This new legislation was referenced in another thread. Worth looking at in the context of current issues on transparency in the NOF process.

http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2017-18/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1097.pdf#page=1

HOUSE BILL 1097 State of Washington 65th Legislature 2017 Regular Session By Representatives Sawyer, Hansen, Fitzgibbon, Stanford, Jinkins, Frame, Gregerson, Santos, Tarleton, and Pollet

Read first time 01/11/17.

Referred to Committee on Community Development, Housing & Tribal Affairs.

AN ACT Relating to tribal consultation regarding hunting rights
and activities; and amending RCW 43.376.050 and 77.04.055.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:

Sec. 1. RCW 43.376.050 and 2012 c 122 s 5 are each amended to
read as follows:
(1) At least once a year, the governor and other statewide elected officials must meet with leaders of Indian tribes to address
issues of mutual concern.
(2) The governor must maintain for public reference an updated list of the names and contact information for the individuals designated as tribal liaisons and the names and contact information for tribal leadership as submitted by an Indian tribe.

(3) The governing body of any tribal government of a tribe with
federally recognized hunting rights within the state may request a consultation with the governor and the fish and wildlife commission regarding any specific fish and wildlife department policy, rule, or action that affects tribal hunting rights. The governor must convene a meeting within thirty days of receiving such a request. The fish and wildlife commission must attend the meeting, or delegate this responsibility to the director of the department of fish and wildlife, when agreed upon by the requesting tribe. Any meeting convened pursuant to this section is not subject to the requirements of the open public meetings act, chapter 42.30 RCW.

Sec. 2. RCW 77.04.055 and 2000 c 107 s 204 are each amended to read as follows:
(1) In establishing policies to preserve, protect, and perpetuate
wildlife, fish, and wildlife and fish habitat, the commission shall meet annually with the governor to:
(a) Review and prescribe basic goals and objectives related to8
those policies; and
(b) Review the performance of the department in implementing fish and wildlife policies. The commission shall maximize fishing, hunting, and outdoor recreational opportunities compatible with healthy and diverse fish and wildlife populations.
(2) The commission shall establish hunting, trapping, and fishing
seasons and prescribe the time, place, manner, and methods that may be used to harvest or enjoy game fish and wildlife.
(3) The commission shall establish provisions regulating food
fish and shellfish as provided in RCW 77.12.047.
(4) The commission shall have final approval authority for
tribal, interstate, international, and any other department
agreements relating to fish and wildlife.
(5) The commission must agree to consult with the governor and tribal governments, pursuant to RCW 43.376.050.
(6) The commission shall adopt rules to implement the state's
fish and wildlife laws. (((6)))
(7) The commission shall have final approval authority for the department's budget proposals. (((7)))
(8) The commission shall select its own staff and shall appoint the director of the department. The director and commission
staff shall serve at the pleasure of the commission.

--- END ---


Here is the existing statute that is being amended by adding a new (5) as shown above.

RCW 77.04.055
Commission—Duties.
(1) In establishing policies to preserve, protect, and perpetuate wildlife, fish, and wildlife and fish habitat, the commission shall meet annually with the governor to:
(a) Review and prescribe basic goals and objectives related to those policies; and
(b) Review the performance of the department in implementing fish and wildlife policies.
The commission shall maximize fishing, hunting, and outdoor recreational opportunities compatible with healthy and diverse fish and wildlife populations.
(2) The commission shall establish hunting, trapping, and fishing seasons and prescribe the time, place, manner, and methods that may be used to harvest or enjoy game fish and wildlife.
(3) The commission shall establish provisions regulating food fish and shellfish as provided in RCW 77.12.047.
(4) The commission shall have final approval authority for tribal, interstate, international, and any other department agreements relating to fish and wildlife.
(5) The commission shall adopt rules to implement the state's fish and wildlife laws.
(6) The commission shall have final approval authority for the department's budget proposals.
(7) The commission shall select its own staff and shall appoint the director of the department. The director and commission staff shall serve at the pleasure of the commission.

Section 2 looks like a transition of significant authority over to the Commission, which could be very good for us, depending on who's on the Commission at a given time.

Section 1 looks like a dangerous precedent. This will get mangled by both sides, then thrown out. Too polarizing (IMO).

I am pretty sure that Section 2 exists except that #5 has been added, if my memory of how amendments are shown in bills is correct. So, rather than adding authority, it deletes some.

Ah, yes. I think you're right. I guess I read through that list of Commission powers, and it looked to me to be FAR more significant than what I've observed in interactions between the Commission, WDFW, and the Legislature, so I figured it was new. Makes total sense, given the context of the bill, that (5) is the whole reason for Section 2's inclusion.

Yup. It's what we thought it was: "Sovereign" governments giving the Washington public the middle finger, with support from our elected officials. The "Representatives" backing this should be tried for treason. Instead, they'll get awards for their dedication to "citizens' rights."

They'll get their campaign contributions increased.

Does anybody know how many tribal governments there are with federally recognized hunting rights?

Could be up to 29 sovereign nations dictating, through legislation, a meeting with the governor within 30 days after a request.

From one meeting per year now, to 29 possible requests per month = a possible 348 meetings per year sounds like opening Pandora's box in this poorly thought out bill.

Or, WDFW could just roll over and say "Whatever you want, Boss".

I think most, if not all, of the Stevens treaties signed with the tribes around Puget Sound had a provision for hunting and fishing in usual and accustomed areas. I think there was a reference to open and unclaimed lands as it relates to hunting. A question is - What are "open and unclaimed" lands - USFS, BLM, NPS, maybe private timber lands (no houses).....? What about season structure and herd management issues?

The State and Tribes are supposed to have been co-manageing the Big Game (deer and elk). They have all sorts of agreements/plans about how seasons are set, how data is shared, and so on.

Note the the Muckleshoot have exclusive access to the Cedar river watershed.

Another angle in looking at this is that the proposed new language gives the requesting tribe the power to demand that the (entire? Chair??) Commission attend in person in lieu of designating the Director as their representative:

" The fish and wildlife commission must attend the meeting, or delegate this responsibility to the director of the department of fish and wildlife, when agreed upon by the requesting tribe."[i][/i]

Insofar as the Commission consists of unpaid volunteers how might this legislative dictate affect the quality of Commissioners and their commitment? Seems like a perfect opportunity for the Law of Unintended Consequences to rear its ugly head!

Unintended Consequences? They want the Commission out of the loop.

Well, you may be right. If the frontal attack doesn't work just make it too onerous for anyone to want the job and the whole process implodes.

Basically make WDFW a Cabinet Agency, directly under the Governor's thumb. With the decline in support by hunters and fishermen the agency will be "broke". If the Commission carries through with the threat to produce fish for payees then the Leg will need to supply salmon hatchery money through the GF. Like back when WDG got GF money and became WDW the cost will be the Governor appoints the Director.

I think the next few years will be kinda ugly.

Representatives Sawyer, Hansen, Fitzgibbon, Stanford, Jinkins, Frame, Gregerson, Santos, Tarleton, and Pollet


have obviously succumbed to the coercive stance of a sovereign nation to throw their own constituents under the bus.

This is outright un-American.

Doc, it's perfectly American. Gubmint to the highest bidder. They got got bought, they "earned" their donations.

When I called the sponsor of this bill Friday asking how many federal recognized tribes there are with hunting rights in this state, I also had other concerns regarding these individual sovereign nations demanding consultation with another government through our laws created by our lawmakers in Olympia.

Besides the governor, these sovereign nations are demanding to be heard by the state F&W commission through state legislative law. If a meeting by these nations was requested of the F&W commission they would be invited with open arms in a public open setting.

But again, these same sovereign nations are demanding no open public meeting through our legislative laws? I’m disappointed that the sponsor of this bill would support such totally un-American back world communistic ideals.

What the hell are you thinking emails going to all co sponsors of this bill along with thoughts to my district legislators.

Another thought on the whole Commission/Governor/Tribes. It was an initiative that created WDFW and took it out from under the Governor's thumb. Enough time has passed that the Leg, by a simple majority, can change that RCW completely.

2017 REGULAR SESSION

Jan 11 First reading, referred to Community Development, Housing & Tribal Affairs (Not Officially read and referred until adoption of Introduction report). (View Original Bill)

Jan 25 Public hearing in the House Committee on Community Development, Housing & Tribal Affairs at 8:00 AM. (Committee Materials)

Jan 26 Scheduled for executive session in the House Committee on Community Development, Housing & Tribal Affairs at 1:30 PM (Subject to change). (Committee Materials)

This bill would send us back several decades where politics trumped conservation in clandestine settings instead of open public meetings.

HB 1097 is in direct conflict of Referendum 45 that was initiated by the legislature and sent to the public for vote in 1995 regarding transparency through open meetings when it came to administering of the fish and wildlife of this state through the F&W commission.

HB 1097 is a step in the wrong direction dictating closed door policy that the legislature and voters of 1995 were totally against.

But today's legislature wants their campaign donations...

Ah, but how much casino revenue was in the political mix in 1995? Probably close enough to zero to make it a non-factor. These days, that number is some integer, followed by 6 (maybe 7) zeros, and darned if the Tribes aren't making a few friends in high places....

The F&W commission is as strong today, as back in 1995, while defending being “gutted” by some in the past handful of years.

If you can’t beat them then chip away at one of their core values of transparency through open meetings, while not in place could lead to corruption through clandestine meetings having politics and not science dictate the outcome of fish and wildlife in this state.

That is not a viable option back then or now.

The core values of the commission need to be defended as rigorously as the commission itself as WE the people intended in the past to present times.

Here's the interesting thing...these aren't just a bunch of Nobody's in the leg...each one is a Chair or Vice Chair of some fairly influential committees:

Sawyer: Chair - Commerce & Gaming
Hansen: Chair - Higher Education
Fitzgibbon: Chair - Environment
Jinkins: Chair - Judiciary
Frame: ViceChair - Finance
Gregerson: ViceChair - Labor & Workplace Standards
Santos: Chair - Education
Tarleton: ViceChair - Technology & Economic Development AND she's the majority floor leader
Pollet: ViceChair - Higher Education

Only Stanford isn't listed as a leader of some committee, so overall this seems to have quite of bit of influential support behind it from a bunch of the Dem's leadership roll. This could be why this bill has seemingly been fast tracked...it passed out of the House committee today with almost unanimous support (only 1 vote against).

You can sign up to follow various bills in the WA legislature. Here's a link to look at HB 1097. If you sign up for tracking, you'll be updates on any action. There were a couple of amendments to the bill today in the Executive session.

http://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1097&Year=2017

I was just taking another look at this and realized how broad it is. What does " any specific Department policy, rule, or action that affects tribal hunting rights" really mean. The term action leaves a lot open to interpretation. Since the department signs off on most environmental permits and logging permits, would all these be included. If so, the power grab by the tribes could be huge. They effectively could require meetings on every construction project that has a SEPA required. This has a huge possibility of being a cash cow for the tribes. There is no way the governor could meet with them everything. Hence some sort of compensation, of terms yet unknown, could be negotiated.

It is all about the money. The more that the tribes can become "players" the better their opportunity to extort money in order for their not opposing any given project. A perfect example is the Point No Point boat launch. The Suquamish would have withdrawn their objection if their demands had been met - to include a sizeable cash payment for anticipated harm to their ability to exercise their treaty fishing rights. The WDFW didn't knuckle under and where do we stand? The Corps of Engineers apparently won't issue the necessary permit in the face of the tribal objection no matter how de minimus the potential impact.

Wonder if the "new regime" in DC will change the Corps' mind?

Looks like we have a new law. The Senate vote will turn up a few more No's, but only because the Dems wrote it. We know our beloved Governor isn't going to fight it.

Why don't we just get this over with and appoint a tribal chief our governor? That way, no secret meetings will be needed. They can just give it to us straight.

HB 1097 is in direct conflict of Referendum Bill 45 regarding transparency through open meetings replacing closed door politics for science driven conservation when it comes to administering of our state fish and wildlife through the F&W commission. The findings and intent of referendum bill 45 states that the commission must act in an open and deliberative process that encourages public involvement and increases public confidence in department decision making.

Referendum 45 was sent to ballot by the 1995 state legislature. By looking at the poll results, the highly popular referendum bill 45 passed statewide by nearly 61% while passing in each and every county of our state. The legislature passed this into law in conjunction with the State of Washington voter’s wishes.

Our state legislature and state voters from all corners of our state spoke loud and clear against a bill like HB 1097 regarding closed door meetings/ politic when it comes to managing our fragile state fish and wildlife resources.

Too be more specific;

When the lawmakers in Olympia sent Referendum Bill 45 to the ballot for the state voters to reject or ratify, the results were a resounding victory in every county in the state resulting in sections being added to Title 77 of the RCW’s by our Olympia lawmakers in conjunction with the electorate of this state.

Sections of law added resulting from Referendum Bill 45 were RCW 77.04.013, and RCW 77.04.055 among others.

HB 1097 wants to add language to RCW 77.04.055 and at the same time ignore RCW 77.04.013 which states “The commission acts in an open and deliberative process that encourages public involvement and increases public confidence in department decision making.”

HB 1097 language requiring the F&W commission or WDFW on the commission's behalf to closed to the public meetings is in contempt of existing law and intent of what the lawmakers and voters from all corners of the state expected as proper conduct.

My wife and I voted for referendum bill 45 with the understanding that open to public involvement meetings would replace some of the perceived closed door clandestine meetings in the management of our fish and wildlife of our state.

In other words, we felt that the fragile state of our fish and wildlife would be better served by being managed by other means (science) than politics through the F&W Commission.

There is a substitute HB 1097 bill that has been passed on to Rules 2 for review. There is still a provision in the bill that any meeting(s) with the Governor and WDFW will not be subject to the open meeting law.

http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2017-18/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1097-S.pdf

That substitute moved the bill from hunting to anything WDFW does. There goes any fish tranparency.

So it's getting worse with each draft? Solid work our Leg. Is doing for its citizens.

Can you explain? I read it exactly the opposite. The language now says:

The governing body of a tribe may request a consultation with the governor and the fish and wildlife commission regarding any specific fish and wildlife department policy, rule, or action that affects tribal hunting activities.


How is for ANYTHING WDFW does? Seems specific to hunting to me. It does have this though:

Any meeting convened pursuant to this section is not subject to the requirements of the open public meetings act, chapter 42.30 RCW.

Because of the opening sentence this seems to still keep it to hunting.

You're right. I mis-read it. But, it does say "any" action that affects hunting. That would include hiring, firing, promotion. It would also include budgeting.

I heard, and have no way to confirm it, that the Tribes want hunting rights expanded to statewide (no U&A/ceded area) and also to private land. I think their argument is that by destroying habitat through development, which reduces their hunting opportunity, the State violated the Treaty.

I think that they would have a hard time pushing that hunting opportunities are diminishing. More and more the tribes themselves are buying up huge chunks of timberland. The amount owned by the Muckleshoot tribe is amazing. The Makah tribe is buying up huge chunks, as are many other tribes. The west side traditionally had less animals in the past due to the thick canopy. I would not be surprised if todays game levels exceed those pre-treaty on the west side. On the east side, it probably is a different story, but I don't think they would be the ones pushing it, as it would potentially degrade their hunting rights.

It is evidently clear that the Tribes are systematically excluding all public involvement and oversight in all areas of our government. As we sit by and argue semantics the Tribes take the mountain a pebble at a time..

It's clear the Tribes have an agenda. To take and keep taking until we, the citizens have lost all our rights.

Interesting that this bill specifically makes public oversight in NOF proceedings impossible at exactly the same time we have initiated a major movement to open the fisheries NOF meetings. A simple back door move.

The Tribes say they are a sovereign government, and therefore not subject to Washington State Law. But they buy politicians to push through laws that take away the rights of Washington State Citizens.

FF02,

I guess the good news is that there isn’t a companion bill in the state senate but Chair Sen. Pearson on the Natural Resource committee does have a workshop hearing Feb. 2 at 1:30PM regarding government to government relations. Like HB 1097 there will be tribal members on a panel testifying and got a phone call that there will be 2 state government agencies presenting testimony this time around --- testimony from the public will not be taken.

The attorney general office is pursuing larger fines for open meeting act violations through HB 2353 and companion SB 6171.

With a small sampling of email responses, Rep. Blake among others is opposed to HB 1097 for various reasons.

HB 1097 is heading to second reading in the Senate. This is the bill that lets the tribes convene a meeting with the Gov and Commission/Director about hunting issues and exempts the meeting from the Open Meeting rules for the state.

Mar 9
First reading, referred to Natural Resources & Parks. (View Original Bill)
Mar 21 Public hearing in the Senate Committee on Natural Resources & Parks at 1:30 PM. (Committee Materials)
Mar 28
Executive action taken in the Senate Committee on Natural Resources & Parks at 1:30 PM. (Committee Materials)
NRP - Majority; do pass with amendment(s). (Majority Report)
Mar 29
Passed to Rules Committee for second reading.


http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2017-18/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1097-S.pdf

It was the findings and intent of Referendum 45 to have the F&W Commission act in an open and deliberative process that encourages public involvement and increases public confidence in department decision making, but this bill would require them or their representative, if agreed upon by the requesting tribe, to attend closed to public meetings.

This bill could have unintended hardship on the citizen panel if required to attend depending on the number of meetings called by 29 individual tribes per year.

Just the closed door meeting language in this bill is repulsive to the American way.

It looks like there could be an emphasis on politics instead of science with the passing of this bill that could affect the resource which consequently could affect us, our children, and future generations to come.

This one really ticks me off. I called most of the members of the committee members in the house on it and got no return calls. I then got ahold of *Blake's office* (Correction --- It was Pearson's office- my appolgies to Blake or anyone I led astray) and talked to them about it. They actually asked me to come down and testify, but I had a doctors appointment for my wife that I had to attend. I wrote a letter in Lieu of testimony that laid out the hardship that it could have on the committee and governor and asked for a strike of the word action and a limitation of number of meetings and a specification of location. If you watch the committee meeting they bring up the fact that there are 29 tribes and that any of them could call a meeting at any time. They mention that the department has no idea how many times this could happen. I was hoping that they then would get the idea of how imposing this could be. The consequences of this rests soley on Blake and his committee as I have no doubt they know what they are passing. I haven't decided yet if I should call up for an explanation.
There was also a request that the wording be changed to make it impossible for the committee make decisions in that meeting but that apparently was shot down too.

So I looked through the bill summary, and this bill never passed through the Ag & Natural Resources committee, which Blake chairs.

Because it was a Tribal governance bill it was routed to the House committee on community development, housing and tribal affairs. Blake is not a member of that committee. I also looked at the roll call for the vote on the bill in the house. Guess who shows up as the first nay? Blake. Doubt me, click on the link, go to March 7 activity in the house, then click on " View roll call".

http://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1097&Year=2017

I have a little experience in this stuff because I will testify on 2-6 bills every year. He never touched it. Brian's defacto schill also told me that he would have killed it had it passed through Ag & NR.

While I'll admit Brian is an asshole at times, he's not that big of an asshole. (Okay, that's somewhat debatable)

Speaking of assholes, how about how CCA killed the Walsh amendment to up hatchery production in Grays Harbor, Pacific and Wahkiakum counties? You know, that organization that brought us the discover pass.

Pick the right enemy. You are off base on this one.

Dog fish,
You are right. I do not know why I put Blake. I talked to the house committee but got no where that I could tell, as I was a little late to the game. I then called Peason's office and thought I was getting through to them. Then, they passed it through with just some minor changes. I got to be more careful as I knew it wasn't Blake. Pearson seems to get the issue, but I think they are still quite mistaken on the impact of this one. What they did was change the time period to allow the Governor's office more control in scheduling the meeting. I think they thought by doing so the governor and committee could limit the number of meetings and address all the issues at once (to once a month). I have several problems with this. The first is that the tribes could protest a simple logging permit or other issue than agree to delay the consultation for as long as both parties wish. This would likely leave the permit in limbo until the groups get together. The other possible scenario is that they would still have to meet at least once a month and have to discuss as many issues as the various tribes wish to pursue. It is possible they could try to bring up every permit and just drag the consultation out for long as they want. Consultation over the issues at hand is not a bad thing per say, but the consultations should be limited for the most part to new policy, rather than allowing them for actions under already implemented policy and rules. Striking the word action would be the easiest way to take care of this.

The way I understand it, this is the way it would work in your field. It would be the difference from a rule that allows the feds to review all policy and rules regarding insufficient funds and one that simply said any action regarding insufficient funds. Under the latter, if they got ticked off at a bank, they could call for a review of every fee charged under the existing rules. Before anyone could be charged, they would have the right to review the charges one at a time. The burden changes quite a bit.

Blake and I don't see eye to eye to often, but buried somewhere in this thread I gave Blake credit when he emailed me stating he was opposed to this bill. That was around the end of January.

With all due respect, Dogfish, Blake plays you like a fiddle.

Hear this, folks: If Brian Blake doesn't like CCA, you should DEFINITELY support them.... heavily.

You are welcome to your opinion. Someone had made a TOTALLY FALSE ASSERTION about Brian here, and I pointed that out. Want to tell me something different on CCA's actions? I'll wait.

I get things done that affect my interests (and my client's interests) with his help, and I help him with his interests. It is mutually beneficial.

Here is one of those issues that did run through the Agriculture and Natural Resources committee.

http://thelens.news/2017/03/31/opinions-still-clashing-over-hirst-decision-bill/

Not sure if anybody here plans on building in a rural part of Washington ever in their life, but if you do plan on building a home that requires a well, you might want to read up on the Hirst decision.

Dog Fish.

I am truly sorry about the mistake involving Blake.. I went back and added a correction into the post. I am still wondering, though, how you feel about the bill. You seem to be in touch quite a bit with hunting issues. I keep feeling like I am the only one that has any doubts about the wisdom of this bill based off the wording.

No worries on the Blake thing. Appreciate you correcting that.

The verbiage in the bill scares the hell out of me, primarily the use of the word "any" at the end of line 14. Effectively "any" rule or policy could be said to have an impact on tribal hunting activities, because maybe one less elk or deer may be not be able to harvested by the Tribes. That would be an impact on tribal hunting activities.

The Hirst decision I referred to above also deals with impacts. The unit of measure used define if there was a hydrological impact on streams, rivers or senior water rights is "one molecule". That may sound crazy, but if new home construction in all GMA counties can be brought to a halt because of the impact of one molecule of water, how hard is it to make the same argument based on one animal?

Sorry, don't necessarily trust the Tribes. Dip-netting the salmon ladders this past fall, harvesting over 70% of the coastal crab catch for the past 3-4 years, holding us hostage at NOF, the 2016 summer salmon season, not turning in sufficient catch data, and then this whole open meeting deal. Their actions stink as bad as the piles of egg stripped fish on the banks of the Skok. Clear enough?

I'd have ta say---Clear! Now, tell me how ya really feel!!!

Dogfish, we could use your enthusiasm in our fight!!

Here's another thought to put in the brain box.

By condoning and not challenging the Tribes proclamation that the NOF negotiations are "Gov't to Gov't" the WDFW has set a precedence that ALL meetings involving tribal members for ANYTHING can now be called "Gov't to Gov't" and therefor no one, not even the media can find out what their doing. Dogfish, you mentioned water..the Tribes are already making moves on water rights in the State. Perhaps soon, we will all have to pay an access fee for standing at the river, or not be allowed on the river at all..and it will all happen in Secret Gov't to Gov't meetings!!

WHY IS NO ONE IN AUTHORITY CHALLENGING THIS???

Because people In Authority want it that way!

Fixed.

I have enough on my plate at the moment.