Post by: WWC on January 25, 2024, 04:00:35 PM
The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission’s push to approve a new Conservation Policy for itself and WDFW appears to be going on pause after six tribes formally asked to consult with the state on the far-reaching guidance document.
The policy had been scheduled for a final decision by the commission tomorrow afternoon and might have passed, but members of its Big Tent Committee this morning agreed to recommend to the full citizen panel on Friday morning that they and the agency first engage in government-to-government consultations on the policy.
Post by: MADMAX on January 25, 2024, 04:40:28 PM
I hope any tribal members on here make it known to their respective councils that this Washington sportsman applauds their actions
👍👍👍
Post by: blackdog on January 25, 2024, 04:53:12 PM
Post by: Rainier10 on January 25, 2024, 05:56:04 PM
Thanks to these tribes for their participation in the process
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on January 25, 2024, 06:07:25 PM
I’m thinking after reading that article that we ought to be thanking the tribes
I hope any tribal members on here make it known to their respective councils that this Washington sportsman applauds their actions
👍👍👍
:yeah:
Thanks!!
Post by: Longfield1 on January 25, 2024, 06:21:55 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on January 25, 2024, 07:53:12 PM
We are very lucky they stepped up.Agreed.
Very encouraging to see them stand up to this commission. Thank you to those 6 tribes and their staff and leadership.
I also hope tribal leaders see the article the OP linked. Very clear how anti-tribal Smith and Rowland are...both basically making the point they don't want to be inconvenienced by tribes. I could not come up with a way to be more disrespectful...shameful.
Smith and Rowland said they wanted to see tribal consultations wrap up in a few months or before the end of the year – 2024 is an election, after all, and commissioners are appointed by the governor.
And Rowland, a retired federal Endangered Species Act attorney, also termed what happened today a “precedent that is totally open-ended in terms of our workload and how often we will need to do this.”
Post by: swanderek on January 25, 2024, 08:05:34 PM
Post by: MADMAX on January 25, 2024, 09:34:16 PM
Too bad they didn’t step in with all the new gun laws
Take the win
It’s better than yesterday news
Post by: storyteller on January 25, 2024, 09:41:17 PM
Post by: X-Force on January 25, 2024, 10:14:51 PM
letters received this week from the Quileute Tribal Council, Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians, Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, Lummi Business Council and Puyallup Tribe of Indians, all of whom requested the Fish and Wildlife Commission “stop action on the draft Conservation Policy”:yeah:
Thanks to these tribes for their participation in the process
Post by: hunter399 on January 26, 2024, 12:21:38 AM
:yeah:I’m thinking after reading that article that we ought to be thanking the tribes
I hope any tribal members on here make it known to their respective councils that this Washington sportsman applauds their actions
👍👍👍
:yeah:
Thanks!!
We freaking dodged a bullet,thanks to the tribe.
Thank you 👍
Post by: Skyvalhunter on January 26, 2024, 05:07:54 AM
“When we started this, it was sort of innocent,” stated Baker, one of its authors, this morning. It was an effort, she said, to define the term “conservation,” which appears in WDFW’s 25-year strategic plan 44 times. WDFW already has a conservation policy, but this new one, she has also said, would provide “overarching guidance to inform a variety of Department decisions relative to budget development, setting priorities, and the management of fish and wildlife.”
ANYTIME Rowland and Smith are pushing and/or backing this you know it is not in the hunting and fishing communities best interests!! It should never be the Commissions responsibility to set quotas for the fishing and hunting community. It should rely more on the WDFW's own fish and wildlife biologists. The commission just looks to over step it's boundaries by using a personal agenda to accomplish their personal goals.
Post by: Ridgerunner on January 26, 2024, 07:25:59 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 26, 2024, 07:57:20 AM
Post by: GWP on January 26, 2024, 08:55:12 AM
I would guess they are as frustrated by the Governor’s picks, as they have to deal with them and their desire to eliminate hunting, as we are.
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on January 26, 2024, 08:55:52 AM
One thing politicians don’t want to do is tick off the tribes, they have deep pockets, and an never ending money flow.😉
Post by: Wsucoug on January 26, 2024, 10:11:51 AM
"We as true conservationist of fish and game support your efforts in holding the WDFW commission accountable to their mandate of ensuring the proper management of our game species. The commission has shown little thought to maintaining our game and our hunting and fishing heritage as sportsman. I want to commend you for fighting for all sportsman in the state of Washington and hope you do not waiver on this issue today or in the future as we share a mutual interest in protecting and proliferating our herds in this state"
I am no an expert on tribal affairs between us sportsman and their objectives; however, it seems like they are often aligned. Sending emails in support to their counsels might lead to better outcomes today and going forward (future issues).
Does anyone know the proper emails that we can send such emails to? Maybe list them here? Is there other hunter friendly tribes that we should also be sending letters too?
Post by: Karl Blanchard on January 26, 2024, 11:36:30 AM
Post by: MADMAX on January 26, 2024, 12:25:43 PM
:yeah:+1 :yeah:
Post by: dwils233 on January 26, 2024, 12:41:44 PM
It seems like we (as hunters and fishman) should be sending thoughtful emails to these tribes to show our support for their efforts. It never hurts to reinforce a positive. Maybe along the lines of:
"We as true conservationist of fish and game support your efforts in holding the WDFW commission accountable to their mandate of ensuring the proper management of our game species. The commission has shown little thought to maintaining our game and our hunting and fishing heritage as sportsman. I want to commend you for fighting for all sportsman in the state of Washington and hope you do not waiver on this issue today or in the future as we share a mutual interest in protecting and proliferating our herds in this state"
I am no an expert on tribal affairs between us sportsman and their objectives; however, it seems like they are often aligned. Sending emails in support to their counsels might lead to better outcomes today and going forward (future issues).
Does anyone know the proper emails that we can send such emails to? Maybe list them here? Is there other hunter friendly tribes that we should also be sending letters too?
I think if anything, we should probably remember our place and theirs in any statements. They aren't standing up for all sportsmen- they are standing up for their Tribes and treaty rights. IF there is overlap, it's a happy accident. We should offer support, if they'd like it, to ensure the commission upholds their end faithfully. Remember, they are flexing their co-managers rights, and we are stakeholders under the other co-manager.
Who's knows-in the scope of things maybe the Tribes end up loving the policy. We should still support their right to consultation and then take up our beef with the commission after.
Gratitude is good, but we need to be respectful in not giving direction or assuming alignment
Post by: Wsucoug on January 26, 2024, 12:47:27 PM
It seems like we (as hunters and fishman) should be sending thoughtful emails to these tribes to show our support for their efforts. It never hurts to reinforce a positive. Maybe along the lines of:
"We as true conservationist of fish and game support your efforts in holding the WDFW commission accountable to their mandate of ensuring the proper management of our game species. The commission has shown little thought to maintaining our game and our hunting and fishing heritage as sportsman. I want to commend you for fighting for all sportsman in the state of Washington and hope you do not waiver on this issue today or in the future as we share a mutual interest in protecting and proliferating our herds in this state"
I am no an expert on tribal affairs between us sportsman and their objectives; however, it seems like they are often aligned. Sending emails in support to their counsels might lead to better outcomes today and going forward (future issues).
Does anyone know the proper emails that we can send such emails to? Maybe list them here? Is there other hunter friendly tribes that we should also be sending letters too?
I think if anything, we should probably remember our place and theirs in any statements. They aren't standing up for all sportsmen- they are standing up for their Tribes and treaty rights. IF there is overlap, it's a happy accident. We should offer support, if they'd like it, to ensure the commission upholds their end faithfully. Remember, they are flexing their co-managers rights, and we are stakeholders under the other co-manager.
Who's knows-in the scope of things maybe the Tribes end up loving the policy. We should still support their right to consultation and then take up our beef with the commission after.
Gratitude is good, but we need to be respectful in not giving direction or assuming alignment
This feed back is welcomed. This is why I put my thoughts on a public forum hoping for open discussion. Can you maybe offer some better wording that could be used in a manner that commends their efforts while showing why we as sportsman want to offer our support?
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 26, 2024, 01:26:01 PM
Quinault - Aiyana.Underwood@quinault.org
Stillaguamish - ewhite@stillaguamish.com
Swinomish - No contact listed
Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe - info@elwha.org
Lummi Tribe - anthonyh@lummi-nsn.gov
Puyallop Tribe - counciloffices@puyalloptribe-nsn.gov
Post by: Jake Dogfish on January 26, 2024, 03:39:03 PM
Post by: highcountry_hunter on January 26, 2024, 05:20:46 PM
I wasn’t worried about this policy, but I’m glad some of you are very slowly figuring out who runs wdfw.Not to derail this thread, but how were you not concerned about a majority of anti hunters rewriting the management plan?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: FWilliams on January 26, 2024, 06:14:40 PM
Post by: actionshooter on January 26, 2024, 07:07:11 PM
letters received this week from the Quileute Tribal Council, Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians, Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, Lummi Business Council and Puyallup Tribe of Indians, all of whom requested the Fish and Wildlife Commission “stop action on the draft Conservation Policy”
Thanks to these tribes for their participation in the process
What is awesome is that these aren't even the tribes that I heard were going to oppose the plan...
Post by: MADMAX on January 26, 2024, 07:54:20 PM
Post by: slavenoid on January 26, 2024, 10:05:09 PM
Post by: Jake Dogfish on January 26, 2024, 10:25:56 PM
I wasn’t worried about this policy, but I’m glad some of you are very slowly figuring out who runs wdfw.Not to derail this thread, but how were you not concerned about a majority of anti hunters rewriting the management plan?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It’s a policy with no teeth, not a management plan.
The tribes run wdfw anyway and don’t like bad press.
Post by: TriggerMike on January 26, 2024, 10:37:42 PM
Post by: huntnphool on January 26, 2024, 10:48:51 PM
I wasn’t worried about this policy, but I’m glad some of you are very slowly figuring out who runs wdfw.
Unbelievable!
Post by: huntnphool on January 26, 2024, 10:53:39 PM
I wasn’t worried about this policy, but I’m glad some of you are very slowly figuring out who runs wdfw.Not to derail this thread, but how were you not concerned about a majority of anti hunters rewriting the management plan?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It’s a policy with no teeth, not a management plan.
The tribes run wdfw anyway and don’t like bad press.
Get your head out of your…the sand!
The commissions run WDFW, because they can’t be removed! That’s why the other thread is such a joke as well!
Libs have figured out that once elected, all they have to do is create a “commission” to run their agendas, so the commission can point their fingers elsewhere, without anybody being able to do a single thing about it!
It’s why I’ve always had a issue with the archery commission showing up to WDFW meetings and giving their $0.02. Hunters don’t vote in these archery commission members, yet the commission is giving their opinions on regulations moving forward? How does that commission know what I want as a archery hunter?….They don’t, and they don’t care, several are only their to get their own interests served!…and I know that as fact!!! :twocents:
Post by: Jake Dogfish on January 26, 2024, 11:17:30 PM
I always appreciate the late night insults. :tup:I wasn’t worried about this policy, but I’m glad some of you are very slowly figuring out who runs wdfw.Not to derail this thread, but how were you not concerned about a majority of anti hunters rewriting the management plan?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It’s a policy with no teeth, not a management plan.
The tribes run wdfw anyway and don’t like bad press.
Get your head out of your…the sand!
The commissions run WDFW, because they can’t be removed! That’s why the other thread is such a joke as well!
Libs have figured out that once elected, all they have to do is create a “commission” to run their agendas, so the commission can point their fingers elsewhere, without anybody being able to do a single thing about it!
It’s why I’ve always had a issue with the archery commission showing up to WDFW meetings and giving their $0.02. Hunters don’t vote in these archery commission members, yet the commission is giving their opinions on regulations moving forward? How does that commission know what I want as a archery hunter?….They don’t, and they don’t care, several are only their to get their own interests served!…and I know that as fact!!! :twocents:
I think you are talking about an advisory group? Hard to tell.
Post by: huntnphool on January 27, 2024, 12:05:38 AM
I always appreciate the late night insults. :tup:I wasn’t worried about this policy, but I’m glad some of you are very slowly figuring out who runs wdfw.Not to derail this thread, but how were you not concerned about a majority of anti hunters rewriting the management plan?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It’s a policy with no teeth, not a management plan.
The tribes run wdfw anyway and don’t like bad press.
Get your head out of your…the sand!
The commissions run WDFW, because they can’t be removed! That’s why the other thread is such a joke as well!
Libs have figured out that once elected, all they have to do is create a “commission” to run their agendas, so the commission can point their fingers elsewhere, without anybody being able to do a single thing about it!
It’s why I’ve always had a issue with the archery commission showing up to WDFW meetings and giving their $0.02. Hunters don’t vote in these archery commission members, yet the commission is giving their opinions on regulations moving forward? How does that commission know what I want as a archery hunter?….They don’t, and they don’t care, several are only their to get their own interests served!…and I know that as fact!!! :twocents:
I think you are talking about an advisory group? Hard to tell.
Both appointed and not voted in is the point, but I think you know that!
Post by: NOCK NOCK on January 27, 2024, 06:21:23 AM
It seems like we (as hunters and fishman) should be sending thoughtful emails to these tribes to show our support for their efforts. It never hurts to reinforce a positive. Maybe along the lines of:
"We as true conservationist of fish and game support your efforts in holding the WDFW commission accountable to their mandate of ensuring the proper management of our game species. The commission has shown little thought to maintaining our game and our hunting and fishing heritage as sportsman. I want to commend you for fighting for all sportsman in the state of Washington and hope you do not waiver on this issue today or in the future as we share a mutual interest in protecting and proliferating our herds in this state"
I am no an expert on tribal affairs between us sportsman and their objectives; however, it seems like they are often aligned. Sending emails in support to their counsels might lead to better outcomes today and going forward (future issues).
Does anyone know the proper emails that we can send such emails to? Maybe list them here? Is there other hunter friendly tribes that we should also be sending letters too?
I think if anything, we should probably remember our place and theirs in any statements. They aren't standing up for all sportsmen- they are standing up for their Tribes and treaty rights. IF there is overlap, it's a happy accident. We should offer support, if they'd like it, to ensure the commission upholds their end faithfully. Remember, they are flexing their co-managers rights, and we are stakeholders under the other co-manager.
Who's knows-in the scope of things maybe the Tribes end up loving the policy. We should still support their right to consultation and then take up our beef with the commission after.
Gratitude is good, but we need to be respectful in not giving direction or assuming alignment
This :yeah: (escp. the bolded part) ................. and as asked by an earlier post, what about the bigger tribes????
If the commission bans ALL hunting soon, does that stop the tribes from hunting too?
3.....2......1.......
Post by: Jake Dogfish on January 27, 2024, 06:38:33 AM
It seems like we (as hunters and fishman) should be sending thoughtful emails to these tribes to show our support for their efforts. It never hurts to reinforce a positive. Maybe along the lines of:
"We as true conservationist of fish and game support your efforts in holding the WDFW commission accountable to their mandate of ensuring the proper management of our game species. The commission has shown little thought to maintaining our game and our hunting and fishing heritage as sportsman. I want to commend you for fighting for all sportsman in the state of Washington and hope you do not waiver on this issue today or in the future as we share a mutual interest in protecting and proliferating our herds in this state"
I am no an expert on tribal affairs between us sportsman and their objectives; however, it seems like they are often aligned. Sending emails in support to their counsels might lead to better outcomes today and going forward (future issues).
Does anyone know the proper emails that we can send such emails to? Maybe list them here? Is there other hunter friendly tribes that we should also be sending letters too?
I think if anything, we should probably remember our place and theirs in any statements. They aren't standing up for all sportsmen- they are standing up for their Tribes and treaty rights. IF there is overlap, it's a happy accident. We should offer support, if they'd like it, to ensure the commission upholds their end faithfully. Remember, they are flexing their co-managers rights, and we are stakeholders under the other co-manager.
Who's knows-in the scope of things maybe the Tribes end up loving the policy. We should still support their right to consultation and then take up our beef with the commission after.
Gratitude is good, but we need to be respectful in not giving direction or assuming alignment
This :yeah: (escp. the bolded part) ................. and as asked by an earlier post, what about the bigger tribes????
If the commission bans ALL hunting soon, does that stop the tribes from hunting too?
3.....2......1.......
Why would any tribe want to ban hunting? :dunno:
We still have a disconnect on who is in charge here.
Post by: Special T on January 27, 2024, 07:11:33 AM
I wasn’t worried about this policy, but I’m glad some of you are very slowly figuring out who runs wdfw.Not to derail this thread, but how were you not concerned about a majority of anti hunters rewriting the management plan?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It’s a policy with no teeth, not a management plan.
The tribes run wdfw anyway and don’t like bad press.
Get your head out of your…the sand!
The commissions run WDFW, because they can’t be removed! That’s why the other thread is such a joke as well!
Libs have figured out that once elected, all they have to do is create a “commission” to run their agendas, so the commission can point their fingers elsewhere, without anybody being able to do a single thing about it!
It’s why I’ve always had a issue with the archery commission showing up to WDFW meetings and giving their $0.02. Hunters don’t vote in these archery commission members, yet the commission is giving their opinions on regulations moving forward? How does that commission know what I want as a archery hunter?….They don’t, and they don’t care, several are only their to get their own interests served!…and I know that as fact!!! :twocents:
I'm curiouse about your archery commission statement. Can you give some more details so I can find it? A name wdfw commission meeting date, time or comment period?
Post by: HUNTIN4SIX on January 27, 2024, 09:14:13 AM
Post by: hunter399 on January 27, 2024, 11:10:42 AM
I think the deception runs deep. Too many celebrating as if this will secure our future hunting/fishing in Washington. The tribes don’t get an award...maybe a participation trophy, but no celebration from me yet. Most tribes will only be interested in their own preservation not the general populace. Soon they could be ruling and reigning and the rest of us will be in the same lack of opportunity boat. I am keeping one eye open on this one.
I agree ,I think this just slowed the boat down. It didn't kill the motor.
It definitely didn't sink the ship.This policy is designed to kill coyote hunting.
Basically designed to regulate unclassified wildlife in the biodiversity world.
Anyone that predator hunts or traps should be concerned.
The tribe,the last page .It's a three page document,last page has some stuff about the tribe.
There may be something there that they didn't like.
Post by: Practical Approach on January 27, 2024, 11:36:31 AM
Everyone's efforts add up and do make a difference. Who gets credit and how much. Just appreciate that everyone is working together for the same cause. Does it matter whether Tribes are looking out for state hunters? Do state hunters look out for the Tribes? What matters is that everyone keeps fighting against the preservationist commissioners cause and makes it is difficult as possible to promote their agenda.
Keep up the good work, it isn't over.
Post by: actionshooter on January 27, 2024, 09:38:05 PM
Everyone shoudl be proud of working together to do everything they could to stop the Conservation Policy. The hunting community banded together to testify, send emails etc. The Tribes did what they needed to do to try to stop the Conservation Policy.
Everyone's efforts add up and do make a difference. Who gets credit and how much. Just appreciate that everyone is working together for the same cause. Does it matter whether Tribes are looking out for state hunters? Do state hunters look out for the Tribes? What matters is that everyone keeps fighting against the preservationist commissioners cause and makes it is difficult as possible to promote their agenda.
Keep up the good work, it isn't over.
Well said...
Post by: Skyvalhunter on January 28, 2024, 02:00:07 PM
Post by: SuperX on January 28, 2024, 04:20:32 PM
My concern would be that the tribes negotiating a deal excluding them from the conservation policy. Or fall back on the Bolt decision excluding them.in the end they will do what the Boldt decision allows them to do which is a lot, but Boldt depends on a specific definition of conservation that the tribes can't allow to be changed or weakened.
Post by: time2hunt on January 28, 2024, 05:44:48 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: TriggerMike on January 28, 2024, 06:11:43 PM
How ironic if the Boldt decision ends up saving us WA sportsman in the end.My concern would be that the tribes negotiating a deal excluding them from the conservation policy. Or fall back on the Bolt decision excluding them.in the end they will do what the Boldt decision allows them to do which is a lot, but Boldt depends on a specific definition of conservation that the tribes can't allow to be changed or weakened.
Post by: SuperX on January 28, 2024, 06:18:54 PM
How ironic if the Boldt decision ends up saving us WA sportsman in the end.My concern would be that the tribes negotiating a deal excluding them from the conservation policy. Or fall back on the Bolt decision excluding them.in the end they will do what the Boldt decision allows them to do which is a lot, but Boldt depends on a specific definition of conservation that the tribes can't allow to be changed or weakened.
At least long enough to bring about a regime change
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on January 28, 2024, 06:20:55 PM
How ironic if the Boldt decision ends up saving us WA sportsman in the end.My concern would be that the tribes negotiating a deal excluding them from the conservation policy. Or fall back on the Bolt decision excluding them.in the end they will do what the Boldt decision allows them to do which is a lot, but Boldt depends on a specific definition of conservation that the tribes can't allow to be changed or weakened.
At least long enough to bring about a regime change
No regime change until the Governor is charged.
Post by: SuperX on January 28, 2024, 06:55:34 PM
that's the regime I'm talking aboutHow ironic if the Boldt decision ends up saving us WA sportsman in the end.My concern would be that the tribes negotiating a deal excluding them from the conservation policy. Or fall back on the Bolt decision excluding them.in the end they will do what the Boldt decision allows them to do which is a lot, but Boldt depends on a specific definition of conservation that the tribes can't allow to be changed or weakened.
At least long enough to bring about a regime change
No regime change until the Governor is charged.
Post by: NOCK NOCK on January 29, 2024, 06:43:50 AM
Why would ANY State level law/policy have any effect on how the tribes operate/hunt?
(other than the obvious, reduction of ungulates by poor mang. from WA ST) I must be missing something. :dunno:
Post by: HUNTIN4SIX on January 29, 2024, 08:14:42 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on January 29, 2024, 09:33:32 AM
Tribes/Treaty = sovereign nations. Yes???They do not have jurisdiction over tribes or how they operate/hunt - but there are a multitude of actions by WDFW which can have significant effects on treaty resources (fish, wildlife, etc.) and the habitats/ecosystems those species rely upon. So yes - the obvious ones are clear - if WDFW starts using a 'conservation' policy more like preservation and allows predator populations to significantly impair other treaty resources like elk and deer...that becomes a real problem. How WDFW manages their lands (logging, grazing, weed control, prescribed fire etc.), how they address depredation and/or set population objectives, how they structure harvest and much more all have a potential to effect tribal treaty rights/resources...which is why the Commission's dismissal and ignorance of needing to consult with tribes is appalling. I hope they get an earful...and hopefully more powerful people in the Governor's office are hearing/seeing the disrespect that was on full display
Why would ANY State level law/policy have any effect on how the tribes operate/hunt?
(other than the obvious, reduction of ungulates by poor mang. from WA ST) I must be missing something. :dunno:
Post by: jstone on January 29, 2024, 09:45:09 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 29, 2024, 10:17:13 AM
Tribes/Treaty = sovereign nations. Yes???Some of the listed have small areas for their u&a. The gmus they hunt might be fine for deer, but elk can be scarce. They get state tags for elk for one area with good populations, then wait for an elk to slip up in their tribal areas. Boundary for their tag and state tag could be a road they live on.
Why would ANY State level law/policy have any effect on how the tribes operate/hunt?
(other than the obvious, reduction of ungulates by poor mang. from WA ST) I must be missing something. :dunno:
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 29, 2024, 11:13:49 AM
Tribes/Treaty = sovereign nations. Yes???
Why would ANY State level law/policy have any effect on how the tribes operate/hunt?
(other than the obvious, reduction of ungulates by poor mang. from WA ST) I must be missing something. :dunno:
Don't overthink it. They testified. The policy was knocked down. We appreciate that. :tup:
Post by: NOCK NOCK on January 29, 2024, 07:23:50 PM
Just a reminder of the obvious.
Some folks thought patterns remind me of an old saying.......
Wish in 1 hand, ______ in the other......see which one adds up first. JS
LMAO, here I go again not sure why I bother :dunno: