As of 6:45 this evening, we are 60 signatures shy of getting our one thousandth supporter!

Let's make a real effort to get those 60 contacted, and have them sign. WE CAN MAKE A REAL DIFFERENCE HERE.

Everybody, contact somebody and lets do this!!

Transparency in our fisheries is that important!

Thanks

I just picked up the Jan Reel News, and an article toward the back pages came forward w/ the total attendance for last year's Seattle Boat Show: 57,427. Imagine the potential for signatures (and the resulting unified support) were an active effort put forth to canvas that crowd. The Puyallup, Everett, And Tacoma shows are all ahead...let's get after this!

I agree. Nows the time to start planning and for groups to get together and commit to getting the word spread. I will be going to the Tacoma and Puyallup Shows and doing my best to pass out flyers and talk to people!

Can use some help.

Thought you guys would like to see a letter I received in response to one I sent to Director Unsworth about the Open Meetings issue. Director Unsworth passed it off to the Fish Programs Asst. Director. Here is his response:

FishProgram.AssistantDirector@dfw.wa.gov


Dear Mr. Menchaca:


Thank you for your email to Director Unsworth regarding North of Falcon fishery planning and your interest in opening meetings between WDFW and the tribal co-managers to the public.  The Director forwarded your email to the Fish Program for a response.   There has been more interest than usual this year in the process, and in opening co-manager meetings to the public, due largely to the delays in reaching agreement with the tribes on fisheries in Puget Sound this year.
WDFW is committed to transparency, and undertakes an extensive public rule-making process for setting North of Falcon salmon fisheries each year, following and exceeding the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act.  This process includes a long list of public meetings, and involves extensive communication between agency staff and interested stakeholders regarding status of fishery proposals and progress of negotiations with the tribes.  The majority of the co-manager negotiations happen in a series of meetings with individual tribes or small groups of tribes from single watersheds, with several larger meetings with multiple tribes from around Puget Sound and coastal Washington also occurring.  All public records created during the process are available.  We understand the interest in opening those meetings to the public, but ultimately there are legal obstacles to doing so.
As you are likely aware, the federally-recognized tribes are legally sovereign governments.  As such, tribal governments are not subject to the state’s Administrative Procedures Act, or the Open Public Meetings Act.  As sovereign governments, the tribes are not required to meet with the general public, or to allow the general public into meetings with state government representatives.  In the past, the tribes have allowed a limited number of members of the public to enter state-tribal North of Falcon meetings to observe, but not actively participate in the meetings.  That practice was ended several years ago by the tribes, as they felt the negotiation positions of the state and tribes were being mischaracterized to the rest of the public by these observers.  WDFW will continue to pursue methods like observer attendance for allowing direct public participation in co-manager meetings, but would ultimately need agreement of the tribes for this to happen
We also ultimately need to reach agreement with the tribal co-managers on fishing seasons that meet conservation objectives in order to receive Federal authorization for fisheries under the Endangered Species Act – the effects of tribal and non-tribal fishing combined must be within acceptable impact levels on all stocks.  There is also the long and complicated legal history of the US v Washington court case that must be considered in setting salmon seasons.  The reality is that meetings and negotiations with the tribal co-managers must occur for fishing seasons to be set – not meeting with the tribes because they do not agree to let the public into the meetings would not likely lead to a productive outcome for state fisheries. 
Many of the perceived issues with co-management of fisheries are the result of the shared interest of state and tribal fishermen in protecting and harvesting a resource that has diminished from historic levels due to deterioration of habitat.  We support co-management of the state’s shared resources and believe the state and tribes are far more effective when we work together to conserve fish and wildlife and their habitat. WDFW remains committed to working with the tribes to improve the North of Falcon process, to working to make that process as transparent as possible, and to helping to ensure our state’s resources are sustainable for future generations.

Here is my reply to him. HE NEVER ANSWERED MY QUESTIONS!!!

Dear Asst. Director

Thank you for your email reply regarding the closed meetings that are held between the Treaty Tribes and the Staff of WDFW.

I am a bit confused by some of your comments, and I hope you will take a moment to clarify your statements.

You say that the tribes, as sovereign governments, are exempt from compliance with the States APA or OPMA. Can you explain why the State government is exempt solely due to “who” they are meeting with? It would appear that since the tribes oppose open meetings, the State has chosen to disregard State law?

In your letter, it says that the State is committed to transparency, and will continue to pursue methods for the public to have access to these, now closed meetings. You mention “legal obstacles”. I’m confused again. To what legal obstacles are you referring? It appears the law requires you to have these meetings open to the public. It is also clear that, the only obstacle is the Co-managers objection. Can you clarify, please?

Further. You state “ The reality is that meetings and negotiations with the tribal co-managers must occur for fishing seasons to be set – not meeting with the tribes because they do not agree to let the public into the meetings would not likely lead to a productive outcome for state fisheries.” If I’m reading this correctly, you are saying that if the tribes walk out of negotiations, because they don’t want the public to have access, we (the State) will not be able to have any fishing because we cannot get permits without the tribes agreement?
If that’s what you’re actually saying, that would mean the tribes have leverage over the State! By being able to control the outcome of the States position, the tribes can dictate how things go. That would be coercion! Please explain.

Please clarify why, after the situation with Coho-gate, the State has not made the permitting process separate from the tribes? It is clear that as long as the tribes can threaten to stop negotiations and the only repercussion is to the State, there will never be a fair and equal process.

Perhaps that’s why the Co-managers are so adamantly opposed to open meetings? Or, is the State also opposed because they don’t want the public to know that the negotiations are not quite as fair as we have been lead to believe?

Looking forward to your answers,

Respectfully,

Mr. Menchaca
Washington State Taxpayer

Baywolf thanks for your efforts!!!
I think the director of Fish and Wildlife is motivated by one person his BOSS the GOV. He could give a rats ARS about his paying customers.
I wrote to the GOV. Christine when I complained about the hatchery chinook changes they made and she made the Director of WDFW respond to my compliant directly.
I am a bit surprised we don't have 20,000 signatures by now.
It blows me away that even in the state we are in as sportsmen getting bent over by the tribes and the state that more citizens are not outraged enough to sign a simple petition.

Signed and thanks to those who got this ball rolling.

Unfortunately the Director's unfortunate position seems pretty clear, but at least somebody up there acknowledges that they at least hear us.

Doing my part to spread word of this travesty of policy making to anyone who will listen.

I deserve no thanks my friend. I'm just a pissed off old fishermen who thought there are a lot of us who are pissed too and wanted to give everyone a voice to tell WDFW we're tired of the BS.


I think we are just not reaching everyone who IS outraged! This is totally a word of mouth project. It has been by one person telling one person that we are at nearly 1000 signatures (986 right now).
The numbers signing has slowed way down in the last 36 hours. I'm thinking this is because we aren't reaching past our small groups that read the boards and such.

What we need is for some ways to break out and reach everyone who has a fishing license. There were about 2.5 million licenses bought this season....imagine!

Reading between the lines, he's admitting that the Tribes have us by the Nads, because if they don't like (or don't get what they want) they just WALK OUT..they still get to fish, we don't. So, what do you think WDFW does to fix this? They close the door so we don't find out! Total BS.

Hold the course...I'm reminded of one of former Seahawks Coach Chuck Knox' cliches, and now direct it to the WDFW hierarchy..." Lead, follow--or get the hell out of the way." Next thing you now, the right to petition the gov't will be illegal--for some of us, at least.
You are handling this very well, Bay wolf. I can't wait for the obligatory response to your reply...

Thanks Greg.

His initial, Party line response was the tactic of trying to make it sound way above our (you and I and everybody who's signed) pay grade.

It's been my experience that once the hard questions are asked by Sportsmen, they just ignore us.

I doubt he has the balls to reply...

You guys got me fired up again!!!

I just shot off this email to the Asst. Director and cc. Alison Morrow, KING5 news. She's the reporter doing the story on the Open Meeting Issue.

Assistant Director,

I’ve not heard back from you regarding the questions I’ve raised to your response.

Perhaps you’ve just accidentally overlooked one of your stakeholders request for clarifications?

Can you please respond so as to clear up the confusion your initial response has caused?

Respectfully.

Yeah it's pretty shocking that the petition hasn't blown up with 10's of 1000's of signatures.

It's more than just the boards... folks are sharing on other social media like Facebook, advocacy groups are sending links to their constituents. The word is getting out, of this I AM convinced.

There's got to something important that we're missing that's keeping folks from signing on. I postulated the whole privacy/e-mail theory. How about the medium Change.org.... do they somehow have a bad rap folks are cautious about?

Or is it all really just another sign of the overwhelming apathy in the recreational fishing community at large? Or maybe that folks are just sick and tired of defeat at every turn where our rec fisheries never seem to get a break from constant assaults?

I know it gets harder and harder as the years go by to fight the good fight, but somebody's got to do it. Thanks for doing your part to be a catalyst for change Bay Wolf.

Here's another question for Unsworth. he says WDFW complies with APA. Yet, when challenged in court over APA they lose. How can you both comply with the law and lose lawsuits over compliance with that same law??

There may be a lawsuit...stand by for updates....


I'm proud of the guys that have jumped on this...

You're right Doc. We've been kicked in the nut sack so much, it almost feels normal...almost.

I'm open to ANY ideas. We got the paper flyer so guys don't have to go to Change.org. Don't have to give an email address, or an address at all.

I feel bad, because I feel like there ARE a lot of people out there (Got to be) that are angry too, but just don't know about the petition. I want them to have a voice.

Thanks everyone who won't go down without a fight.

It's damn obvious at this point that WDFW isn't committed enough or fully to transparency, or they would simply agree to abide by the Open Meetings Act. And while the agency provides extensive communication with stakeholders, it is keeping covered the specific information that the public wants: what is WDFW saying to the tribes, and what are the tribes saying to WDFW, unfiltered. And while all public records created in those meetings are available, why should we assume that means "all records" of what transpired? Video and audio recordings of the meeting should be the bare minimum of Departmental compliance.

I think Baywolf correctly characterizes the only legal obstacle to opening the meetings is the objection of the tribes (legal) and the objection of WDFW (illegal).

The asst. Director is correct in saying that, ". . . believe the state and tribes are far more effective when we work together to conserve fish and wildlife . . ." However, as last year's NOF showed, working together isn't always a viable choice on the menu. WDFW cannot count on the tribes' sharing the same interests as the state. And when the tribes walk out, everything falls in favor of the tribes and against the state. I'm shocked and dismayed that the state would even try a repeat performance. Last year was proof positive that WDFW needs to secure its own independent ESA section 10 permit from NMFS for the simple and obvious reason that agreement is not guaranteed. NMFS might not like having to deal with two separate permits, but life ain't perfect, and they need to recognize and understand that the state has legitimate fisheries interests just as the treaty tribes do, and the federal authority has to walk the tightrope. Deal with it.

One other thing from the response. They admit that the salmon (and other fish) management in the state is controlled by the Tribes. It is not co-managment and they admitted as much.

It's my way or the highway.

The tribes feel as sovereign nations that they only need to meet with governments. Our state law would seem to indicate that our representatives even meeting with the tribes in closed session is illegal.

So one has to ask; What is the penalty for breaking state law? Why has no one been charged?