I can think of another possible alternative. It requires getting the support of State Senator Pearson's committee and the WDFW Commission. Both of those seem achievable. Pearson seems sympathetic to what's going on with the degree of frustration in the sport fishing community. The WDFW Commission is more responsive to "the hand that feeds" the Dept. (Us!) than is the Dept itself. The Commission can order the Dept to have open meetings or none at all. This would presumably lead to the tribal walk out as happened last year.

The Commission could order the Dept to promulgate a typical PS recreational fishery with high ESA conservation standards. NMFS would likely respond with the news that the Dept's proposal can't be reviewed and approved until after the season is over. The Dept could respond that NMFS shouldn't and cannot put the State in such an impossible situation, and that the State will go ahead and fish without NMFS' approval of the State plan. Thus would begin Salmon War 2017.

NMFS would likely seek an injunction against the State in federal court. The State would have to decide whether to fish or cut bait. We would find out if WA Senators Murray and Cantwell can earn their keep or not by intervening with NMFS and curtailing the injunction because it would be NMFS creating the impossible condition, on the grounds that it is inherently unreasonable for the State as a co-manager to be expected to negotiate with the tribes on less than equal standing.

Yeah, OK, this alternativce ain't too likely. Would take guts on the part of too many players who haven't exhibited having them in the past.

NOAA could also be ordered by the Giant Cheeto to provide the same expedited and even-handed review to non-Indians that it provides Indians. But, like you said, that will take huevos, a spine, etc.

"NMFS would likely respond with the news that the Dept's proposal can't be reviewed and approved until after the season is over. The Dept could respond that NMFS shouldn't and cannot put the State in such an impossible situation, and that the State will go ahead and fish without NMFS' approval of the State plan. Thus would begin Salmon War 2017."

Yes! Count me in! That's the best response yet!

CM -
My understanding earlier this winter was the WDFW was exploring and hopefully pursuing obtaining separate Chinook ESA take coverage for the various game fisheries rather than the cover blank coverage under the co-manager PS Chinook Management Plan permit.

This is not an easy "get"; the reason it was done the way it was initially was that was the easiest way to get it. It will take significant staff time from WDFW staff as well as federal state (NOAA and USFW) to assure there is ESA protection. Hard imagine that such coverage would be available before 2018 and more likely even out.

Salmo g.

Crafting non-treaty fisheries that would meet a high ESA conservation standard or even ones that would assure that the Treaty fishers are assured full access to their treaty guaranteed share would result in significantly reduced non-treaty fisheries; especially in mixed stock areas.

Curt

I know I am harping on the same thing, but it seems that the state should be simply be reopening the Fishery advisory board. From my reading of the past court orders and decisions, this is the direction that must take place; unless someone can show me where this route was abolished legally, in the courts or otherwise.
My fear would be that the department takes the hard line, goes to court, only to have the courts tell them to go back and take the already established route! The fact that the state and Tribe agreed not to use the Board does not appear to have officially removed that path, only suspended it. I liken it to a child custody case where the parents can't agree and the courts set up a arbitrator for them to meet when things get tough. Both parties realize it sucks to go that way and start to work things out. Then six or seven years later the wife remarries and cuts off a visitation to the husband. Would he have to start from scratch, or simply go back to the original court, explain what was going on and ask for a new arbitrator to be established? I would guess that the courts would not want to readdress the issues at hand, since the underlying need for an agreement has been established, and simply direct the sides to take the established path. Co-management is the law, if one side refuses, a court order path to resolution has already been established.

If I am off, and I know I could be, please let me know. Thanks

The question asked Tuesday at the NOF forecast meeting in Olympia was--- what is the latest word on observers being allowed in the Sacramento meeting.

The answer was that it would be up to the tribes regarding observers and having an open meeting. They stated that there will be an additional large room available for those that travel and that the staff would be giving periodical updates of ongoing negotiations to those in attendance where input could also be given to staff.

My take is if I went down to the Sacramento meeting, instead of sitting around twiddling my thumbs, I would be outside picketing the event while waiting for negotiation updates.

Or, if the event was being streamed to the additional room that would probably keep me preoccupied instead of an outside the building demonstration.

What they are referring to is:

April 7-12

Final Pacific Fishery Management Council Meeting

DoubleTree by Hilton Sacramento, 2001 Point West Way, Sacramento, Calif.
PFMC adopts final ocean fisheries regulations and state-tribal fishing plans are finalized for all inside area commercial and sport salmon fisheries.

This is a public open meeting already. They just don't let the public in the same room. Rather sit out side and be fed BS.

All the deals are already done by the time the Sacramento meeting takes place.

The destructive deals done with our Tribal co-managers are done in meetings that have already started and that are NOT published on the NOF Schedule and are completely closed to the public!

The protests need to happen in front of these closed meetings. All we need to do is find out where they are being held!

Of course....

In yesterday's NOF meeting in Olympia --WDFW stated NMFS response to them that it would be an 18 month process to go it alone.

Interesting how they shift the blame away from themselves in justifying why they want to keep the public out of the meetings. "The tribes won't let us." " NMFS won't approve our permits in time". What we haven't heard is what progress and how hard they are working to get us out of this mess! We will never truly be in a co-management system as long as one party has leverage over the other and can dictate terms of agreement!

Region 6 had their "pre-season" meeting 2/22/17 in Montesano. There was a question/answer period.....one of my questions had to do with the public be allow to attend WDFW/QIN NOF meetings, dividing fish between user groups.

I then ask about Wynoochee Mitigation, which has to do will putting fish back in the river.....a process that is now in 25th YEAR, and not 1 Coho or Steelhead has been put in the river from the mitigation funds. Oh, that fund total is now about 2.5 million.

The new Regional Director, Larry Phillips, then spoke.....he indicated that, WDFW/QIN meetings open to the public "would not happen", move on....

That's what I know....3 of us have met with WDFW personnel and made presentations to the Commission......Commission wants the monies to be spent.......mmmmm, we'll see??????

The meeting was taped......

We remember your questions and how Larry Phillips barked at you! Got our hackles up that a public servent would address you like that! Very rude.
And "move on" is NOT going to happen Larry ol boy, no matter how much you would like us to just go away!

Thanks Drifter for getting in their face and bringing up the issue!

I was also in attendance at the Montesano meeting. It puzzles me how a mid-level newbie Manager can speak on behalf of the entire WDFW hierarchy and condemn Transparency , while other personnel are, at the same time, expressing positive support for that very same concept. You wonder why the public has lost faith and trust in you? Our taxes, license fees and permits contribute to your salary. You claim the Feds are stone walling you, just as the Tribes are...and there is nothing you can do.
I simply am not buying this. Show us your efforts to reach out to DC and ask for solutions and guidance on how to "Co-Manage" when your counterpart has all the leverage, and won't bargain in good faith. Demand they oversee and moderate these sessions--maybe even provide arbitration. Bring us into the proceedings so we can better grasp your plight. YOU ARE WORKING ON OUR BEHALF, AND WE WANT TO SUPPORT YOU. Get the job done!

The State (and WDF) agreed to co-management as a solution to many perceived problems if the Tribes took Boldt II to court. WA leadership does not want to piss off the Tribes. There are perceived to be great risks to development, ongoing economy, and growth if the state does not give the tribes much of what they want. It was a calculation that giving up fishing was small potatoes when compared to the other stuff.

I find it very interesting that the Nisqually Tribe finds it important enough to create their own Open Public Meetings Act, yet chooses to disregard the States.

Nisqually Open Public Meetings Act

Funny how non tribal development is always a risk to the tribes but large hotels, casinos and outlet malls on tribal land and the traffic associated with them are the greatest things since sliced bread.
Their PR machine is in full gear.....
SF

Even more interesting will be how they try to explain off the effects of logging on the now thousands of acres of forest land they now own.

That's because the Tribes are the First Conservationists. They plan (as was told to State Employees during mandatory tribal training) not seven years but Seven Generations into the future. They have it all take care of. trust them.

Smalma

My understanding of the Treaty Right is that the tribes, in aggregate, are entitled to 50% of the harvestable fish of Ceded Area fish returning to WA.

This means that, say, Makah could take all the available Lake WA sockeye (say that there was an Early Stuart fishery). In that case, only a NI fishery could be allowed. No more tribal fishing.

So, if WDFW puts together fisheries that ONLY take 50% of the available harvest on each stock then they have met Boldt requirements. The fact is that the tribes now seem to need more than 50% of at least some stocks to get "their" fishery. I have even seen some writers who claim that, for example, Muckleshoot gets 50% of the fish returning to their home waters. Nope.

Its not longer even about the 50%

We probably will never again get "50% of the available surplus" as long as we have ESA listed stocks.

It now comes down to ENCOUNTERS, of which the tribes are allowed MORE to maintain their fisheries.

Thank you for your petition clarification on NOF transparency.

When I signed the petition, I thought it included NOF from start to finish and everything in between regarding transparency.

The PFMC #2 meeting is usually the grand finale in the NOF process, usually because as we know last year negotiations broke down for the first time and an agreement was not reached until a later date.

The year before last, there was an apparent last minute shenanigan by the Muckleshoot tribe that closed area 10 and cut allocation in area 9, both popular summer Chinook fisheries in Puget Sound.

The year before that, the tribes apparently tried to close area 10 whether at the PFMC or at the meetings you are looking to find and expose or both---who knows, because of transparency issues by your own admission above. AND the list can go on and on.

Thank you and please keep up the good work you are doing on the NOF transparency issues.