Subject: [Tweeters] wildlife action alert
Date: Apr 5 20:45:29 2006
From: Diane Weinstein - diane_weinstein at msn.com


Dear Tweeters,

I will repeat, anyone not concerned with wildlife-conservation issues can skip this message.

Thanks for suggestion to contact the City Council. I had thought it was already a done deal. For those that want more information, the King County Journal has had two recent articles on it and they also printed a letter I sent on the subject. I have additional concerns about contamination of our water supply, security risks, and the fact that to make it "fair" the WDFW wants to open it up for all hunters, tribal or not.

I have provided links to the following King County Journal articles:

3/19/2006 Crucial talks begin over Cedar River watershed: Muckleshoot Tribe wants to hunt, fish in protected areas http://www.kingcountyjournal.com/sited/story/html/232898<http://www.kingcountyjournal.com/sited/story/html/232898>


3/22/2006 My letter to the editor http://www.kingcountyjournal.com/sited/story/html/233141<http://www.kingcountyjournal.com/sited/story/html/233141>

3/29/2006 Cedar River water deal will push your rates up http://www.kingcountyjournal.com/sited/story/html/233832<http://www.kingcountyjournal.com/sited/story/html/233832>
Diane Weinstein
Issaquah
<http://www.kingcountyjournal.com/sited/story/html/233832>
----- Original Message -----
From: Dennis Paulson<mailto:dennispaulson at comcast.net>
To: Tweeters<mailto:tweeters at u.washington.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 7:38 PM
Subject: [Tweeters] wildlife action alert


Hello, Tweeters,


Anyone not concerned with wildlife-conservation issues can skip this message.


The City of Seattle has recently posted on its web site an agreement (http://www.seattle.gov/news/detail.asp?ID=6000&dept=40<http://www.seattle.gov/news/detail.asp?ID=6000&dept=40>) with the Muckleshoot tribe to settle some long-standing disagreements about the Cedar River Watershed. The agreement mostly seems like a good thing. The web site says that the plan "insures long term benefits for fish and wildlife in the Cedar River." Out of curiosity, I read the entire agreement, available at the web site as a pdf. It is quite advantageous for fish, but I fail to see how it will prove advantageous for wildlife.


Here is a quote from the web site:


In a letter transmitting the proposed agreement to the City Council, Nickels said the plan consists of three basic parts: in-stream flows; funding for fish and wildlife; and access for the tribe to the watershed to exercise its treaty rights of hunting and gathering. Highlights of the agreement include:

a.. Guaranteed in-stream flows for fish in perpetuity.
b.. Certainty for Cedar River water supply and system operations.
c.. Protocols supporting the exercise of rights the tribe reserved under treaties.
d.. Cooperative plan for wildlife management.
e.. Ten-year wildlife research program.
f.. Protection of water quality for the region.
g.. Continuing water conservation efforts.
h.. Creation of a city-tribe framework to resolve future issues.


Everything sounds good here, but among the "exercise of rights the tribe reserved under treaties" is a provision for the Muckleshoot tribe to begin hunting in the watershed. I'm not against hunting personally and have no problem with their hunting deer and elk there, although there has been no hunting in the Seattle watershed for a very long time, and many of us have thought of it as a wildlife sanctuary. What I am especially concerned with is a statement in the agreement: "Once this Settlement Agreement is approved by the Court, the Tribe may authorize ceremonial, subsistence, and management hunting by Tribal members . . . "


As I understand it, "management hunting" means using hunting as a wildlife management tool, and in this case it will almost certainly involve killing as many of the predators of the deer and elk in the watershed as possible; this form of "management" is being used in the Green River Watershed. The predators are bears and cougars. I am very concerned that such killing goes quite against the statement of "benefits for . . . wildlife in the Cedar River." I think for "wildlife" read deer and elk, the primary hunting objectives for the tribe. The "ten-year wildlife research program" will be oriented entirely, according the agreement, toward deer and elk. It is being funded at the 2-1/2 million dollar level, which some may view as a large sum to study how to enhance the populations of two species in one area so there are more of them to hunt.


The part of this that bothers me the most is that I would never have known anything about it if it weren't for a casual mention by an acquaintance who happened to hear about it, and I first read about it thinking it was quite a good thing and was surprised the city wasn't making a bigger deal of it. Now I'm concerned that the city has not been very communicative about this plan, and that there are some distinctly anti-wildlife elements. I hope anyone besides me who is concerned will contact City Council members about it - in particular Richard Conlin, who is the chair of the Environment, Emergency Management and Utilities Committee responsible the plan. It says on the web site that the city will take action by mid May, so quick action on the part of those who would like to have the plan opened to public discussion is important.


Sorry for a nonbirding post, but I'm anxious to get this out to an audience of those concerned with wildlife. I'm putting this on tweeters because there doesn't seem to be time to get it out in any environmental newsletter.

-----

Dennis Paulson

1724 NE 98 St.

Seattle, WA 98115

206-528-1382



_______________________________________________
Tweeters mailing list
Tweeters at u.washington.edu
http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters