media credit Public Domain

Do you all think that Both Paula Sweden, as well as Mitch Friedman have spoke the Truth?

First lets set  one thing straight, Both Paula Sweden, as well as Mitch Friedman are both not telling the truth 😉 simply because not all stake holders are represented on the WAG!! There is not one Native American on their little back patting group. You will understand why it is that we refer to that Folks as discrimination.

Washington States Own Attorney General has already refused to recognize our Religious beliefs as Promised in a Phone Call, amongst several other commitments that Mike Webb had promised to accomplish. Mike being Fergusons Chief of staff should be good for his word wouldn’t you the public agree?

It’s difficult to believe  conservation northwest  believes that they somehow are following what the definition of Conservation actually means. As a group they have already been so devious as to sell out not only a species that We as Indigenous hold Sacred, but well meaning Conservation Groups feel are a keystone species. CNW is not caring what the definition of Conservation Is in fact!

Simply put, the Public can continue to support these large orgs that sell out your Children’s Resources, or join an Organization like Protect The Wolves that promises you one thing for certain!! Never ever think that we will go out without a fight using all of the tools that We have available in Our Toolbox!

In an Amicus Brief and declaration ( A brief that means friend to the court ) Paula Swedeen of Conservation Northwest submitted the following.

I have been involved in many public processes on agency decisions, as an agency staff person responding to SEPA comments, as a citizen providing comments through formal SEPA and NEPA processes, and as a professional representing environmental organizations. I have never been involved in a process that has taken as much time, care, and consideration of technical, biological, social, and economic factors to implement a recovery plan (or any other type of environmental decision), let alone one that has already undergone formal agency decision-making through SEPA.

In my opinion, The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, through its WAG process, is implementing reasoned public involvement in a more in-depth manner than any other process I have been involved in. I am unaware of any other state agency with wolves that goes to the lengths that WDFW has gone to in order to implement recovery actions that vastly different stakeholder groups can live with and that are resulting in a growing population.
Wolves are also the most controversial species I have worked on in my career. I would also observe that the WAG process has allowed for genuine dialogue and improved substantive understanding of the complex issues involved in management decisions involving wolf recovery. While SEPA is important from a procedural perspective and is in my opinion intended to also improve understanding of the impacts of decisions, it does not by itself allow for the kind of true democratic, face-to-face dialogue that the WAG has created. The types of comments that come through SEPA often do not carry the depth of understanding and connection to the issues that have emerged from the discussions that I experienced as a participant of the WAG.

 

As described above, I think that decision-making we undertook was built upon an improved understanding of the perspectives of all stakeholders involved, and that this improved understanding has resulted in better implementation and deployment of non-lethal deterrence methods than would likely have occurred under a standard public comment and rule-making format.

Finally, the WAG process has demonstrated the importance of relationships and trust across urban and rural stakeholders and communities. Coming to agreement among conservations groups, ranchers, hunters, and Department staff over improved commitment to and implementation of non-lethal measures and conditions under which the Department could consider using lethal removal of wolves as a management tool is no small feat, especially in light of the high level of political polarization among these groups at the present time. I believe that sticking with the agreements made by the group, and allowing the Department to implement those decisions, as long as they are otherwise in accordance with federal and state law, is important to maintaining trust across these different groups, and important to the social underpinnings of successful long-term wolf recovery and persistence. I believe that granting an injunction to the petitioners will cause damage to the improvements in social acceptance of wolves in Washington and could set back the work that members of the WAG have done, along with the Department, to work towards meeting the needs of all Washingtonians who have an interest in robust native wildlife populations and in the ability of human communities to co-exist with wildlife with a minimum of conflict.

Our founder was nominated over 15 times from Ranchers, Advocates and others who new he would work hard to find solutions that work instead of lip service and singing coombuya.