It is nice to see the enforcement...


I'll bet those boats are decked out... 1.1mill for 3 boats and 3 officers

And exactly which river are they going to use the 26 footer on?

The question is will they enforce the law on tribal members?

I'm not familiar with the tribe so they may not be the poaching/lawbraking type, unlike some I know...

It will be interesting to see what happens when they come across people who are breaking the law who are not tribe members and the offense takes place off of tribal property. Would like to know what kind of jurisdiction they will have.

100 acre reservation and they already have 4 officers???? Going to get 4 more for fishing/hunting?
250-300 members? Which is it?

$1.1 million for a group this small..... Crime in the northern puget sound area out of control and this is where our Dept. of Justice funds are going?
It never ceases to amaze me.......

MC

hehe... 100 acres... thats pathetic. You call that a reservation? haha

I'm with MC, why the hell do they need 5-10 officers? I hunt an area of about 60 acres and I know I wouldnt have troubles regulating it alone... I could see three or four officers working full time at a maximum, if you really even need that. What a freaking waste.

Quite a bit actually. I knew a tribal cop and most aren't just tribal cops they're federal law enforcement officers. They have a rather large jurisdiction

I don't get it? I remember reading about a tribal ceremonial netting on the Sauk river not long ago. A river closed to fishing for Kings. Aren't these ESA listed fish? Now they want to watch for illegal activity? These rivers are closed while we are waiting for them to-hopefully-start to produce again. What is the purpose of protecting these fish and then netting them out. This seems like the fox watching the henhouse again.

I just really feel the need to explore this more. Really, not trying to start anything here but when it comes to the treaties, where does it say anything about grants like this? I am looking for info here.... Yes, I think it is absolutely rediculous, but no one seems to want to investigate this at all. Are the citizens bound by the treaties to provide exhorbitant sums of monies to such small tribes for rediculous things?

If anyone can educate me on this or point me in the direction of information on this I would really appreciate it. I plan on calling some legislators about this and will need more info before I do..... Thanks.....

MC

Careful judicial interpretation of the 1800's treaties has resulted in casinos, fireworks stands, and various other crazy stuff. A good deal of this logical thinking has come from the California appeals court, which is the land of OJ Simpson verdicts and the present (outrageous) vote recall silliness. Don't blame the Indians, they are doing what any of us would do. I say have a vote recall on the 9th circuit court of appeals.

Here's my take. Fish and game movements rarely follow boundaries; if the tribe wants to manage area game--and enforcement is a key component of management--then they're going to have to patrol outside of the rez. The article says they'll patrol within the Suiattle, Sauk, and Stilly drainages, as well as Puget Sound, which sounds to me as though it would include more non-tribal land than tribal.

If this is the case, who cares who hires these enforcement officers or who they work for? You can look at it as an unfair entitlement, or you can look at it as the Feds funding any other program that may or may not do the public at large any good. And more enforcement in the managing of our exploitable natural resources is a very good thing, particularly with trends during the last decade of budgetary slash and crash at public agencies.

The north Puget Sound area where all this is supposed to occur is adjacent to some of the most populated areas in the state, and has some of the most productive habitat in the area. Sounds like good poachin country to me. Hopefully the new tribal officers can cooperate with WDFW officers and allow the WDFW folks to increase their presence in other hotspot areas.

The glass can be viewed as half full here. Really rather be here than in California where the economy is blown and a movie star just took office.

So a few badged up Native Americans are going to try stopping a few non tribal poaching idiots and at the same time people who belong to their own tribe go out and net and blast salmon, steelhead, trout, elk, deer, and bird, in atrocious numbers. Where is the flipping logic. I agree that Billy bob and leroy should get the book thrown at them but the sense in letting two other numbskulls who have the go ahead because they have treaty rights is redicilous. The government should hand out McDonalds certificates instead, at least their would be fish and wildlife around in 10-25 years. They you could give the tribal game officers badges to patrol the parking lot, just don't go insult mothernature like they are doing. I agree that native americans should have recieved settlements for their historical backgrounds but what they are cashing in on is way out of bounds. So in 100 years are they still going to have the same rights and privleges or is the slate =. Should african americans today get cash settlements for the injustices in the past? Of so how long should they last and how much? If giving those monetary settlements meant risking the survival of native species should the deal still be the same? There are a lot of no's and cringes going on in my head.

Jeeez, JP, the Sauk-Suiattle tribe has 250-300 members. The resource cops they hire probably aren't even going to be Indians; just like most tribal biologists aren't. Everybody has heard a story or two about tribal abuses, but to call their harvest practices "atrocious" would suggest that you believe they are wholly or mostly responsible for declines of our fish and wildlife. I doubt all of the tribal harvests put together equal the losses due to a dam, or clear cut, or improperly drained agro field, or poorly placed mini-mall, or commerical overharvest....

The Feds have provided a tribe a potentially valuable management tool. Personally, I think it would be better if WDFW had an extra million bucks earmarked for enforcement, but I'm not going to moan about a tribe getting it when the alternative is to have fewer resource cops out there.

jackpoo--- you need to cool your jets a little with the tribal bashing.

The Sauk/Suiattle tribe applied for a federal grant...and was awarded the $$.

The federal program is there for local governments (tribes, cities, counties) to apply for funds for specific law enforcement programs. It has absolutely nothing to do with treaty rights. It was and is available to all local governments.

If someone has a problem with the S/S tribe getting the grant and using it for game enforcement (*how the hell can any legitimate sportsman gripe about increased enforcement of fish and game laws?*), why don't you walk on down to your local government office and ask them why they didn't apply for the grant to fund your pet enforcement project?

Don't bash the tribe for taking the initiative to get a much needed program funded...

Fish on...

Todd

I do not think it is fair to try and censure jackapoo.

We need to talk specifics, and I'm not sure what the Sauk/Suiattle tribe does for netting etc. I havn't seen net on the Sauk. The tribe may have the best enforcement/take ratio of any tribe if the new officers get on the river. That area needs more enforcement. Seems all good to me. The thing those silly hillybillies need to understand, is just living in a trailer in the area doesn't give them a god given right to poach. They need to quit *****ing and get a god damn job. jackpoo, you think the tribes are bad, just wait until big city money takes an interest up there. You'll see a can of whup ass unloaded on those billies like they don't even know- money is power. The tribes got it, the city got it, and the hillie billies don't got nothing as long as they treat public lands like their own. Cuff em and stuff em.

Hopefully the money will be used effeciently, and not wasted, it would be a shame to see those boats sitting all rusted in someones front yard, since we taxpayers bought them.

More enforcement is good, more taxes is not good.

Great Post Todd!!
And a good explaination of the grant. It has zero to do with treaty rights. Some people will bash the tribes even when they dont have a clue about the subject.