I’ve heard from reliable sources that the NWIFC Co-managers have once again walked out of the closed door NOF negotiations. This seems to be, yet again, a tactic to have WDFW “give in” to demands or harvest that they want. This may be a minor thing to some, it again highlights why WDFW the Commission and Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission are so adamantly opposed to having any public oversight of those meetings. We MUST have agreement from the tribes or we don’t get permits (remember, we piggy back on their fast tracked permitting) and they use that dependency as leverage.

And why, once again, don't we have our own permitting process yet to level the playing field?!

If we did, then we could work independently. It would also put NOAA in the middle if the State's want A, the Tribes wants B and both comply with the treaties. Even worse if A complies with treaty sharing and B doesn't. They don't want to be in the middle and have to make a public decision.

I see your point Carcass, but inconveniencing NOAA should not be a consideration to WDFW/Commission. This current method that the tribes use, having the Bureau of Indian Affairs checkmark their permits in order to qualify for fast tracking is underhanded.

NOAA needs to address permits, either State or Tribal under the same set of rules.

The State has said for years that it's goal is to apply for it's permits separately from tribal permits. The problem is, they can't/won't challenge NOAA to special handling of permits due to the time delay and fishing seasons.

WE KNOW that the NWIFC holds the permitting situation over the heads of WDFW staff in these meetings. It's been confirmed by several people that have been in these meetings. And anytime you have one side in a negotiation that has "leverage" over the other, you can damn well bet there is no real "negotiation in good faith".

This is exactly WHY they don't want any live video feed in these meetings. They don't want anyone to see how the real deals are done.

Ask yourself why they can live feed a NOF plenary meeting, and yet find it impossible to do the same for the NOF WDFW/Tribal meetings?

Simple. They (probably all of them) don't want folks to know what goes on in there.

One point often missed by the NI side is that there are very difficult negotiations among the Tribes. Probably a lot messier than I/NI. NWIFC is not one big happy family.

I've covered this ground more than once, and my hide has become seriously chapped.

I can't fathom why we tax paying, license buying stakeholders have to abide by the works of a dubious "Co-Management" process that 1) pits us singularly against some 22 other entities, each with a single vote...and that's all that's needed to quash any proposal 2) has a tipped "playing field" where stonewalling, or leaving the premises at a whim is permissible, 3) is conducted behind closed doors to conceal its totally dysfunctional character, and 4) is nowhere near any semblance of the Good Faith bargaining principles that should be a prerequisite for both sides before entering the room.

Tribes going at it between themselves, and we have to cope with that? Their separate permit process on a fast track, and ours bogged down in bureaucracy? A Director, Managers, AG Staff and Commissioners that brush all this off, and sum it up by saying, "Well, that's just politics!"

This is NOT my idea of "you get what you pay for"...and I wonder how anyone with a genuine concern for the fish could see it any differently than I do.

Some of the rationale I have heard when this comes up (each year with NOF) is that the process of obtaining our own permit would be costly, time consuming (5 years) and once a permit application was submitted we would no longer be able to ride on the tribal permit thus we would not be able to fish until our own permit were to be issued.

Not sure if that is true but as to the not allowing us to fish while a permit application is being processed.....I am at the point where I believe we should call their bluff and toss the whole thing into the political arena because what is happening simply isn't working.

Let's say that NOF ends with agreement. The state then submits only their fisheries, based on the agreement. Let's see NOAA deny the very fisheries they would approve if they were submitted jointly.

Time to call the bluff. Shutting down most of WA's fisheries should be a political bomb because any waterbody with a listed fish would need approval, even if the fishery was directed at, say, catfish.

On the claim that "it costs money". It's license holders money.

So what's the rumor mill say was the sticking point (that made them walk out of negotiation)?

fb

They were stuck on Chum. Before the tribes would even consider anything about Coho or Chinook they walked out. Sort of set the stage, letting WDFW know exactly who was in charge!

The question is...WHY do we have to rely on rumor (or inside information)? This involves ALL OF US DAMN IT!!

Every time the tribes walk out, WDFW shi5ts its pants. They know the hell storm that will follow if there is another incident like with the Coho a few years ago. Now their strategy is to GIVE IN on some loss then risk losing everything.

And THAT IS the problem with secret's. IF THESE MEETINGS WERE BROADCAST ON LIVE STREAM TV, IT WOULD REDUCE THIS KIND OF MANIPULATION.

Time to go to a FAB on almost everything, including Oly Pen steelhead. No one is following the conditions of Boldt, even. WDFW is in a bad spot politically, aren't they? If they don't provide real opportunity how are they going to get funded from a somewhat informed/frustrated legislature. Time to write or call our legislature people.

Do we know for sure that they walked out, and it so, why is this not reported somewhere in the news? If it is true, I am sure someone like Lars Larson would jump on it.

There is some reference to this on the Apr 6, 710 Outdoor line podcast titled North of Falcon Season Setting Process.

I have some email addresses for people that might be involved, so I will send out a message and see if anyone responds.

I find it amazing that in the Podcast they actually say "If it wasn't for the tribes, we wouldn't be fishing in a lot of situations, we really need to keep them on our side"

No truer statement has been uttered. We need to "Keep them on our side" so much so, that we are willing to cave in to almost every demand they make. Exactly the reason they do it all in meetings that the public is completely banned from. Hell, the media can't even attend, which sure sounds like a violation of the first amendment.

I received an email back today stating that the tribes have not walked out and that negotiations, though difficult, are still on going. We will see if that is true but for now I am assuming it is. If anyone else has information otherwise, please let us know.

Thanks for looking into this. I believe the information was, not that they walked out "permanently", rather that they walked when it seemed that they would not get what they wanted. Which is exactly what has happened in the last three NOF years.

Please let us know if you get any more details. Of course, it would be so much simpler if the damn meetings had just been live streamed! Then we all could see for ourselves.

I am still thinking it might be smart to request a copy of all the notes and emails being sent back and forth between the people at NOF and other staff and any between the tribes and staff as soon as the NOF meeting conclude. It might shed light into what the tribes were demanding and how the state how the state was making plans to respond. I don't see how the state could refuse as this would all be after the fact and could not be seen as effecting the negotiations.

Tribes refused to model coho and chinook, meaning no meaningful “negotiations” took place.

Walking out should be treated the same as foregone opportunity, a stupid loophole where you give up something that should be yours. Whatever business is left unfinished goes to the "co-manager" still sitting at the table.