As the controversy over the possible transfer of management and ownership of the Dungeness Wildlife Refuge and Protection Island to the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe continues, I was sent this quote which sums up the issue of approving this transfer. At the moment, the Refuge decision making process is theoretically one for the protection of its wildlife for all of American citizens. Yes, that’s not always what happens. But in this case, for 100+ years, I think it has been done well. It is worth remembering that the Tribe is attempting to engage in commercial aquaculture (for their financial benefit) at the very edge of the Refuge, with criticism coming from some key biologists as to the effects of this on the very species that the refuge is supposed to protect. To be clear, in 2024 the US Fish & Wildlife Service signed over management of the Dungeness Spit and Protection Island to the Jamestown Tribe in a deal with virtually no public input that will pay the Tribe at least $500,000 annually and allow them to commercially harvest non-native oysters in a 50-acre parcel within the Refuge. Now a bill in Congress would give the Tribe total ownership as part of their reservation allowing them to determine all rule making and audiences for those rule making processes. This makes this quote all the more important in the decision making process of granting this request.
Jean Pratschner wrote Sequim City Council:
My husband Greg Pratschner (deceased) was a regional administrator of USF&W, all over the country. He often worked with tribal groups, very familiar with their agendas, programs, and abilities, often brought them into the Federal programs and helped with scholarships, training, grants, projects. He was awarded many honors for his inclusionary concepts in co-management. We had many Native friends. But, he often felt the goals and perspectives were not on the same page when it came to fisheries and refuges. He could never go against or find a legal way or option to alter a bad aspect of their programs, and always felt there was no argument or decision that he could use to make them comply with a negatively contrived agenda about an issue. His hands were always tied, by ultimately BIA power, that had no concern for non -Native viewpoint, only one opinion or goal would be followed. Native opinion. He always had to bend. Always. Sometimes it turned out less than good for all parties.
Filed under: Clallam County, Endangered Species, Environmental Law, Environmental Protection | Tagged: Dungeness Wildlife Refuge, protection island |
I think “co-management” is what we have currently, but from what I’m observing, US&FW no longer has a presence at Dungeness & Protection Island Refuges.
Cooke Aquaculture is foreign corporation with a record of delinquency and dishonesty. I’m not happy about them returning to local waters with their destructive industrial practices.
You are correct. this from 2024: “…without any community engagement or meaningful stakeholder participation, the US Fish & Wildlife Service signed over management of the Dungeness Spit and Protection Island to the Jamestown Tribe in a deal that will pay the Tribe at least $500,000 annually and allow them to commercially harvest non-native oysters in a 50-acre parcel within the Refuge.”
I believe there is a court challenge to this..
The Tribe has “vowed” to bring back net pens into their aquaculture enterprises. They claim that their ‘science’ disagrees with what most scientists have determined: that net pens pose a serious threat to wild salmon recovery and to the health of the Salish Sea. The Jamestown Tribe has joined forces with Cooke Aquaculture to sue WA state over the ban. One wonders: If the transfer of lands is approved, would it be just a matter of time before the Tribe adds them to their oyster farm? https://www.seafoodsource.com/news/premium/aquaculture/cooke-jamestown-s-klallam-tribe-sue-washington-state-over-net-pen-ban
I think that the right language is that “if the co-management is approved…” I need clarity on this…