The first court date has been set for May 24 in the Lawsuit for Open Meetings Law violations.

Twin Harbors Fish and Wildlife Advocacy just posted a press release. You can read it here: UPDATE: Lawsuit has first court date set (CLICK HERE)

Or you can go to the THFWA Web Site Here: THFWA Legal Issues

The documents are a pretty interesting read. Lots of citations demonstrate that WDFW is in trouble asserting that the public has no right to see their government in the administrative process. Next, I wonder what WDFW is going to do if it loses this case, which I think they will. It might create an entirely new system of fish management. (Boldt and subsequent court events started in local courts, and rose up the chain). Personally, I am going to enjoy seeing the arrogance of WDFW and the Attorney General's office scrutinized by an independent body, Thurston County Superior Court. We'll see.

A little light on the process.... Pass the popcorn.

I hope you sent in your legal fund contribution before springing for the popcorn...LOL!

Seriously tho, this is the first MAJOR challenge to "WDFW's business as usual".

What's the definition of insanity: Doing the same thing, over and over, and expecting different results?

There's a reason they make these decisions in secret, and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with 'Government to Government" and has everything to do with hiding the truths of influence, power and coercion.

FYI. The April PFMC meeting is where the final season package for the ocean and Puget Sound fisheries is developed. This final package is described in the LOAF. The location of the April PFMC meeting alternates between a location in California and the PNW. In 2019 the meeting was in California. In 2020 the meeting will be in Vancouver, WA. The April Council meeting is where the final negotiations occur between the state and the treaty tribes. The elements of the LOAF are confirmed during this week. It is common that the final package of state and tribal seasons is not agreed to until the day (afternoon or evening) before the Council makes the decision on the ocean fisheries at the end of the April meeting.

So, I don't want to rain on the parade, but I'm a bit concerned as to what might happen if the suit is successful (i.e., WDFW can't meet in secret with the tribes anymore). That ruling would constrain WDFW, but it would not constrain the tribal governments (I think).

So, what then? Best case scenario is the tribes want to continue agreement-based co-management and agree to some form of public meeting. But what if they don't? What if they just stay home and come up with their own independent "co-management" plans? Won't that put WDFW in a position where it is unable to get required federal approval in time to actually conduct/allow a salmon fishery? Won't the uncaught salmon go to the tribes as "foregone opportunity?"

Maybe WDFW could get its act together enough to apply for permits so early that they don't need a fast track through tribal cooperation, but I'm skeptical.

Happy to be convinced that my worries are baseless, though.

MPM,

I don't think your concerns are baseless at all. This process could result in a game-changer in how our seasons/conservation is done. It could mean a negative for some of us, including commercial fishers, until things are sorted out. WDFW's recalcitrance in doing what is right by state's citizens has brought this on.

"We'll see"', said the Zen Master.

My guess (hope???) is the state will lose. That would mean this season's rules are invalid and WDFW will need to play legal catch-up. At that point, I think the Leg will bail them out and change the law. The Tribes hold too much power not to get what they want.

That might help with regard to creation of new state regs, but does it help with federal approval? Maybe for next year. A lot will come down to timing of any decision.

Just skimmed through the request and questions.... My guess is that the state will bury them with every document, study, email, note that led up to making a decision. Could take a while to try to shift through.

I still contend that if the Tribes do not negotiate, the state could take their proposal to the Fishery Advisory Board and get a decision from the courts.

If the lawsuit is successful what you outlined is highly probable. It is important to recognize that the NOF process is a part of the Pacific Fisheries Management Council responsibility to allocate catch quotas. They and NOAA Fisheries implement the catch recommendations of the Pacific Salmon Commission whose technical panels recommend the Canada and US salmon catch quotas. This is a fundamental part of the Pacific Salmon Treaty. In the Pacific Salmon Treaty a paragraph states that tribal treaty rights cannot be ignored. When WDFW meets with the tribes they can negotiate catch as part of the co-management agreements but they cannot dictate the format of the meetings. The treaties are with the US government and the states open meeting laws do not apply to them and a state court cannot change that. It would have to be a federal court case and who knows where that might lead (Boldt).

MPM, I would not try to convince you that your worries are baseless.

Okay, since we have moved on to speculation. If WDFW loses it might file an appeal and delay a determination that the 2019 rules are invalid. Frankly, we probably don't want a mid-season 2019 crisis with the possibility of severe unintended consequences.

If the State loses and must go into NOF 2020 with a public presence and the tribes don't show it would provide the impetus for WDFW to submit for its own permit and demand that NOAA issue interim permits until such time as the permanent permit is completed. That assumes that one or more of the tribes, absent an agreement and with no NOAA/NMFS's approval, would run back to the BIA for authorization, get it, and go fishing.

And, yes, the Legislature could bail out WDFW but would need a special session to affect 2019 seasons. And do not forget they were badly bruised when they tried to exclude their own records from public scrutiny.

Isn't speculation fun???

Even if WDFW loses and appeals, it is not guaranteed that they could get a stay of the superior court's ruling pending appeal, but perhaps the Advocacy would agree to such a stay to avoid mid-season crisis.

I agree that we cannot know for sure what will come of the suit, so any future prediction might count as speculation, but it would be irresponsible to just ignore potential unintended consequences (not matter how popular that seems to be in politics)

I see a whole lot of ways sport fisherman get screwed in all this (for the reasons already discussed) and not a whole lot of ways we don't. Just a few:

-WDFW wins, nothing changes. RESULT: Sportsman screwed
-WDFW loses: Tribes don't play along with public meeting, WDFW doesn't get permit, we can't fish. RESULT: Sportsman screwed
WDFW loses: WDFW appeals, seasons are held up or cancelled. RESULT: Sportsman screwed

Perhaps ironically, the only way we win is if WDFW loses and the Tribes play along with public meetings. I believe they call this "long odds" in the gambling world.

Some folks go to car races just to see the wrecks.
While I'd certainly miss fishing some of my favorite water if this went sideways for recreational anglers, I'm kind of looking forward to seeing the wreck as well.

Sometimes you need to strip things down to the bone and go through some pain to get to where you want to be.
WDFW has done a [Bleeeeep!] job representing the folks that pay the majority of the tab.
SF

Not to side track this great conversation, but I just wanted to reminisce a bit on how we got on this road.

We originally saw some "issues" in the Tribal/WDFW North of Falcon negotiations. It was brought into public view back in May 2016, when we experienced Cohogate. It was then that the average recreational angler became aware of the 'Piggyback" issue and how, we suspect, behind locked doors, the tribes use the permit process as leverage to gain unreasonable concessions from WDFW.

THFWA had the NOF on their radar even before that.

Independent of THFWA, we formed a group called Washington Citizen Sportsmen, and began a campaign to have public oversight BACK in those negotiations. Part of our strategy was a citizen petition aimed at the Governor, WDFW Director and Commission. That petition now has near 5500 signatures and is growing daily.

Initially, the Commission told us that having the meetings open to everyone in the room was unreasonable and would be counter productive. Our solution was to have the negotiations live streamed, unedited and available for anyone who wanted to tune in. That's when the Government to Government argument surfaced. Soon it became very clear that, although the state was blaming the locked doors on the Tribes, the state was just as culpable in fighting transparency as anyone else. After many, many testimonies at Commission meetings, face to face meetings with State and Commission staff and countless letters, calls and public appearances, we were eventually told to pound sand up our As$. The meetings are and will forever remain locked to the public!

Of course, THFWA had the entire NOF process on their radar and now, we see where it's going.

Ironic, that had they agreed to simply live stream some BS meetings in the beginning, this lawsuit may not have fired off. But then again, THFWA sees through BS pretty easily, so it was inevitable that if you do dirty deeds long enough...somebody's going to call you out.

Yup they tried keeping their secret in the closet which is really.........well..........Really queer.

This!!!
I’m fine for shutting down fishing for conservation. But to do it to bankrupt Wdfw is operating against our own interest.
There are so many things to do that would have a positive impact. Catch balancing where a sport fish is not counted 10x to 1 tribal, and figuring out actual “encounters” and the impact. Habitat, Predation , food, dams and on and on...

To simplify my entire perspective; the goal of this lawsuit is to hit the "reset" button and to do so in a more visible platform which is unfortunately a lawsuit.

Are there downside risks? Yes, but if you have a terminal disease taking an otherwise unacceptable risk becomes a reasonable course of action.

The potential upside is that WDFW finds a backbone and concurrently the tribes back off a bit and a new equilibrium is established.

If they elect to not participate that opens up a number of positive permutations moving forward to include our own permit.

Or it could become the nuclear option and result in a number of established "norms" coming under review politically and in the courts.