Post by: fishdog on February 10, 2014, 08:19:11 AM
http://www.quileutenation.org/component/content/article/11-general/106-wdfw-front-page (http://www.quileutenation.org/component/content/article/11-general/106-wdfw-front-page)
Here is the write from the Quileute tribe just in case the link doesn't work. I can see why they would be pissed.
The Department of Fish and Wildlife has secretly entered into two agreements that add three outsider tribes to the list of tribal hunters allowed to hunt in the Sol Duc, Dickey, and Pysht Game Management Units (GMUs) numbers 602, 607, and 603. The Department of Fish and Wildlife did not notify anyone that it was negotiating these agreements, including sport hunters, private commercial landowners who issue permits or lease out their land for hunting, and the tribe native to those areas, and with treaty rights to it— the Quileute Tribe.
The Quileute Tribe protested the agreements to Fish and Wildlife because the agreements do not follow the limitations that tribes are supposed to follow. Tribes are not currently allowed to hunt in all areas of the state, and must abide by the limitations of their treaties on where they can hunt. “We told the state that allowing outsiders to hunt in these GMUs would deplete the game, not only for the Tribe, but for everyone,” said Quileute Chairman Tony Foster. “The Tribes and the State are co-managers responsible for conserving the wildlife, and these agreements show a complete lack of respect and disregard for the co-management efforts that have been undertaken on the west side of the Peninsula. The Department completely failed to assess the implications that these agreements would have on the deer and elk populations, by adding potentially hundreds of new hunters to these GMUs.” Chairman Foster added that the flood of new hunters will exacerbate problems already plaguing deer and elk herds on west side of the Peninsula.
You’re probably not aware of these agreements because they were made in complete secrecy with no opportunity for public review. That’s right, there was no opportunity for your voice to be heard on this very important matter. Along with failing to allow for input from anyone besides the outsider tribes, the Department entered into the agreements without the signatory tribes providing any clear evidence that they have treaty rights to hunt in the new areas. State law requires that a full review of anthropological evidence be provided to the Department prior to entering into such agreements. Furthermore, not only were the agreements done in secrecy, they remain in secrecy and are not included on the WDFW public website.
These agreements need to be rescinded while affected parties, tribal and nontribal, have an opportunity to evaluate their legality and their impact to the game, and provide comments to WDFW. Sportsmen, the public and the Quileute Tribe should have their voices heard…….YOU should have your voice heard!
Contact WDFW Director Phil Anderson at (360) 902-2720, Philip.Anderson@dfw.wa.gov, and WDFW Region 6 Regional Director Michele Culver at (360) 249-1211, Michele.Culver@dfw.wa.gov and let them know these secret agreements are unacceptable! Stand up for your rights and prevent the destruction of game on the Peninsula!
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on February 10, 2014, 08:50:12 AM
Post by: boneaddict on February 10, 2014, 08:53:54 AM
Why would they be worried about the resources depleted? Does one tribe think the other doesn't go by the same harvest as they do, or are they afraid that it intereferes with their management strategy? :chuckle:
Post by: huntnphool on February 10, 2014, 08:54:29 AM
Post by: fishdog on February 10, 2014, 10:21:51 AM
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on February 10, 2014, 10:26:55 AM
I am a firm believer that only a few "natives" abuse their privilege, but if we (non native) have no jurisdiction, or any control over "treaty rights" then why get upset about tribal issues.
Maybe if a few of those offenders piss off the majority of non offenders, some laws will get passed that will have an effect on the ability to reduce the abuses in other areas of the state.
When it begins to affect their own "privilege"
Quote
The Stevens Treaties say that the tribes have a “right” to fish and a “privilege” to hunt. While distinctions have often been made between rights and privileges in other legal contexts, both state and federal courts have determined that the two terms should be construed as equivalent in the context of Indian treaties. The Washington Supreme Court directly addressed this issue in State v. Miller in 1984, when the court held that there cannot be a distinction between the words “right” and “privilege” when interpreting treaties between Indians and the federal government.Maybe they will take into consideration the impact of off-reservation hunting rights in other areas of the state, and actually start policing their own...
Again, I know it is only a minority that abuses, but with no fear of reprisal, it will not stop.
Quote
The courts have created a narrow exception to the general rule that state regulation of tribal treaty hunters is preempted by the treaties. This exception applies in situations where the state is regulating the fishing or hunting of a particular species in order to conserve that species.That rule in itself allows for restrictions, as according to the WDFW and the state- Conservation means "Wise use" and "controlled hunting" so according to their own verbage, STATE regulation would preempt tribal in game management units.
I think they should just lock the gates, let them walk in if they are going to hunt.
Access fees in Pysht, and the already low harvest in these units should keep most troubles located in areas of high visibility herds, usually located on and near private property.
Washington Supreme Court stated that private property is not “open and unclaimed,” but a tribal hunter may not be convicted unless such private property has outward indications of private ownership observable by a reasonable person.
I bet sales of "No Trespassing" signs go through the roof !
Post by: ucwarden on February 10, 2014, 10:29:59 AM
Also; Director Phil Anderson a few months back promoted Lt. Steve Crown to enforcement chief. Crown had previously supervised one whole commissioned officer, now he supervises them all. One of Crown's first actions, upon becoming the new chief, was to reinstate Mike Cenci to a deputy chief position, then add yet another new deputy chief position. Now, he just promoted another buddy, from inside his own office, to the region 4 captain position; Alan Myers (who also has supervised a whopping one single officer in his career).
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on February 10, 2014, 10:40:47 AM
This from an agency who professes. Time for a new director!
Also; Director Phil Anderson a few months back promoted Lt. Steve Crown to enforcement chief. Crown had previously supervised one whole commissioned officer, now he supervises them all. One of Crown's first actions, upon becoming the new chief, was to reinstate Mike Cenci to a deputy chief position, then add yet another new deputy chief position. Now, he just promoted another buddy, from inside his own office, to the region 4 captain position; Alan Myers (who also has supervised a whopping one single officer in his career).
:yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah:
Seems to be the standard untruth of a "blue" administration ( "transparency")
Post by: Bullkllr on February 10, 2014, 11:12:18 AM
Does the WDFW actually have jurisdiction? I'm not sure they have any say at all as far as which tribes hunt where. If so, it's news to me.
Post by: jackmaster on February 10, 2014, 11:23:31 AM
Post by: Coastal_native on February 10, 2014, 11:35:47 AM
Post by: headshot5 on February 10, 2014, 11:40:10 AM
Post by: Coastal_native on February 10, 2014, 11:43:10 AM
I'd like to know what tribes...
Me too. If it's simply tribes from up around the north eastern or eastern edge of the penninsula entering into an agreement to protect their members from being cited by WDFW enforcement, I'm less sympathetic. If it's south or east puget sound tribes, that's different.
Post by: snowpack on February 10, 2014, 11:56:14 AM
I'd like to know what tribes...Port Gamble, Jamestown and Lower Elwha tribes. But they have some kind of arrangement with other tribes like Skok so they can pretty much hunt from the southern part of 602 up to the straits, then east to kitsap and circle around the peninsula to the Wynoochee or Wishkah, can't remember. Lower Elwha is in 603 so I don't know the extent of that complaint. They say it would encourage hundreds of members to hunt those units, but I can only think of a few that actually go to the area they are most upset about.
Post by: snowpack on February 10, 2014, 12:00:43 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 10, 2014, 12:02:46 PM
Can you please tell me if there's any truth to this report from the Quileute Nation's newspaper and if so, which tribes are involved in the expansion of tribal hunting rights and access on the peninsula. Read here: http://www.quileutenation.org/component/content/article/11-general/106-wdfw-front-page (http://www.quileutenation.org/component/content/article/11-general/106-wdfw-front-page)
I've read nothing about this in the flashes I receive from you guys and I've seen nothing legislatively that includes this. If the report is true, please cite the treaty or state legislation that required or authorized this expansion, or the reason that it was dictated by sound game management principles. Thanks very much for your help with this.
John W.
Post by: fishdog on February 10, 2014, 01:23:54 PM
"Anderson said he expects the agreement will result in 15-25 more hunters in the three game management units."
So the questions are. How many of those hunters will be hunting for multiple families? How many of the harvested animals will be cows?
2012 elk harvest totals for the 3 GMUs. Total for the units is 81 bulls. This is non native hunting. Would be interesting to know tribal harvest in the 3 GMUs in 2012. Then we could see if the resource can handle the added harvest. Would also be interesting to know what WDFW expected the 3 tribes to harvest.
602 - DICKEY - PMU 66
Archery 0 7 7 0 0 3 1 0 3 43 16.3% 191 27.3
Modern Firearms 0 11 11 0 0 0 8 1 2 212 5.2% 866 78.7
Multiple Weapons 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0% 6 0
Muzzleloader 0 9 9 0 0 0 4 5 0 69 13% 288 32
TOTALS 0 27 27 0 0 3 13 6 5 n/a n/a n/a n/a
603 - PYSHT - PMU 66
Archery 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 0% 223 0
Modern Firearms 0 7 7 0 0 0 3 1 3 79 8.9% 299 42.7
Multiple Weapons 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 100% 1 1
Muzzleloader 0 6 6 0 0 0 3 3 0 27 22.2% 105 17.5
TOTALS 0 14 14 0 0 0 6 5 3 n/a n/a n/a n/a
607 - SOL DUC - PMU 65
Archery 0 8 8 0 0 3 0 3 2 62 12.9% 345 43.1
Modern Firearms 0 9 9 0 0 1 6 0 2 219 4.1% 922 102.4
Multiple Weapons 0 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 4 50% 18 9
Muzzleloader 0 21 21 0 0 3 5 11 2 127 16.5% 523 24.9
TOTALS 0 40 40 0 0 7 12 14 7 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Post by: bobcat on February 10, 2014, 01:31:40 PM
Post by: snowpack on February 10, 2014, 01:38:27 PM
From the Penninsula News article
"Anderson said he expects the agreement will result in 15-25 more hunters in the three game management units."
So the questions are. How many of those hunters will be hunting for multiple families? How many of the harvested animals will be cows?
2012 elk harvest totals for the 3 GMUs. Total for the units is 81 bulls. This is non native hunting. Would be interesting to know tribal harvest in the 3 GMUs in 2012. Then we could see if the resource can handle the added harvest. Would also be interesting to know what WDFW expected the 3 tribes to harvest.
602 - DICKEY - PMU 66
Archery 0 7 7 0 0 3 1 0 3 43 16.3% 191 27.3
Modern Firearms 0 11 11 0 0 0 8 1 2 212 5.2% 866 78.7
Multiple Weapons 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0% 6 0
Muzzleloader 0 9 9 0 0 0 4 5 0 69 13% 288 32
TOTALS 0 27 27 0 0 3 13 6 5 n/a n/a n/a n/a
603 - PYSHT - PMU 66
Archery 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 0% 223 0
Modern Firearms 0 7 7 0 0 0 3 1 3 79 8.9% 299 42.7
Multiple Weapons 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 100% 1 1
Muzzleloader 0 6 6 0 0 0 3 3 0 27 22.2% 105 17.5
TOTALS 0 14 14 0 0 0 6 5 3 n/a n/a n/a n/a
607 - SOL DUC - PMU 65
Archery 0 8 8 0 0 3 0 3 2 62 12.9% 345 43.1
Modern Firearms 0 9 9 0 0 1 6 0 2 219 4.1% 922 102.4
Multiple Weapons 0 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 4 50% 18 9
Muzzleloader 0 21 21 0 0 3 5 11 2 127 16.5% 523 24.9
TOTALS 0 40 40 0 0 7 12 14 7 n/a n/a n/a n/a
have you contacted their tribal resources office for information on their regs? Last time I saw them they could not shoot cows. Under the cooperative management with WDFW, only cows taken on the peninsula are supposed to be the ones causing problems in fields over in Sequim. They can shoot spikes and two points.
As for hunting for other families, I've heard they can't transfer tags like that. They only get one elk tag per hunter and can't shoot for others.
Think they can also hunt in 601, but seems there is no complaint mentioned there.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on February 10, 2014, 01:41:21 PM
http://www.jamestowntribe.org/govdocs/gov_treaty.htm (http://www.jamestowntribe.org/govdocs/gov_treaty.htm)
Now I see fishing specifically mentioned but where am I missing hunting?
Post by: 6x6in6 on February 10, 2014, 03:56:26 PM
Article 4 in the link.
http://www.jamestowntribe.org/govdocs/gov_treaty.htm (http://www.jamestowntribe.org/govdocs/gov_treaty.htm)
Now I see fishing specifically mentioned but where am I missing hunting?
And the Boldt "decision" clarified it too.
Post by: 6x6in6 on February 10, 2014, 03:57:58 PM
Dear Director Anderson and Regional Director Culver,
Can you please tell me if there's any truth to this report from the Quileute Nation's newspaper and if so, which tribes are involved in the expansion of tribal hunting rights and access on the peninsula. Read here: http://www.quileutenation.org/component/content/article/11-general/106-wdfw-front-page (http://www.quileutenation.org/component/content/article/11-general/106-wdfw-front-page)
I've read nothing about this in the flashes I receive from you guys and I've seen nothing legislatively that includes this. If the report is true, please cite the treaty or state legislation that required or authorized this expansion, or the reason that it was dictated by sound game management principles. Thanks very much for your help with this.
John W.
Good work P-man!
Look forward to hearing the response.
Post by: YoterHunter on February 10, 2014, 04:18:18 PM
Post by: sled on February 10, 2014, 04:35:31 PM
Somebody call the waambulance !Anyone Who Shoots More Than One Animal A Year Is Abusing Their Rights, Except Of Course Damage Control Areas Where There Are Problems.
I am a firm believer that only a few "natives" abuse their privilege, but if we (non native) have no jurisdiction, or any control over "treaty rights" then why get upset about tribal issues.
Maybe if a few of those offenders piss off the majority of non offenders, some laws will get passed that will have an effect on the ability to reduce the abuses in other areas of the state.
When it begins to affect their own "privilege"QuoteThe Stevens Treaties say that the tribes have a “right” to fish and a “privilege” to hunt. While distinctions have often been made between rights and privileges in other legal contexts, both state and federal courts have determined that the two terms should be construed as equivalent in the context of Indian treaties. The Washington Supreme Court directly addressed this issue in State v. Miller in 1984, when the court held that there cannot be a distinction between the words “right” and “privilege” when interpreting treaties between Indians and the federal government.Maybe they will take into consideration the impact of off-reservation hunting rights in other areas of the state, and actually start policing their own...
Again, I know it is only a minority that abuses, but with no fear of reprisal, it will not stop.QuoteThe courts have created a narrow exception to the general rule that state regulation of tribal treaty hunters is preempted by the treaties. This exception applies in situations where the state is regulating the fishing or hunting of a particular species in order to conserve that species.That rule in itself allows for restrictions, as according to the WDFW and the state- Conservation means "Wise use" and "controlled hunting" so according to their own verbage, STATE regulation would preempt tribal in game management units.
I think they should just lock the gates, let them walk in if they are going to hunt.
Access fees in Pysht, and the already low harvest in these units should keep most troubles located in areas of high visibility herds, usually located on and near private property.
Washington Supreme Court stated that private property is not “open and unclaimed,” but a tribal hunter may not be convicted unless such private property has outward indications of private ownership observable by a reasonable person.
I bet sales of "No Trespassing" signs go through the roof !
I Doubt Any Of Those Areas Have problems :twocents: :rolleyes:
Post by: washingtonmuley on February 10, 2014, 04:41:36 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on February 10, 2014, 04:45:10 PM
Remember folks the tribes set the rules. Our game department just agree's with them. At our exspens. :twocents:no kidding! I was gonna say, like wdfw can tell the tribes what they can and can't do!! What a joke. The tribes are why the dickey went to over the counter back in 1999, which I'm glad the state put it OTC since the tribes have their way with the unit.
Post by: PlateauNDN on February 10, 2014, 04:47:30 PM
Somebody call the waambulance !Anyone Who Shoots More Than One Animal A Year Is Abusing Their Rights, Except Of Course Damage Control Areas Where There Are Problems.
I am a firm believer that only a few "natives" abuse their privilege, but if we (non native) have no jurisdiction, or any control over "treaty rights" then why get upset about tribal issues.
Maybe if a few of those offenders piss off the majority of non offenders, some laws will get passed that will have an effect on the ability to reduce the abuses in other areas of the state.
When it begins to affect their own "privilege"QuoteThe Stevens Treaties say that the tribes have a “right” to fish and a “privilege” to hunt. While distinctions have often been made between rights and privileges in other legal contexts, both state and federal courts have determined that the two terms should be construed as equivalent in the context of Indian treaties. The Washington Supreme Court directly addressed this issue in State v. Miller in 1984, when the court held that there cannot be a distinction between the words “right” and “privilege” when interpreting treaties between Indians and the federal government.Maybe they will take into consideration the impact of off-reservation hunting rights in other areas of the state, and actually start policing their own...
Again, I know it is only a minority that abuses, but with no fear of reprisal, it will not stop.QuoteThe courts have created a narrow exception to the general rule that state regulation of tribal treaty hunters is preempted by the treaties. This exception applies in situations where the state is regulating the fishing or hunting of a particular species in order to conserve that species.That rule in itself allows for restrictions, as according to the WDFW and the state- Conservation means "Wise use" and "controlled hunting" so according to their own verbage, STATE regulation would preempt tribal in game management units.
I think they should just lock the gates, let them walk in if they are going to hunt.
Access fees in Pysht, and the already low harvest in these units should keep most troubles located in areas of high visibility herds, usually located on and near private property.
Washington Supreme Court stated that private property is not “open and unclaimed,” but a tribal hunter may not be convicted unless such private property has outward indications of private ownership observable by a reasonable person.
I bet sales of "No Trespassing" signs go through the roof !
I Doubt Any Of Those Areas Have problems :twocents: :rolleyes:
More than one of the same species I'm assuming you meant? Otherwise I see a lot of abuse on here. :dunno: :chuckle:
Post by: Bullkllr on February 10, 2014, 04:58:53 PM
Remember folks the tribes set the rules. Our game department just agree's with them. At our exspens. :twocents:
Agreed.
So what basically happened if I understand it, is that the Port Gamble, Jamestown and Lower Elwha Tribes wanted to expand their hunting territory. The WDFW agreed to not prosecute members of those tribes who hunt in those areas. Problem was they did it without the acknowledgement of the Quileute Tribe?
It would likely have never been questioned anyway. WDFW is not in charge here.
I see this as much more of a tribe/tribe issue. Perhaps the state should have stayed out of it until the tribes reached an agreement. I have to imagine that issues like this have very little to do with the WDFW, even the director and regional director. I can only conclude Phil Anderson did not write this policy; it had to come from higher up. And with the way treaty interpretations are handled on the federal level, and the way our state conducts business with the tribes, it should surprise no one.
Will any good come from this? No, not for the animals, not for most hunters, certainly not for the Quileutes. Want evidence for why it happened? Quileute tribe doesn't have a casino.
Post by: bigtex on February 10, 2014, 05:10:03 PM
Now, he just promoted another buddy, from inside his own office, to the region 4 captain position; Alan Myers (who also has supervised a whopping one single officer in his career).Do you think a reason Myers got the job is because not many people applied? I know WDFW had to advertise the Captains position twice before making the decision, I'm not aware of any other Lt/Captain position they had to advertise twice before filling it. Myers has only been a Lt since last August...
Post by: sled on February 10, 2014, 05:42:03 PM
Yes!Somebody call the waambulance !Anyone Who Shoots More Than One Animal A Year Is Abusing Their Rights, Except Of Course Damage Control Areas Where There Are Problems.
I am a firm believer that only a few "natives" abuse their privilege, but if we (non native) have no jurisdiction, or any control over "treaty rights" then why get upset about tribal issues.
Maybe if a few of those offenders piss off the majority of non offenders, some laws will get passed that will have an effect on the ability to reduce the abuses in other areas of the state.
When it begins to affect their own "privilege"QuoteThe Stevens Treaties say that the tribes have a “right” to fish and a “privilege” to hunt. While distinctions have often been made between rights and privileges in other legal contexts, both state and federal courts have determined that the two terms should be construed as equivalent in the context of Indian treaties. The Washington Supreme Court directly addressed this issue in State v. Miller in 1984, when the court held that there cannot be a distinction between the words “right” and “privilege” when interpreting treaties between Indians and the federal government.Maybe they will take into consideration the impact of off-reservation hunting rights in other areas of the state, and actually start policing their own...
Again, I know it is only a minority that abuses, but with no fear of reprisal, it will not stop.QuoteThe courts have created a narrow exception to the general rule that state regulation of tribal treaty hunters is preempted by the treaties. This exception applies in situations where the state is regulating the fishing or hunting of a particular species in order to conserve that species.That rule in itself allows for restrictions, as according to the WDFW and the state- Conservation means "Wise use" and "controlled hunting" so according to their own verbage, STATE regulation would preempt tribal in game management units.
I think they should just lock the gates, let them walk in if they are going to hunt.
Access fees in Pysht, and the already low harvest in these units should keep most troubles located in areas of high visibility herds, usually located on and near private property.
Washington Supreme Court stated that private property is not “open and unclaimed,” but a tribal hunter may not be convicted unless such private property has outward indications of private ownership observable by a reasonable person.
I bet sales of "No Trespassing" signs go through the roof !
I Doubt Any Of Those Areas Have problems :twocents: :rolleyes:
More than one of the same species I'm assuming you meant? Otherwise I see a lot of abuse on here. :dunno: :chuckle:
Post by: fishdog on February 10, 2014, 05:59:07 PM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on February 10, 2014, 05:59:49 PM
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on February 10, 2014, 06:11:51 PM
Quote
Anyone Who Shoots More Than One Animal A Year Is Abusing Their Rights, Except Of Course Damage Control Areas Where There Are Problems.
I Doubt Any Of Those Areas Have problems :twocents: :rolleyes:
^ ^ ^ This was not part of my post. ^ ^ ^
Hunting in Washington State is a PRIVELEGE not a "right" unless you are a "Native" but still...
In my honest opinion, EVERY ONE OF YOU (objections) would harvest as many animals as the WDFW would allow you to harvest.
I see nothing wrong with the majority of native behavior, the inability to prosecute offenders is my only concern.
After all, they are Americans, unfortunately some hide behind the fact that they have dual citizenship with a sovereign nation, and everyone protects their "troubled children" so I do not fault the tribes, just the sovereign status.
ALL AMERICANS THAT LIVE ON AMERICAN SOIL SHOULD BE EQUAL UNDER THE SAME LAWS AND REGULATIONS . PERIOD
Post by: duckmen1 on February 10, 2014, 06:27:59 PM
I say this you wanted separate rights so get over it.
We keep splitting parties up and things will never go equal.
So if you want it different then everyone needs to have the same rights. Not recreational vs Indian. And now recreational vs Indian vs Indian.
Post by: Bullkllr on February 10, 2014, 06:56:53 PM
Here is another thought. If the GMUs are managed like the fisheries with a 50/50 split. Then I can see why the Quileutes would have issue with the decision. They in effect are losing a % of a resource. If WDFW is going to add additional harvest above what is sustainable them everyone should be ticked off. The question is whether the resource can handle additional commercial harvest?
This would make sense if WDFW had any power to manage tribal fishing and hunting.
This.Remember folks the tribes set the rules. Our game department just agree's with them. At our exspens. :twocents:no kidding! I was gonna say, like wdfw can tell the tribes what they can and can't do!! What a joke. The tribes are why the dickey went to over the counter back in 1999, which I'm glad the state put it OTC since the tribes have their way with the unit.
Post by: Tbar on February 10, 2014, 07:21:37 PM
I'm sure director Andersons phone blew up, along with his email with ignorant questions about something he had little or no power to effect.
Fishdog did you run the ads also?
Post by: Tbar on February 10, 2014, 07:29:10 PM
Here is another thought. If the GMUs are managed like the fisheries with a 50/50 split. Then I can see why the Quileutes would have issue with the decision. They in effect are losing a % of a resource. If WDFW is going to add additional harvest above what is sustainable them everyone should be ticked off. The question is whether the resource can handle additional commercial harvest?This screams troll to me. The wdfw is not adding ANYTHING. Is there currently commercial wildlife harvesting on the coast? If so please notify the tribe doing it (I know many of them have an emphasis on management), and I'm positive they will take action.
Post by: seth30 on February 10, 2014, 07:34:31 PM
Post by: asl20bball on February 11, 2014, 09:18:32 AM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on February 11, 2014, 09:24:55 AM
Article 4 in the link.
http://www.jamestowntribe.org/govdocs/gov_treaty.htm (http://www.jamestowntribe.org/govdocs/gov_treaty.htm)
Now I see fishing specifically mentioned but where am I missing hunting?
And the Boldt "decision" clarified it too.
ARTICLE 4. The right of taking fish at usual and accustomed grounds and stations is further secured to said Indians, in common with all citizens of the United states; and of erecting temporary houses for the purpose of curing; together with the privilege of hunting and gathering roots and berries on open and unclaimed lands. Provided, however, that they shall not take shell-fish from any beds staked or cultivated by citizens.
show me the hunting reference.... Did Boldt write a new treaty?
Post by: washingtonmuley on February 11, 2014, 09:51:01 AM
I say let them hunt there during any open season like the rest of us washington state citizens. problem solved.:tup: :yeah:
Post by: Green broke on February 11, 2014, 10:01:29 AM
No Boldt did not write a new treaty. It upheld a court decision that codified ambiguous and purposefully misleading verbiage in the treaties.Article 4 in the link.
http://www.jamestowntribe.org/govdocs/gov_treaty.htm (http://www.jamestowntribe.org/govdocs/gov_treaty.htm)
Now I see fishing specifically mentioned but where am I missing hunting?
And the Boldt "decision" clarified it too.
ARTICLE 4. The right of taking fish at usual and accustomed grounds and stations is further secured to said Indians, in common with all citizens of the United states; and of erecting temporary houses for the purpose of curing; together with the privilege of hunting and gathering roots and berries on open and unclaimed lands. Provided, however, that they shall not take shell-fish from any beds staked or cultivated by citizens.
show me the hunting reference.... Did Boldt write a new treaty?
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 11, 2014, 10:02:42 AM
"Dear John,
This is in response to your e-mail to the Director of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and me, which is in response to an advertisement (not an article) paid for by the Quileute Tribe that recently ran in the Peninsula Daily News and is on the Tribe's wesite, regarding several co-management agreements WDFW has entered into with the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, and the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe for the remainder of this hunting season.
First of all, these are not "secret" agreement, but are the result of government-to-government discussions that WDFW has had with these Treaty Tribes listed above. These Tribes have all hunted on the Olympic Peninsula for decades and the advantage of entering into such agreements is that there are certain overlapping State and Tribal jurisdictions and responsibilities relative to wildlife. WDFW and the respective tribes have certain authorities that potentially pertain to the same wildlife resource and there is a need for the State and Tribes to cooperate in the discharge of their respective authorities in order to ensure that healthy populations of wildlife continue to be available to State and Treaty hunters for harvest.
Each of the three Tribes has asserted that their treaty hunting right extends, at a minimum, to the geographic areas covered by our agreements. In some areas, the geographic scope of our agreement overlaps with the Quileute Tribe's treaty hunting area. The Quileute Tribe has raised concerns with the three Tribes and with WDFW regarding the inclusion of the areas of overlap delineated in our agreements.
The agreements were reached as part of several government-to-government meetings between WDFW the three Tribes referenced above. We did notify the Quileute Tribe of the agreements and moreover have requested that the Tribes meet amongst themselves and attempt to work together to address their intertribal disagreements.
The conservation of wildlife is a key component of WDFW's mission and is one of the primary reasons we enter into co-management agreements with the Tribes. Conservation can be achieved through coordination with the Tribes, which includes shared conservation and/or herd objectives, the sharing of harvest data, coordination in setting hunting seasons and regulations, and enforcement efforts, all of which are addressed in our the co-management agreements that are being called into question.
We will continue to work with all of the Tribes on important wildlife conservation and enforcement issues and support any efforts made by the Tribes to ensure coordination is achieved among all of us seeking to have strong wildlife resources in the future.
Thank you for sharing your concerns with us.
Sincerely,
Michele K. Culver
Regional Director"
Post by: bigtex on February 11, 2014, 10:15:39 AM
Each of the three Tribes has asserted that their treaty hunting right extends, at a minimum, to the geographic areas covered by our agreements. In some areas, the geographic scope of our agreement overlaps with the Quileute Tribe's treaty hunting area.
Unfortunately this is the "Buchanan test" coming into play. Basically a tribe simply has to provide evidence to WDFW that they hunted an area and WDFW is basically forced into approving the new hunting area.
“We’ve asked for what supporting material would support their assertion that that area was used and occupied over a period of time. That’s the Buchanan test, if you will,” Pamplin said. “We’re not in a position, nor do we have any authority to essentially adjudicate a tribe’s traditional hunting area. What we’re doing is looking at the evidence they’re providing and … essentially using our enforcement and prosecution discretion.”
http://huntnetwork.net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=7103&keywords=seas (http://huntnetwork.net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=7103&keywords=seas)
Post by: snowpack on February 11, 2014, 11:20:45 AM
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/olym/schalk/chap4.htm (http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/olym/schalk/chap4.htm)
Post by: WSU on February 11, 2014, 12:25:28 PM
I just received this interesting reply from Michele Culver. What do you guys think?
"Dear John,
This is in response to your e-mail to the Director of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and me, which is in response to an advertisement (not an article) paid for by the Quileute Tribe that recently ran in the Peninsula Daily News and is on the Tribe's wesite, regarding several co-management agreements WDFW has entered into with the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, and the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe for the remainder of this hunting season.
First of all, these are not "secret" agreement, but are the result of government-to-government discussions that WDFW has had with these Treaty Tribes listed above. These Tribes have all hunted on the Olympic Peninsula for decades and the advantage of entering into such agreements is that there are certain overlapping State and Tribal jurisdictions and responsibilities relative to wildlife. WDFW and the respective tribes have certain authorities that potentially pertain to the same wildlife resource and there is a need for the State and Tribes to cooperate in the discharge of their respective authorities in order to ensure that healthy populations of wildlife continue to be available to State and Treaty hunters for harvest.
Each of the three Tribes has asserted that their treaty hunting right extends, at a minimum, to the geographic areas covered by our agreements. In some areas, the geographic scope of our agreement overlaps with the Quileute Tribe's treaty hunting area. The Quileute Tribe has raised concerns with the three Tribes and with WDFW regarding the inclusion of the areas of overlap delineated in our agreements.
The agreements were reached as part of several government-to-government meetings between WDFW the three Tribes referenced above. We did notify the Quileute Tribe of the agreements and moreover have requested that the Tribes meet amongst themselves and attempt to work together to address their intertribal disagreements.
The conservation of wildlife is a key component of WDFW's mission and is one of the primary reasons we enter into co-management agreements with the Tribes. Conservation can be achieved through coordination with the Tribes, which includes shared conservation and/or herd objectives, the sharing of harvest data, coordination in setting hunting seasons and regulations, and enforcement efforts, all of which are addressed in our the co-management agreements that are being called into question.
We will continue to work with all of the Tribes on important wildlife conservation and enforcement issues and support any efforts made by the Tribes to ensure coordination is achieved among all of us seeking to have strong wildlife resources in the future.
Thank you for sharing your concerns with us.
Sincerely,
Michele K. Culver
Regional Director"
I think you should ask her to forward the notice(s) WDFW provided to the public that WDFW was doing this and the public comment they received. WDFW has meetings with tribes all the time that the public is not invited to. How is it not a secret agreement when WDFW meets and enters into agreement without giving notice or including the citizens of Washington?
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 11, 2014, 12:44:24 PM
I just received this interesting reply from Michele Culver. What do you guys think?
"Dear John,
This is in response to your e-mail to the Director of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and me, which is in response to an advertisement (not an article) paid for by the Quileute Tribe that recently ran in the Peninsula Daily News and is on the Tribe's wesite, regarding several co-management agreements WDFW has entered into with the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, and the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe for the remainder of this hunting season.
First of all, these are not "secret" agreement, but are the result of government-to-government discussions that WDFW has had with these Treaty Tribes listed above. These Tribes have all hunted on the Olympic Peninsula for decades and the advantage of entering into such agreements is that there are certain overlapping State and Tribal jurisdictions and responsibilities relative to wildlife. WDFW and the respective tribes have certain authorities that potentially pertain to the same wildlife resource and there is a need for the State and Tribes to cooperate in the discharge of their respective authorities in order to ensure that healthy populations of wildlife continue to be available to State and Treaty hunters for harvest.
Each of the three Tribes has asserted that their treaty hunting right extends, at a minimum, to the geographic areas covered by our agreements. In some areas, the geographic scope of our agreement overlaps with the Quileute Tribe's treaty hunting area. The Quileute Tribe has raised concerns with the three Tribes and with WDFW regarding the inclusion of the areas of overlap delineated in our agreements.
The agreements were reached as part of several government-to-government meetings between WDFW the three Tribes referenced above. We did notify the Quileute Tribe of the agreements and moreover have requested that the Tribes meet amongst themselves and attempt to work together to address their intertribal disagreements.
The conservation of wildlife is a key component of WDFW's mission and is one of the primary reasons we enter into co-management agreements with the Tribes. Conservation can be achieved through coordination with the Tribes, which includes shared conservation and/or herd objectives, the sharing of harvest data, coordination in setting hunting seasons and regulations, and enforcement efforts, all of which are addressed in our the co-management agreements that are being called into question.
We will continue to work with all of the Tribes on important wildlife conservation and enforcement issues and support any efforts made by the Tribes to ensure coordination is achieved among all of us seeking to have strong wildlife resources in the future.
Thank you for sharing your concerns with us.
Sincerely,
Michele K. Culver
Regional Director"
I think you should ask her to forward the notice(s) WDFW provided to the public that WDFW was doing this and the public comment they received. WDFW has meetings with tribes all the time that the public is not invited to. How is it not a secret agreement when WDFW meets and enters into agreement without giving notice or including the citizens of Washington?
I'm not opposed to writing her back, but if someone else were to cite her letter and ask questions, it may be an effective tool to show there's interest in the hunting community regarding this. :dunno:
Post by: Tbar on February 11, 2014, 01:39:38 PM
They also have meetings with landowners that the public is not invited to. They issue kill permits throughout the state that you won't know about (without digging). Bigtex posted a discussion where they addressed the public and I think Nate Pamplin summed it up pretty well and answered most of the questions in the quoted comment.I just received this interesting reply from Michele Culver. What do you guys think?
"Dear John,
This is in response to your e-mail to the Director of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and me, which is in response to an advertisement (not an article) paid for by the Quileute Tribe that recently ran in the Peninsula Daily News and is on the Tribe's wesite, regarding several co-management agreements WDFW has entered into with the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, and the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe for the remainder of this hunting season.
First of all, these are not "secret" agreement, but are the result of government-to-government discussions that WDFW has had with these Treaty Tribes listed above. These Tribes have all hunted on the Olympic Peninsula for decades and the advantage of entering into such agreements is that there are certain overlapping State and Tribal jurisdictions and responsibilities relative to wildlife. WDFW and the respective tribes have certain authorities that potentially pertain to the same wildlife resource and there is a need for the State and Tribes to cooperate in the discharge of their respective authorities in order to ensure that healthy populations of wildlife continue to be available to State and Treaty hunters for harvest.
Each of the three Tribes has asserted that their treaty hunting right extends, at a minimum, to the geographic areas covered by our agreements. In some areas, the geographic scope of our agreement overlaps with the Quileute Tribe's treaty hunting area. The Quileute Tribe has raised concerns with the three Tribes and with WDFW regarding the inclusion of the areas of overlap delineated in our agreements.
The agreements were reached as part of several government-to-government meetings between WDFW the three Tribes referenced above. We did notify the Quileute Tribe of the agreements and moreover have requested that the Tribes meet amongst themselves and attempt to work together to address their intertribal disagreements.
The conservation of wildlife is a key component of WDFW's mission and is one of the primary reasons we enter into co-management agreements with the Tribes. Conservation can be achieved through coordination with the Tribes, which includes shared conservation and/or herd objectives, the sharing of harvest data, coordination in setting hunting seasons and regulations, and enforcement efforts, all of which are addressed in our the co-management agreements that are being called into question.
We will continue to work with all of the Tribes on important wildlife conservation and enforcement issues and support any efforts made by the Tribes to ensure coordination is achieved among all of us seeking to have strong wildlife resources in the future.
Thank you for sharing your concerns with us.
Sincerely,
Michele K. Culver
Regional Director"
I think you should ask her to forward the notice(s) WDFW provided to the public that WDFW was doing this and the public comment they received. WDFW has meetings with tribes all the time that the public is not invited to. How is it not a secret agreement when WDFW meets and enters into agreement without giving notice or including the citizens of Washington?
Nobody questions sportsmans concerns on these issues but the issue at hand is more of a tribal/tribal issue. Keep emailing Piano, and demand answers to a question that Pamplin already answered. The wdfw does not have the authority to decide traditional hunting areas. Maybe Mrs Culver can copy and paste Pamplins(her superior) comments, maybe that would satisfy you.
Post by: Bullkllr on February 12, 2014, 06:10:21 PM
The section I highlighted seems the essence of this issue.Each of the three Tribes has asserted that their treaty hunting right extends, at a minimum, to the geographic areas covered by our agreements. In some areas, the geographic scope of our agreement overlaps with the Quileute Tribe's treaty hunting area.
Unfortunately this is the "Buchanan test" coming into play. Basically a tribe simply has to provide evidence to WDFW that they hunted an area and WDFW is basically forced into approving the new hunting area.
“We’ve asked for what supporting material would support their assertion that that area was used and occupied over a period of time. That’s the Buchanan test, if you will,” Pamplin said. “We’re not in a position, nor do we have any authority to essentially adjudicate a tribe’s traditional hunting area. What we’re doing is looking at the evidence they’re providing and … essentially using our enforcement and prosecution discretion.”
http://huntnetwork.net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=7103&keywords=seas (http://huntnetwork.net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=7103&keywords=seas)
So in other words, the WDFW really has no choice but to "go along with" the agreement. If they chose to enforce/prosecute for hunting in the area (without the "agreement") the case would go to court and the WDFW would lose.
Post by: 4fletch on February 12, 2014, 06:17:21 PM
Post by: fishdog on February 12, 2014, 06:32:43 PM
WDFW is not giving anyone the opportunity to provide evidence that might counter what these 3 tribes presented. They are in effect the judge and jury. If anyone questions their decision they just use the "we wouldn't win in court excuse".
At a certain point it might make sense to let a real court decide.
Post by: Green broke on February 12, 2014, 06:52:04 PM
"We’re not in a position, nor do we have any authority to essentially adjudicate a tribe’s traditional hunting area. What we’re doing is looking at the evidence they’re providing and … essentially using our enforcement and prosecution discretion.”Why would you not attend a meeting you were invited to? It seems that you want someone else to fight your fight. I would meet with all tribes affected and try to find common ground from a management standpoint. What "real" court are you referring to? I think this is a federal court issue. If you want to file a lawsuit against the wdfw for a jurisdictional agreement, have at it.
WDFW is not giving anyone the opportunity to provide evidence that might counter what these 3 tribes presented. They are in effect the judge and jury. If anyone questions their decision they just use the "we wouldn't win in court excuse".
At a certain point it might make sense to let a real court decide.
Post by: Forks on February 12, 2014, 06:56:57 PM