We have sent a letter to the NWIFC, Chairwoman Lorraine Loomis regarding their objection to the transparency issue in the NOF meetings. In her recent article calling for more cooperation and trust building she says "WE" need to work together to better our fisheries, so we are asking her to end her opposition to having these meetings opened up. Our Petition to open these meetings has gained over 2600 signatures to date.

Here is a copy of the letter we sent:


Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC)
ATTN: Chairwoman Lorraine Loomis
6730 Martin Way E, Olympia, WA 98516


Chairwoman Lorraine Loomis,

Your recent article “BEING FRANK: NORTH OF FALCON UNDERWAY EARLIER” kindled some optimism for our citizens in its language of co-operation and willingness to work toward solutions that put our fish first above all else.

We agree that there are many very important issues that are facing our fisheries, not the least of which is environmental; however, it’s also clear the current climate surrounding our relationship is also impacting our fisheries in a detrimental way.

We are not politicians, nor members of any “organized” group, but rather a cross section of two thousand six hundred citizens of this state— all of whom have a deep love and respect for the resources, as you do. As a citizen based coalition, allow us to speak frankly, person to person.

In your article, you state:

“We’ve been working with the state to take a close look at the North of Falcon process and how we can be more efficient.

We can continue to cooperate.

It has taken more than 40 years for the tribes and state to build the working relationship needed to jointly manage the salmon resource. Like all relationships, ours has its ups and downs, but at the end of the day we all want the same thing: healthy, sustainable salmon populations that can support harvest.

Even with an early start it won’t be easy for the co-managers to reach agreement again this year. As salmon continue to decline, every management action we take requires increasingly careful consideration.

One thing that’s certain is that fisheries management is better when we work together.”

As you are aware, there is a major issue within our current North of Falcon process. The issue is lack of transparency in the closed door, North of Falcon meetings between us, the State, and you, the Treaty Tribes.

This issue has created a large rift between the non-tribal citizens of this State and the Treaty Tribes, a rift that fosters suspicion and distrust rather than a spirit of cooperation and respect.

During a recent meeting with the WDFW Commissioners and Director Unsworth, we were told that they support opening these meetings between the WDFW and the NWIFC representatives. They went on to explain that you oppose any type of openness in these meetings.

We’re hopeful your continued public statements for openness and cooperation do not exclude negotiations between the people of this state and your tribal members. What is implied by “working together” does not mean excluding topics that might be uncomfortable.

We are asking you to address the closed door meetings in an honest and forthright way. We urge you to take the hand that we are extending across the table in trust, and let us truly work together to find solutions to save our troubled fisheries. We are open to your ideas on how to allow full disclosure in these meetings and not disrupt the negotiations.

The first step in forming true cooperation is trust. Trust is earned by understanding and cooperation on the part of both sides. The adversarial thinking of “us verses them” must come to an end. “We” have a responsibility to work together. Let us remove the obstacles to cooperation, no matter how uncomfortable, and save our resources for future generations.

Please set aside your hard line stance and open these meetings to the public.

Looking forward to your timely reply.

Respectfully,


Perry Menchaca
and 2600+ guardians of the Fisheries Resource

Wow,, excellent letter Perry! And thank you for all of your hard work pounding the concrete floor with the petitions.

The only specific reason I have read (beyond the Government to Government argument) from the Tribal interests justifying their demand for continued closed door negotiations cited non-tribal observers (earlier NOF when NT observers allowed) allegedly mis-characterizing tribal positions.

Whether true or not that specific issue is easy to fix. Open the NOF negotiations to observers/press and also have it live streamed and recorded - no off camera negotiations/dealings. And no arguments as to who said what or who is being intransigent. Is there a problem with that???

I agree that the meetings should simply be streamed. That will do away with members of the public physically being present, but would allow access to anyone who cares.

I see no harm in having live streams of the meetings.

The problem with that probably has something to do with the fact that observing, recording, or broadcasting the negotiations would do something that neither side is very interested in...and that something is accurately reporting how the negotiations go.

"We need to keep it a secret so it's reported accurately" sure seems like a bit of a counterintuitive measure to take.

Fish on...

Todd

If WDFW were to take an official position in support of secret, behind closed doors NOF negotiations that position might well be fatal in terms of stakeholder support in addition to simply being counterintuitive.

I believe that WDFW's position on allowing secret meetings re:hunting was neutral. Since it ddn't cost them money, they had no position. I suspect that that WDFW would not oppose a bill in the Leg that codifies NOF as outside of Open Meetings laws.

WDF&W benefits from not making the meetings observable. Lets try a reboot. BOTH sides benefit from the behind closed doors and prefer to blame the other and continue as always. This is not all the tribes fault folks as both parties are guilty as sin.

Rather than a reboot as you describe let's have a paradigm shift to open meetings and see if that results in a better outcome for WDFW's stakeholders.

Nice letter. Thanks for your hard work on this issue.

Having had more time to think, I say streaming the meetings would be the best way to establish transparency without disrupting the business at hand. Rivrguy will tell you that the Tribes weren't always opposed to public participation; they only took that position after realizing that verbal disagreements between tribal and non-tribal interests were disrupting the process that must happen at NOF. If the public were allowed back in those meetings, it seems pretty likely the same sort of arguing and mischaracterizations would be back at the forefront and preventing progress all over again, so perhaps its best to let people listen in and observe from outside the room. There needs to be some way for the public to provide input and ask questions... perhaps a moderated chat forum, or Skype, or something like that. Otherwise, we'll only be able to watch silently as our favorite fishery gets the axe.

What may also come out under transparency is that this is not a two sided discussion. The state is dealing with about 20 different entities. The "Tribes" are not a monolith and I suspect that some may not want to be known as "The Problem" especially if this cut into casino, firework, or other businesses.

For example, the views on mixed stock fishing are vastly different from a tribe that fishes mostly mixed stocks (say Makah) or a tribe that fishes essentially one river (Stillaguamish). Kinda like the Westport vs. Pe El river guys on the NI side.

Some key facts related to this issue are:

The WDFW doesnt make up its own rules and policies. They are guided by the Commission.... which is why Transparency was a Commission topic last month. The WDFW itself will not propose any new policies, or rules, or NOF negotiation tactics, etc. They view this authority as the role of the Commission.

The tribes dont GAF what you, me, or anyone else says or thinks. They Co-Manage & negotiate with the state entity only. Your opinion, and mine, dont count or matter to them.

But state law does guide what WDFW is able to do. And if RCW's mandate that WDFW do something, they need to do it.

The Open Letter featured in Tidal ExChange last week combined with Perry's effort now represent two very sincere conciliatory pleas to rise above contention, and to cooperatively seek the "greater good" in this fisheries mess. Hopefully, more such requests will follow. The question of both WDFW and NWIFC sincerity looms large, despite the proper protocol for such talks. Why is it that only the Recreational fishing faction openly and genuinely seeks to work together, when the resource itself will be decimated and lost to ALL parties involved? Take stock of what you collectively have, and will then definitely forfeit if these adversarial head games continue to play out.

RCW don't mean crap if you dont have some one to prosecute the violator.

Sick Trump on 'em

You can take them to Court and get the reg crown out because they were not legally adopted. Don't need a prosecutor. Some of the boys down in the Harbor are getting pretty skilled at recognizing WDFW reg-process BS.

Are you talking a civil suit or criminal for their lack of compliance with rcw?

That I don't know for sure. What is a suit for lack off compliance (generally Third Party) ?

I am not an attorney.

But I believe criminal charges/prosecutions need to come from some level of Government as in County Prosecutor or State AG. Now, as a citizen one can file a complaint with LE/Prosecutor and see what comes of it.

Otherwise, civil suit to invalidate an action because an agency did not follow its own rules or maybe malfeasance or misfeasance related to actions it should have taken but did not.

I am not an attorney.

We've received a signature return receipt for the letter, so it has been delivered. Now the ball is in NWIFC's (Lorraine Loomis) court. It will be interesting to see what, if any answer we receive.

If they ignore us, it is a clear sign, at least to me, that they speak one thing and do another. After all, how can you say you want more cooperation and obstruct transparency.

If they release another statement along the same lines as the last, objecting any sort of openness, then it is clear they are not truly wanting to work together, but rather demand to have things their way only.

Our true hope is they reach out in a gesture of true cooperation and open a dialogue on how we can have full disclosure for all, and still allow the discussions to take place without interruption.

One thing is clear. The States position is they want open meetings, and have said it's the Tribes that are the roadblock. So, now, lets see if they truly want to just "talk the talk, or walk the walk"!

I also sent a copy of the letter to Director Unsworth and the WDFW Commission. I urged the Director to listen to the voice of 2600 citizens and reach out to Chairwoman Loomis personally and ask her to end her opposition.

It is evident that there is no justification in keeping these meetings closed. It is very simple to set up a live video stream of these meetings that would allow the public to see and listen to these proceedings without interrupting them. There could be no "mis-characterizing anybody, because everyone will see whats going on.

The ONLY reason they could possibly want these meetings to remain closed is if they are doing things in these meetings they want to keep hidden from the public! And if that's the case, we should all be very, very concerned!