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.