There are deep, troubling issues with the Co-management North of Falcon process. We (Sportsmen) continue to suffer from the results of these closed door meetings, yet there is little main stream media coverage about the issue. CCA just published some insights into just how Sportsmen lose when we don’t have an opportunity to witness what WDFD/the Commissioners are agreeing to until it’s all done.

Here it what CCA has to say:

“In past years, it's been said that the North of Falcon (NOF) season setting process ended up "South of Expectations." Regrettably, the 2019 NOF process set a new mark for misery, as WDFW staff put sport anglers and mark-selective salmon seasons to the sword with draconian season reductions across Puget Sound. In total, Puget Sound fisheries will see a reduction of an entire year's worth of angling opportunity across its many marine zones!

Salmon fisheries in Puget Sound will see widespread closures this year under the plan adopted by WDFW and Puget Sound treaty tribes. The closures will affect summer and winter salmon fisheries and has no basis in the conservation of ESA-listed Chinook. The plan will have devastating impacts on sportfishing-dependent business across the state - marinas, boat dealers, tackle shops, manufacturers, outfitters, and others.

Under the plan, Puget Sound treaty tribes are expected to harvest at least 75% of the allowable Chinook harvest - far more than the 50-50 sharing mandated by the Boldt decision. As a result of the approved seasons, recreational anglers will lose significant access to hatchery-reared salmon.”

It’s time for ALL Sportsmen and sports organizations to band together and put pressure on the Commissioners to END THESE CLOSED DOOR MEETINGS. BROADCAST THESE MEETINGS LIVE ON CCTV AND PROVE TO ALL OF US THAT EVERYONE IS TREATED EQUALLY!

Let us cut to the chase...

If the next-to-last paragraph of Wolf's quoted message above doesn't make your blood boil--nothing will.

We are losing the fish at an alarming rate. If the statement above is valid, not only are the Tribes in violation of the provisions set forth by the Boldt Decision, but their commitment to actual conservation is nothing more than a fabrication. The ONLY way to reverse this process is to provide visual coverage of what goes on in the NOF Co-Management sessions--plain and simple.

Enough said. Not enough done.

Once again, the state of Washington, the Commission, or the WDFW can be required to have a meeting "open" to the public. These groups cannot require the tribes to attend or participate at these meetings. It is their decision to do so or not. I suspect they won't.

I appreciate your counter point, however it is a bit off.
First, the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission is a coalition of treaty tribes. They each have representatives who are federally mandated to negotiate with the Commission. Not the State, not WDFW, the Commission. The Commission DELEGATES to WDFW the authority to conduct the negotiations. The Commission IS subject to the OPMA, so with the delegation, the OPMA follows to WDFW. It doesn't matter who they are meeting with. The Treaty Tribes are federally mandated to negotiate. It doesn't matter if the negotiations are open or not.

The Boldt case is formally titled... U.S. vs the State of Washington... is it not?

Yes. The Department of Fish and Wildlife Director is under supervisory control of the Commission however. The WDFW’authority to conduct the negotiations come directly from the Commission through the North of Falcon delegation of authority.

Bay wolf,

Time and again, you are right on. To everyone who reads this thread, WDFW is required by law to hold open meetings on this subject. Also, WDFW is under the requirement of law to manage the salmon fishery 50/50 with the treaty tribes. I guess our state employees/governor appointees don't have to follow the law if they don't want to.

So I'm just trying to get this right...

"... the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission is a coalition of treaty tribes. They each have representatives who are federally mandated to negotiate with the Commission."

Where in US vs State of Washington is this mandate?

There are a lot of experts on various fishing websites that will give you the "truth" about salmon management between the states and the tribes. Unfortunately, these experts occasionally spew forth information better described as alternative facts. The attached written by Fronda Woods (about 2005 I think) of the WA AG's office is a very informative piece on the history of state tribal fishing rights court decisions and salmon management. A section of Cooperative Management on page 433 is especially helpful.


https://www.fws.gov/leavenworthfisheriescomplex/who_in_charge_fishing%20(1).pdf

If by US vs State of Washington, you are referring to the suit that resulted in the Boldt decision then this may clarify. That was the suit that ended in a decision that gave the rights to the treaty tribes. After, the legislature through various actions gave the Commission the responsibility to handle the details of how co-management would be conducted. At first it was the Dept of Fish, then they Dept of Fish and dept of wildlife were merged.

I think I got this straight, anyone else with better knowledge can expand.

It seems like the WDFW is unwilling to challenge the process at all - tribes are doing what any group would do in their position which is to negotiate and achieve the biggest slice of the pie they can. PNW tribes have always been known for their relentless bargaining, and deal negotiation which annoyed early fur traders. The problem with this process is that its unclear who the WDFW is negotiating for and to what end and as such they basically negotiate for nothing as long as the commercials get their fill.

Thanks Darth,

Very interesting and informative reading. I especially like the history of how various personalities effected decisions and conservation.

Thanks, darth...

Bookmarked for eternity

Brother Tim has finally had about all he can stomach and took action. Now the fun begins.

Advocacy files legal challenge to WDFW setting salmon seasons behind closed door with tribal co-managers

May 10, 2019

For Immediate Release-

The Twin Harbors Fish & Wildlife Advocacy, a nonprofit organization based in Grays Harbor, has filed a legal challenge in Thurston County Superior Court to the procedures used by the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife Department (Department) to set salmon seasons in Washington. The petition challenges the salmon seasons set by Department in 2018 and 2019 as violations of the Open Public Meeting Act (OPMA) and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Joe Frawley, of the Olympia firm of Schefter & Frawley, and John Frawley of the Mountlake Terrace firm Frawley Law Office, are representing the Advocacy before the court.

The story and legal documents are available for review on the Advocacy's website HERE. ( link failed but the one below works )

Each year, the Department uses a process referred to as “North of Falcon” (NOF) to set recreational and commercial salmon fishing seasons within the state and its coastal waters. A key component is behind closed-door meetings with tribal co-managers resulting in an announcement of a “List of Agreed Fisheries” (LOAF) that is released to public. The department then installs seasons based on the LOAF and effectively denies the public an ability to participate in development of the season.



The Advocacy and others members of the public have repeatedly raised objections to the Department using behind-closed-door meetings in this process. Thousands have signed petitions, attended meetings of the Fish & Wildlife Commission and invested thousands of hours reviewing public records to determine why the Department reaches its season setting decisions. While the Commission passed a policy provision regarding increased transparency in NOF in 2019, the Department has been unwilling or unable to change its ways and in 2019, transparency nearly disappeared as the fishing seasons and regulations were agreed to in a closed-door meeting in California.



The legal action taken does not challenge tribal sovereignty. The state and the tribal governments are committed to co-management of our fisheries resources. That does not, however, exempt the NOF process and WDFW from transparency laws guarantying the citizens of Washington the right to participate and be informed.

The Advocacy believes this continuing controversy simply must come to an end. Fish runs are declining, conservation standards are left ignored, and ESA designation hangs over the state’s head as the Department continues to destroy the public’s confidence in the agency. Clearly, the Department is “in a state of denial” and it will require intervention by the courts to protect the resource and the public’s interest.



The legal filings are available for viewing on the Advocacy website at http://thfwa.org/. If you wish to contribute to the legal effort, your support would truly be valuable and appreciated. Online contributions can be made on the Advocacy website via credit card, Paypal, or by check. The Advocacy is a nonprofit organization operated by unpaid volunteers. Donations are not disclosed publicly and are tax deductible.

The guys thoughts.


Each year, the Department uses a process referred to as “North of Falcon” (NOF) to set recreational and commercial salmon fishing seasons within the state and its coastal waters. A key component is behind closed-door meetings with tribal co-managers resulting in an announcement of a “List of Agreed Fisheries” (LOAF) that is released to public. The department then installs seasons based on the LOAF and effectively denies the public an ability to participate in development of the season.

The Advocacy and others members of the public have repeatedly raised objections to the Department using behind-closed-door meetings in this process. Thousands have signed petitions, attended meetings of the Fish & Wildlife Commission and invested thousands of hours reviewing public records to determine why the Department reaches its season setting decisions. While the Commission passed a policy provision regarding increased transparency in NOF in 2019, the Department has been unwilling or unable to change its ways and in 2019, transparency nearly disappeared as the fishing seasons and regulations were agreed to in a closed-door meeting in California.
The legal action taken does not challenge tribal sovereignty. The state and the tribal governments are committed to co-management of our fisheries resources. That does not, however, exempt the NOF process and WDFW from transparency laws guarantying the citizens of Washington the right to participate and be informed.

The Advocacy believes this continuing controversy simply must come to an end. Fish runs are declining, conservation standards are left ignored, and ESA designation hangs over the state’s head as the Department continues to destroy the public’s confidence in the agency. Clearly, the Department is “in a state of denial” and it will require intervention by the courts effect changes needed to protect the resource and the public’s interest.

The legal filings are available for viewing on the right of this page. If you wish to contribute to the legal effort, your support would truly be appreciated. The Advocacy is a nonprofit organization operated by unpaid volunteers. Donations are not disclosed publicly and are tax deductible.

What are the Opening Odds that the Leg has a bill next year, or even in an Emergency Session this year, to exempt WDFW from all those picky little rules?

Cannot argue that CC but I do not see the Senate going down that road. To the thought that NOF is broken it had to be right to be broken. NOF was and is pure dog and pony show with a good dose of [Bleeeeep!]. Hell its sole purpose was to comply with the APA WAC process without really doing it. WDFW regards duplicity & deception as legitimate tools to do business. Not many ways to sugar coat this thing.

One of the things I learned over time there was that money drives everything. They also believe that nobody has the financial resources to challenge them. Do it all the time to staff "well, sue us"..

Plus, in the case of NOF, you really can't prove non compliance until it is over. Then, it is moot. They will argue that it's done, lets just move on. The seasons are set. Seems to me the only solution tat would get any meaningful action is a TRO that suspends all the adopted regs until WDFW proves that they complied with APA. Unless there are all, and probably painful, consequences, they will just keep on keeping on.

Ooh, I like the TRO idea . . .

Unless there are real consequences, and a TRO would probably put a dent in license sales, there is no need to change. Apologize (with fingers crossed) and keep on keeping on.