I think it is commendable that there is such interest in the NOF process and salmon management. Unfortunately I also think it is a bit like arguing with your neighbor if you should call the fire department or try putting the fire out yourself while your house burns down.

I say this because it is important to understand where NOF comes from. It starts with the Pacific Salmon Treaty between Canada and the USA. The Pacific Salmon Commission implements the terms of the treaty. For the US all actions are subject to the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act. This act created the regional fisheries management councils. The Pacific Fisheries Management Council and NOAA are responsible for for implementing salmon harvest regulations directed by the Pacific Salmon Commission. NOF is a last step in implementing regional regulations.

Starting with the Pacific Salmon Treaty and in all the commissions treaty tribes are recognized as a separate government entity, not always coequal, but separate. State law cannot supersede other governments. If the tribes choose not to have open meetings that is their right. Why is the house burning down? The Pacific Salmon Treaty expires at the end of 2018. It has been, and is being, renegotiated for the past year. The stated goal is to have the negotiations completed by the end of 2017 so that there will be a year for The Canadian and US governments to ratify the treaty. I would ask how many people on this forum have been following these negotiations and are the meetings open to the public. I would guess not many and I know that the meetings related to chinook could almost be called top secret. If the treaty is allowed to expire it is likely that NOF will be meaningless if not abandoned altogether.

We should be asking what is the US State Department, Department of Commerce (NOAA), and several Federal agencies doing. I won't get into the other treaties (NPAFC and the Columbia Basin Treaty) that have a big impact on Northwest salmon and are also being negotiated.