Links in press update do not work ( names at the bottom of the press release ) so this is Advocacy the website. http://thfwa.org/legal-issues The press release is front and center and the links work, just scroll down and click on the name. The Advocacy is challenging the legality of agency processes and deposing staff under oath. These links are to the testimony of the Director, Ron Warren, and agency staffer responsible for the WAC process.

Enjoy!



January 20, 2020, Update #7 WDFW Director and senior staff deposed

For a general understanding of the litigation and the steps underway in the case Twin Harbors Fish & Wildlife Advocacy v- Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife, review the previous updates shown below.

The time consuming effort to establish the record for the upcoming trials in the cases that allege WDFW violated the Opening Meeting Act (OPMA), Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and the Public Records Act (PRA) during its North Of Falcon (NOF) salmon season setting in 2018 and 2019 is continuing on track. As for documents, WDFW is required to produce the documents with each page stamped with an individual number. Todate, WDFW has supplied thousands of pages of documentation to the Advocacy legal team and the discussion is underway as to which documents are to be selected into creating the trial record. If the two sides are unable to decide what goes into the trial record, a hearing is set and the presiding judge decides.

The second form of evidence comes in the form of testimony. In anticipation of calling witnesses to the stand during upcoming trials, the Advocacy has completed depositions of WDFW Director Kelly Susewind, Assistant Director Ron Warren, and senior staffer Kyle Addick. The depositions todate have been cordial and polite as each of individuals were simply asked to explain their roles in how seasons were set.

Since WDFW has announced a schedule for NOF in 2020, the Advocacy has been repeatedly asked if the litigation would have an impact on this year's season setting. The answer is any changes would be up to WDFW. The trials underway are expected to be completed in the spring and summer of this year as the 2020 seasons are in final stage of adoption if not already adopted.

Those who would like to read the depositions to gain greater understanding into how salmon seasons in WA are actually set can select the name below to be linked directly to the transcript of that individual's testimony.

Kelly Susewind

Ron Warren

Kyle Addick

On your website, the link that is supposed to take you to Ron Warren's deposition takes you to Kyle Addick's deposition. I thought that perhaps Kyle's link would take you to Ron's deposition, but it takes you to Kyle's as well. Ron's is not available.

Thanks I will let them know & they said thanks and fixed it. Link works now.

Ron is still trying to hide.

Frawley's a pretty sharp guy.

Interesting read. When Warren was describing the E-reg process it reminded my of my first one. Tribal bio called in with test fishing results first thing in the morning. I hand-carried the approved e-reg to the Code Revisor at about 3 PM that afternoon. I was a Bio 3. Since all the bios and above were a Public Hearing I did all the drafting, carrying around, directors approvals. About 6 hours from start to finish. Now? How many days?

Some very interesting information is brought out in the depositions.

Did anyone else catch the timeline on the 2018-2019 season setting?
The whole charade that WDFW and the Commission has perpetrated that "the public" is an equal partner in the process is completely blown apart.

And unless you happen to be one of the "good ol boys" in the fish mafia, your comments and suggestions ARE NOT even considered. Truly, the PUBLIC NOF meetings are window dressing to create the illusion that recreational anglers have any real say in the process.

The other thing is J.T. Austin from the Governor's office. Director Susewind alludes to the fact that she attends almost all the Tribal meetings, and anything the Department puts forth is run through her. I think his words were: "the tribes have faith in her". What that translates to is:
The WDFW Director takes his orders from the Governor (through JT Austin) on anything that has to do with the tribes. So we see, yet again, the Tribes have undue influence over the entire fish management program. And let's remember, The Commissioner's serve at the Governors pleasure, and they in turn are supposed to oversee the Director. Do you see the connection here, and WHY things are always falling the way they do?

I know I'm preaching to the choir here, and many of you guys know this stuff already.

Sorry I reread the links, and don't see what you're getting at BayWolf. I actually see that they keep the people who ask to be kept in the loop...in the loop. The Adicks deposition is very informative, probably the best of the 3, as it spells out the process over the entire year from forecasting to end product. While I don't know all the exact legal check boxes, after forecasts are made, weak stocks are identified by the two sides, the haggling begins. Daily conference calls each PFMC meeting w/ multiple user groups (ocean/willapa/Puget Sound groups) is super useful (albeit I wasn't aware of, so better advertising of that tidbit should have been used).

If you could spell out what you mean BayWolf I'd be interested to hear it, either here or a PM as I see this as a complicated process that the state seems to keep folks in the loop as things progress almost as best as possible.

Rojoband...don't drink the koolaid that WDFW is serving.

Please, read this article which has first hand knowledge on what transpired at the 2018-19 NOF. You will see that "Public" input and full transparency in negotiations is a charade.

Article on the Hotel Backroom deals at North of Falcon.

The process is broken....

As Baywolf and others have noted, the process used by WDFW to determine and set the regulations does not appear to comply with State Law. That is what the case is about. Basically, is the process legal?

Regardless of the complexity, if it isn't legal then a defense in court to a citation is that "this WAC is not legal, so I couldn't have violated it".

WDFW has known, for decades, that the rules regarding WAC adoption and the process they use do not fit together.

I think the difference between your argument and Baywolf's is that you are pointing to a technicality in the law, which may very well be found to be violated. Baywolf is making the leap that this technicality is resulting in a conspiracy.

Your conclusion being true (perhaps) does not make his true.

Technically is maybe a bit off. The NOF process was designed to appear to comply with APA process. Appear is the word that is the crux. Reality is the NOF process never met legal standards nor was it intended to but it was intended to appear it did. As time went on and things changed it simply ended up farther from compliance and just got way to obvious and was challenged. The only time WDFW changes is when a judge says " you shall ".

Have you ever found technicalities to be exploited for honest or forthright reasons? Whether it's a conspiracy or not, it's clear the Co-Managers aren't being straight with us. That needs to be fixed, whether you think so or not.

I think that most believe that the Co-managers are being straight with the State, but the State is not telling us (recs) what is going on and why.

I, for one, do not believe that the Tribes, (realistically, there are no Co-managers) are being honest with the State. After all what is the State if it is not the populace? I also do not believe that our State government, and pretty much all government entity's that are involved are being honest with our recreational fishers and hunters.

After being told that they essentially put a nix on opening the Skok, but refusing to discuss it, I have little faith that the Tribes do not use their perceived leverage to their advantage. There is no reason to hide unless there is something to be hid. My gut feeling is that the State does not want to face the facts at times, and it is easier to blame the tribes. The Tribes use this secrecy and desire not to be accountable to be able to negotiate, at times, to their advantage. In the end, it works to the advantage of the State in that their mismanagement and lack of environmental stewardship are not broadcast, and to the advantage of the tribes in that they can, at times, swing things to their advantage. The general public, in the end, is taken advantage of and lied to, which is just fine with most politicians.

Pathetic.

At least Gov Lowery got some drinking and loving done.

Our current gov is just wasting our air.

Conspiracy
NOUN
a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.


North of Falcon WDFW / Tribal Negotiations:

A group who meet behind closed, locked doors, void of any audio or video record and without any public oversight. Have one party use threats, either direct or implied, to coerce the other party into agreements that emphasizes harvest over conservation. Then, keep the details of the negotiations secret from those who are directly affected.

This I suppose is what you meant by my “leap”?

There are of course, the legal questions that the actual process bring, and those are what are being addressed in the lawsuits.

Full and complete transparency throughout the entire management process is what ALL the citizens should expect and demand from ALL the parties involved in the process. Rather than be open and honest, they choose to hide and deceive. Rather than be a force for bringing everyone together to work collectively, they choose to continue to pit one group against the other so they can control the narrative.

Who is “they”? Just ask who has the most to gain from keeping things secret?

The latest salvo. I found Miranda Wecker's paper interesting. Cannot wait for Pat's. Use the Advocacy link to read the documents as a couple did not work.

January 25, 2020, Update #9 "Summary Judgement" filed in legal fight over North of Falcon salmon season setting

On December 24, 2010 WDFW filed a Motion For Summary Judgement requesting the court to stand down one of the claims in the Advocacy complaint alleging WDFW is violating the Open Meeting Act (OPMA) during its North of Falcon (NOF) process wherein salmon seasons are set behind closed doors out of the view of the public. On January 24, 2020, the Advocacy filed a "cross motion" response to WDFW's motion. The dueling motions are currently scheduled for argument before the court at 9 AM on February 7, 2020 before presiding judge Erik D. Price in Thurston County Court in Olympia.

The response filed by the Advocacy legal representative Joe Frawley of the Olympia firm of Schefter & Frawley requests the judge rule to reject WDFW's motion and enter a ruling in favor of the Advocacy view that WDFW has violated the OPMA. The move by WDFW does not effect the other legal complaints alleging WDFW also violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and the Public Records Act (PRA).

The response filed by Frawley is a very strong document worthy of reading. It explains how the 9 member Fish & Wildlife Commission was established by a vote of the people in 1995 with the direct intent of increasing public transparency over the management of fish and wildlife in the state of Washington. To the contrary, argues the Advocacy, the NOF process utilized by WDFW has evolved to the opposite at the expense of the public and demise of the resources.

The motion cites from the depositions conducted of WDFW senior staff earlier in the process. Former Chairperson of the Fish & Wildlife Commission Miranda Wecker provides a declaration attached to the Advocacy response that provides a history of the demise of the public transparency in the NOF and the public's growing dissatisfaction with the NOF process as the fish populations continue to decline. Pat Patillo, who recently retired from WDFW and was the lead negotiator for NOF for a number of years also provided a declaration confirming that the public can not meaningfully participate in NOF.

The documents are available for viewing on the Advocacy website at http://thfwa.org/legal-issues. The Advocacy's cross motion is also directly linked https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SPgBKdrbLqkywoIvSv1tmfW0fz6zG8UI/view The declaration of Miranda Wecker is https://drive.google.com/file/d/1g9QV_fGcIWdZdotuti00RcEYUrbYNGl1/view The declaration of Pat Patillo will be available on the website Jan. 27. The voter's pamphlet for the referendum passed in 1995 by the voters is https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JpMDoEg2y23s9O9qKFf85FcQgCrWv7_q/view WDFW's motion for summary judgement is https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nUL_OuytBb80e9vxD_IbsM5ElS84t2lr/view

When one files motions, two complete copies have to be filed with the court and an additional copy provided to opposing counsel. As you can see from the graphic below, Mr. Frawley had a day on Friday that resembled a UPS delivery man. To say this effort to open doors for the public in North of Falcon requires commitment and dedication is truly an understatement.

I just read Wecker's declaration. Dayum, she has it figured out. Not only will the current system not recover depressed stocks, it will destroy "healthy" one.

We had the privilege of working with Miranda briefly before she left the Commission. I have to say it was an honor to have had the chance, and what a loss it was when she left the Commission.

We just published the full update on the "Open WDFW/Tribal NOF" Petition. The update includes working links to Miranda's Declaration as well as all the other documents.

Please visit the Petition, and consider signing if you have not already.

It is not only right, it's the LAW!

Here is the link: Open WDFW/Tribal North of Falcon Meetings

My wife grew up on Hood Canal, she had a front row seat on the damage the state allowed to happen to the canal by commercial fisheries. How the bottom trawlers pulled up all the ell grass that still today has not come back and ravaged bottom fish populations, all for a buck without regard for the future.

So, while searching for some documentation I came across this article. It seems to be a from a book of some sort put out by the Kitsap Sun back in 1990 but couldn't find any more reference to it. The link is:

mediaassets.kitsapsun.com/permanent/hoodcanal/chapter7.pdf


It's an interesting historical perspective of fishing and fisheries management in Hood Canal. In my opinion this just shows the state fisheries management has learned nothing from their past mistakes. They seem to have always taken the side of commercial fishing and recreational fishing just seems to be an occupational hazard to them.

If memory serves, Hood Canal was a "preserve" for salmon with no commercial fishing allowed until Boldt. At that time, the tribes with U&A inside the Canal could begin fishing. In an effort to maintain the commercial net fishery and comply with Boldt, there was a concerted effort to increase chum production; chum being a commercial fish with little rec interest. There were quite a few chum facilities built during that era.

Hindsight suggests that might not have been wise.

When Harry headed up hatcheries he was asked if he could find additional opportunity in Hood Canal. So he ran through the production abilities and brought forth that substantial Chum production could be attained with little cost. So it was green light and off they went but as this was happening he also asked the question " shouldn't we figure out harvest first ? " The response from the harvest managers was nope we will figure that out later. I do not think they ever figured it out judging by the results.

Back then, a salmon was a salmon was a salmon. Hatchery fish were "no problem", they were the same as wild fish.

Chum nd pink are really cheap to raise as they need very little food for a huge amount stocked. Cost/benefit is through the roof. They don't need year-around water, and a bunch of other advantages. But, harvesting down to the hatcheries' egg needs starves the local streams of nutrients.

One thread that ran through the entire article in the Sun was that we could somehow solve all our problems (Indian vs. non-Indian, commercial vs. sport fisheries) by simply modifying our hatchery programs. As it turns out, nothing could be further from the truth.

Another big lie throughout the article was that the commercial fisheries in the Canal were managed to protect natural populations. At the time the article was written (and continuing to this day with only the changes caused by the Endangered Species Act), the only populations that were managed for natural production were Hood Canal coho. All the natural Chinook and chum populations were considered secondary, meaning what ever happened to them was based on management for hatchery escapement (i.e. all were harvested at hatchery rates that are not sustainable in natural populations). Obviously the listing of P.S. Chinook and Hood Canal summer chum forced a modification to that approach.

At first, Boldt's decision triggered disagreements between the tribes and state. Parties relied on the courts to settle disputes over the allocation of specific runs.

"We don't seek third-party resolution as often as we used to," said Austin. "We realize we can cut the baby in half as well as Solomon if that's what it comes down to."

"A lot of professionals were hoping things would end up as they have," he said. "The acrimony and the fighting have ended and the professionalism has increased."

A feeling of goodwill kind of just came along," said Lampsakis, "because people on both sides realized that they could sue each other forever or sit down and work things out."

....

Things that make ya go.... HMMMMMM?

When you go to Court, the decision is made based on case law. Which, in the case of Boldt, would mean sharing is 50:50. When you sit down and "negotiate", you can agree to anything.

Oncy is right about intentional over harvest of wild stocks. WDFW and the Tribes agreed to a management plan for PS. One of the foundations was that every stream would have at least one (1) species managed as wild. This was to ensure that habitat was protected. (ok, that was th concept). Skagit and Stilly/Snoh were all wild, the rest had as few as one.

Interestingly, the Green was managed for wild Chinook. Hatchery coho and there were no chum and pink. Then, because of the presence of unmarked hatchery fish, the escapement was lowered because they couldn't hit the initial one. And called it MSY.

But, but.....they are saying things are just great. HMMMMMMM!!

Depends on which side of the argument you are on.

That was a good reminder for me Carcassman. I was certain that all the Chinook in the South Sound Region of Origin (everything south of the Snohomish system) had been declared not viable for harvest management purposes in the initial PS Management Plan of 1977 & 1978, but that was not the case. You are right. (I actually got out my old "Blue Book" to check.) The Green River, the system with the mothers of all hatchery Chinook, was still considered a viable natural population. All the Chinook in the rest of S. Sound were also considered viable natural populations. Only Bellingham Bay and Skokomish River Chinook were declared non-viable right off the bat, a term the co-managers quickly got rid of because it made people (rightly) believe that they didn't care about these natural populations. The rest of the decisions dealing with population viability came later with the development of formal or informal regional management plans.

The problem with the Green is that without Chum or Pink all you had left was Coho and Chinook. One had to be viable. Since there was already a huge NI net fishery for the SS Coho, that probably left the Chinook as the only thing even remotely viable. Took care of that soon enough. Interesting that the Green has, since then, developed some really good chum and pink runs (that were non-existent). Are they now classified as "viable"?


I also remember some of the early arguments on the viability of other SS Chinook. They were wanted to be declared viable, but didn't want to mange the fishery to make it so. Call the viable but still fish the **it out of them.

But, NOAA (at least used to) supports this when they set recovery harvest rates at X and actual fisheries at Y, where Y was greater the X. Don't see how you can fish harder than the rate needed for recovery (at least in theory) and expect recovery.

The sad reality is that the commercial harvest-oriented MSY mantra is so entrenched that the PST, PFMC, DFO, ADFG, NOF, WDFW, ODFW policy folks simply can't discipline themselves to the concept of capped total exploitation rates.

When I last took a look at PST Chinook technical committee data on CR tules, ESA has basically mandated total exploitation caps of ~38% during the past decade.

Actual exploitation has instead been running ~63% ! ! !

It's as if all the management folks just decided f'ESA and 38% exploitation... we'll shoot for 38% to the gravel instead.

This the link to Pat Patillo's declaration. Interesting reading to say the least. This is a MUST read for you PS folks and everyone should read Pat's declaration, The 2019 closures for Stillaguamish resulted in a net of three natural spawners.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ImDgq1VqH6md0JgHa5LDqE1N5XUooOf4/view

Interesting reading. Pulls back a few veils.

After 36 years of service that is all there is to say about the lack of transparency? One small example? Seems pretty flimsy....

Pattillo's declaration is in support of the lawsuit which is about the 2019 Season. I'm sure he has many more examples, but the focus is on what happened in that particular situation.

If truth be told, and ALL the instances where they public was left completely out of the loop were to come to light, I believe it would be a novel rather than a declaration.

The Chinook Harvest Management Plan comes to mind, where even the Commission was blindsided, and resulted in a Directorship change. I guess the lessons of that didn't sink in with Dir. Susewind...at least not yet.

First, it would be the equivalent of a Russian novel....very dark and very long.

As far as Director Susewind 2019 was no doubt a steep learning curve. I certainly hope that having encountered the beast once he will be better prepared for the next battle.

Seems to me that Susewind's stint at WDFW director is already over. He just doesn't know it yet. Letting Warren call the shots got Unsworth fired and Susewind has doubled down and made the exact same mistake. Its just a matter of time until the chickens come home. . .

Perhaps I am wrong and the commission will get dissolved instead of the director getting fired. However, the status quo cannot continue-- dramatic change will occur pretty soon. The WDFW management paradigm and public input process is so utterly broken there are not sufficient words in the English language to describe the ineptitude.

Maybe this lawsuit will be the catalyst for that change.

It matters little who is Director at this stage of the game. It is the courts or the Commission appoints a Director that comes in and fires every staffer not covered by the union contract and does a hard reboot. No other options exist.

Leg moves the Agency to DNR under an elected Head.

We warned Susewind regarding Warren shortly after the announcement that Warren was moving into the new position of Director of Fish Policy. Of course, we had hoped that Chair Carpenter would have spoken to Susewind before that and let him know that Warren had a BIG part of the Chinook Harvest Management plan that cost Unsworth his job. Warren also had a hand in Phil Andersons departure. Doesn't take a genius to smell where the stink is coming from. I can't believe that Warren went unscathed after the firing of Unsworth, but he did, and he's still doing the dirty deeds in the dark!

Sorry, wrong thread

Re-reading Kyle Adicks deposition, I picked up on this. This is questioning about the "Public Meeting Notice" email that was sent out last July announcing a public meeting to witness Director Susewind signing the CR103s (This is our rules). Now we all know that the List of agreed fisheries (LOAF) was already done and set in stone long before this was signed, and that the Director signing the 103s is only an administrative formality. But what I really find amazing is the thought process that went into planning this "Open Meeting" . Read Kyle's response and you will see. The senior staff at WDFW essential admitting that they are fully aware that the way they do business is against the law, and they attempt to cover it up with this stupid Open meeting signing ceremony instead of looking to correct the real issue of secret meetings!



·7· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·(Exhibit No. 8 marked.)
·8· ·Q· · It's my understanding there was a meeting announced, it
·9· · · · looks like, July 10.· The meeting, it looks like, occurred
10· · · · on July 12.· I've handed you what's been marked Exhibit 8,
11· · · · which is the announcement from Fish and Wildlife, an email
12· · · · announcement, announcing that meeting.· Do you recall that?
13· ·A· · I do.
14· ·Q· · Whose idea was it to have that meeting?
15· ·A· · I don't recall it being any one person's idea.· It was an idea that we had kicked around to have.· We typically give the director a final briefing as he signs the 103s but to do
that in a notice to open public meeting to minimize the risk
of seasons being invalidated based on ongoing litigation.

[Bleeeeep!]!!! Thats what they call full and complete TRANSPARENCY?

Plain and simple...if this isn't the straw that breaks the camel's back--what then is??

I personally believe the Fish and Wildlife Commission should be dissolved. If it worked as allegedly intended and gave sporties a real voice, I would certainly feel differently. As it is, the Commission delegates all final decisions to the Director of WDFW. That effectively neuters us. We'd be better off without the proxy in place, because we could take our gripes straight to the Director's office instead of wasting our time chasing squirrels.

Public forums were once a legitimate means for citizens to actively influence important government decisions. In today's political era, where the politicians do whatever their contributors tell them to do (we don't contribute to campaigns like the other stakeholders, which pretty much entirely explains why we get $hit on all the time), citizen involvement is little more than an annoying formality.

We do make significant contributions. Licenses.

It has reached the point where some sort of full deal meal re-organization has become imperative. With the Commission under control of the Gov and AG while they both give priority to the Tribes, nothing but the status quo will continue. I'm in favor of scrapping this train wreck and bringing forth some new ideas.

There is enough firepower within the "regulars" of this forum to add to the equation and carry this through...and that alone would be the ultimate example of "Transparency".

I find that position more than a little disingenuous given the general perception that politicians in this State are owned by monied special interest groups.

I think we agree completely, as regards lobbying, Larry. I didn't mean to imply there was anything fair or righteous about the fact that special interests own the government; just stating the fact.

I'm pleased that you recognize that, but I don't think WDFW does (or, at least they aren't acting like an agency that works on behalf of its funding stakeholders).

The point being that buying licenses is a direct contribution to WDFW in support of the manner in which they operate.

Indeed. I want to kick ny own a$$ every time I buy my license, but I still do it.

I consider it an unintended contribution to keep me from breaking the law! Same as getting a driver's license.

Yes, we are close in many of our perceptions.

However, regarding the suggestion to eliminate the Commission my point was that eliminating the Commission under the pretext that the alternative(s) would be more attentive to our concerns/issues ignores why we voted for a Commission in the first place.

Recognizing that many of our fisheries issues are extremely complex it is unrealistic in my opinion to expect Commissioners to know each and every detail (think NOF) but I do expect them to have outcome expectations and to evaluate outcomes against those initial expectations to achieve better results in the future.

In short, to clearly hold the Director and his Staff accountable.

The Director, and by extension the staff, have to accountable. The Commission should have a clear set of expectations. If not specific fisheries/hunts, then transparent processes and clean explanations as to what we have for the year.

They need to be doing their regulations legally and if that means going to the Legislature asking for specific exclusions to the APA, etc. But, clear, unambiguous, and with teeth if the Director fails.

I spent 30 years working for a Commission run agency. I was consulted in 1994 about the Initiative to set up the Commission here and was supportive of it based on my experience.

One of the key differences between WDFW and my old agency is in the Commission selection process and trying to make sure politics is as removed as possible. My old agency was a subset of a larger Department. While the Governor was tasked, with the concurrence of the Senate, to select Commissioners the Commissioners were under the supervision of the Executive Director of the Department.

A key component, I think, in the selection process is posted below:

(c) Of the voting members appointed to the commission, there shall not be a difference of more than one person between those members affiliated with any major political party

When the office of Governor changes parties, then the make-up of the Commission swaps over with any new appointments.

I don't want to see the Commission dissolved. They are our best hope for the long term. I don't want to see WDFW absorbed into another agency and have to depend on an elected individual to oversee WDFW operations.

What I would like to see, for a start, is a full-on review of the WDFW structure, a clear outline of roles and responsibilities starting with the Director and going on down the chain available for public review. With that in place, then the Commission can provide the direction needed, operating through the Director, to establish a clear and streamlined chain of command.

Personally, I think electing the Commissioners wold be a good start. Nine Commissioners, one chair, Six year terms, staggered with the election of 2 every two years and three (the chair) in one of them. Half the Commissioners must reside in Western WA and be elected by voters in those counties. The other half in Eastern. The Chair is elected statewide.. I can see that much of the time decisions will be close to 5-4, but each Commissioner will have to defend their votes/positions to the voters.

It will also mean that we will have to find candidates, vote for them, etc. Also means an increase in costs to better pay them. But, it will make the Commission, and by extension the Director, publicly accountable for actions.

I too favor having the WDFW Commission. I want to keep them as Governor appointments. While the democracy side of me likes the notion of electing the Commissioners from the various regions of the state, the reality that 97% of the state's population doesn't buy either hunting or fishing licenses makes me think that those elections would be like the local vote for my district fire commissioner or other lesser offices. Almost none of the electorate knows these people, and they never are going to inform themselves to the degree of casting an informed vote. Therefore, having the Governor make appointments from nominations supplied by the public - sport hunting and fishing orginizations, conservation groups, and yes, commercial fishing interests fulfills the Legislative intent of the Department's mission.

I too favor keeping the commission as is. An imperfect solution but can not think of a better option.

But would like throw out an additional idea. We are at the end of 25 year experiment in agency organization. At the time of the merger of the old Department of fisheries and Department of Wildlife there was an intense discussion whether a centralized structure (DF model) or regional structure (DW model) was most appropriate. The decision was for the DF model. Pretty clear that has not worked!

To be fair there really is not a magical structure that solves organization problems; it is people. Each of the organization models have their strengths and weaknesses and for the managers their task is to recognize those weakness and develop strategies to minimize program impacts. From my view the current structure the major weakness is communication based. The communication failure is both within the agency and between the agency and its public. Within the agency the communication problem can be distilled down to two basic issues. One is too wide of chain of command and disconnect between the resource (and those familiar with that resource) and the ultimate decision makers (centralized).

The public communication problem is a bit more complex but may not be in-solvable. The trick is to develop trust that those most familiar with the resource can effectively with the public and how best to structure that communication.

Curt

Wait a second, I've seen you constantly post that the decisions are currently influence by those with the most lobby $$...but the solution you are suggesting means now those same groups would be able to get their lackey's in these spots through the electoral process! How does that jive with your other posts? It seems to pose an even bigger problem, as the current population of WA is 7.5 million. The last WDFW license sales report shows ~394,000 freshwater fishing licenses and 48,000 saltwater licenses, and 171,000 combo licenses. That is ~613,000 licenses which equals 8% of the WA population and this assumes people who buy a license to fish for trout/crab/razor clam/groundfish/etc. all also fish for salmon & steelhead and care about the politics of them. They likely don't. The ability to influence elections in metropolitan areas will be 0-null and so the rural districts will have the opportunity to decide on WA commissioners that may be more fishing/hunting friendly vs. other interests friendly, but then you have to consider if the economies of rural areas (logging/agriculture interests) would also not put lobbying $$ to elect their own lackey's. I don't see this as a solution.... let alone the general nature of this thread assuming that this case will do anything about the structure of the commission. It will either by a slap on the wrist to WDFW to do things in the way the judge interprets them, or the judge will decide they are doing enough in the way of crafting rules. Electing the commissioners will end up mean the commission gets stacked with professional lobbyists from interests with deep pockets.

Until the commission no longer defers to the Director for final decisions, they will be completely useless to our cause. We've seen plenty of examples where the commission went to bat for us, only to have the Director put the kibosh on the whole deal and restore the status quo to know this is true.

Keep the commission if you think we must, but be assured that any time you spend before them is wasted time until they are given real, actual AUTHORITY over policy. Absent that, they are only there to take the heat that belongs under the Director's a$$.

There really isn't any way that a part-time Commission can be up to speed and involved in day to day management decisions. They have to trust their Staff, but have to remove those that abuse that trust.

In this situation, the whole NOF/regulation/ESA permits they must aggressively balance the scales. If that takes the Courts, fine. If they can't be balanced, then they need to clearly let us know that we are in a rigged game.

Sorry CM, I have to go along with Rojo regarding electing the commissioners. This is the exact opposite of trying to keep politics out of natural resource management. The winners will be the ones with the big $$$ and the political power. There is a lot of money in farming, cattle, timber, noncomsumptive use, even PETA that could come together and be part of commission coalition that may not vote along with the hook and bullet crowd. The commission and director relationship has its biggest shortfall as the weakness in specific direction to the Director from the Commission. The Director is given authority to make decisions under broad policy themes. Consequently, its murky trying to figure out who to blame for missteps. One can knock the old Dept of Fisheries system of a Director with full authority but at least one knew who to thank or blame. Chain of command and decisions weren't murky at all.

I see a point being missed. If the Commission adopts a policy, priority, or anything really it is not legally binding on WDF&W. It can be but the Commission puts it in a WAC then it is binding and the agency can be sued if they fail to follow it because it is law. The Commission can require an action or priority but minus a WAC it is not binding on WDFW.

May I suggest a change at the top, seems to me policy and fisheries have been on the decline since Ron Warren came into play. The quick fix is to give him a golden parachute and get some fresh blood in there. This agency needs fish people at the top that have no political ties or history with the department.

You are correct and thank you for pointing that out. That whole issue of the force and effect of Commission Policy/direction was touched upon during the most recent Commission meeting. Should it take putting a Policy into the WAC such that the public can sue? No!

What it takes is a strong Commission to monitor the implementation of its direction over time and provide course corrections when needed.

I disagree, at least in part. Having staff with no PNW background and experience is, to my mind, a bad thing. One needs familiarity with the resources; needs to have touched them. They are more than simply photons on a computer screen or simple numbers. I think you also need to have an understanding of the Boldt Decision (what it actually says), ESA, and so on.

It needs to be learned experience, not simply told to you by someone preaching the Company Line. Getting rid of just Ron won't help; there needs to be a much more systemic housecleaning that starts at the very top.

I agree with this. It's been a while since I've read the enabling legislation, but I think it is the Commission's job to establish and set policy, and through the Director it is carried out. If the actions don't meet policy expectations, then the Commission provides instruction to the Director or hires a new Director.

Unfortunately, my observation over the last ten years or so is that the Commission has a poor record of keeping their collective eye on the ball in terms of Director/Staff implementation of policy/guidance. With that laissez-faire reality it falls to us stakeholders to identify failures and "encourage" the Commission to put the ship back on course. More often than not it seems like that effort is akin to herding cats.

But it is still better than dealing with the Legislature and their short term goals.

It had been a while since I read it, so I went back and read through RCW 77.04 (Department of Fish and Wildlife). Indeed, it places a lot of authority (and the service of the director) in the hands of the commissioners.

I said earlier that the WDFW Director had the power to overrule commission guidance, but that doesn't appear to be the exact case. Rather, in section 020, the Legislature says that "The commission may delegate to the director any of the powers and duties vested in the commission." The word "may" is key, because it implies a choice. As long as I've been somewhat involved in this stuff, I've not seen the commission make a single rule or step in to overturn department recommendations. I suspect they delegate most of their powers to the director, possibly because they feel (likely rightly so) that department staff should be better-equipped to handle most issues than they are. Either way, it's clear that the commission has tended not to exercise a wide range of their vested powers over the years, whatever the reasons. When they don't act, the director does.

You can get a can of worms opened with that. The Commission can & does delegate but it cannot remove requirements like the Open Meeting Act, APA, and several other technicalities. It is the difficulty faced around "delegate" .

Speaking about the Commission "Doing their Jobs", we just sent an open letter to the Commission asking them to do just that. Given that we now have a Commissioner who served on the Northwest Indian Fishing Commission for over twenty years, and the fact that a lawsuit over OPMA violations is barreling down on WDFW, we thought it at last time the Commission do their job and end locked doors and coercion in the North of Falcon.

Here is a link so you can read the letter: Letter to Commision: DO YOUR JOB!

This is a reminder:

The hearing on WDFW's motion to stand down the OPMA Violations lawsuit is scheduled to be head this Friday, 7 Feb at 9 A.M at the Thurston County Court House.

It's an open hearing so anyone who would like to sit in is welcome.

THFWA's attorney will be asking Judge Price to reject WDFW's argument and to find in the Advocacy's favor that WDFW has indeed violated the Open Public Meetings Act.

This will be the fist time the Judge in this case will hear arguments from either side.

So let say the judge rules in your favor that WDFW violated the Open Meetings Act in 2019 and consequently the regulations adopted are invalid. The judge tells WDFW they have to comply with the Open Meetings Act in the future and hence have to open up the NOF meetings to the public by video or whatever. A ruling in "state" court doesn't apply to the tribes so they don't have to have open meetings. WDFW has open NOF meetings without the tribes? What is that? They won't attend if they don't have to. They could just say good luck we're submitting our fisheries to BIA for a permit and you guys are on your own (like in 2015?). That worked out well. I am just trying to understand the end game here.

It is not just about open meetings. It is about with actually complying with how the regulations are adopted. If I understand correctly, if WDFW did not comply with APA and did not follow the law then none of the regulations were legal. Which could mean that people who were cited for violations have pretty good grounds to appeal. But a lawyer might know that better.

Open meetings are just part of the issue. Complying with the law is another as well as providing public documents.

Well stated, CM. Accountability and compliance with the law are right up front in this suit.

First, I want to be clear. THIS IS NOT MY LAWSUIT, NOR IS WASHINGTON CITIZEN SPORTSMEN A PART OF THE LAWSUIT. It is one of three lawsuits filed by a public citizen and jointly by The Twin Harbors Fish and Wildlife Advocacy. So in answering, I'm giving my opinion, not speaking for the litigants.

The lawsuit concerning the OPMA is about process. It alleges that the process that WDFW uses to create rules is not in compliance with the intent of the OPMA. Since you cannot sue for something that hasn't happened, it has to be over past violations.

If it's found that the Department's process is in violation, it's not up to the judge to tell them how to be in compliance, it's up to WDFW attorneys to do that.

If the Tribal/WDFW meetings are part of the violation, then it will rest on WDFW staff and it's attorneys on how to be compliant, and how to address the Tribes demands. And yes, the NWIFC could very well decided not to participate at all, which would open another issue that WDFW will have to deal with.

It's interesting to note however, the lawsuit is not about the Tribal/WDFW meetings in specific. It's about the process from start to finish. It's about the creation of a LOAF without proper public oversight, and then using the LOAF for permits and WAC creation.

As one jaded former employee told us. "If WDFW is found to be in violation, and are told to open the meetings. The way they will probably handle that is to have open meetings that are theater, like the public NOF meetings are, and just do the real meetings by telephone where the OPMA doesn't apply."

My hope is, through exposing the process for what it is...a sham, maybe, just maybe it will crack enough daylight that we might end up with a process where we (non-tribal citizens) are somewhat equal in the process. One can hope.

On the other hand, if it goes to a point where WDFW starts a fear campaign that," if we push too hard on the tribes, they will walk away and all is lost for us...no fishing." And the recreational fishing community collapses like they did during Coho gate in 15, well, we will probably end up with business as usual, where we are at the mercy of Tribal agreements in order for us to fish...but on much less fish....over and over and over....

Lots of scenarios if the state is told negotiations must be open to the public.
I believe that under Boldt and subsequent decisions, the tribes cannot walk away. They could show up and not negotiate in good faith but that would be open to the public. A simple refusal to negotiate should put them in contempt and force the courts to address the issue. Of course, that would require the state to have to sue or simply close seasons and not do any thing like they threatened to do in the past. Hopefully the state would put forth their objections or the Tribes will weigh in with their objections, and the current court can give their opinion to the issue of the tribes sovereignty, giving direction to the parties and any future courts that address the issue. It would be real hard for the State to say they have no options if the current court rules against them and lays out directions.

Should that occur (again) the State should immediately go to NOAA for a temporary permit while the State prepares and submits for its own permit. Something they should have done years ago.

That still misses the point of the suits. It is not about how NOAA approves the fisheries. This is an entirely different question. The suits are about the nuts and bolts of how WDFW actually makes the RULES that govern the fisheries.

The whole process is flawed. But suits are dealing with how WDFW actually complies with the laws regarding how they set rules. Do the WA laws have meaning, or are they treated like the Constitution?

How did the hearing go today?

So no reports? Did the state violate the Open Meetings Act or not? Is the judge going to dismantle the NOF process and eliminate the Director and/or commission? What about forcing the tribes to adhere to the open meetings act? I thought there was a huge amount riding on this? And this was the summary judgment date...so?

Only had a brief discussion but state got the summary judgement. That is the bad part but the other part is that whichever way the judge ruled it was going to be appealed by the other party. In a nutshell a trial would have cost both parties a substantial sum of $$$ so the summary judgement saved both sides a ton of legal cost. So now it goes up the court ladder on strictly legal interpretation of the law.

It’s my understanding that THFWA will publish an update sometime in the near future.

Wait, so the state completely WON? So the judge ruled they followed the rules correctly?

My understanding of appealing things is that the next court looks to see if the first court erred on the rulgin, they don't "relook at the legal interpretation of the law"....so if things were lost at this level, the only way to get things overturned is if the first court egregiously erred. Plus, doesn't the appellate court have to accept the appeal? Maybe this will all be answered in the update...thanks.

In general, there are a number of grounds on which a party could appeal a summary judgment ruling, which could include that the trial court erred in its interpretation of the law or that it erred in deciding there were not genuinely disputed factual issues.

Here is the update and I will fix the links as they do not C&P. I found both Curt Smitch & Phil Anderson's declarations very interesting. In fact I think Curt unloaded on the bit Anderson put with the words " Once you buy into the assertion mere mortals cannot understand the process " If you participate in the NOF process this must reading.

On February 11, 2020 at 3:13 PM Tim Hamilton <THFWA@comcast.net> wrote:


February 11, 2020
Judge "fast tracks" Open Meeting Act suit

On February 7, 2020 Judge Erik D. Price heard motions for summary judgement filed by WDFW and Twin Harbors Fish & Wildlife Advocacy.  The judge decided not to consider the large fact file in the case but rather to grant WDFW's motion. 

The question the judge focused on was whether or not the Open Meeting Act applied to the North of Falcon (NOF) process used by WDFW to set salmon seasons in Washington State. He recognized the lack of legal precedents on the issue.  His action fast tracked the process to have the appellate court provide the answer before rather than after a lengthy trial. The Advocacy legal team is currently drafting the appeal.

While the Advocacy would have preferred he grant our motion rather than WDFW's motion, it's really irrelevant.  The purpose of the litigation is to determine whether or not the OPMA applies to NOF.  The action by Judge Price provides a means to get that answer from the appellate court without a lengthy trial.  It also allows the Advocacy legal team to concentrate on the other two suits underway under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and Public Records Act. 

An interesting factor was the filing of declarations.  The Advocacy filed a declaration from former Commission Chair Miranda Wecker and one from former WDFW NOF manager Pat Patillo. 

In response, WDFW filed a declaration from former WDFW director Phil Anderson who disputed the two declarations filed by the Advocacy.  In response to Anderson, the Advocacy filed a declaration from Curt Smitch the former head of the Dept of Game and natural resource advisor for Governors Gardner and Locke who disputed Anderson.

These declarations are an intriguing look into the history of NOF and the actions of key players.  The Phil Anderson declaration is https://drive.google.com/file/d/1x_VQdWzwN6chlSftQSGyUophSD-6vWo_/view .  The Curt Smitch declaration is https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PKJOTZOaAm6nhriYkSpTQVCW1XyxHqAl/view .

The Wecker and Patillo declarations are available under Update #9 on the advocacy website at http://thfwa.org/legal-issues . 

Some sarcasm: Why is it that Phil Anderson continues to be "the gift that keeps on giving"??

Right? I mean, he gets fired, and now, somehow is the guy they turn to to justify secret meetings!

If that doesn't epitomize how screwed up things are in the Department of Less fish and Wild-lies then nothing does!

Gotta love Phi's insinuation that North of Falcon is just too complicated for stupid recreational anglers to understand, so it's better to just keep them in the dark!

Not to distract from this thread but he wasn’t fired. Just a correction there Bay Wolf. He was one of the Directors that decided when he wanted to leave, here is a good article I recall on the issue (even has a Wecker quote): https://www.google.com/amp/nwsportsmanmag.com/anderson-leave-wdfw-end-year/amp/

But thanks river guy for posting that stuff and the update. Really interesting reads.

Your right...Directors don’t get fired...they are asked to find other employment and the announcement reads “ resigns “.

I was at the Commission meeting when multiple tribal representatives told the Commission they were very upset with “the lack of transparency “ from Phil Anderson and his decision to settle with WFC and ultimately end the hatchery steelhead program without consulting the tribal Co-managers. They added they felt they could no longer work with him.

The Commission members were not real happy either.

So, in Phil’s own words : “ Deciding when to move on is a difficult decision,” Anderson said. “But after 20 great years with the department, the time is right for me to step aside.”

Phil was the architect of the culture of secrecy that we are still dealing with today. Ironic that it was exactly his lack of transparency with the tribal co-managers that ultimately lead to his..”decision to move on”

Thanks again for all the updates. What a complete and utter [Bleeeeep!] show!

I'm just thankful that I never drifted into the anadromous fisheries arena for employment! Even though it had an attractive draw to me, I sensed a MEGA fight was brewing over this resource since the mid/late 80's (when I was still in HS). Hearing about the Boldt Decision and the "collapse of steelhead" (I think a lot of indicators caught up at the same time period; sprawl, habitat destruction, etc), witnessing firsthand the salmon collapse from the '82 El Nino, the hatchery VS wild faction build steam throughout the 90's, the explosion of the intewebz and the global exploitation of our PNW steelhead, tribal expansion with legalized gaming throughout the state with diversified business interested, plus the latest concept of "Manifest Destiny" to the PNW in the last 25 years leading to a mass implantation of population expansion coupled with local green-space degradation has all but assured (to me) that recovery efforts will never be successful.


Like a lot of us that frequent Bob's site, I have friends that are well entrenched in this "industry" (on multiple fronts). I try not to pry into their privy information, much less provide online vague clues/hints of upcoming information releases (as some do, without further detail) just to be a glory whore. I DO appreciate all the information from the folks that are directly involved in these pertinent matters though! My hat is off to you!!!

I do feel that there's been a definite abuse of power, or lack thereof, depending on which bargaining side you look at in the NOF meeting and that transparency is definitely needed. For a lot of the people involved in the process, their hands are tied to their tasks, and that must be a shiatty feeling! I too have a boss, but I have a tremendous amount of freedom and flexibility which I treasure. My guess is that the problems are closer to the top if we're ever given the chance to fully analyze the data?

I'll close my long-winded diatribe with something my old man mentioned a long time ago. I was barely a teenager in the early 80's and I was bitchin' about the Great Lake's steelhead articles in STS and that I could care less about them. Anyhow, pops said "once the Dams and Indians kill the last steelhead, then we will have to go back to the Great Lakes and get broodstock to rebuild everything". Notice he wasn't taking any blame in the demise, but he saw it coming. Then the fight would still continue...

Good reads in those declarations by Anderson and Smitch. Phil's sure is patronizing. Smitch's is a fun read, altho he speculates in regard to what WDFW and NMFS is thinking.

Here is the latest update on legal issues around the APA / NOF process. For those who follow this read the brief and declaration linked in this post. It is getting interesting!


March 1, 2020 Legal Update #11

Pubic Records Act litigation "Heats Up"

The litigation between Twin Harbors Fish & Wildlife Advocacy and WDFW has "three legs" that challenge WDFW's North of Falcon (NOF) process used to set salmon seasons in WA. The statutes cited are the Open Public Meeting Act (OPMA, Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and the Public Records Act (PRA) that create the state's "sunshine" or transparency protections of the public.

On February 28, 2020, the PRA suit came front and center with the filing of the Advocacy's brief on merits in Thurston County Court. Attached to the Advocacy Brief was a declaration by Advocacy President Tim Hamilton. Unlike the other claims, the process used by the court's to determine PRA liability does not require a trial. Rather, the decision is reached by the judge reviewing the evidence, briefs and declarations filed by both sides (WDFW response forthcoming). As a result, the outcome should be known this spring.

The brief and declaration are both worthy reads. The filings show the frustration many feel when trying to figure out what is going on behind closed doors in co-management meetings behind closed doors when seasons are set. The brief also gives those who have always wondered how NOF actually works a step by step simplification of how seasons are actually set and by whom.

The PRA leg all starts on October 2016 when the Advocacy files a public records request seeking documents and records related to co-management negotiations that resulted in the adoption of the "List of Agreed Fisheries (LOAF) which was then installed as the seasons in Puget Sound earlier that year. By January of 2020, WDFW has responded with 35 document dumps called "Phases" and confirmed this will continue on into the future for an unknown period of time.

Hamilton describes the lengthy process with "As of Phase 35, I have received approximately 10 gigabytes of document production with over 8,100 files ranging in size from 1 page to 1,000 pages each. I estimate that the page count exceeds 155,000 but have not attempted to create an exact count. By my estimation, over 90% of the documents that I have received are not responsive (given the volume produced by WDFW, it is impossible to estimate an exact percentage)."

The brief argues the Department's current practice of requiring the public to file a public records request and wait years to see what happened in NOF is not a substitute for having a rule making file on season setting available to public during the season setting process as required by the APA. Further, dragging out a public record request over a 3 plus year time frame is not "prompt" and that the Department intentionally hit the Advocacy with a "blizzard" of non-responsive records that "...allows WDFW to avoid disclosing documents it may not want to disclose." The Brief further argues "....never completing the records request allows WDFW to keep the discovery request open indefinitely and thereby, in WDFW's opinion, shielding itself from litigation based on WDFW's failure to produce the requested records." In simple terms, the process used by WDFW results in members of the public stuck with an "I can't get there from here" scenario.

A direct link to the Advocacy's PRA Brief is HERE https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Z-GJ6N6TkqYDT013ov6IG6HwiTrz7VHJ/view and a direct link to Hamilton's Declaration is https://drive.google.com/file/d/1J5Ws3vQ-gquo7Cfb9_nnBWR3UvnwkU2A/view

No surprise that WDFW's culture of secrecy runs so deep that they can't even be truthful when filling a records request.

So, we say: "We want to know what's going on in the closed door meetings"

They respond: " Trust us, there's nothing to see, but if you really want to know, send in a Public Records Request"

We do, and they do a huge paper dump of thousands of worthless records and never do provide any information that reveals anything about what happened in the secret meetings.

OH YA...I TOTALLY TRUST THEY HAVE OUR BACKS!

I think its time to contact our legislators to express how outrageous WDFW's actions are. I met with mine this fall. Time to talk to our representatives about WDFW's budget and not serving the public. Get off your butt and do this!

Ugh! Reading those declarations makes me want to puke! It is more than apparent that WDFW knows what the Advocacy wants and is doing everything it possibly can to avoid disclosure. It's hard for this citizen to fathom what could possibly be so important to keep secret. To go to such lengths in the legal proceeding, it makes it seem as though WDFW is trying to avoid disclosing videos of the Director and Mr. Warren having sex with animals or some such. There cannot possibly be any fishery or fishing season related documents that merit such extreme secrecy.

It really feels like it is time for the WA Legislature to dissolve the Fish Program within WDFW and start over. From scratch. And in full and complete compliance with the PDA, APA, and OPMA. And while we're at it, include audits of each and every WA funded fish hatchery to reveal both its costs and documented returns to the citizens of WA state so that objective evaluations and decisions can be made whether to continue their operation going forward.

I agree with what you said, Salmo. What if we went even further. How about changing our statutes/constitution to make the Director of Fish and Wildlife elected? Make it similar to DNR, so that citizen/voters can have direct say on how their natural resources are managed. Too far out? Hell, could it be any worse than it is now?

Tug, my only issue with having the Director being an elected position is that he or she would then likely be the hand-picked lackey of the seafood buyers and processors. That's where the money behind commercial fishing interests comes from, and because of AK they have a lot of it.

Salmo,

To me it seems obvious why the Dept is going to such lengths to avoid disclosure and transparency.

WDFW and our co managers know that the harvest is not balanced between tribes and Sportsfishing/commercial anywhere close to the Boldt decision and subsequent decisions. ESA further throws a huge wrench in the spokes of attempting fair harvest balance.

If truth comes out, it will be a legal nightmare both the co managers wish to avoid.


That's my working theory. Its a cover up.

It's apparent that the Commission is unwilling to find any resolution to the issues of secrecy. It's time for everyone to got to the Governor and the legislature in mass.

Sky Guy,

Harvests are not balanced according to Boldt, but we've known that for years. There are practical reasons for that, and it's legal so long as the co-managers agree to it. And yes, ESA does throw an additional wrench into the salmon management soup; we know that too. So I don't think it's a harvest cover up. I'm sticking with the sex with animals hypothesis until I see clear, cogent, and convincing evidence to the contrary.

Sg

Well, they certainly f%#k salmon and steelhead on an annual basis...

It is certainly very appropriate to ask the Commission about what recent efforts they’ve taken to bring real transparency to the process. After all, they have supervisory authority over the Director, so ultimately THEY have the authority to fix this.

Perhaps it’s time they answer the question of “Why aren’t these things fixed”?

Every citizen has the opportunity to address the commission for three minutes at the Commission meeting. And ever citizen who wants change should take the opportunity to tell the Commission.

I think if the director was elected, certain candidates would be getting a lot of campaign funding from special interest groups....
Read that as casino money, just like many other elected offices in this state.
SF

As this quagmire gets deeper and deeper, there is one factor that continues to baffle me, and likely a good many of you reading this.

With ongoing questionable spending, a budget deficit of approx. some $25mil, significant decreases in license, permit and tag revenues while trying innovative, attractive "extras", a newly hired Director who was told in advance what these cash flow problems entailed...

WHY ARE THE POWERS-THAT-BE BURNING HUGE SUMS OF TAXPAYER REVENUE, AS WELL AS STAKEHOLDER'S TRUST AND CONFIDENCE...

Producing reams of irrelevant paperwork at the going rate of expense to deny us the rights and resources granted to us by law?

I thought misuse of public funds was a crime--so why the hell hasn't the AG's Office intervened on our behalf, according to the word of law? Time for the Governor to pull his head out of his a$$!! Tell your Commissioners to do their job--or step aside.

If you read the depositions you see that the AG's Office provides support and advice to WDFW.

As with any legal advice it is up to the client to make the final determination of action to be taken. In its policy role I think the Commission has dropped the ball on this one big time.

I think it would be very embarassing for the public to see how the tribes bully them in these "secret" meetings. WDFW doesn't want the public to see how weak and feeble they are in these meetings.

They also might not want us to see how they have been illegaly doing business.

The (current) NOF process simply does not meet the legal standards of WA law. This has been known for decades. WDFW had two solutions. The first would be to go to the Leg and craft a law that would make the process actually legal, including necessary public access and participation. The alternative is what they have chosen to too.

If you remember back to the Initiative that banned leg hold/body traps you may recall that (probably accidentally) moles were included in the prohibition (but mice and rats were excluded). Gov Locke asked WDFW to not enforce the law on moles, rather than do the right thing and change the law.

Same here. The Leg is the one who can solve the problem of compliance with the law. As to the cover-ups and such; something else needs doing.

I think that a large part of a solution is public education. Right now, a huge majority of the public (even recreational fishermen) are not aware of how salmon harvest is managed, let alone the details of the process to include the public prohibition and consequential misleadings.

On way to educate and draw attention to this is through the use of social media. The messaging needs to be circulating in the public.

The other way is the use of the public meetings, to include the Commission meetings. At every meeting there needs to be a group of citizens who bring the issue up, over and over again. Especially at the Commission meetings. Even if it's not on the agenda. Since the Commission meetings ARE live-streamed, for every person speaking to the Commission, there are hundreds if not thousands who are seeing and hearing the testimony.

Although the Commission has been unwilling to correct the Departments behavior, they ultimately are the responsible party. They delegate the negotiation authority to the Department, yet they retain the supervisory control over the Director.

There needs to be unending heat put on the Commission. They must go to bed each night hearing the word Transparency, and wake up with the words accountability.

To date, it has been too easy for them to just ignore.

Well said, 'Bender. The Commission needs to step up and do what's right. They've been ducking this issue for a long time. Obviously they are hiding something because they don't support even a live television broadcast.! That single fact tells us something.

It's Time the Commission Answer's a Few Questions!

Secrets in fishery management are wrong! Thousands of constituents demand the commission to take some action to bring real, honest transparency to our co-management. Yet, what have they done? What efforts have been done recently to solve this impasse? It’s time the Commission is held accountable to the citizens for answers.

We’ve sent this letter to Commission Chairmen Larry Carpenter, which asks three important questions. Once Chair Carpenter responds, we will post his reply.

We encourage everyone to contact Chair Carpenter and copy your legislators and the Governor. Let know that these secret meetings have gone on too long. It’s time for the Commission to explain to all of us, publicly, why we still don’t have transparency in our fisheries management.

We also ask that you post this letter on all your social media sites, email it to your friends, ask them to get it out and encourage them to contact the Commission, the Governor and their legislators as well.

Here is the letter that we sent to Commission Chair Carpenter. It is now up to him to be transparent with the citizens of this state. We await his response.

___________________LETTER TO CHAIR CARPENTER____
WDFW Chair Carpenter

cc:
Governor Jay Inslee
WDFW Commissioners
WDFW Director Susewind

Chair Carpenter,

We are writing this open letter to raise, once again, the continuing issue of your prohibition to full and open access to the North of Falcon harvest sharing agreement meetings between the Department, under the auspices of the Commission, with the Tribal Co-managers.

Washington’s Fish and Wildlife resources belong to ALL residents and should be available for equal access by residents and non-residents pursuant to State statutes, regulations and court rulings as appropriate.

Recently we sent letters to the Commission and to Vice Chair Shawn Yanity of the NWIFC imploring both sides to find a resolution to the prohibition of non-tribal/non-governmental persons in attending harvest sharing discussions between the Department and Tribal fishery managers as part of the North of Falcon process.

Our insistence on opening these trust killing, closed door meetings should come as no surprise to you or the other Commission members, since it was the Commission that, in 2017, voiced support in having these meetings open.

Since that time, we have been patient yet firm that the public has a right to full transparency in matters of public trust and have been waiting on you to find a solution to this issue.

To date, what we’ve seen appears to be continuing avoidance of any real effort to bring these harvest management discussions into an open public format. What we feel we’re seeing is a strategic effort on the part of the Department and the Commission to provide an appearance of improved transparency, but with little substance.

Recently, the Department “Live Streamed” the North of Falcon forecast meeting via TVW that helped provide general information which is critical to understanding the plight of our salmon and an early overview of the potential 2020 salmon seasons. We find it interesting and somewhat disingenuous that the Department could live stream this information but won’t provide the same consideration to us for Tribal/Department harvest sharing meetings.

For years now, we have heard that meetings with the Co-managers are “Government to Government”, however, that in itself does not prohibit public observation. We know that citizens observers have been permitted to attend some harvest sharing meetings in the past, so what has changed? You’ve also told us that, although the Department and the Commission want to have these meetings open, the Tribal Co-managers won’t agree to it.

We would like your timely response to the following questions:

Why can’t the major Co-manager/Department harvest sharing discussions be broadcast live, as was just done for the forecast meeting?
What recent efforts have you undertaken to resolve the issue of having no citizen observers in these harvest sharing negotiations?
Who is responsible for the continued prohibition of citizen(s) from attending these harvest sharing negotiations as observers?

Without these questions answered there is much confusion amongst the general public, with many believing that the tribal co-managers are the ones preventing these meetings from being open and transparent.

By restricting the public access to the decision process that results in harvest sharing agreements, it removes the ability of the people to insure that conservation and recovery are paramount. Rather you are sending the message that we are to “just trust” the decisions from the very parties that oppose full public disclosure.

Your leadership is needed on this issue, and addressing the above questions and concerns, will help alleviate some of this public consternation.

As we stated, this is an open letter which will be published and provided to the over eight thousand petition supporters as well as emails and posting on a multitude of social media sites.

We are anticipating a timely reply from you to these questions. We will be sharing your response, so the citizens of this state can understand how fish and wildlife management is being handled with the Co-managers.

We look forward to your quick reply.

Please reply to:

Washington Citizen Sportsmen
OpenNOF@Gmail.com


On behalf of over eight thousand
Washington Citizen Sportsmen and Sportswomen

THE NORTH OF FALCON MEETINGS ARE GOING ON RIGHT NOW. YOUR SEASONS ARE BEING SET AND THE DECK IS STACKED AGAINST YOU.

IF YOU STILL THINK THAT EVERYTHING IS FAIR AND EQUAL AND ABOVE BOARD: READ THIS!

CLICK HERE: Why Is Transparency Important In Salmon Season Process?

The real disconnect to me is the argument by NOAA that the Tribes can be reviewed and approved fast but not the State.

In order to fully evaluate the Tribals fisheries the NI fishers MUST be factored in. Because, without them, the numbers, catch compositions, and such are all different. IF NOAA approves the Tribal proposal, they have also approved the State's because you need both.

NOAA has to evaluate the Tribes against something and if they approve the Tribes they have also approved "something". Despite appearance of the managers, fisheries don't occur in vacuums.

If only the layers of this putrid onion could be peeled back, in a very public way, I'm sure the gasps of surprise from one side and of fear from the other, would be heard all the way to DC!

The Leadership of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission is losing it's credibility as the voice of the First Nations fishermen...



First Nations citizens support transparency in NOF

Maybe it's time for new leadership?

You're kidding, right?

Kidding about what?

MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD: Public NOF Teleconference Tonight, 25 March, 6PM