Coming down on the side of WDFW, at least a bit, is there are a couple of things to consider.

The APA does not fit with the salmon season development process, probably in a variety of ways. Timelines is one. The probably biggie is that the APA was crafted (can the Leg really craft anything) to develop rules where all those affected by the rules (must follow them) are part of the process. NOF, PSC, PSMFC are not that as other states/countries/tribes are involved who are not subject to the rules. So the process needs fixing, and that is the job of the Legislature. Which they will get to right after they fix school funding, mental health find, infrastructure, their own open-records, etc.

Another, and perhaps the one that brings the most heartache to recs is that WDFW has not and will not clearly articulate "why" things are done. In my experience, the agency has been reluctant to educate stakeholders about Boldt, Hoh V. Baldridge, ESA, and so on except when forced. A prime example is that before he was Director, Phil Anderson was asked why recs could not have a C&R steelhead fishery on the Hoh the last half of April. NI fish were available, the agency admitted that. His response is "We got the fishery we wanted". He refused to identify "we", or why "we wanted it" or why it was acceptable. There may have been good reasons. But, as folks here note on Stilly trout, the reasons don't pass the red-faced or smell test.

Opening the meetings carries a risk to the tribes for inter and intra-tribal airing of issues. It carries risk for WDFW as to why the Tribes are appeased. It carries risk to NOAA as to why they roll over as they do.

And, if anybody takes the fall, it will low down the food chain like Mr. Bird.