture that I wasn't the one on the other end of the phone.  They get this perception in their head that I'm going to stroll into their office or meeting wearing war-paint and wearing buckskin with moccasins.  They look at me and ask why did I show up wearing a business suit when the 5 guys sitting to my left are wearing the same attire but were they asked the same question?   

I wasn't there so I can't speak to what their perceptions may have been.  Do you go into meetings with others expecting them to look down upon you?  Are you being fair to those sitting across from you?  Are you labeling them, just as you accused me of labeling you, without knowing anything about them?

  If you don't believe this look at the Japanese-Americans when Pearl Harbor occured and WE as a Nation entered World War II.  Here's another shining example of being labeled:  Japanese-Americans, Mexican-Americans, African-Americans and Native Americans.  We did not give ourselves those titles they were given to us.

I have kept and will continue to keep an open mind when discussing issues here and if you don't think I have then obviously you have not read or followed any other topics I have debated and/or commented on.

rebuttal - I didn't say you didn't have an open mind.  I said that if you can't see the difference between you and I in regards to our citizenships and your tribal membership, than you were not viewing my arguements with an open mind.  I have followed your posts, have you followed mine?

  And, I wasn't going to say anything but since you want to say "I" have taken this personal and taken it to heart and not kept an open mind, maybe you should re-evaluate your position as a MODERATOR.  The last time I checked a moderator is supposed to be a person or persons who mediate and/or preside over other parties to ensure a fair and equal stance is taken.  At least as far as the topic of Tribal Issues is concerned you're not a moderator exercising his best judgement or providing a fair and unbiased voice.

rebuttal - You are somewhat correct.  What you have described is a Mediator, which is an unbiased third party.  A Moderator is someone to watch over the discussions and make sure they remain civil.  When one of us wants to carry out a more heated discussion than we do not moderate the subject but defer to the other mods or admin.  I would never attempt to moderate what you have written as that would be an abuse of power in this discussion.

 
As far as others topics are concerned you in my opinion have provided some very good moderation and exercised your better jdugement just not this one.

I think we can agree to disagree that the debate will carry on for quite awhile and if you wish to continue this then we can exchange PM's and have the debate there or just end it here and now.  I can let it rest if you're willing to do the same and let the original topic get back on track.

  [/quote]

I wanted to make sure my responses were on a public forum so everyone would understand my position.  I felt there were several points that needed to be addressed from your response.  I hope you can understand that.

As far as the topic at hand, it truly looks like a monumental failure by the WDFW on behalf of the hunters.  It also appears that the tribes were angling for increased opportunity for themselves on DNR land.

[bobcat]

tlbradford-  Two great posts in a row! Very well said! I'll stay out of this. All I need to say is 

[BOWHUNTER45]

WOW.. Bobcat your right ... but I will say this .. If we were all treated equally I would be happier than hell .......

[huntnfmly]

tlbradford,
     Yours and my thinking and feelings are the same i agree with all you have said and you are well spoken

[h20hunter]

And the discussion has moved beyond these pages...


http://www.nwsportsmanmag.com/articles/2011/06/15/DNR+Investigates+Giving+Out+Of+Keys+To+State+Lands/

[boneaddict]

Special interest is special interest.  One group gets keys another doesn't.  It doesn't matter if its hispanic, blacks, whites, indians, crack whores, bisexuals, transvestites, whatever.   I'm not sure why folks can't see what special interest means.   Maybe they need to hand keys to only PETA members.  I guess if you are a card carrying member, that makes it ok. 

Public land is Public land.  If you grant access to one, then it should be to all. 

I guess as a human, I still have trouble understanding the who pays taxes and who doesn't. What is public land and what you now have to buy a permit for.

Toss in the fact that you go on the Rez and I can't even photograph in an area becasue I am white.   WHOA

(WELL STATED TL...good discussion)

[Special T]

H20 hunter good link! I think it shows the power of what we are doing here. I think us here at the forum and WFW need to be the wachdogs that bring attention to hunter and fishermen issues to the general media. This forum has a large group of members and visitors, however spreading documentable information to other publicans will help our (Hunter and fishermans) cause.

[bucklucky]

I had a discussion with Representative Blake. He indicated after researching this issue it appears it was the WDFW who dropped the ball. The DNR had gone to the WDFW and asked for them to address the bear damage with increased bear hunting and the WDFW didn't do it.

It appears someone in a local DNR office made the decision to use the tribes. I don't really blame the DNR if the WDFW failed to address the problem. After all, the DNR is charged with providing maximum return from our state forests which support our school system. While I think a poor decision was made, I do give whomever made the decision credit for trying to do what they thought was best for our forests. It's my suspition they didn't realize the can of worms they were opening.

I am disappointed that the WDFW did not address the problem, however, I would imagine it gets addressed in the future as it is obvious the public and several legislators are not happy with the current handling or lack of handling of the problem by both agencies. 

Great info! If I was the one in charge of that DNR land I would have done the same thing if Fish and wildlife dropped the ball like that.

[PlateauNDN]

"As a group the tribes are a welfare nation.  That is a fact.  They take more than they give.  For example it is correct to lable Haiti as a predominantly Catholic nation.  Just because there are small percentage that aren't Catholic doesn't change the label of the nation as a whole.  I do not label all individual indians as accepting welfare or handouts, and I have never said those words.  I have clearly stated that in my previous posts.  You are trying to put words in my mouth which are incorrect."

As long as you continue to label (Racially Profile) "Indians" as a welfare nation you are continuing to label (Racially Profile) individuals as well.  Sugar coated "Poop" is still just "Poop" with sugar on it.  I'm not on here labeling (Racially Profiling) or slandering any other ethinc group whether it's "fact" or not.  I'm not here saying the white man this or black man that, no, I have chosen to leave the generalization (Labeling, Racial Profiling) out of it and be specific.

I'm not here slandering the white man and then turning around and saying only you and a few others are an exception to the rule.  I'm not labeling (Racially Profiling) all white men skinheads or KKK members just because it's a "fact" that there is a large number of them.  These groups do not represent the entire ethnic group and I will not say or label (Racially Profile) the caucasian as such. 

If you want to continue to misinterpret my open mindedness then I will offer even more information into my personal life aside from what you already know about me.  There are 2 men in my life, 1 that is my dad who is the biological contributor to me and the other is my "Father" who raised me as his son and provided a shelter for me, food for me to eat and clothes to cover my back.

My "Father" is white and I'm proud to call him my "Father."  I have modeled alot of what I do after him because he stepped up as a man and did a duty that all "Father's" would do, raise a child, even though I was not his child.  I have a sister(step) and 2 brothers (step) and we grew up as siblings and as time progressed I and my "Father" grew closer than they were to their own father.

Even now I see him more and help him more and still refer to him as my "Father" and my children refer to him as their grandfather.  His family although white, do not see me as an outcast, they see me as family.  Now should I label (Racial Profile) them based off the consensus of just a few small groups?  Should I say because of the skinheads or KKK members that the white group is as such?

If I one day at a family gathering said in front of everybody that I think the white ethnic group are racist, biased and prejudice because a small group of whites are?  No, because that would definitely make me look very bad and hurt alot of feelings of my family members that I and them have come to accept and love as one another.

I haven't put any words in your mouth and only interpreted what you have written on here.  I don't know you as an individual nor do you know me.  You do however know my background from what I presented to yourself and other moderators on here.  I have not taken anything out of context and I read thoroughly what is written and what I'm writing.

 "-rebuttal - Although it is easy to see that this is written with a sarcastic tone, I am unsure what your intent is here.  I labeled you as a success, paid you a compliment for your service to the US,..."

I appreciate your compliment and yes, it was read as a sarcastic tone and if you were conveying a compliment then please check your spelling and grammar.

"You are an exception to the rule, unfortunately."

If the above statement was made to compliment then it should have read, "You are an exception to the rule, fortunately."  By removing the "UN" from this excerpt changes it from a negative to a positive.  an example-"There was a serious vehicle accident today, unfortunately people were hurt" drop the "UN" and it becomes, "There was a serious vehicle accident today, fortunately no people were hurt."

"rebuttal - You keep putting derogatory terms into quotations.  Although, they are terms you may have heard at some point, it hasn't been done in this thread, nor have any of the terms been used by myself.  As this is supposed to be a rebuttal to my comments, I want to make it clear that these are terms I have not used and that I do not approve of those that use those labels."

Again, this is where clarity becomes a problem and it's my fault for not making it clear that these comments were not from here or made by anybody on here.  If you were comprehending the story line I was giving then yes, you would see it was from personal experience in my personal history.  I did not nor say anybody or anyone on this site made those comments. 

"Do you go into meetings with others expecting them to look down upon you?  Are you being fair to those sitting across from you?  Are you labeling them, just as you accused me of labeling you, without knowing anything about them?"

No, I don't.  From the time I wake up to the time I go to bed I have my head held high.  I walk and talk with pride and confidence.  I don't let anybody regardless of who they are talk down to me or belittle me.  I expect the same respect and dignity I show to them as they show to me.  As far as being fair, yes, I am.  Everybody is shown gratitude and respect but it is up to that person if they wish to keep it.

Labeling (Racial Profiling) occurs everyday by everyone, myself included.  When I go into public or private environments I am always assessing the situations around me.  If I see some kid dressed up like a gang banger talking like a gangbanger then he must be a gangbanger.  If I see a crackhead looking and acting like one then they must be one.  If I see a gentleman dressed and acting professional then he must be professional. 

Labeling (Racial Profiling) is and will always occur, but when you get to know someone is when things change whether it's for the better or worst.  I don't know you on a personal level nor do I know anything about you but my conclusions were you don't like "Indians" because of the reasons you listed and the on-going debate we're having.  I have shared my personal information with you and other moderators in the hopes of creating a thread or something that this type of discussion could be moved there in the hopes of disspelling or addressing these types of issues without interferring with the main topic.

"I wanted to make sure my responses were on a public forum so everyone would understand my position.  I felt there were several points that needed to be addressed from your response.  I hope you can understand that."

Yet again we have something in common.  We keep this up then people are going to see a pattern here.  I have not tried to hide what I have to say and I have made the request to create another category in the community section for everybody to see but, with the best of intentions the decision was made by the powers that be, the topic was not warranted and to continue to provide my comments as they come.  I respect that decision because I'm not in a position of authority on this site and if I would like to continue to enjoy all this site has to offer then I'm going to play by the rules and guidelines and be an upstanding UNOFFICIAL representative of my people who is only speaking for hisself and providing his own opinion.

Again, just from what I've read on here and what little you have shared about yourself I can see we have quite a bit in common.  Maybe, someday we would meet and possibly get to know eachother better and maybe become friends but, until differences are put aside I don't think it will happen anytime soon and that's unfortunate. 

We have debated and rebuttaled this pretty good and I think we can put it to rest and agree to disagree if you would like?  We have presented our cases and it's clear that neither one of us is going to back down or concede so, why don't we agree to a stalemate and wait for another opportunity and let this thread get back on track?

[PlateauNDN]

Special interest is special interest.  One group gets keys another doesn't.  It doesn't matter if its hispanic, blacks, whites, indians, crack whores, bisexuals, transvestites, whatever.   I'm not sure why folks can't see what special interest means.   Maybe they need to hand keys to only PETA members.  I guess if you are a card carrying member, that makes it ok. 

Public land is Public land.  If you grant access to one, then it should be to all. 

I guess as a human, I still have trouble understanding the who pays taxes and who doesn't. What is public land and what you now have to buy a permit for.

Toss in the fact that you go on the Rez and I can't even photograph in an area becasue I am white.   WHOA

(WELL STATED TL...good discussion)

Well said Bone and I enjoy your photographs very much.  I don't know if you're aware of it but for a small fee of $35 dollars a non-member can get an all day pass to the closed areas of the Reservation as long as you have a Tribal Member with you (i.e. friend?)  Maybe we can find mutual ground amongst one another in the future and if you're willing to pay the fee we can go for a ride?  If not me then at least you know there is a way for you to go up there legally.  And please keep sharing your photos.