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.