First, this is not a self pat on the back, and I hope it doesn't come across that way. If it does, I apologize in advance.

As many of you know, we've been working very hard on cracking the tough nut of public oversight in the Tribal/WDFW NOF negotiations. We must assume with all the attention our fight has gained, the Tribal co-managers must be paying attention. Although they have not responded at all to the issue, other than a very old statement, we would not be at all surprised if they are a lot more accommodating in the negotiations this year. It would be an excellent tactic to "cool the heat" so to speak. A small step backward, yet no real concessions as far as allowing transparency.

Perhaps, strategizing, by giving in and allowing a better than average season for us, we will all grab our fishing poles and take off and this whole thing about public oversight will just go away?

Just a thought.

I wish Lorraine Loomis would just reach out to us and instead of speculations, we could discuss the true reasons the Tribes are so adamantly opposed to having a small live feed video camera in the negotiations. If they agreed to that, this whole thing would go away, and it would go miles as a gesture of true cooperation.

We will soon know, as the days are counting down--unless they hang us up in a manner similar to last year. I also hope your prediction falls short, as a good many of us want this debacle solved ASAP, but are willing to see it through, no matter how long it takes.

The major conflicts/bad blood are between (and even within) tribes. Publicly, the tribes want to display a united front. Open meeting would expose the conflicts. That would open the door to the possibilities that (say) the recs align with and support Makah, S'Klallams, etc. against some inside tribes like the Muckleshoots.

That's an interesting idea.

If they can divide us (rec's) when it comes to advocating for our fisheries, then why can't we . . .

fb

Interesting point Carcassman, and one that we've heard echoed in the halls of WDFW. We can understand the Tribes reluctance to "air dirty laundry" in public. However, it's not a good play to put their (Tribal) "public image" above the conservation and open management of our fish. That stand will surly backfire when it gets verified and gets out to the main street media. Imagine the headline:

"TRIBAL LEADERS PLACE PUBLIC IMAGE ABOVE CITIZENS RIGHT TO OPEN GOVERNMENT"

That sure would look bad!

The tribes have hunkered down and have chosen to "keep very quiet" which in reality is only fanning the fire!!

Best move for them would be to clean their house and then come to the meetings with cohesion and cooperation. Objecting to any public involvement in public meetings because they have problems internally is, well....wrong.

I will add that we know some tribes are much more cooperative then others.. Might be a good idea for the "less confrontational" members to get involved and get a handle on this before it goes "nuclear" in the press.

"Hunkering Down"?

I think they are just ignoring you...

The tribes learned, to their detriment, that acting alone is not a successful ploy. Indians as conservationists has been a mantra since the 30s when Ding Darling (father of the Duck Stamp) used that in cartoon lampooning white attitudes towards the earth.

Bay Wolf,

Lorraine Loomis isn't going to reach out to you simply because she doesn't have to. As a tribal fisheries leader she must deal with the state (gov't to gov't), so she does. They don't want you or a video camera in the negotiation room exactly because the tribes collectively don't want any more people than absolutely necessary to see and hear what occurs in that room. Which is exactly why your efforts to open up the meetings are so thoroughly justified. I can only assume that WDFW doesn't support opening up the meetings is also because they don't want anyone else to see and hear what occurs in that room.

Sg

What? Things like the wild Queets coho "escapement floor" being lowered to 1/2 of actual goal in 2016 to allow ocean salmon fishing in MA's 1-4 to occur at all? This year, the co-managers are once again conceding a lowered "escapement floor" because it's simply too socio-economically inconvenient to look out for real conservation. The fake kind is just so much easier to swallow.

But Doc, we get to go fishing this summer! The Co-Managers worked very hard to craft fisheries for us. For this year. Squeeze every possible fish out of the water. Next year will take care of itself.

On a more serious note, though, any time managers restrict a fishery there is hell to pay if a surplus fish shows up in the escapement anywhere on the coast. Those fish are wasted! Generally, nobdoy calls up and complains about under escaping and "the fish just weren't there".

IMO, the way the Queets gets plundered (Quinault, too, for that matter) is shameless and clearly shows no regard for the future of the resource on the part of the tribe doing the plundering. A quick glance at the Queets gillnet schedule tells the story quite concisely.

One of my primary concerns this year surrounds the Tribal fishery impact estimates that far exceed sport on a number of fisheries, yet serve to limit recreational (and non tribal commercial) access to our proportional share. Many of the tribal test fisheries are keeping us off the water, and several treaty troll estimates greatly exceed actual effort based upon past catch data. Those may be inserted as extra fluff to create problems in co management season decisions. Both can equally serve to create a great downstream negative effect on the recreational ability to access hatchery fish in mixed stock and terminal areas.

They have so far not indicated that they will adjust those fisheries even toward an equitable impact. I don't call that accommodating.

Hoh v. Baldridge, and court orders on steelhead in the 70s/80s may offer a chance for change but it will take court action.

On steelhead, the tribes were not allowed to cork the recreational fishery that often occurred upstream of the nets. The NI share had to be passed upstream.

HvB held that the Ohs, and extension and terminal tribe, could not be closed for conservation because of outside fisheries. The flips side should be that the in-river recs should not be closed by tribal fisheries who take the rec share.

The above arguments both get into meeting 50:50 sharing. The parties can agree to something different which is what they now do. There are, probably, "good" reasons for abandoning fixed allocation but they have to be publicly discussed.

As mentioned before, Phil Anderson told steelheaders that WDFW would not pursue a Hoh fishery to 4/30, even with fish available, because a fishery to 4/15 gave us the fishery we wanted. Us and we not being defined.

I think there is a lot of background to why fisheries occur where that folks want answers to but WDFW won't give them. Beyond glib spin, anyway.

I suspect, by the time the story gets told with the spin added, it will appear everyone is holding hands and singing kumbaya. As you guys have said, the devil is in the details.

Just so frustrating that these bargains and deals and coercion and grandstanding and all the other detriments to our fisheries is allowed to continue, unabated behind locked doors, when we all know how important the decisions are to the sustainability of our fish. I for one am sick and tired of hearing how the "sensitivity of our relations is paramount", and "Our hands are tied, nothing can be done". I call BS. The system is broken. The fish are being decimated and it's not by the hook and line guys, science proves that. Secret deals can not and never will fix our fisheries.

I'm very disappointed in the senior leadership at WDFW, and frankly the Commission for the stand they have taken on this. They have proved to be an accomplice in this obstruction as much as the tribes.

I am not saying your opinions aren't just but I will say that no and absolutely no recording devices in the room is standard practice at nearly all meetings for anything of importance in any industry.

Why? Probably because people can take anything out of context and ruin someone elses life. Or because lawyers can use recordings to leverage anything based on a word used not what is meant or implied. No recording devices can ironically keep things fair.

As far as the ultimate goal, that being cooperative conservation of the salmon resource to achieve a sustainable yield fishery...there is, at this point, no middle ground in the equation. That equation at present goes as follows:


Dual Native American Citizenship + Casino Revenue + Vulnerable Bureaucrats + WDFW Ineffectiveness + Indiscriminant Tribal netting = Dysfunction


To get the desired solution, change the equation by altering or replacing the elements that result in the current outcome. Class dismissed...

I respect your opinion, however you are a little off base.

We will not accept a recording of the negotiations. Recordings can be edited and that is counter to what we are seeking. We want open and public meetings. The use of a live stream video camera that cannot be edited or have sections cut out would serve that purpose.

Our fisheries management IS NOT a "industry". It is a meeting held by public servants, on public property discussing the allocation of a public resource.

Secret meetings do not produce "fair" deals. Especially to those who are excluded from the meeting. If you truly want to avoid taking something out of context, have everything out in the open so EVERYBODY can see and hear exactly what is said and done. That way there is no room for speculation.

Maybe in private enterprise. State Government, funded by our tax dollars, is public domain. We have a right to record and film our representatives in action. No different than filming a cop in public.

What we need is a "Project Veritas" style operation.

I agree Bay Wolf. Our fisheries are not an "industry" and should be treated as such and openly. I was just stating why this no recording aspect isnt unusual at all and isnt highly suspicious, more like convenient for some.

What would be interesting is if someone in the meetings should make a recording of the meeting using a cell phone, and then release it on a "public forum".

If there were some legal action taken against that person, it would bring the issue to a court and the State and the Tribes would have to then justify "WHY" the meetings need to be conducted behind closed doors.

Of course, the person who did that would most certainly lose their job. Which would open another whole legal case of retaliation.

Wish someone would do that....

Well, it appears the tribes have deployed the exact tactic that we predicted. They have tried to appease the NT fishermen by making concessions and hoping that we will let the pressure off! But, what did we really gain? As long as secret meetings, dirty deals and coercion is the way we managed our fisheries, we will alway be second class citizens.

WE WILL NOT LET UP. WE WILL NOT GO AWAY. WE WILL CONTINUE THE FIGHT AND TO GROW OUR NUMBERS UNTIL WE HAVE A FAIR AND LEVEL PLAYING FIELD.