I think we're about to see if WDFW is above the law. It sure doesn't look good for the "new" WDFW Director, does it? Doesn't look good for the AG who wants to become Governor either.

I am dumbstruck by WDFW and AAG Grossman's refusal to comply. They have cast their votes in opposition to open government quite clearly.

Is their any reason why we shouldn't lobby the Legislature to abolish WDFW and just start over with a new fish and wildlife agency that is designed to serve the public that funds it?

Nothing to see here.
Just move along and collect your pension.

Such BS.

Tug, you've left out the WDFW Commissioners who fired Director Unsworth and hired Director Susewind and who ostensibly provide guidance on policy matters to the Director for his implementation.

So, the question I have is whether AAG Grossman has been actively engaged with the Commission and whether the actions by WDFW personnel are consistent with recommendations by AAG Grossman as blessed by the Commission?

If the answers are YES then the Commission is a part of the problem and Salmo's rhetorical question needs to be seriously considered. If the answers are NO then it is incumbent upon the Commission to hit the RESET button and fulfill its responsibility and do so quickly. If they can not or will not step up then Salmo's question comes into play.

As of this morning there is still no agenda posted for the 14-15 June Commission meeting in Port Angeles: https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/commission/meetings/2019.

Part of the solution or part of the problem??

Crisis of confidence in the offing!!

Pretty evident they think they're above the law. Let's hope they're wrong about that.

Larry and Salmo,

We (citizens) politically supported the WDFW Commission structure after combining WDF and WDW in the mid 90's. Good concept, but overall hasn't worked worth a darn. The Commission is insulating the agency, not directing it by good policies. The staff hasn't been held accountable, or has it? I agree that Salmo's question/suggestion to consider abolishing the structure of WDFW. Too many leaders of organizations have continued to wring their collective hands when faced with any possibility of the Commission structure being abolished. Well, where has it gotten us? I think it's about as bad as it gets. Incredibly poor service. Incredibly poor biology in fisheries management. An arrogant staff that thinks they're above the law, and an agency attitude of "We'll get even with you for disagreeing with us.".

The unfortunate thing is that the solution will involve a massive house-cleaning. The Nuremberg Defense of "I was just following orders" should have no standing because if you were willing to break the law because your boss told you to then I think personal integrity is lacking. Like Salmo suggested, a whole reset.

But, do you want to trust this Legislature to come up with solution? In a short time-frame? Look how long McCleary took and that was just money and not a whole organization.

I like having a citizen Commission. The Commissioners seem accessible, although I think they made an egregious mistake following Grossman's advice to approve non-transparent government - the secret meetings issue. I am equally bothered that citizens are paying to sue WDFW to comply with public law, and that we, as citizens, are also paying WDFW's legal tab trying to avoid complying with public law. Talk about a screwed up situation.

I worked for a couple public agencies. I advised people to never request information from me through formal channels - called FOIA for the feds. Doing so automatically kicked in a 2-month delay while the paper trail process played out. I suggested that they just come by my office, door's open, and they can go through my file cabinets anytime; just put things back where they belong. Only exception was attorney-client privileged info. I cannot fathom why any public servant opposes open government.

Well, I've been a little bit skeptical as to whether this suit will help or hurt, but I just donated. Give 'em hell!

I always shared information/provided data. But, I know of situations where a WDFW employee had to threaten to filed a PDR in order to get data from another program.

To suggest an alternative to Salmo's suggestion of the Leg abolishing WDFW and creating a new agency, how about putting the resource management functions (seasons, stock assessment, etc) into DNR and the HPA activity into DOE?

The Commissioner of Public Lands is an elective position and they way they manage the resources could make for some interesting elections. Should also cut down on some duplication of staffing at the "leadership" level.

CM,

The Legislature was looking at combining WDFW, DNR, and Parks just a couple sessions ago. The fishing interests, including sportfishing, pushed back, thinking that sportfishing interests would become even further diluted than they are now.

I probably come across as blowing off steam, and maybe that's what it is, but the Department presently has me so ticked off on three things that I have to sound off.

Sg

Here's another idea about what needs to happen to WDFW. I voted for the merger/commission because I thought it would reduce the politics in salmon management. Oops.


Make the Director and Commission elective. Director full time and elected statewide. Commission (6) 3 from eastside and 3 from westside with six year terms. Elect 2 (one each side) every two years. Commissioners are part-time, paid same as the average legislator plus expenses.

Director is also a commissioner so there is an odd number for voting. To pass, there must be at least one vote from each side of the state.

This would make the whole agency at least sensitive to the desires of the voters.

WDFW has been so disappointing lately.

I like the idea of the Commissioners being elected, but I think the Director should be appointed by the Commissioners. There is already so much politics involved in our Fisheries, having a Director being elected would just make it worse, IMHO.

Have to disagree with you, Eddie. What you suggest is too near the situation we have now. Let's elect the Director and the Commission, but shrink the Commission to a manageable size.

Tug, my biggest concern is that the electorate will have no real clue of the complexities of the issues facing salmon and all the other critters that WDFW has jurisdiction over. Therefore we will end up with the one that "sounds" best or "looks" best.

If they were all elected offices who would give the most money to the campaigns? The cowboys, the indians, the processors or the buyers/sellers?

Sure as hell wouldn’t be those holding fishing licenses!

Guys,

I'm an idealist, I guess. You're likely right about the financial contributions, etc,, but I'm looking at our present situation at WDFW and it is worse than bad. With an election we could still vote them in or out of office. As an example the Department of Natural Resources has an elected head, and she was not elected by the timber industry.

I, too, am appalled by recent seemingly irrational decisions by the WDFW Commission. That said, I am also more than old enough to remember why the current Commission format was established and how that occurred.

It is my opinion that there is no perfect system and that the current problems are more with some of the people appointed to the Commission than with the format itself.

By the way weren't we to have had a new Commissioner appointed by that guy (too busy) running for President some time in January?

Broodbuster makes the more salient point. The elections would go to whomever "buys" them, and recreational angling would come in dead last, just as it does now. I agree with Larry that there is no perfect system, unless I was named Fish Czar, of course, but the current format is likely among the best. We just need a governor who makes quality rather than political appointments, and a Senate Nat. Res. Comm. that timely confirms the appointments.

Meanwhile, we get the fishing we fight for.

How do you feel about the Commissioners being full time employees. Not elected, but appointed and receive full time positions.

There should also be a better vetting process, and video interviews of the candidates made public before the appointments. That would give us the opportunity to communicate to the Governor's office on who we feel is the most "qualified" candidate.

Maybe special employees of the Natural Resources Department. (Certainly NOT WDFW since they have supervision over the Director of WDFW)

The Fish and Wildlife management is far too large and convoluted to be overseen on a part time bases.

If the Commissioners were appointed terms, with pay, I believe they would have the time to do a better job.


If that was the case, then things might be run a little different.

As to "come into my office to see information" I know a former WDFW employee who actually wrote up a PDR to get data from another WDFW program.

That might be more egregious than the Feds' local situation where the EPA has told NOAA/NMFS that an expensive (and I suspect less than timely) permit would be required to dispose of a whale carcass via the deep six method........but that it is entirely okay to tow a carcass to a beach and let it decay.

Why not just leave the whales there? Lots of critters eat them.

There?? Well, that would have been somewhere in Elliott Bay (floater before being towed to Whidbey Island), beach park in Everett before being towed to Camano Island and then the floater out of the Admiralty Inlet shipping lanes towed to the Port Hadlock area - all with the approval of NOAA/NMFS.

We went through a summer about 8 years ago with a dead whale having been towed to the beach just south of us. Pretty nasty in the heat of summer and a prevailing south wind.

But the point of my having mentioned it was the non sequitor requirement of the EPA for another Federal agency to need a permit in order to sink a dead whale. Sorry, simply doesn't pass the whiff test.

It doesn't. But anyone who has worked in Gubmint knows that agency's don't talk to themselves very well, much less outside entities.

Well the dance continues and it appears WDFW is sucking wind. Take the link to the website and you can hit the legal fillings links at the bottom of the latest update.

June 18, 2019 Update #4- Judge rules discovery and video depositions can move forward in the Advocacy's legal challenge to WDFW's co-management season setting practices

In the second round in Thurston County Superior Court, Judge Price set the structural process for the Advocacy legal challenge to North of Falcon season setting by WDFW. At the same time, he heard arguments regarding discovery and the Advocacy's ability to use video tape in depositions of WDFW staff.

WDFW argued that video taped depositions of individual employees such as Rules Coordinator Scott Bird were too hard on WDFW staff. Mr. Bird provided a declaration to the court explaining his concern over a recent correspondence between WDFW's Mike Grossman and Advocacy's Joe Frawley discussing the legal ramifications for someone altering the record. The idea "....I could be involved in criminal activity is very offensive and threatening to me." He added "This has upset me a great deal".

Advocacy President Tim Hamilton responded in opposition to Bird's declaration with an explanation of how WDFW depositions were required to lay out all the facts stating " WDFW will simply not disclose how the seasons are set and what occurs behind the scenes between WDFW, the Governor's office, the tribal co-managers and the federal agencies."

Judge Price then set the path forward noting that the Advocacy would be entitled to discovery over the public records related to the North of Falcon season setting process and be allowed video-taped depositions of WDFW staff.

The Bird and Hamilton declarations are available for view of downloading on the Advocacy website under Legal Issues HERE. http://thfwa.org/legal-issues

This the guys latest for those that want it down and dirty. Best to link to the site to get the full flavor and links.


IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
IN AND FOR THURSTON COUNTY
8

9 TWIN HARBORS FISH AND WILDLIFE ADVOCACY, a Washington nonprofit
10 corporation,
11 Petitioner,
12 vs.
13 WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH & WILDLIFE, an agency of the State of
14 Washington,
15
Respondent.

) No. 19-2-02319-34
)
) DECLARATION OF TIM HAMILTON
) IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S REPLY
) FOR MOTION ALLOWING VIDEOTAPING
) OF DEPOSITION PURSUANT TO
) CR 30(b)(8)(B)
)
)
)
)
)

16 )
17

18 TIM HAMILTON declares and states as follows:
19 1. I am the president of the Twin Harbors Fish & Wildlife Advocacy (hereinafter
20
“THFWA”) in this matter, I am over 18 years of age and competent to testify, and make this
21
22 declaration based upon my own personal knowledge.
23 2. I have served on the Willapa Bay Ad Hoc Committee, which was an advisory
24 board organized by Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (“WDFW”), and currently sit as
25 an advisor on the Willapa Bay Salmon Advisory Committee. I have attended over 30 meetings
26
during North of Falcon (“NOF”) and presentations to the WDFW Commission. I am familiar with NOF and how WDFW presents NOF to the public.





- 1 of 4

SCHEFTER & FRAWLEY
Attorneys at Law
1415 College Street SE






1 3. I reviewed the WDFW website after Mr. Grossmann forwarded the links to
2 Mr. Frawley. There are some materials related to NOF on the WDFW website, but much of
3
the relevant information cannot be found. There are no records related to the WDFW
4
5 meetings with tribal representatives or the federal government. There is no record of the
6 negotiations, and none of the likely thousands of communications that result in the fishing
7 regulations are on the website. None of the dozens of model runs (WDFW uses large Excel
8
spreadsheets to determine the impacts of the various fishing seasons) could be found. In
9
short, almost none of the meaningful information is on the website.
10
11 4. I attended the NOF meetings this year. No meaningful input was given,
12 although I was not at every meeting across the state and it is possible that other meetings
13 were conducted differently. We were told by WDFW that the tribal co-managers had refused
14
to negotiate potential seasons and that, as a result, WDFW did not have any potential seasons
15
16 or regulations for the public to consider. Really all that had been done was WDFW
17 presenting its forecasted salmon runs, which it emphasized were not yet agreed to by the
18 tribal co-managers and therefore not official, and then overlay last year’s regulations to this
19 year’s forecast. It was again emphasized that the seasons would be different than last years,
20
so this process is largely meaningless (the public has taken to referring to NOF as the “dog
21
22 and pony show”). This continued until after the NOF meetings were over. My
23 understanding, although the public is not allowed at the meetings, is that WDFW and the
24 tribal co-managers reached an agreement (the LOAF) in California after the last of the NOF
25
meetings were over.
26
5. In the past, I have attempted to obtain meaningful information related to season settings from WDFW. In 2016, I filed a public records request pursuant to the Public





- 2 of 4

SCHEFTER & FRAWLEY
Attorneys at Law
1415 College Street SE






1 Records Act. It is attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” As the Court can see, I was attempting to
2 gain information related to the interaction by WDFW and the tribal co-managers. WDFW’s
3
responses to the request are ongoing almost three years later. I last received a response on
4
5 May 29, 2019 and was told to expect another response on July 8, 2019. Attached hereto as
6 Exhibit “B” is the latest transmission from WDFW. Most of the information received is
7 irrelevant and does not disclose any interaction between WDFW and the tribal co-managers.
8
Instead, WDFW appears to be attempting to bury me in paper by submitting thousands of
9
pages of documents such as redd counts (salmon spawning beds) for pink salmon and other
10
11 related, but not all that helpful, information. Nothing has been produced to answer the
12 specific questions, such as internal policies, why there is a deviation from the 50/50 split of
13 harvestable salmon required by United States v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312 (W.D. Wash.
14
1974), aff'd, 520 F.2d 676 (9th Cir. 1975) (the “Boldt Decision”), or an explanation of how
15
16 the 2016 List of Agreed Fisheries was arrived at.
17 6. In September of 2017 I again attempted to obtain information from WDFW
18 related to fishing regulations. I emailed Mr. Bird requesting information in response to a
19 notice he published with the Code Reviser. Attached hereto as Exhibit “C” are emails
20
between Mr. Bird and me. As the Court can see, Mr. Bird initially ignored my email for
21
22 roughly two weeks. I followed up with him, and he informed me that he did not have any
23 information related to the proposed rule (concerning commercial fishing) and indicated that
24 he was going to treat my request as a public document request under the Public Records Act.
25
I never heard from anyone concerning the purported public document request and never
26
received any documents from WDFW.

7. It is impossible to get complete information from WDFW. I have tried public





- 3 of 4


SCHEFTER & FRAWLEY
Attorneys at Law
1415 College Street SE






1 records request, requests to the rules coordinator, information communications, attending
2 commission meetings, and serving on advisory committees. WDFW simply will not disclose
3
how the seasons are set and what occurs behind the scenes between WDFW, the Governor’s
4
5 office, the tribal co-managers and the federal agencies.
6 DATED this 12th day of June, 2019.
7

8

9

10

11 TIM HAMILTON
12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26









- 4 of 4


SCHEFTER & FRAWLEY
Attorneys at Law
1415 Colle

If you didn't do anything illegal, then there is no problem. It kinda sorta looks like WDFW told him what to do, which he did and then found out it just might not comply with law.

Is Mr. Bird an attorney?

No he is the rules coordinator for WDFW. His responsibility as I understand it, is to maintain the public record or how a WAC / law is created. Sorta who, where and what happened to create a rule / WAC. I think the who and how bit is the part that is in question as back room deals out of the public eye are illegal.

Sent them another donation to keep up the fight.

I find myself thinking that this lawsuit just might be the most important interaction between citizens and WDFW ever. What possible reason could WDFW have for not sharing public information with the public? Unless WDFW is a scofflaw. The irony of course is that we get to fund both sides of the conflict. This bugs me in the same way that the scumbag Legislature is using taxpayer dollars to defend itself from the public disclosure lawsuit it's involved in with the news media.

"The irony of course is that we get to fund both sides of the conflict."

One has to decide if the desirable outcome is worth the cost. To me, it is.

Coming down on the side of WDFW, at least a bit, is there are a couple of things to consider.

The APA does not fit with the salmon season development process, probably in a variety of ways. Timelines is one. The probably biggie is that the APA was crafted (can the Leg really craft anything) to develop rules where all those affected by the rules (must follow them) are part of the process. NOF, PSC, PSMFC are not that as other states/countries/tribes are involved who are not subject to the rules. So the process needs fixing, and that is the job of the Legislature. Which they will get to right after they fix school funding, mental health find, infrastructure, their own open-records, etc.

Another, and perhaps the one that brings the most heartache to recs is that WDFW has not and will not clearly articulate "why" things are done. In my experience, the agency has been reluctant to educate stakeholders about Boldt, Hoh V. Baldridge, ESA, and so on except when forced. A prime example is that before he was Director, Phil Anderson was asked why recs could not have a C&R steelhead fishery on the Hoh the last half of April. NI fish were available, the agency admitted that. His response is "We got the fishery we wanted". He refused to identify "we", or why "we wanted it" or why it was acceptable. There may have been good reasons. But, as folks here note on Stilly trout, the reasons don't pass the red-faced or smell test.

Opening the meetings carries a risk to the tribes for inter and intra-tribal airing of issues. It carries risk for WDFW as to why the Tribes are appeased. It carries risk to NOAA as to why they roll over as they do.

And, if anybody takes the fall, it will low down the food chain like Mr. Bird.

Seeing as there is nothing involving national security this seems like a very small obstacle. The feds created this mess and seem to have directed WDFW and the state to break their own law by conducting secret meetings with the tribes.

As Salmo has mentioned elsewhere, it is not the job of WDFW to make NMFS's job easier. Apply for their own permit and all this [Bleeeeep!] might become irrelevant.

If you absolutely need to buy a car, and I am the only source for that purchase, do you think you'll get a fair deal?

I think you got it CC. WDFW had trouble getting timelines to match / merge so the NOF process was designed. The problem there is the decisions were already made & finalized before a citizen could even comment. Take GH and the 26th you can go to the R6 office to comment on the CR 102 ( WAC for seasons ) but it is already a done deal on the FED register and up on WDFW's website as to be adopted the 26th. NOF is smoke and mirrors and violates about every standard for open government I know of.

I agree with the full statement BUT its really chaps my lips, the part I colored in red......The Legislature is elected by the people of this State and should be "fully accountable to the general public"....they should do "business above board" and it shouldn't take a PDR to find out what and how the business is getting done.

Gawd, I am defending them again. How can you have meaningful NI input if you have to have Tribal/Canadian/Alaskan agreement?

Certainly open meetings of some sort. The timeline needs to be extended, which probably means negotiations occur in the summer or fall before the next year's seasons are agreed-to. Anybody ever laid out the actual time line here as to when things must be done by and compare that with a negotiation process? NOF is smoke and mirrors for the public, but what is a "legal" option?

Carcassman,

I think the critics of the NOF process are mainly asking for transparency in government, as the law requires. That could be achieved by having CCTV at the sessions. I don't know if that's available in real time, but I can watch a WDFW Commission meeting later on the same day it happens.

Sg

Hard to envision why in this day and age of technology real time airing would not be easy to accomplish. Having real time visibility would go a long ways in meeting the goal for transparency in the process and would seem to minimize concerns regarding potential manipulation of an official record taped for later viewing. That said, those those proceedings should concurrently be recorded for future access by the public.

Exactly whose ox is WDFW trying to prevent from being gored by the position it has taken???

I know the position Mr. Bird holds within the Department but was wondering if he is an attorney; that is, has a law degree and maybe passed the Bar in Washington State.

A little research into the WA Bar Association found a Scott A. Bird licensed to practice law in WA and who lives in Oly and whose profile shows his office type as Government/ Public Sector: https://www.mywsba.org/PersonifyEbusiness/LegalDirectory/LegalProfile.aspx?Usr_ID=000000019714.

If as I suspect this is WDFW's Scott Bird it may in part explain his professed concerns about being deposed. You know, after having raised his hand promising to tell the truth.

If he is an attorney that will make the whole thing more interesting and the stakes higher.

Transparency is fine and a good goal because then we know what is going on and why. But I think part of the suit concerns the fact that there is no meaningful input, that the regs are agreed-to without input from stakeholders.

While nice to know just why we were sold down the river, I think the process is supposed to allow meaningful input to prevent such sales.

Each goal on its own is laudable; one just more difficult to implement while the other is a "no brainer" in terms of complying with the law and its underlying intent.

Way back when I first got involved in this, I was at a commission meeting in Vancouver. Mike Grossman gave a presentation to the Commission on the legal bases as to why they don't have to allow public oversight in the NOF negotiations. There was no mention in that argument about Gov't to Gov't nor any voicing of tribal objection. It was why the state does not have to comply with the OPMA!

During a break, Ron Warren approached me and suggested that if they video taped the negotiations, subject to editing, would I go away? Of course, a video tape of the meetings would be no more transparent than what we have now. Especially if it was edited. So you can imagine how far I told him to shove that idea.

It's curious how the state can live stream the made up "plenary sessions" that they created as a ploy for transparency, and can't stream the negotiations.

The fact of the matter is, the state does NOT want the public to know the facts. They have not followed the law and they have not managed the resources in a manner that is ethical or conducive to fair, just and sound principles.

They created the smoke screen of "public participation" over time and are now so deep in the well of secrecy that even some staff members have no real idea what truth and transparency is. There are senior staff members that honestly believe that the public has no business knowing how they do things, and that is the greatest issue of all.

OK folks this is a double post as I did this for GH on the FTC thread for Chehalis Basin folks and this is interesting. If you are following this thread on the Advocacy legal challenge on transparency you will be amazed at this one. In a effort to blunt this WDFD changed how you can track the WAC / APA process. If you go to the website and type in RULES in the search box you get current rule making page, then click on the one you want Grays Harbor, Willapa, ect to get to pages with a absolute document dump. This link is right to the current rule making page.

https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/development

Several letters I have written to Mr. Baltzell appear in the dump. I did not post them as I did not want to put out his responses directly without permission. Now that there public I guess I can. I wrote this letter earlier this year.

Mark,
We are now into mid-February, so I am wondering if any headway has been made with the Skokomish Tribe in opening the river. Also, you mentioned in the past that the state was thinking about getting a long term Chinook management plan that is approved by NOAA fisheries. This first came up on 2016 and was discussed at that time, but apparently not pursued That was almost 3 years ago, so I am wondering why there has been a delay. I realize is was limited and for a one time exemption, but the tribe was able to present a passable option in less a very short time. My guess is that it has not been a priority, but if not, then why.


Thanks


Mark L ....

and this was the response.>>

Hi Mark

At the risk of being too optimistic, I can tell you that our new Director has had 1 meeting with the Skokomish and is slated to have another this week. He has stated to them that fishing on the river was one of his priorities. We should have an answer to the question by mid-April when the North of Falcon meetings wrap up.

The state, the co-managers and NOAA have been working for the past several years on a new Chinook plan. There are just a couple of outstanding details to wrap up and I am confident that a new plan will be submitted by the summer.

Hope my brief answers help.

Mark


I have written follow up letters asking for a explanation and any additional details about the opening or what happened, but have gotten no responses.


What I did not see in the dump was this earlier email. It could be in there, but if it is I did not see it. I suppose it may have been too early to be considered part of this years NOF comments.

Sent: Wed, Dec 26, 2018 9:59 am
Subject: Skokomish River Update
Good Morning Mr.......,
Thank you for your inquiry as to where things stand with regards to returning a sport fishing season on the Skokomish river. I can relay to you that this is also a priority for our new Director and our Agency. As you know we are getting ready to enter our yearly process to set salmon seasons called North of Falcon (NOF). Our new director, Kelly Susewind, has already had a face to face meeting with the Skokomish tribal leaders and both sides have agreed to meet on this very topic again in January, prior to heading into the NOF negotiations. Please know that the department is exploring all of our options as we move forward in time to not only re-establish a season on the river, but ensure opportunities for years to come.
As to what happened last year, I can tell you very plainly that tribal leadership from all of the Puget Sound Treaty Tribes agreed that the Skokomish boundary dispute would not be discussed during NOF. They indicated that if the State discussed a fishery in the river or made any attempts to put in a season , then the tribes would walk away from negotiations without an agreement on fishing seasons for everyone. Leadership at the Department felt it was better to keep talking and working on a long term solution rather than risking not having salmon seasons for anyone who fishes in and around Puget Sound.
I am more than happy to try and answer any further questions you may have on this manner. Please feel free to contact me directly at the information below.

Mark E Baltzell
Washington Dept of Fish and Wildlife
Puget Sound Fisheries Management
1111 Washington St SE
NRB 6th Floor
Olympia, WA 98501
Office : 360-902-2807
Cell : 360-688-3410
Fax : 360-249-4628
Email: mark.baltzell@dfw.w.gov

What is also missing from all the rule making emails and comments is any input or emails that may have went back and forth between the tribes and the state or the legislature or Govenor. Should these have been included? I am trying to figure out what they are attempting to do by putting this out there now.

Also notice,that in the data section showing agreed upon expected returns, there are numbers for all the salmon except Chinook. I don't know if this was a mistake, if I am just missing it, or if it was omitted on purpose.

Too bad we don't have video of the tribal threat to walk out.

So this what is known as a paper blizzard and rather large one in a rather unusual way because if you had done a PDR it would have taken years to provide this much information. This information was always supposed to be available in the APA / WAC process. Second thing look for what is missing. Things such as staff to staff and policy staff to regional. Agency to tribe & tribe to agency. Communications to PFMC, NOAA, and others in the harvest process.

Most of what I have seen so far is citizen to staff one on one or some cc's. To understand this weak attempt at compliance it is stuff feeding the process that other than presentations few citizens would know are in the mix, which is WDFW's intent. How can you comment support or position if you do not know it is in the mix. Then the main issue, all these folks are participating in the process lacking knowledge of the full extent of the conversation with and to staff let alone what staff is communicating with other entities.

Simply put smoke and mirrors / dog and pony show is the intent of the WDFW NOF process.

As eyeFish would say, "GDITMMM!"

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with [Bleeeeep!].

This should be interesting. During the NOF process in Montesano for Grays Harbor I heard staff tell a former Adviser if he wanted information talk to his Adviser. Now the Advisers are appointed by the Director and represent only themselves, in other words he was stonewalled. So read below and consider this. If you filed a PDR on the 2019 CR 102 WAC to obtain information it will take up to three years to obtain the information, if only three years. In other words WDF&W want you to comment on the 2019 WAC ( LOAF ) that was already agreed to with the Feds & Tribal Nations without the information on how, when, where, & how the decision was made. Now that is a violation of the APA ( WAC process ) just about anyway you look at it, let alone a total disregard of citizen rights under the law. WDF&W evidently feels laws do not apply to them.



June 30, 2019 Update #5- Advocacy files a second suit challenging WDFW's secretive season setting processes.

The Advocacy has filed a second suit in Thurston County court in its ongoing legal battle with WDFW over its secretive salmon season setting processes. This time the issue is over the Department's performance related to the Public Records Act. This action rose out of WDFW's refusal to maintain a rule making file available for view by the public as required by state law. When the Advocacy notified the Department a team would becoming to view the file for the season set in 2018 and the process underway in 2019, WDFW took the remarkable step of claiming the Advocacy or other members of the public had to file a Public Document Request (PDR) to view the rule making files (see June 3, 2019 Update #3- below).

In the latest filing, the Advocacy notes for the court that it had already taken that route by filing a PDR request three years ago for the records of the "List of Agreed Fisheries" (LOAF) adopted behind closed doors in 2016. Three years later, the request is still open and the Advocacy is still receiving a monthly trickle of records (mostly irrelevant) that were created and known to the Department years ago. Accordingly, the second suit alleges WDFW intentionally and purposefully delayed delivery of some records and refused to disclose other requested records.

The Advocacy believes this second suit will prove a valuable tool to educate the court on why the public can not wait three years for WDFW to process a PDR to access information for participation in the North of Falcon season setting process when the comment period set by WDFW is due to expire in three months. We also believe the combination of the suits will show all that WDFW is setting salmon seasons in a manner that is contrary to the Open Public Meeting Act (OPMA), Administrative Procedures Act (APA), and the Public Records Act (PRA).


The latest suit is available for viewing HERE http://thfwa.org/legal-issues
[color:#FF0000][/color]

Now this is new wrinkle and a substantial departure from the past. Quite the little dance going on with the legal compliance thing. They must have figured out something was a bit wrong and are trying to get a quick fix.




Meeting Announcement and Agenda - July 12, 2019
Natural Resource Building – 1111 Washington Street SE Olympia, WA 98501
First Floor – Room 172


.

1:00 PM

North of Falcon Rule Presentation and Approval - Briefing and Decision
Department staff will brief the Director on the proposed North of Falcon fishery rules noticed in prior CR 102 filings with the Code Reviser. Those proposed rules open and regulate 2019-20 fisheries in four groupings: Willapa Bay Commercial (WSR 19-11-075); Grays Harbor Commercial (WSR 19-11-076); Puget Sound Commercial (WSR 19-11-126); and Statewide Recreational (WSR 19-11-130). After briefing the Director, staff will request his decision providing for final adoption of those proposed rules.

Staff Report: Kyle Adicks, Intergovernmental Salmon Manager

Isn't doing this now, asking for the Director's approval to adopt the regs, kind of an admission that the process wasn't legally kosher?

Also, if they are asking to adopt the regs under what legal authority are they fishing now?

Or are those minor, insignificant details and I missed the "Big Picture"?

There are more than a few questions this announcement raises.

Has the Commission "delegated" its authority to adopt rules to the director? If so, then their argument that they are not subject to the OPMA goes right out the window.

How can the pamphlet be published if the rules are not approved?

Why are they now making such a show out of public notification of the rules adoption? Where was this announcement for the 2018-2019 or before seasons?

Is this a "public" meeting?

Have the Commissioners signed off on the rules?

This is all very strange indeed, and smells of an attempt to pull the wool over the judges eyes in an attempt to show how transparent they are.

It seems like some kind of formality that was previously on autopilot.

Does this mean that all of the fishing done since 7/1/19 has been actually illegal as there were no underlying regulations? If that's the case, does one need a license to fish in a fishery that is not legally open? Or, if WDFW does not have to comply with state law to make the rules, why do we have to comply with their rules?

Would someone clue me in on what is happening here? The new (July 2019) rules have not been adopted? A short explanation by one of you "in the know guys" would help out a hillbilly like me.

Hillbilly 2 to hillbilly 1 .......... yeup you got it !

It's a court case everybody plays hard ball and no one show their hand. And you'd think the sky was falling because someone got subpoenaed. Remember sports were once in the NOF meeting with the tribes. And if it hadn't been for a couple of bad apples shooting there mouth off about the tribes. We'd still be in those meeting today.So sportsmen better hope thing go well in these court cases.Because if they don't it might be years before we fish the Puget Sound again.

Just so you know "it wasn't sports shooting their mouths off, it was NT fishermen".....

A GH Gillnetter to exact.

This one is a bit different as it is not one person it is any staff will be put under oath and perjury will get them nailed. To have staff deposed is always the greatest fear of any agency.

That is a quantum leap in logic. Exactly how would losing in court on this issue negate the Boldt decision and for practical purposes how would it change the current relationship between the State and the treaty tribes at NOF?

Allowing "observers" on the condition that they cannot comment, interject or make ANY statements on the negotiations seems pretty ridicules, don't you agree? Why not just have a couple of empty chairs in the room and call that "fully transparent management"?

It's interesting to note that Commissioner Carpenter has stated that even tho the Commission is ultimately responsible for the negotiations, the tribal members don't even want them in the meetings!

I suppose your threat that we better fall in line, or else is the reason there are some out there that think some fishing is better than no fishing. Well, wake up and smell the coffee boys. Your fishing IS being taken away, a piece at a time.

Some tribal fishermen are actually negatively influencing the fisheries by their hard headed stance that they alone control the fisheries and are damaging the trust and cooperation that is needed to truly work together to fix the problems facing our salmon and Orca's.

Yes, there are bad apples on all sides of this issue. But to ignore the hand that is extended in cooperation out of spite and a feeling of superiority just breeds more contempt, distrust and anger.

I hope that sooner rather than later, the tribal elders will put their foot down and say "enough is enough" We need to stop this stupid Us vs Them mentality. It's childish and damaging. The tribes won the right to fish, I certainly know that the majority of NT fishermen realize that, and support the law. By refusing to open ALL aspects of fish management to the public, tribal leaders are as responsible for the decline of salmon as anyone. There silence is seriously counter productive.

My point here is do sportsmen risk the chance of not fish for years in Puget Sound. Just because someone doesn't like how thing are going in these NOF meeting. In the end stirring the Sh!!! pot might not be the best thing for sportsmen.Because in the end someone might have to lick the spoon. PS NT gill netters buy hunting & fishing licenses to so there sportsmen too.

Okay, now you've led us to conclude that you are apparently speaking for NT commercials. Nice to have that little factoid out in the open - that is, transparency.

But more importantly you still haven't responded to my question of how a plantiff's loss in court would change the current dynamics and lead to the State having to further "lick the spoon." Oh, and in case you haven't noticed that spoon is already pretty clean having been licked for years now.

We're already licking the SH!! spoon.. it's being held by a few members of each tribe (NWIFC), freshly coated with each NOF fiasco.

I for one am tired of its taste...

Well now that is 100% right and 100% wrong. Mixed stock fisheries are going to fall to the Orca's issue so terminal, both tribal and NT will benefit. Commercials in mixed stock areas are the least selective but WDF&W will do about anything to keep "their " commercial fishers and not just let the tribes do commercial. In the end commercial mixed stock will be toast and Recs will face many more restrictions outside terminal areas.

To say that all fishers, both tribal and non tribal, should not have full access to information on how and why decisions are made is complete BS. We have this mess because the information is withheld which breeds mistrust and anger with no solution. The bad guy here is the process not the public.

100% Agree!
We MUST fix the process, and in doing so, we must overcome those that are obstructionists.

Larry B: If i remember correctly this case is about the public open meeting act and public records.If you were to win the case it might open the door for sportsmen to participate again in these meeting. If that were to happen the tribes could just not show up.Leaving the state holding the bag and having to file for their own permits with NOAA. And that process could take years. Larry you just assume i was speaking for NT commercial.When all i was doing was pointing out that their sportsmen too.

The State could sue the Feds under equal protection clause in the Constitution. There is no reason why NOAA can't provide review in the same timeframe other than they don't want to.

Or...
Maybe we need to sue the BIA to force them to justify why they need to put a check mark on the Tribes permit applications before sending it on to NOAA.. Remember, it's that extra federal agency step that forces NOAA to fast track the tribal permits. Without the BIA step, we are all on the same level playing field as far as waiting on NOAA.

NOAA is the one that is short-changing the NI side.

Problem is, one has to sue. One has to spend the money. WA has decided not to take the tribes to court, so I doubt they will.

While we are on the subject, has anybody ever asked is WDFW has made a push for a fishery, the Tribes oppose it, and WDFW wins. Or is it always lose-lose? Can WDFW tell us what the current style has gotten the NI side that the Tribes did not want to give?

I have a racial handicap that blocks my opportunities from fishing in common with others.

Repeating the same drivel over and over is not even close to being the same as justifying one's assertions. So, again, please explain exactly how a possible loss in court would alter the Boldt decision or change the current relationship between WDFW and the treaty tribes at NOF?

If the state loses, then they are faced with a law saying open meetings and Tribes saying closed. This is just the first step. Does state law apply to WDFW?

If the tribes refuse open meetings, so that the state can comply, then one will have to go to Federal Court to establish a process. Or, they each set their own seasons independently and make NOAA act.

There is more to the suit than just open meetings. There is the whole process of how the regs are developed and adopted and the whole public disclosure piece.

Larry B. I don't think i said anything about changing the Boldt decision. I was merely saying that a win by the Hamilton Brothers. Could hamper the open meeting policy. Resulting in the tribes unwillingness to participate in the NOF meeting.

Boldt basically states the sides must negotiate and then leaves the option to bring disputes that can not be negotiated back to the court. The state just refuses to bring them back to the court. I believe it is possible that if the courts rule that the process must be open, they could also rule on that the tribes must allow it. Maybe I am wrong, but I believe the State could even pull the Tribes in as a party to the suit, so that a ruling could be made either way. I doubt they will, however, as both sides do not want the negotiations open. That said, the Tribe's could basically just not negotiate in good faith, leaving the state only with the option of agreeing, going to court or not doing any thing and punishing the non-tribal fishery. My guess is that they would claim there is nothing they can do and convince the State legislature to pass a rule basically exempting them from all the normal rules, making the court decision void. In between they would punish us by doing not suing and just allowing the non-tribal side to miss a year; or agreeing to whatever the Tribe wants and use it as a justification to going back to the way things were. The lie is in the fact that there is a path to solve this entire problem, but they refuse to take it.

You are right - you didn't say anything about Boldt but your posts did clearly state we could be off the water which would seem to be contrary to Boldt. Now, if the State were to win it is my belief that nothing changes; status quo prevails and we continue to lick the spoon as you described it.

If, however, the State loses and NOF must be open or the State cannot legally participate that could take us back to several years ago when, without an agreement, NOAA/NMFS could not/did not issue a permit. There has been lots of speculation of what might occur to include the possibility of the State actually taking the promised action of initiating a request for its own permit. Risks? You bet. Possible long term benefits for the State and particularly its recreational salmon fishers? Absolutely.

Larry B. I agree we are all speculating the out come of a court case that is far from over. I'd say that a positive out come is all we can hope for a this point. My two cents.

It will be interesting to see how the dynamics change IF Jim Anderson gets his appointment to the commission. Having done some digging on this guy, it seem's pretty clear the reason he got the position (over someone who is extremely well qualified) is his relationship with the Tribes and the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.

I wonder what the play is here, given the lawsuits. He certainly is an advocate for Tribal/Commercial fisheries, so is he being brought in to start working on a solution should the State lose?

Bay Wolf. It look like the two new commissioners will be on the Wolf committee to start out. Putting Jim Anderson on the fish committee probably isn't the best move at this point in time,but i definitely see him there in the future.

If WDFW loses the lawsuits, there is nothing the Commission can do about it because the suits are about violating State Law. Change (allowing the continuation of secrecy) would have to come from the Legislature.

The Commission's role, should they accept it (like the old Mission Impossible intro), would be to ensure the agency comply with whatever the law is. That would likely require a Director of the Week until somebody finally changes the culture.

Has the subpoena happened? Anybody have any results?

There are a number of legal steps that do not happen instantly. Things are hanging around discovery at the present if I recall correctly.