I still wonder how "mischaracterization" of the tribal positions by observers " plays into allowing full access via closed camera. I believe the tribes could argue against outside comments during negotiations, by stating such are not part of an active negotiation and would be disruptive, but they have not argument that I feel would over ride the public interest and law. In a case where both sides are court ordered to negotiate, and where the constraints of one party (OPMA) would have not negative effect of the second party, I see no way they can impose their will. I say no negative effect as it is assumed that the state is negotiating for its population and said party would and should oversee that negotiation. I see it no different in a court stating that two parties need to mediate an agreement and one party wants only to allow the opposing attorney in the room and not the actual concerned party.

I agree that the Tribes will have a difficult time justifying why. BUT the state will have even a harder time trying to explain to us why they want to keep us in the dark, especially after it's gotten so much attention.

Believe me, I WILL YELL IT FROM EVERY MOUNTAIN TOP IF THEY TRY SOME BS!! Plus I will send it out to every person that signed the Petition!!

The appropriate response to WDFW's predicatble response is "Thank you for letting us know where we stand. You'd better get to work in the Legislature, because your revenue stream is about to be severely reduced."

This forum needs a "LIKE" function.

I am dismayed at how little awareness WDFW seems to have regarding just who it works for.

The January 9th response from THFWA can be found here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2tWjgmgVy3yVTEySmswTzV5T1k/view

It pretty clearly outlines their position, and DOES NOT accept the excuses put forth by Dir. Unsworth in his Dec. 30th reply. It appears the Advocacy is prepared to make good on its word to pursue further action in the matter.

"The Advocacy does not believe the presence of a few observers approved by the Department and tribal comanagement staff rises to the level of transparency required under state law. Neither do we believe it appropriate for the co-managers to require all in attendance to relinquish their constitutional right of free speech as a condition of participation."

Well said!

I think a lot of folks forget that the Commission are the ones who are responsible for the fisheries. They delagate the authority to negotiate to Dir Unsworth and the crew.

From the Commission Home Page:

While the Commission has several responsibilities, its primary role is to establish policy and direction for fish and wildlife species and their habitats in Washington and to monitor the Department's implementation of the goals, policies and objectives established by the Commission. The Commission also classifies wildlife and establishes the basic rules and regulations governing the time, place, manner, and methods used to harvest or enjoy fish and wildlife.

The Commission receives its authority from the passage of Referendum 45 by the 1995 Legislature and public at the 1995 general election.

The Commission is the supervising authority for the Department. With the 1994 merger of the former Departments of Fisheries and Wildlife, the Commission has comprehensive species authority as well.

Through formal public meetings and informal hearings held around the state, the Commission provides an opportunity for citizens to actively participate in management of Washington's fish and wildlife. (UNLESS THE TRIBES TELL THEM OTHERWISE!)

It is the Commissioners who ultimately are liable for a lawsuit for violation of the OPMA. They can tell Dir. Unsworth to open the meetings. (If they had any spine and put aside self interest)

I would recommend everyone, send an email to the Commission and let them know how you feel about them stalling and siding with the Tribes!
Commission's Email Address: commission@dfw.wa.gov

Oh, by the way, this is from the Commission signed 2015-2016 NOF Policy:


Communications
• The Department shall strive to make ongoing improvements for effective public involvement during the North of Falcon planning process and annual salmon fishery implementation, incorporating the following intents:
o North of Falcon participants will be included as observers during appropriate state/tribal discussions of fishery issues. (AGAIN, UNLESS THE TRIBES SAY NO, APPARENTLY)
o All decisions made during the North of Falcon process will be recorded in writing.
o A variety of tools will be used to effectively communicate with the public, to receive input on pre-season planning or in-season fishery issues, and to make available the record of
decisions. Such tools will include: recreational and commercial advisory groups; public workshops to address key issues; the WDFW North of Falcon Web site; and in-season tele-conferences.
o The Department will increase transparency by consulting with stakeholders throughout the pre-season planning process and prior to making major decisions with the co-managers.

LIP SERVICE BOYS, LIP SERVICE TO TRANSPARENCY, JUST BS

A couple small, but very important things you're missing in your analysis of the statements you just challenged as contradictory, Bay Wolf:

The F&W Commission, by virtue of delegating ultimate authority to the WDFW Director, limits its reach to that of an advisory board (which is not much).

As regards the Commission guidance you bolded above, note that the word "appropriate" is included as a qualifier. That leaves the matter of what is, indeed, "appropriate" completely unresolved, thereby rendering it an "optional requirement." Lots of those to be found in our state laws.

One thing I've been very impressed with every time I've sought to point out where WDFW is not operating according to the law is how good the Legislature is at including language that leaves a way out of everything.

Therein lies the conundrum. The Advocacy has (successfully) pointed out WDFW's non-compliance with APA on a variety of regulations, even late in the most recently completed season.

WDFW has two choices. Comply with the law or keep losing in court and pissing off stakeholders or get the Legislature to write an RCW that legalizes the way they are currently doing business.

Flea,

Good points, but, I believe, by being the "Signing Authority" on the North Of Falcon Policies, the Commission reserves (and ultimately has) the authority outlined in their statement as Supervisory responsibility.

As far as having an "out" by perhaps saying "Having the public involved in the Tribal/WDFW negotiations is not "appropriate". Well, I suppose they could, but they will ultimately have to give a compelling justification, better than the Tribes don't want it, to the citizens.

Sovereignty will be good enough, if the past is any indication, but I sincerely hope you're right.

As regards the Commission, I'm going to Vancouver Saturday to essentially protest what amounts to a strong-arm reversal by a few WA and OR legislators of a Commission-backed policy to enhance rec fishing in the Columbia. That there is only one option on the table that even allows the spirit of the Commission's initial guidance to remain intact tells the story of how much power the Commission really has, and it ain't much at the end of the day.

I've long held a belief that the reason we can yell so loud and never get our voices heard where it matters most is that the REAL deciders don't participate in the processes that set our seasons, and those who do participate are essentially communicating to the stakeholders what the deciders have already decided.

I'll never forget the NOF for Grays Harbor a few years back. We broke for lunch with what was shaping up to be a brilliant outcome for the sport side. We noticed Ron and Kurt heading off somewhere with then director Anderson. When we came back from lunch, Ron and Kurt opened up with a very different, much less favorable plan than what we had been working on all morning. Wouldn't you know it? That was the plan that got signed into law.

Understanding that the deck is stacked against us makes it hard to keep trying, but we do it anyway. It helps to be a little insane....

The Commission is meeting this Friday and Saturday.

They have the topic of Opening these meetings on the Agenda.

We NEED EVERYONE to send in an email, not "asking, "DEMANDING" they get these meetings open to the public. Doesn't have to be long. In fact just a line or two is perfect. Just as long as they get it!

Here is their email address: commission@dfw.wa.gov

Here is copy of my email:
Commissioners,

As a citizen of Washington state, a stakeholder in our fisheries, I demand the North of Falcon Meetings between WDFW and the Treaty Tribes be opened to full public oversight.

NO MORE SECRET MEETINGS!

Pmenchaca
Tacoma, WA

Things are heating up. Believe it or not, yesterday the tribal supporters in the House dropped a bill that requires the Commission to meet with tribal reps within 30 days of a request by a tribe to the Governor to review any state season, policy, etc. regarding HUNTING rules and regs. Then, all such meetings are exempt from the open meeting act. HB 1097 states

(3) The governing body of any tribal government of a tribe with federally recognized hunting rights within the state may request a consultation with the governor and the fish and wildlife commission regarding any specific fish and wildlife department policy, rule, or action that affects tribal hunting rights. The governor must convene a meeting within thirty days of receiving such a request. The fish and wildlife commission must attend the meeting, or delegate this responsibility to the director of the department of fish and wildlife, when agreed upon by the requesting tribe. Any meeting convened pursuant to this section is not subject to the requirements of the open public meetings act,

Clear as a bell, attempt to legalize closed door meetings on hunting same way as it's done today with fishing in NOF. So much for their confidence in their statement that sovereignty of tribes makes it legal to close doors at this point in time. Then, any time they demand, the Commission must put hat in hand and report to the Governor's Office. Can't even delegate to staff without tribal permission. Then, the full Commission is meeting behind closed doors. Incredulous! Wouldn't be surprised to see an amendment adding the word fishing beside hunting.

WTF? I'd guess it would be easy to gloss right past this for most representatives who don't have an understanding of the history and issues at hand. Who needs to be educated?

fb

Gonna be a tough sell to the Republicans in the house!

Going to be interesting to see how the Hunting Community reacts to this...and yes, pretty darn easy for them to slide "Fish" into this...

BUT WE AREN'T GOING TO LET THEM, ARE WE???

Is it my imagination, or is the end objective of all this result in the Tribe's 1) creating a comprehensive monopoly re: the State commercial seafood industry, and 2) establishing the legal authority to make regulations and undertake enforcement for recreational fishing? Will I be buying my licenses, catch cards, permits and tags from them, rather than WDFW? Fishing the Sound legally only if accompanied by a Tribal guide? WTF is going on here...?

I think that this years NoF negotiations are going to spell the end of rec fishing in the
Puget sound region. Because of ESA listings and the Feds backing the Indians we
are done. The WDFW has become powerless in these negotiations. They do not have the power to make the tribes toe the line. I do not understand how the tribes,
which are considered Wa State citizens can get away with being members of another separate country over which the state has no jurisdiction.

Keep an eye on KING5 news tonight, folks.