Check

 

Defiance Boats!

LURECHARGE!

THE PP OUTDOOR FORUMS

Kast Gear!

Power Pro Shimano Reels G Loomis Rods

  Willie boats! Puffballs!

 

Three Rivers Marine

 

 
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#1039239 - 10/06/20 01:25 PM LEGAL CHALLENGE TO WDFW / TRIBAL SALMON SHARING
Rivrguy Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/03/09
Posts: 4393
Loc: Somewhere on the planet,I hope
This something I had hoped would happen for sometime. Formatting is a bit off as this a converted PDF to word to get it posted but I did not want to mess with anything.

Also Curt Smitch submitted a document but I can not C&P it.


THE HONORABLE RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
9 AT SEATTLE
10 Case No. C70-9213
11

12 FISH NORTHWEST'S MOTION TO
INTERVENE
13
14 Noting Date: October 30, 2020

15

16 Fish Northwest, by and through its attorneys of record, Joe D. Frawley of Schefter &
17
Frawley, and Joel Matteson, submit this Motion to Intervene and ask the Court to allow Fish
18
19 Northwest to intervene as a party.
20 I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
21 Fish Northwest is a non-profit entity representing a number of individuals and entities
22
concerned with the conservation of salmon and steelhead, in the season setting process used
23
by Defendants to set salmon seasons in Washington State to implement this Court's prior
24
25 rulings, and in the harvest of salmon and steelhead. In recent years, the citizens of
26 Washington, including those represented by Fish Northwest, have been barred from







Motion to Intervene
- 1 of 12

SCHEFTER & FRAWLEY
Attorneys at Law
1415 College Street SE

Case 2:70-cv-09213-RSM Document 22285 Filed 10/05/20 Page 2 of 12




1 participating in the allocation of salmon and steelhead in Washington, the treaty tribes and
2 State of Washington have abandoned the process of allocating the harvestable surplus of
3
salmon and steelhead, and the treaty tribes have been allocated tens or hundreds of thousands
4
more salmon and steelhead annually than have the non-treaty fishers of Washington. All of
5

6 these actions violate this Court's existing injunction the Puget Sound Salmon Management

7 Plan adopted by this Court, and US v. Washington and its progeny.
8
II. PARTIES
9
The Petitioner, Fish Northwest, is a Washington State non-profit corporation that advances
10
11 the interests of its members who include businesses and non-treaty salmon fishers whose
12 interests are directly affected in this case.
13 The Defendants, the original Plaintiff, the United States of America, and the treaty tribes
14
are responsible for co-managing Washington State ' s salmon resource in compliance with
15
United States v. Washington and its progeny, the applicable treaties, the Puget Sound Salmon
16
17 Management Plan, existing orders of this Court, and applicable laws in a manner that ensures
18 that treaty and non-treaty fishers have equitable access to the salmon and steelhead resources
19
of Washington State.
20
III. EVIDENCE RELIED UPON
21
22 This motion relies on the Declarations of Curt Smitch, Miranda Wecker, and Patrick
23 Pattillo and the records and files herein.
24 IV. JURISDICTION
25
This Court has jmisdiction over the parties and the subject matter under the Court's
26
continuing jurisdiction established in Paragraph 25 of the Court's Pennanent Injunction of March 22, 1974, US. v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312,419 (W.D. Wash. 1974), as modified


Motion to Intervene
- 2 of 12

SCHEFTER & FRAWLEY
Attorneys at Law
l 415 College Street SE

Case 2:70-cv-09213-RSM Document 22285 Filed 10/05/20 Page 3 of 12




1 bytheCourtonAugust24, 1993, US. v. Washington, 18F. Supp. 3d 1213 (W.D. Wash.
2 1993) (Paragraph 25)). This continuing jurisdiction has been reserved specifically to hear
3
unresolved issues arising out of the treaties, such as this action. Id. at 333.
4
After intervention and complying with the procedures of Paragraph 25, as amended by this
5

6 Court, Fish Northwest intends to file a Request for Determination under the Court's continuing

7 jurisdiction set forth in Paragraph 25 of the Court's Permanent Injunction issued on March 22,
8
1974 in US. v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312, 419 (W.D. Wash. 1974), as modified by the
9
Court on August 24, 1993, US. v. Washington, 18 F. Supp. 3d 1213 (W.D. Wash. 1993)
10
11 (Paragraph 25).
12 V. BACKGROUND FACTS
13 The Supreme Court has held that "[b]oth sides [treaty tiibes and state fishers] have a
14
right, secured by treaty, to take a fair share of the available fish." Washington v. Washington
15
State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Association, 443 U.S. 658, 684-685 (1979).
16
17 "[A]n equitable measure of the common right should initially divide the harvestable portion
18 of each run that passes through a 'usual and accustomed' place into approximately equal
19 treaty and nontreaty shares, and should then reduce the treaty share if tribal needs may be
20
satisfied by a lesser amount." Id. at 685.
21
22 In recent years, Respondents have not allowed the citizens of Washington to partake
23 in the important meetings that determine the salmon seasons in Washington. The meetings
24 are conducted in secret, the public is not permitted to attend, no representatives of non-treaty
25
interests are allowed to participate, the parties are barred from disclosing what is said at the
26
meetings and the public is shown the results of the negotiations only after the results are final. Deel. of Miranda Wecker, October 3, 2020, p. 2-8. This practice is a clear violation of


Motion to Intervene
• 3 of 12

SCHEFTER & FRAWLEY
Attorneys at Law

Case 2:70-cv-09213-RSM Document 22285 Filed 10/05/20 Page 4 of 12




1 this Court's original injunction, which requires that "the state defendants shall not adopt or
2 enforce any regulations that affect the harvest by the tribe on future runs unless there has
3
been a full, fair and public consideration and determination in accordance with the
4
5 requirements of the Washington Administrative Procedures Act and regulations under it."
6 United States v. State ofWash., 384 F. Supp. 312,416 (W.D. Wash. 1974), affd and

7 remanded, 520 F.2d 676 (9th Cir. 1975) (emphasis added).
8
Coupled with this lack of transparency and the deliberate exclusion of Washington
9
citizens from the North of Falcon season setting process, Defendant WDFW has relied on
10
11 submitting a joint salmon season package with the treaty tribes in order to obtain approval
12 under the Endangered Species Act ("ESA"). Deel. of Patrick Pattillo, October 1, 2020, p. 3;
13 Wecker Deel., p. 2-4. The "proposed 1" salmon season package is submitted to National
14
Marine Fisheries Service ("NMFS") for consultation under the ESA. Id. Because WDFW
15
has decided to not obtain its own ESA approval, opting instead to join the treaty tribes' BSA
16
17 submission, NMFS has indicated that WDFW will not be granted authorization to conduct
18 salmon fisheries unless and until they agree with the treaty tribes demands. NMFS also
19 indicates that it will, and has, approve(d) tribal fisheries while not allowing non-treaty
20
fisheries to occur.
21
22 The result is that WDFW capitulates to whatever harvest allocation the treaty tribes
23 will approve. WDFW has consistently "agreed" to allocations that result in non-treaty fishers
24
25 1 The seasons are not truly "prop osed" as WDFW claims to the public. In truth, WDFW has acknowledged that
26 no "meaningful" changes to the seasons can occur after the "proposal" is submitted to NOAA for consultation under the ESA. After the seasons are finalized, WDFW begins the public comment period under the Washington Administrative Procedures Act. By that time, no "meaningful" changes can occur and public input
is essentially useless.



Motion to Inte1vene
- 4 of 12

SCHEFI'ER & FRAWLEY
Attorneys at Law

Case 2:70-cv-09213-RSM Document 22285 Filed 10/05/20 Page 5 of 12




1 obtaining well under fifty percent of the available harvest of salmon. As a result, the citizens
2 of Washington are not able to "take a fair share of the available fish" as required by this
3
Court's rulings, the Puget Sound Salmon Management Plan, and the ruling of the Supreme
4
Court in Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Association,
5

6 443 U.S. 658, 685 (1979).

7 Despite this Court' s previous rulings that the parties are to roughly share the
8
harvestable stock, the treaty tribes and WDFW have not, for a number of years, even
9
calculated how many harvestable fish exist, thereby rendering it impossible to confirm that
10
11 the required equitable division is being made in accordance with controlling law in United
12 States v. Washington and violating the various orders of this Court. Deel. of Pattillo, p. 3-5.
13 The treaty tribes and WDFW have abandoned allocating the harvestable fish from runs of
14
Puget Sound chinook and coho salmon. Id. This is in direct violation of this Court's original
15
injunction and the Puget Sound Salmon Management Plan, discussed below, both of which
16
17 provide that the state defendants shall determine the number of harvestable fish in advance of
18 every fishing season. Decl. of Curt Smitch, October 5, 2020, Exhibit A, p. 18; 25-26.
19 This Court approved the Puget Sound Salmon Management Plan in 1985 (the
20
"PSSMP"). Smitch Decl., p. 2. The PSSMP remains in effect and requires that the treaty
21
22 tribes and State of Washington consider management methods that provide "flexibility to
23 achieve fair sharing of fish." Id., Exhibit A at 25. The PSSMP requires that if either party

24 catches more than 5% of their fair share, the party that overharvests shall repay the deficit by
25
transferring a portion of the overharvesting party's harvest to the party that did not catch their
26
fair share. Id. at 25-27. The repayment shall be either 15% of the next year's share or 25% of the total deficit that was due, whichever is greater. Id.


Motion to Intervene
- 5 of 12

SCHEFTER & FRAWLEY
Attorneys at Law
14 l5 College Street SE Lac ey, WA 98503
(360) 491-6666 Phone (360} 456-3632 Facsimile

Case 2:70-cv-09213-RSM Document 22285 Filed 10/05/20 Page 6 of 12




1 The harvest of salmon has greatly favored the treaty tribes in recent years. Id.
2 Pattillo Deel., p. 5-6. For example, based on the 2020 "agreement" between the treaty tribes
3
and WDFW, the forecasted catch of Puget Sound Chinook salmon was 111,615 for the treaty
4
tribes and 69,622 for the nontreaty fishers. Of that, the treaty tribes are predicted to harvest
5

6 5,063 wild Chinook salmon while nontreaty fishers are predicted to harvest 1,706 wild

7 Chinook salmon. Id. at 6. This harvest imbalance has existed for years. In 2020, the
8
nontreaty harvest of Puget Sound Chinook is predicted to be roughly 38% of the total
9
harvest. Id. In 2019, the nontreaty harvest of Puget Sound Chinook was predicted to be
10
11 roughly 42% of the total harvest. Id. In 2018, the nontreaty harvest of Puget Sound Chinook
12 was predicted to be roughly 43% of the total harvest. Id. In 2017, the nontreaty harvest of
13 Puget Sound Chinook was predicted to be 41%. Id.
14
In recent years, the parties have largely abandoned the requirements of Section 10 of
15
the PSSMP. They do not calculate actual harvests following the seasons, they do not apply
16
17 flexibility to season settings, and the state fishers have been prevented from harvesting
18 anywhere near their fair share.
19 As a result of the actions ofr espondents, the nontreaty fisherman have experienced
20
greatly reduced salmon seasons, resulting in great financial and social harm. For the years of
21
22 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020, the nontreaty fishers have harvested an estimated 124,696 less
23 Puget Sound Chinook than the treaty fishers. Id. The imbalance is similar for Coho salmon.

24 The members of Fish Northwest have been directly harmed by these actions, including both
25
the management process and the results that the process produces.
26







Motion to Intervene "6 of 12

SCHEFTER & FRAWLEY
Attorneys at Law

Case 2:70-cv-09213-RSM Document 22285 Filed 10/05/20 Page 7 of 12





1

2 A.
3

VI. ANALYSIS Fish Northwest Has Standing to Intervene.

Federal law has long recognized associational standing. An association, such as the
4
moving party, Fish Northwest, has standing when (a) the suit is related to an issue that is
5

6 germane to the organization's purpose; (b) the organization's members would have standing
7 to sue (i.e., there is injury in fact to the members); and (c) the members' participation is not
B
necessary. FRCP 24. All three criteria are met.
9
An organization may establish representational standing based on injuries to its members
10
11 by showing that at least one of its members has standing, that the interests at stake are
12 germane to the organization' s purpose, and that neither the claim nor the relief requires
13 participation of the organization's individual members. Hunt v. Wash. State Apple
14
Advertising Comm 'n, 432 U.S. 333, 343 (1977); see also Wartch v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490
15
16 (1975).
17 Here, Fish Northwest members are adversely affected in a concrete, personal and economic
18 way by WDFW's failw-e to ensure co-equal sharing of the state's salmon resource in
19
accordance with the precedent established in United States v. Washington and this Court's
20
existing orders. Its members are directly and immediately affected by this failure to adhere to
21
22 this precedent because they are denied co-equal fishing opportunity, and their harm is actual,
23 imminent, concrete and personal as the harm of denied access to the salmon resource has
24 occurred and continues to occur on a daily basis. In fact, currently, the WDFW has not even
25
determined the total number of harvestable fish, making a fair allocation impossible to achieve.
26
Pattillo Deel., p. 3-5.






Motion to futerve ne

SCHEFTER & FRAWLEY

Case 2:70-cv-09213-RSM Document 22285 Filed 10/05/20 Page 8 of 12




1 A sharp departure from co-equal sharing of the salmon resource occurs annually. This is
2 no mere speculation or fear of future harm. Rather, the denial of co-equal salmon fishing is
3
ongoing and harming Fish Northwest members. This is important because in Massachusetts
4
v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497,517,522 (2007) (internal quotation marks
5

6 omitted), the court held that the plaintiffs had standing despite being members of the public

7 that all were subject to widespread harm because the risk of harm was both "actual" and
8
imminent." Id. at 517, 521. Indeed, the optimal use of the salmon and steelhead resource by
9
all stake holders is a core purpose of Fish Northwest. Decl. of Brett Rosson, October 5, 2020,
10

11

12 Even the denial of recreational pursuits (here, fishing) give rise to Article III standing.
13 As the court in Sierra Club v. Morton observed, "[a]esthetic and environmental well-being,
14
like economic well-being, are important ingredients of the quality oflife in our society, and
15
16 the fact that particular environmental interests are shared by the many rather than the few
17 does not make them less deserving of legal protection through the judicial process." Sierra
18 Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 734 (1972).
19
Fish Northwest's purpose is ensuring the equal and fair access to Washington's salmon
20
and steelhead stocks. Rosson Decl., p. 1. This case is in large part about fairly allocating
21
22 access to salmon and steelhead stocks. The members of Fish Northwest include businesses,
23 anglers, and non-treaty recreational fishers who are guaranteed the right to catch a minimum
24 of 50% of the available harvest. While each of these individual members could seek
25
intervention in their own right, since they claim an interest relating to the property or
26
transaction that is subject to this action-the right to the state's fair share of the available harvest-their individual participation is not required. Fish Northwest can adequately


Motion to Intervene


SCHEFTER & FRAWLEY

Case 2:70-cv-09213-RSM Document 22285 Filed 10/05/20 Page 9 of 12




1 represent their interests in this litigation, because Fish Northwest is an organization created
2 precisely to advance the interests of fishers and businesses to Washington's salmon and
3
steelhead resource.
4
5 B. Fish Northwest is Entitled to Intervene as of Right Under CR 24(a).
6 The purpose of Rule 24 is to allow an applicant to protect any interest the applicant may

7 have in the outcome of an action affecting their rights. See, e.g., Amendments to Rules of
8
Civil Procedure, 39 F.R.D., 69, 109 111 (1966) (Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 24
9
stating that Rule 24 enables applicant to protect interest in action); 3B J. KENNEDY & J
10
11 MOORE, M OORE ' S FEDERAL PRACTICE§ 24.02 (1987) (Stating that purpose of Rule 24 is to
12 enable applicant to protect interest in action). An applicant can show an interest in the
13 outcome of an action 1.mder Rule 24(a)(2) by showing that applicant's interest in the action
14
will be harmed or is being harmed. FED. R. CIV P. 24(a)(2); see MOORE'S FEDERAL PRACTICE
15
16 § 24.07.
17 Besides showing applicant's interest in the action, Rule 24(a)(2) also requires that the

18 request for intervention be timely, that the applicant's interest is impaired if the court does
19 not permit intervention and that the original parties to the action are not adequately protecting
2 0
the applicant's interest. Here, Fish Northwest's request for intervention is timely because the
21
22 salmon and steelhead allocation process (to the extent allocation is even addressed) will
23 begin in January of 2021, and intervention is intended to remedy the annual deficiencies in
24 the parties' compliance with the requirements of the treaties, the PSSMP, and this Court's
25
orders. Fish Northwest's interests are clearly not adequately represented by WDFW or the
26
other parties in this litigation. This is particularly true in light of the past years oflack of access and participation in North of Falcon salmon setting processes, and the resultant


Motion to fnte1veoe "9 of 12


SCHEFTER & FRAWLEY
Attorneys at Law
1415 College Street SE
Lacey, WA 98503
(360) 491-6666 Phone (360) 456-3632 Facsimile

Case 2:70-cv-09213-RSM Document 22285 Filed 10/05/20 Page 10 of 12




1 ongoing disparity regarding allocation of the salmon resource among tribe and non-tribe
2 members in Washington State. Pattillo Deel., p. 4-6; Wecker Deel., p. 3-5.
3
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) provides that, "[O]n timely motion, the court
4
must permit anyone to intervene who ... claims an interest relating to the property or
5

6 transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may

7 as a practical matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect its interest, unless
8
existing parties adequately represent that interest." FRCP 24(a)(2). In such instances,
9
intervention is a right. Here, Fish Northwest claims an interest relating to the right of co­
10
11 equal access to Washington's salmon fishing resource that is the subject of this action. The
12 existing status quo management scheme has resulted in a severely unequal allocation of the
13 Washington salmon and steelhead resource, in contravention of US. v. Washington, its
14
progeny and this Court's existing orders (including but not limited to the PSSMP). Without
15
16 intervention, this ongoing pattern of uneven and inequitable distribution of Washington's
17 salmon resource will continue such that Fish Northwest's interests will continue to not

18 receive the protections of co-equal sharing guaranteed in US. v. Washington. This Court
19
should grant intervention as a matter of right under FRCP 24(a).
20
C. The Court Should Permit Fish Northwest to Intervene Under Civil Rule
21 24(a)(2) because Petitioner's Interests are Implicated and Adversely Affected
22 by WDFW's Allocation of the Salmon Resource.
23 Permissive intervention is authorized where, on timely motion, the person or organization
24 seeking to intervene "has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common
25
question of law or fact" (FRCP 24(b)(1)(B)) or ''is given a conditional right to intervene by a
26
federal statute" (FRCP 24(b)(l)(A). As stated above, Fish Northwest and its members claim that the cuirent administration of the salmon resource in Washington State is not in accord

Case 2:70-cv-09213-RSM Document 22285 Filed 10/05/20 Page 11 of 12




1 with U.S. v. Washington and this Court's existing orders. Thus, pem1issvi e intervention
2 should be granted. Indeed, this case is undoubtedly the best forum for an aggrieved party to
3
seek enforcement of the orders of this Court that remain in effect.
4
5 D. Alternatively, Fish Northwest Should be Permitted to Intervene as a Matter of Discretion.
6
Alternately, Fish Northwest is entitled to permissive intervention under FRCP
7
8 24(b)(1)(B) which provides that"[on timely motion, the court may permit anyone to
9 intervene who ... (B) has a claim or defense that share with the main action a common

10 question of law or fact." Under that rule, if the applicant's claim or defense and the main
11
action have a question of law or fact in common, the Court may permit intervention at its
12
discretion, even where intervention is not of right. Here, Plaintiff's motion is timely as
13
14 discussed above. Defendm1ts cannot demonstrate any actual prejudice if Fish Northwest is
15 permitted to intervene. The Court should therefore allow permissive intervention if it does
16 not grant intervention as of right.
17
VII. CONCLUSION
18
19 Fish Northwest members will be, and are currently being, directly and immediately
20 harmed if Fish Northwest is not allowed to intervene. The non-treaty fishers of Washington

21 are currently not allowed to harvest their fair share of the salmon and steelhead resources of
22
Washington. The right to do so is settled, and this Court's existing injunctions, orders, and
23
management plans require it. The existing parties are not following this Court's orders or
24
25 providing the citizens and fishers of Washington the court-ordered access to their fair share.
26 The status quo management of the salmon resource is not sufficient to protect Fish Northwest's

interests.

Case 2:70-cv-09213-RSM Document 22285 Filed 10/05/20 Page 12 of 12




1 The Court should grant Fish No1thwest's motion to intervene as a matter of right under CR
2 24(a) or as a matter of the Court' s discretion under CR 24(b). Following intervention, Fish
3
Northwest intends to comply with Paragraph 25 and ultimately will ask the parties, and in
4
particular WDFW, to follow, and this Court to enforce, the existing orders and rulings in this
5

6 case.
7 DATED this 5th day of October, 2020.
8

9 JOE D. F .. · LEY, SB#41814
JOEL D. MATTESON, WSB#40523
10 Attorneys for Petitioner
11

12 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
13
14 I hereby ce1tify that on October 5, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing document
15 with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system that sends notification of such filing to
16 all parties registered for electronic service with the CM/ECF system.
17
SIGNED this 5th day of October, 2020, at Lacey, WA.
18

19

20

Amanda C. Howard, Legal Assistant
21

22

23

24

25

26


Edited by Rivrguy (10/06/20 02:12 PM)
_________________________
Dazed and confused.............the fog is closing in

Top
#1039240 - 10/06/20 01:29 PM Re: LEGAL CHALLENGE TO WDFW SHARING [Re: Rivrguy]
Todd Offline
Dick Nipples

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 28170
Loc: Seattle, Washington USA
I have fear that the court could rule that the non-treaty fishers are already taking more than 50% (in Alaska and British Columbia) before the fish even get back to Washington waters...this is dangerous ground.

Fish on...

Todd
_________________________


Team Flying Super Ditch Pickle


Top
#1039241 - 10/06/20 01:32 PM Re: LEGAL CHALLENGE TO WDFW SHARING [Re: Rivrguy]
Rivrguy Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/03/09
Posts: 4393
Loc: Somewhere on the planet,I hope
THE HONORABLE RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

2
3

4

5

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
7 AT SEATTLE
8 Case No. C70-9213
9
DECLARATION OF BRETT ROSSON
10
11

12
13

14

15 BRETT ROSSON declares under penalty of pe1jury under the laws of the State of
16
Washington that the following is true and correct.
17
I am over 18 years of age and competent to testify, and make this declaration based
18
19 upon my own personal knowledge.

20 2.

I am President of Fish Northwest, a nonprofit 50l(c) company dedicated to ensuring

21 equal and fair access to Washington State's salmon resoLu-ce.


22 3.

Fish N011hwest is an organization with a board of directors of highly

23 knowledgeable and dedicated fishermen who are well aware of the issues affecting fishing access
24
to Washington State's salmon resource. Fish No1thwest has arranged a network of knowledgeable
25
consultants with respect to fishing and the salmon resource , including fishing opportunities,
26

SCHEFTER & FRAWLEY
Attorneys al Law

Case 2:70-cv-09213-RSM Document 22289 Filed 10/05/20 Page 2 of 3





challenges, regulations, and conversation needs.
1

2 4.

As President of Fish No1thwest, our organization' s purpose of ensuring responsible,

3 fair, and equal fishing with the treaty tribes is being significantly harmed by the Washington State
4 Department of Fish and Wildlife ' s ("WDFW") failure to ensure equitable sharing the harvestable
5 salmon resource per the " Boldt Decision" set forth in United States v. Washington. Our
6
organization's mission of promoting fishing , including fair and sustainable access to the salmon
7
resource, is impaired by the State of Washington ' s failure to take action necessary to ensure 50/50
8
9 sharing of the salmon resource.

10 5.

Fish Northwest's mem bers ' inte rests with respect to the fair, 50/50 sharing of the


11 salmon resource, in accordance with applica ble law , is also impaired by the State of Washington' s
12 failure to ensure equitable sharing of the salmon resource, including but not limited to, the State
13 of Washington's fai lure to calculate the number of harvestable salmon, and the failure of the State 14
of Washington and Department of Fish and Wildlife's failure to obtain their own Endangered
15
Species Act permit independent of the treaty tribes' permit(s) and the State of Washington and /or
16
17 Department of Fish and Wildlife ' s ongoing inability to obtain meaningful input from non-treaty
18 tribe stakeholders , including Fish Northwest and its members.


19 6.

I personally operate a charter fishing business that depends on open salmon seasons


20 to survive. The reduced seasons in recent years has a dramatic financial impact on my own
21 business, as well as the businesses of other small business that depend on open salmon fishing
22
seasons.
23
7. I, along with other members of Fish Northwest, have been involved in North of
24
25 Falcon. I have attended many meetings, given input , and talk regularly with WDFW staff. After
26 having spent years being involved with the process, it is clear to me that my input at North of has little value.
_________________________
Dazed and confused.............the fog is closing in

Top
#1039250 - 10/06/20 01:44 PM Re: LEGAL CHALLENGE TO WDFW SHARING [Re: Rivrguy]
Rivrguy Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/03/09
Posts: 4393
Loc: Somewhere on the planet,I hope
UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT
7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASIDNGTON AT SEATTLE
8
Case No. C70-9213
9
10 DECLARATION OF MIRANDA
WECKER
11
12
13
14
15
MIRANDA WECKER declares under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
16
17 Washington that the following is true and correct.

18 1.

I am over 18 years of age and competent to testify, and make this declaration based


19 upon my own personal knowledge.


20 2.

I served on the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission from 2005 until 2017.

21 From 2009 until 2015, I served as chair of the Commission. My qualifications for appointment to
22
the Commission included six years working as an attorney for the Council on Ocean Law in
23
Washington DC, five years working for sustainable development organizations in the Pacific
24
25 Northwest and twenty years leading a marine research program for the University of Washington
26 on the Olympic Peninsula. I was a member of the Washington Bar Association and earned a JD


SCHEFTER & FRAWLEY
Attorneys at Law






1 and an LLM in Marine Law and Policy from the University of Washington School of Law. I am

2 now retired.
3 3. In 2008, on behalf of the Commission, fellow commissioner Connie Mahnken and
4
I attended almost all meetings of the North of Falcon ("NOF") process, analyzed its workings, and
5
provided my observations and recommendations for improvement to the Commission. The reason
6
7 for this effort was that the Commission had received numerous complaints about the NOF process
8 and its outcome from constituents and some from within the Department. We were encouraged
9 by the Governor to take our leadership role and responsibility in the Department very seriously.
10 The recent past had been difficult years with charges of fiscal mismanagement, policy controversy,
11 periods of large-scale employee layoffs, and inconsistent leadership. As one component of our
12
Commission's charge, we undertook to re-evaluate the substance and scope of the delegation
13
agreement with the Director. During that process, I became familiar with the inherent difficulties
14
15 and contradictions encountered in reconciling the statutory roles and responsibilities assigned to
16 the commission with the day-to-day practice of the Department in making hundreds of important
17 and detailed natural resource conservation and use decisions. The establishment of a commission
18 of citizens from various parts of the state to oversee the Department and serve as the policy setting 19
body was enacted following a referendum. The import of the people's choice was that, with regard
20 to fish and wildlife issues, the people wanted to see governance by a multi-party body of fellow
21
22 citizens whose process of decision-making was more accessible, responsive, and not hidden and
23 mysterious. Many states have long had commissions that serve in similar capacities for similar
24 reasons. It suggests that fish and wildlife issues are of a unique and profound personal importance
25 to people.
26


SCHEFTER & FRAWLEY
Attorneys at Law






1 4. The first few meetings were preliminary meetings held before the actual

2 negotiations over catch allocation began. I vividly recall a very heated discussion between the
3 treaty tribes and WDFW, principally through then Director Anderson, regarding whether Larry
4
Carpenter would be allowed to be an "observer" during the negotiations. At the time, the general
5
public was not allowed to partake in the negotiations and no record was made of the
6
7 negotiations. This point was not up for debate.

8 5.

Mr. Carpenter, who is now a WDFW commission member, had apparently been


9 publicly critical of the North of Falcon proceedings the prior year and had talked too publicly

10 about what had occurred at those meetings. The treaty tribes demanded, and enforced,
11 confidentiality and discretion. No information about the negotiations was to be disclosed 1mtil 12
after an agreement was reached and sent to National Marine Fisheries Service for finalization.
13
The other observers, who had not publicly discussed what occurred, were not objected to.
14
15 Director Anderson, who had a close relationship with Mr. Carpenter, negotiated for Mr.
16 Carpenter's inclusion as an observer. Ultimately, Mr. Carpenter was allowed to be an observer
17 but only after he pledged not to disclose what occurred during the negotiations.


18 6.

Many of the harvest agreements were reached by regional level staff assigned to

19
the various geographic areas. Observers, and obviously the public, were not permitted to attend
20
these negotiations. These agreements were then put into the overall fisheries package for
21
approval by the treaty tribes and the lead negotiator for the state (at the time, that was either
22
23 Patrick Pattillo or Director Anderson). In later years, during my time on the commission, Patrick
24 Pattillo was the chief negotiator.


25 7.

The secrecy surrounding North of Falcon has resulted in broad public distrust

26 among the citizens of Washington. WDFW conducts North of Falcon in such a manner that

SCHEFTER & FRAWLEY
Attorneys at Lmv






1 meetings are not public as required by the Open Public Meetings Act and then, once those
2 meetings are held and the agreement reached, the "proposed" mle package is not in any true
3 sense subject to change as it goes through the Administrative Procedures Act process.
4
8. The inherent contradictions presented by the approach taken by the Washington
5
Department of Fish and Wildlife in carrying out the necessary rule making by our part-time
6
7 citizen commission were nowhere more obvious and perplexing than with regard to the annual
8 adoption of rules and regulations flowing from the North of Falcon fisheries harvest negotiations.
9 The contradictions related to what could be called the "authenticity of delegation to a single

10 decision-maker who is not subject to OPMA" and the other related to what could be seen as a
11 self-contradictory process for making and incorporating decisions made into the rules affecting 12
citizens.
13
9. With regard to the delegation of duties and powers for negotiation of agreements
14
15 with the tribes to the Director, I viewed the delegation as less problematic during the years in
16 which Director Phil Anderson- the recipient of the delegation and the one who exercised
17 authentic control in overseeing the NOF process. Clearly there was no multi-party decision­
18 making body in charge. However, when Jim Unsworth became Director, the delegation of power 19
and duties becan1e more inauthentic and misleading. In early 2015, Dr. James Unsworth became
20
Director the Department. It was well understood that he lacked any background in fisheries
21
22 management. During those years, my last on the Commission, it was clear that Dr. Unsworth
23 had adopted a management philosophy of reliance on staff for most decisions. He was open and
24 clear with the Commission at that time that he would not attempt to become proficient and

25 knowledgeable about salmon management. Instead he would rely on the NOF team. When
26 providing monthly reports to the Commission, he typically asked staff to summarize the status of






1 NOF negotiation and important developments. When asked questions, he would then ask staff to

2 provide answers. During the years in which a Director so completely delegated his powers and
3 duties, the decision-maldng power appeared to be more diffused throughout the NOP team. As a 4
multi-party team to whom the duties and powers in fact resided, I questioned whether the Open
5
Public Meetings Act would once more become operative with regard to decision-making.
6
7 10. The second problematic aspect of the NOF procedure related to the way in
8 which the agreements reached through NOF were incorporated into the Washington
9 Administrative Code that gave the appearance of consistency with the relevant procedural laws.

10 The commission retained its stah1tory role in promulgating rules. The inherent contradiction lay
11 in the practical reality that the negotiated package was not in any real sense subject to change 12
following approval of the NOF list of agreed fisheries. The essential policy decisions on
13
conservation emphasis, conservation burden sharing, and harvest allocation were already
14
15 embedded in the PFMC-approved List of Agreed Fisheries agreement and not subject to
16 modification. Public frustration consistently was fostered by the perception that the rule making
17 process that followed the completion of the NOF negotiation appeared to offer the public an
18 opportunity to provide comment. It appeared that the commission had a role in making the final 19
decisions regarding what rules would govern fishing and that those rules would be adopted in
20
full view of the public. The reality however was clear that the fisheries policy decisions have
21
been decided through the NOF negotiation and the PFMC approval process conducted pursuant
22
23 to the Endangered Species Act. The reality is that PFMC was not going to go back and redo the
24 ESA approval process based on input received by the public after the agreement was reached.

25 11. The commission is allowed to delegate its powers and duties to the Director.
26 When the commission delegates its powers to a sub-committee, the subcommittee takes on the






1 obligation to conduct decision-making consistent with procedural laws that apply to the

2 commission. The importance of the transparency of government has been repeatedly reaffim1ed
3 in policy pronouncements across government agencies. Under the Department's cunent
4
practice, the commission delegation to the Director means negotiation and decision making take
5
place without compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act. Rulemaking to effectuate those
6
7 decisions is done consistent with OPMA, but no significant changes are possible at that stage. In
8 this arena of great significance, the delegation of authorities and the disconnect between
9 decisions and rulemaking are seen as perhaps the only way to practically get the job of complex
10 negotiations done. But it is also be viewed by the public as a deft way to avoid the greater
11 degree of transparency specifically imposed by law on commission-led agencies. In some cases,
12
the diminishrnent of transparency is of little consequence. In this case, I believe the lack of
13
transparency has serious consequences.
14
15 12. Recent declines in salmon runs have given rise to heightened public concern with
16 all the factors that affect populations. My experience in observing the NOP process led me to
17 conclude that this highly complex fisheries management approach is unlikely to contribute to
18 recovery of depleted runs, or to maintaining healthy runs. The process is dominated by user 19
groups competing for allocations of the harvest. Blame for failure to reverse declines is easily
20
assigned to other factors affecting fish populations. None of this is understood by the larger
21
public, in part because the real negotiations occur behind closed doors. The decline in wild
22
23 salmon and steelhead runs and lack ofrecovery of weak stocks has been a long-standing and
24 seemingly irreversible trend with very few exceptions. This fact should call into question the
25 sufficiency of current fisheries management approaches.
26



Case 2:70-cv-09213-RSM Document 22286 Filed 10/05/20 Page 8 of 8






1 commission's approval could be obtained in accordance with its process without evading the
2 transparency sought by the majority who voted for the referendum. The apparent disconnection
3 between the actual closed-door decision-making and the subsequent open and transparent rule
4 making process could be resolved. This would allow an open and transparent system throughout
5
with greater public understanding of decision-making and opportunity for holding participants
6
7 accountable for the consequences of those decisions.
8

9 DATED thi-s
10

11
12
13
14

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22


24


26

-2,{ti
:; clay of October, 2020.



MIRANDA WECKER





DECLARATION OF 1v1IRANDA WECKER - Page 8 of 8

SCHEFTER& FRAWLEY
_________________________
Dazed and confused.............the fog is closing in

Top
#1039252 - 10/06/20 01:54 PM Re: LEGAL CHALLENGE TO WDFW SHARING [Re: Rivrguy]
Rivrguy Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/03/09
Posts: 4393
Loc: Somewhere on the planet,I hope
THE HONORABLE RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT
7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
8 AT SEATTLE
Case No. C70-9213
9
10 DECLARATON OF PATRICK
11 PATTILLO
12

13

14
PATRICK PATTILLO declares under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
15
Washington that the following is true and correct.
16
17 I am over 18 years of age and competent to testify, and make this declaration based
18 upon my own personal knowledge.


19 2.

I have a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Washington School of


20 Fisheries. I was employed with the Washington Department of Fisheries (WDF) and Washington
21 Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) for 36 years. I have extensive experience with the
22
management of salmon fisheries in Washington State and throughout the Pacific Northwest. My
23
responsibilities over those 36 years with the State of Washington was as a Fishery Management
24
25 Scientist (1978-1991), Statewide Salmon Fishery Manager (1991-2000), Policy Lead for Inter­
26 jurisdictional Fisheries Management (2000-2009), and Special Assistant to the Director (2010-




··-·



-DECLARATION OF PATRICK
PATTlLLO - Page 1 of 6

S··CHE·· FATiiaE,·iRiey&s" aFiRLaAwW, ···LEY-
1415 College Street SE

Case 2:70-cv-09213-RSM Document 22288 Filed 10/05/20 Page 2 of 6





1 2014).

2 3.



I was the lead negotiator and writer for state-tribal fishery management agreements

3 including the joint Tribal-WDFW Puget Sound Chinook Fishery Management Plans approved by
4
the federal government under the Endangered Species Act ("ESA") from 1999 to 2014. I was
5
WDFW's lead negotiator for annual fishery management agreements with the Puget Sound Tribes
6
in the North of Falcon ("NOF") season-setting process, as well as WDFW's lead policy
7
8 representative directing the public involvement component of the annual North Falcon process. I
9 was a member of the Pacific Salmon Co1mnission (PSC) Chinook Technical Team (1989-1997),
10 and a member of the Pacific Fishery Management Council's Salmon Technical Team (1983-1989).
11 I was WDFW's alternate Pacific Fishery Management Council member (2011-2014). I was a 12
member of the U.S. delegation negotiating long-term fishing agreements for Chinook salmon, coho
13
salmon and chum salmon as part of the Pacific Salmon Treaty between the United States and
14
15 Canada (1999 and 2009). I have testified a number of times in this case as an expert witness.

16 4.

Since retiring from service with the State of Washington in 2014, I have continued


17 to be involved in salmon fishery management. I contracted to assist WDFW with the North of

18 Falcon process from February-April of 2015. Since 2015, I have participated in the annual North
19 of Falcon salmon fishery management process either as a contracted representative of recreational 20
fishing organizations, or as a volunteer member of WDFW's Puget Sound Sport Fishing Advisory Group.
21
22

23 5.

As discussed above, I have been the lead negotiator for WDFW during NOF a

24 number of times. I am intimately familiar with the NOF process. I am familiar with the legal
25 framework, with the biology, and with the politics involved in the process. I have worked with
26 and know most of the current, key state, tribal, federal and public participants in NOP.



DECLARATION OF PATRICK

SCHEFTER & FRAWLEY
· Attorneys at Law- ·

Case 2:70-cv-09213-RSM Document 22288 Filed 10/05/20 Page 3 of 6




1 6. NOP is the process used by WDFW and the Treaty Tribes (Indian tribes with
2 treaties that guarantee them the right to harvest salmon in Washington) to reach agreement
3 annually on salmon fishing seasons and regulations, as well as the division of the annual salmon
4
harvest. Once that agreement is reached, the federal government, through the National Oceanic
5
and Atmospheric Administration, conducts an analysis of fisheries planned by WDFW and the
6
7 Treaty Tribes for the year for compliance with conservation objectives, including fishing limits
8 defined by the co-managers and other restrictions recommended by federal authorities to ensure
9 consistency with the Endangered Species Act ("ESA"). The analysis is intended to ensure that the

10 salmon harvested or otherwise harmed incidentally during the process of fishing (after or during
11 release, for example) by the state fisheries (managed by WDFW) and the treaty fisheries will not
12
jeopardize salmon runs and other species listed as threatened or endangered. The agreement
13
between the state and treaty tribes is reduced to writing in a document called the "List of Agreed
14
15 Fisheries" ("LOAF"). Those fisheries, as set forth in the LOAF, are then the basis for both the
16 state's Washington Administrative Code to open salmon fisheries and for NOAA's analysis. Once
17 the LOAF is set, no substantive changes can occur without agreement between WDFW, the Tribes
18 and concurrence by NOAA. 19
7. The annual NOF process begins in January with the creation of forecasts for the
20
number of salmon potentially available for fisheries in that year. These forecasts are agreed to by
21
WDFW staff and their tribal counterparts and ultimately transmitted to NOAA to serve as the basis
22
23 for the season setting process.
24 8. In theory, once the agreed forecasts for the number of salmon are available,
25 WDFW, the treaty tribes, and NOAA calculate a number of "harvestable" fish for each salmon
26 population or run. These are hatchery fish over and above the number deemed necessary for



DECLARATION OF PATRICK PATTILLO-Page 3 of6

SCHEFTER & FRAWLEY
Attorneys at Law
1415 College Street SE

Case 2:70-cv-09213-RSM Document 22288 Filed 10/05/20 Page 4 of 6




1 spawning or wild fish that can be harvested while meeting conservation objectives. These
2 harvestable fish are then supposed to be allocated between the various WDFW-managed
3 (commercial and recreational) and Tribal fisheries under consideration for that year during the
4
NOF process, consistent with applicable management plans, such as the Puget Sound Salmon
5
Management Plan, and legal requirements, such as US. v Washington or the Pacific Salmon
6
7 Treaty. In recent years, WDFW has ignored important provisions of the applicable management
8 plans and legal requirements.
9 9. This committee adopted the Puget Sound Salmon Management Plan (PSSMP, 1985),

10 which was implemented by the co-managers to ensure that treaty and nontreaty fishermen each are
11 afforded the opportunities to catch their shares of harvestable numbers of Puget Sound salmon
12
stocks. The PSSMP remains in effect, but WDFW has failed to follow that plan's key
13
requirements, including, most importantly, identification of harvestable numbers of chinook and
14
15 coho salmon for each of six Puget Sound allocation units. Without harvestable numbers, there is
16 no ability to determine shares for nontreaty fisheries. The requirements and express intent of the
17 PSSMP to ensure that treaty fishennen and non-treaty fishermen will be afforded the opportunities
18 to harvest their shares cannot be evaluated.
19
10. The 2020 NOF process is illustrative. Prior to the start of the 2020 North of Falcon
20
process, at the request of recreational fishery constituents, WDFW agreed to provide public
21
22 estimates of the harvestable number of Puget Sound chinook as part of the decision process. Those
23 estimates were not provided to members of the public participating in the 2020 North of Falcon
24 meetings. Estimates of the total allowable harvest for Puget Sound coho stocks that are to be

25 allocated between treaty and nontreaty fisheries also were not made available to the public by
26 WDFW during the North of Falcon pre-season planning process. Without calculating the total

Case 2:70-cv-09213-RSM Document 22288 Filed 10/05/20 Page 5 of 6




1 number of harvestable fish, it is impossible to evaluate achievement of the sharing intent of the


2 PSSMP.
3 11.



If the number of harvestable fish were calculated, as required by the PSSMP and

4
other existing orders in this case, then such calculations would show that non-treaty fisheries
5
adopted by WDFW were not sufficient in providing the opportunity to take 50% of the total
6
7 number of harvestable fish. The catch estimates provided by WDF\V for the 2020 NOF show a
8 disparity between tribal and non-treaty catch and fishing opportunity of 42,000 chinook salmon.
9 For coho salmon the estimates show a disparity between tribal and non-treaty catch or fishing

10 opportunity amounting to 40,000 coho salmon,

11 12.
12


WDFW adopted fishing seasons in 2020 that precluded the opportunity to harvest

up to 50% of the total number of harvestable chinook and coho salmon. Nontreaty fisheries
13
could have been increased in 2020 while being consistent with conservation objectives and
14
15 without exceeding the non-treaty fisheries 50% share. Nontreaty fisheries have the capability to
16 harvest hatchery chinook and coho salmon at a relatively higher rate, while minimizing impacts
17 on wild salmon stocks, using techniques that selectively harvest fin-clipped hatchery produced
18 fish.
19 13. The harvest imbalance is known and has occurred consistently for years. For 20
example, I have reviewed the Fisheries Regulations Assessment Models ("FRAM") for Puget
21
22 Sound Chinook for the years of 2020, 2019, 2018 and 2017. These FRAM models are used by
23 WDFW, the treaty tribes, and NMFS predict the harvest of both hatchery and wild salmon based
24 on the proposed, and eventually implemented, fishing regulations and seasons. Based on the
25 seasons approved by WDFW, the treaty tribes and NMFS and reflected in the final 2020 FRAM,
26 the forecasted catch of Puget Sound Chinook salmon was 111,615 for the treaty tribes and

Case 2:70-cv-09213-RSM Document 22288 Filed 10/05/20 Page 6 of 6




69,622 for the nontreaty fishers. In 2020, the non-treaty harvest of Puget Sound Chinook is

2 predicted to be 38% of the total harvest. In 2019, the non-treaty harvest of Puget Sound Chinook
3 was predicted to be roughly 42% of the total harvest. In 2018, the nontreaty harvest of Puget
4
Sound Chinook was predicted to be roughly 43% of the total harvest. In 2017, the nontreaty
5
harvest of Puget Sound Chinook was predicted to be roughly 41% of the total harvest. For the
6
years of 2017 through 2020, it is estimated, based on the FRAMs, that the non-treaty fisheries
7
8 harvested 124,696 less Puget Sound chinook salmon than did the treaty fishers. In each of those
9 years, the treaty tribes harvest significantly more wild Chinook than do nontreaty fishers. It is
10 worth noting, for purposes of calculating conservation impacts, that the non-treaty fisheries
11 account for only 25% of the impacts on wild chinook in 2020.

12 DATED this _J·/2t 13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22
23

24

25

26
_________________________
Dazed and confused.............the fog is closing in

Top
#1039284 - 10/06/20 09:33 PM Re: LEGAL CHALLENGE TO WDFW SHARING [Re: Rivrguy]
Carcassman Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7410
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
The original case was US v. WA. If it is reopened, which side is WA (and WDFW) on? Would the AG's office have support or oppose what WA agreed to and the Court approved? Will make for some interesting intellectual gymnastics.

Top
#1039306 - 10/07/20 10:34 AM Re: LEGAL CHALLENGE TO WDFW SHARING [Re: Rivrguy]
cohoangler Offline
Three Time Spawner

Registered: 12/29/99
Posts: 1611
Loc: Vancouver, Washington
Okay, let’s not overreact. This is a petition to join the legal proceeding that is U.S. v Washington. This case has been on-going since the 1970’s. It is not a legal challenge to the season setting process. Yet.

If Fish Northwest is allowed to join the legal case, they will likely push for the actions they describe in their petition. But FN would have to clearly show why WDFW is not representing their interests since their objection is with WDFW, not the Tribes. The court may not look at a disagreement between WDFW and an interest group (FN) as being relevant to the case.

And, quite frankly, it’s not. WDFW has the statutory obligation to represent the interests of the residents of the State of Washington. If they fail to do that, don’t blame the U.S. v Washington court or the Tribes. An analogy might be that if a subset of Tribal members did not like the outcome of the NOF negotiations, could they petition the Court to intervene to protect their interests from the decisions made by their Tribal leaders? Most folks on this BB would view that with considerable skepticism. But that is what this petition seeks from a non-Tribal perspective. I won’t try to predict what might happen in this instance, but FN has a big hill to climb…...

I think a better question is why does U.S. v Washington still exist? The U.S. v Oregon case was dismissed two years ago without any of the Parties asking for dismissal. The Federal District court decided on its own to dismiss U.S. v Oregon. And the U.S. v Oregon case arose from the U.S. v Washington litigation, and they litigated the exact same issues on the Columbia River as U.S. v Washington did in Puget Sound. FN would be better off petitioning the court to dismiss U.S. v Washington entirely, and then seek to have the issues revert to a public (non-legal) process in which all parties could participate. In my view, if U.S. v Oregon can get dismissed without any of the parties petitioning for dismissal (which is what happened), then U.S. v Washington can be dismissed too. Maybe all it takes is for someone to ask………

As a side note, FN states in their petition that the State has a right to 50% of the harvestable fish. That’s not correct. The courts have said the Tribes have a right to 50% of the harvestable fish. The courts never said the State has the right to the other 50%. The State may be allocated the other 50% but they may or may not be able to actually harvest that 50%, depending on other factors such as the ESA. In this case, they may not be able to achieve the harvest objectives due to the restrictions (on both parties) rising from the ESA. Or the non-Tribal harvest that occurs outside of Puget Sound (SE AK, West Vancouver Island, Strait of JDF) may be the difference in the non-Tribal harvest. Todd mentioned this in his post. He is exactly correct. So it would be wrong to suggest that Puget Sound anglers are entitled to 50% of the harvestable fish. They clearly are not, but the petition seems to suggest they do.

In my view, it would help if WDFW would explain, in detail, why the allocation decisions result in the outcomes we’re seeing. I will agree that it’s not clear, and is a cause for confusion and frustration as reflected in the FN petition.

I also posted a very similar response on IFish, for those of us who frequent both BB's.


Edited by cohoangler (10/07/20 10:36 AM)

Top
#1039321 - 10/07/20 12:28 PM Re: LEGAL CHALLENGE TO WDFW SHARING [Re: Rivrguy]
snit Offline
Three Time Spawner

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 1844
Loc: Wenatchee, WA
Thank you for the in-depth explanation!
_________________________
..."the clock looked at me just like the devil in disguise"...

Top
#1039322 - 10/07/20 12:53 PM Re: LEGAL CHALLENGE TO WDFW SHARING [Re: cohoangler]
Rivrguy Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/03/09
Posts: 4393
Loc: Somewhere on the planet,I hope
Interesting point of view but a little simplistic to zero in on numbers. While their objective does seem to be harvest the process used to get to the harvest numbers surrounding NOF ( which does not comply with the APA requirements ) would appear to be a primary target also.

I would agree that it is a big hill to climb as courts have traditionally given wide leeway to government agencies and money plays into it. WDFW depends on the fact that legal actions cost a ton of money and the old rope a dope is their preferred response. Burn up the litigants legal funds and settle and then do not follow the settlement is the tactics of choice for WDFW. As one who had to utilize the courts to get WDFW to comply with law how they do business is forever in the gray areas of law.
_________________________
Dazed and confused.............the fog is closing in

Top
#1039333 - 10/07/20 04:04 PM Re: LEGAL CHALLENGE TO WDFW SHARING [Re: Rivrguy]
Carcassman Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7410
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
The Decision, as reviewed by the Supremes, gave the Tribes the right to UP TO 50% of the catch or the level of catch necessary to support a moderate living. The rest is distributed amongst the non-Indian user groups. They don't have a right, at least in Boldt, to more than 50%.

Now, WA can agree to allow the Tribes to harvest more than 50% for whatever reasons the state chooses to believe. I am sure that there are very good reasons why WDFW rolls over, but these need to be publicly explained.

Top

Search

Site Links
Home
Our Washington Fishing
Our Alaska Fishing
Reports
Rates
Contact Us
About Us
Recipes
Photos / Videos
Visit us on Facebook
Today's Birthdays
3Gonads, herm
Recent Gallery Pix
hatchery steelhead
Hatchery Releases into the Pacific and Harvest
Who's Online
0 registered (), 1083 Guests and 2 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
John Boob, Lawrence, I'm Still RichG, feyt, Freezeout
11498 Registered Users
Top Posters
Todd 28170
Dan S. 17149
Sol Duc 16138
The Moderator 14486
Salmo g. 13520
eyeFISH 12766
STRIKE ZONE 12107
Dogfish 10979
ParaLeaks 10513
Jerry Garcia 9160
Forum Stats
11498 Members
16 Forums
63773 Topics
645291 Posts

Max Online: 3001 @ 01/28/20 02:48 PM

Join the PP forums.

It's quick, easy, and always free!

Working for the fish and our future fishing opportunities:

The Wild Steelhead Coalition

The Photo & Video Gallery. Nearly 1200 images from our fishing trips! Tips, techniques, live weight calculator & more in the Fishing Resource Center. The time is now to get prime dates for 2018 Olympic Peninsula Winter Steelhead , don't miss out!.

| HOME | ALASKA FISHING | WASHINGTON FISHING | RIVER REPORTS | FORUMS | FISHING RESOURCE CENTER | CHARTER RATES | CONTACT US | WHAT ABOUT BOB? | PHOTO & VIDEO GALLERY | LEARN ABOUT THE FISH | RECIPES | SITE HELP & FAQ |