For the past year, we have been warning and busting our butts trying to get you guys fired up about the lack of public involvement in the SECRET MEETINGS. We warned that WDFW cannot be trusted and how the Tribes and WDFW are not at all concerned about the wants of the Sportsmen. Few, very few took any real action, so now it's time to pay the piper boys, for THE NEXT TEN YEARS!

Here is a taste of what is about to be shoved up our @$S!

Ron Garner, PSA State Board President sent out the following email today:

To all:

We have hired Pat Pattillo to breakdown this plan to tell us what it means. It is really really bad for Washington State. Please share with everyone you know.

This is an unacceptable deal that was made between WDFW and tribes negotiating our next 10 year Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan. Many of us are digging into this to try to understand and everyone is shaking their heads in disbelief. This was done behind closed doors without WDFW Commission being advised or even told about it.

"Shaking their heads in disbelief" LOL REALLY!! Where have they been for the last year that we've been fighting for Open Meetings?

There's more...much, much more!

Merry Christmas boys....you can sleep well trusting WDFW to take care of you!

Trust me. How many times did folks here try that line with girls? Same result.

Somebody passed onto me the cover letter and supporting document. What I got was a plan for 2010-2014, based on decade old data. Is that what they are proposing? To take the highly popular and successful management of 10-14 or did they just screw up in what they sent?

The latter. Give us some time--we are working on a link to download the entire comprehensive program for 2019-2029. The doc is 168+ pages, and I believe it requires Fed approval yet to be considered.

The plan in its entirety can be downloaded and reviewed at this link:

https://tidalexchange.com/2017/12/06/comprehensive-management-plan-for-puget-sound-chinook/

Also can be found @ www.nwsportsmanmag.com/wdfw-tribes-send-nmfs-updated-10-year-plan-for-sound-chinook/. Andy Walgamott is all over this...

Lets face it....it's over.

Here is the problem.......Not enough fish......then increase in sport persons fishing, because of "baby boomers" with too much money and now want to go fishing, tribal fishing, and then the major problem is NT fishing.

Some one is going to "get the short end of the stick".....I'm here to tell you, its not going to be tribal.....so then its sports and nt. I go to NOF meetings in Region 6.......I can't believe the time/paper work that is spent trying to get fishing time for 11 or 12 NT fishermen, some that just do it as a past time.

You have to realize that the Chehalis River has a booming sports fishery, booming sports guide population, the NT gillnet fishery AND 2 tribes that gill net the river.....the Chehalis tribe and the Quinault tribe.

Is there an answer here....probably but the commercial fishing industry isn't going to like it....

Don't know what the heartburn is. Table 4-1 in the new plan is almost the same as Table 12 in the 2010 Plan. (link to 2010 plan: http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00854/wdfw00854.pdf )

Except that are a few increases in allowable ERs. While the devil might be in some details if there are specific sharing determinations between tribal and non-tribal fisheries, more impacts to split between the 2 sectors should be a good thing....what am I misinterpreting there?

rojoband-

You are correct the devil is in the details. In this case in Table4-1 table a look at the Stillaguamish. In the last plan it says see MUP. The MUP is the Management Unit Profile; in this case for the Stillaguamish. If you go to that MUP (in the appendix) you will find that there are several major (more conservative) changes. A couple key points include adopting a SUS RER for terminal run sizes (TRS) of 900 to 1200 of 8%. This is down from the past RER of 15%. In additional it provides for yet to be developed additional guidelines when the TRS is less than 900 (under these conditions the allowable RER might well be less than 8%).

However perhaps the most dramatic change was placing a RER of 12% on the Stillaguamish hatchery produced (wild brood stock) Chinook. The combination of this new suite of restriction will require significant reductions in the Washington catch of Stillaguamish Chinook (both hatchery and wild). Depending on how the co-managers opt to share those impacts the impact on PS and Stillaguamish recreational could range from significant to massive!

Curt

Thanks Curt. That 12% on the hatchery component...yeah I can see how this is going to hurt when nontribal fisheries only TARGET hatchery fish in the salt.

You guys are getting warm now...there's more...

It is time to end this crazy situation where we are having to Re-act to these secret agreements rather than be pro-active by being included in the management decisions in OUR FISHERIES. The Department and Tribal Co-managers must be held accountable by the Commission. The Commission needs to write language into their policies which mandates open meetings, thereby making all meetings, regardless of participants fall under the One Public Meetings Law. Then, if any party feels they are above the law, let them explain to the people why they feel secrets are beneficial to the recovery and sustainment of our fisheries!

Go to the Commission meeting, let your voice be heard. Tell the Commission to be Honorable and put action to their words. Tell them to write open meetings into their policies so we will never have to endure this travesty of secret deals again.

Caught my first steelhead under the 101 bridge on the Bogy when I was 9 years old. That was 56 years ago this month. This post only reinforces my decision to quit fishing for steelhead and salmon in the rivers. Number 1 killer of the fish runs, Indians, number 2, too many sport fisherman, number 3, loss of habitat, number 4, pollution, number 5, dirt bag poachers including Indians, locals, foreigners, etc. and it goes on and on. We're selling the boat this Spring and sadly done. We are being sucked dry by fees, let down by greedy Indians and idiot politicians. It's hard to imagine not fishing for those fish anymore after so long but it's just not worth it. You pay out the nose for a license and you get sh!t for it. I haven't kept a steelhead since 1990 trying to do my part. I've released every fish including hatchery fish. They say you should keep hatchery fish yet they turn right around and close rivers because they aren't getting enough back to the hatcheries. ? I'm done. Too much confusion and ignorance.

Gooybob - you should just fish for you IMO. If you want to that is - I mean to say. It's easy to get caught up in all the BS in this state, but I'm not going to let anyone take my soul as a fisherman away and I hope you don't either. That's when "they've" won. Screw em' if they can't take a joke amiright? Do for YOU and what finds YOU the most peace-harmony-sanctity-sanity-zen-whatever. Turn it back inside and go to your roots. If that could still be fishing for you and it hasn't totally lost its magic sauce for your soul...then just go fish somewhere, smile, laugh and push all the BS aside. It's about all any of us can do these days.

If I could, I'd probably drop everything I have to do tomorrow for a hot bluegill bite somewhere. I'm dead serious. Turn it back inside and go to your roots. To me and my soul, it's healthy to become an 8 year old sunburnt fishing farm kid again - if only but for a few brief hours. I'm not saying we should all go bluegill fishing now. You know what I'm saying.

I sorta feel the same as Nick. When I fish or hunt now, it is for a specific reason. And, in many ways, it is to recapture/relive that kid. If he knows a hot bluegill bite, from shore, I'll be there. For whatever reason, I prefer pretty fish, or fish in pretty places, to big fish. I need to get into some 2-5" Green Sunfish-the fish who taught me fishing. Snake out some stream trout out of very wadable creeks.

Hunting is the same way. I gladly forked over the fees for a single morning (OD) where in a couple hours I got a few shots at some ducks or geese. Over my hand-made wooden dekes. I won't buy the license unless I able to go. But, if so, I'll do it.

I guess my thought is keep doing what you enjoy. If WA has it, then support WDFW. If they don't, go where they do. Quality of experience. That said, were I a boat fisherman for steelhead, the SRC with it's good cause, camaraderie, and stringent adherence to the truth would be enough reason to buy.

Full house at the Commission meeting this morning, and King5 News is here. Public comment starts at 9:45. Be interesting to see how many speak out about transparency.

This guy continually bitches about the state and tribal people's bad habits on line but go to a state meeting and complain in person? Too much effort, I suppose. He complains about "paying through the nose" for licenses, but the reality is that for the prices today and what we pay to eat at a really good meal is more then a combo license. LOTS of fishing out there besides the big money fish that still gives you lots of enjoyment and food. As for as money wan't he the guy who said he was an "investment banker" in Tacoma? I'd think there was enough money in that racket for him to shell out a miserable $80 bucks or so for a combo license, lots of surf perch and panfish, lots of lakes with holdover trout if you bother looking rather then bitching. I for one am glad that he "is done." Hopefully he will give up posting since he won't be fishing (or so he threatens). Bob R

You’re a bunch of crusty old grumpy bastards.

I may be a crusty old grumpy guy, but I know who MY father is. And we need more crusty old grumpy people at these meeting to call the state out on their b.s. Bitching on line just don't cut it! And we need crusty, grumpy young people as well! Bob R

Your Director is selling the Management plan, and has his legal man, Mike Grossman to give reasons why thy negotiations needed to be secret! He says that the court mandated that the mediations be confidential. He stressed that it is "GOOD" that these agreements were reached in secret!

Larry Carpenter, Deputy Director of the Commission, just BLASTED Director Unsworth on the lack of transparency during the construction of the Mangt. Plan. The Commission had near NO knowledge of the negotiations and details! Thank you Commissioner Carpenter for stating the obvious, that the Director is out of control!

Unsworth needs to go!!!

Email Mike Grossman, have him send where "court mandated be confidential" is found....... If he refuses then a PDR needs to be started. WDFW hides behind "no open to the public meetings" on anything to do with tribal and WDFW meetings.

Some on here know that there is mitigation for salmon and steelhead on the Wynoochee River. There is a fund that has $2.4+ million to cover costs. THIS FUND IS ABOUT 25 YEARS OLD, and still not 1 fish has been raised from these funds. There are people, sportsmen, that have tried to get answers as to the problems between WDFW and QIN but we aren't allow to attend any meetings.

So you know, myself and others have made presentations at Commission meetings........Commission said "tried of hearing about this Wynoochee mitigation get it done", still not done and we(sportsmen) don't know why...cause we can't attend, get minutes, get anything from the parties.

Now WDFW has gone into hiding, more so than past years.....many times won't even answer Emails......grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

I'm done with this Wynoochee mitigation battle.....to old to fight the fight, anymore.

Perfect. Out of over 25 only three people spoke anything at all about transparency and secret meetings running our fisheries.

Soooo many more spoke about the Heavens sake wildlife rehab program.

So, unless we see a great increase in people coming forward this evening and tomorrow, it is pretty clear that nobody cares enough to come out from behind the keyboard and make a difference.

Are you trying to make enemies out of people who should/could be your allies? Because that's a really stupid way to go about drumming up support for the cause.

Yes, for heaven's sake.....way, way too much drivel about Heaven's Sake Wildlife - but that is another story.

Commission was way behind schedule so they cancelled the additional input on crab. With the information provided by the AG's representative further explaining the Chinook Management Plan most of my questions were answered. However, that did not eliminate my concerns about details of the plan.

The Plan was actually touted by the AG rep as an improvement to NOF as it now has judicial oversight. We'll see on that.

What was of interest was Commissioner Carpenter taking strong exception to the Department having not included the Commission in the development of the Plan. Since most of my prepared comments were OBE by that time I focused on supporting Commissioner Carpenter's comments and opining that the Commission (my Commission and your Commission) was established by Initiative with a primary duty of developing policy. By not including the Commission in development of the Plan (essentially policy as it covers 10 years) the Department essentially undermined the Commission's role and responsibilities and marginalized its stakeholders.

I was able to finish up within my 3 minutes by saying that even if the Plan provides for a better NOF process it does not eliminate the need to make the NOF process a public process - even if that is limited to a live feed.

Hope more folks are able to attend and offer their comments on this very important (critical) issue. And if you aren't able to attend in person send the Commission your thoughts: commission@dfw.wa.gov.

Again, thanks Larry B for your strong comments. I am at the Commission meeting now, and will be here to close today, and Tomorrow. If you can make it, make it! We have momentum like no other time. The departments exclusion of the Commission was a blunder. We can affect change. We can get these secret meetings ended.

All the Commission has to do is include it into the language of the policy, and then ALL meetings are then covered under the Open Meetings Act.

Be here tonight (5:00) or tomorrow morning by 7:30, sign in to speak. Follow Larry B's example and BE HEARD!

I will be speaking this evening, and again tomorrow. See you there!

Just watched it on TVW....

https://www.tvw.org/watch/?eventID=2017121022

Cue up 1:20:30 to watch Carpenter's rebuke.

Unsworth's response? Not so much as an acknowledgment of Carpenter's concerns. ZERO... NADA... ZILCH! Just complete DEFLECTION!

"We have two OTHER items on the Directors Report. They're in the written document...." as he went on to stumble on the syntax of the "progress made on the pound-net project" and the Dungeness crab harvest report, calling on two of his managers in the audience to field questions from the public about those issues during the break, and stumbling further on the names of those managers.

Gee? Was it Dan or Bob or Rob or Rod? Whatever!

WEAK, Unsworth.... very WEAK!

Strong testimony LarryB!

Cue it up at 2:01:55, folks.

Thanks (I think....). Maybe those other folks had me working on my outrage.

Not a whole lot of guys here at the Commssion meeting this morning...

This is the chance to put action to words.

Lookin BETTER.....



Every seat in the house taken!

We had some excellent testimony! Thank you to all who were able to attend and who gave such powerful testimony. It is clear that the message was received. It is now in the hands of our Commission to take the necessary action to bring full and open meetings to our fisheries and allow us to again be a fair and equal partner in the conservation and recovery of our salmon.

It will be seen if Director Unsworth will be allowed to continue to disregard the largest group of stewards and the Commission who represents us.

Excellent public turnout covering a range of subjects. It's tough when your personal interests include the NOF transparency issue, proposed regulation simplification, the PS salmon management plan, the Skagit River, and you only have 3 minutes. Having been involved with the Skagit management plan for over 4 years, I had to use this opportunity to help get it over the finish line. Fortunately other speakers are hitting the PS salmon 10-year plan, regulation simplification, and transparency. No one of us can cover it all. Thanks to everyone who could show up.

Fishing rule simplification concerns

Show the panfish on the major east side lakes some love.... do not roll back bag limits

Steelhead conservation... liberalizing rules to harvest "trout" is a direct hit to steelhead as resident rainbows are really just steelhead that forgo anadromy, a HUGELY important part of the totality of the mykiss gene pool. Also lots of opposition to roll back mandatory HATCH steel retention


Bass guys OPPOSE elimination of bass limits in flowing waters. Will only add unintended confusion, complexity, and ruin bass fishing as we know it today

Trout caught on bait should count toward bag limit whether kept or released.

Lots of opposition to chumming lakes

Here it is LIVE....

https://www.tvw.org/watch/?eventID=2017121025

Here is the link to Grossman's explanation why mediation was placed in confidentially: [url=www.tvw.org/watch/?clientID=9375922947&eventID=2017121022&eventID=2017121022&startStreamAt=3746&autoStartStream=true]www.tvw.org/watch/?clientID=9375922947&a...tartStream=true[/url]

Seems to mean the judge ordered mediation, and I guess at that time the State gets to decide if it want to go forward under court ordered mediation or not. Doesn't mean they have too, but I also don't know who runs the show, the State Attorney General, who is a statewide elected official, the governor, who is a statewide attorney general, or the Commission, who are appointed by the governor. If the SAG runs the decision to enter in the mediation or not, then yes, the question should be directed at them. But essentially the way I understand it explained here in this clip is that its sealed to the court until the final outcome is released. The simple question is who had the authority, and then who made the decision to enter into that type of negotiation going forward for the state of WA....

Let's assume that we had a judge who made a good decision. Confidential negotiations between two equal sides should work. But, while we know whose interest the Tribes represented, just whose interest did WDFW support?

WDFW needs to explain WHY this is a good deal for the recs. Or, tell us who they are working for.

This post was edited due to additional information being provided by Mr. Mike Grossman


Mr. Grossman provided me with a very detailed email that was sent due to several questions I asked about the "Confidentiality" of the mediation.

Here’s the text…

(6) Confidentiality. Except as otherwise required by law or agreed by the litigants, or otherwise provided by this rule, all ADR proceedings under this rule, including communications, statements, disclosures and representations made by any party, attorney or other participant in the course of such proceeding, shall, in all respects, be confidential, and shall not be reported, recorded, placed in evidence, disclosed to anyone not a party to the litigation, made known to the trial court or jury, or construed for any purpose as an admission or declaration against interest. No party shall be bound by anything done or said during such proceedings unless a settlement or other agreement is reached.


He added:
"You will immediately observe that confidentiality is mandated, unless the litigants agree otherwise. Now, go back to the motion of the Requesting Parties, above. DOJ and the Tribes were clear they wanted to stick with, and conduct the mediation, in accordance with the normal confidentiality provisions. In other words, because there was no agreement by them to conduct mediation without the normal confidentiality parameter, confidentiality was the default rule. And thus the Court-ordered mediation employed the normal confidentiality rule.

That said, we did manage, by agreement, to loosen confidentiality in one respect. We obtained agreement with the Requesting Parties that communications with NOAA would not be confidential. And we obtained a modification to the court ordered confidentiality making that intention clear…"

It is interesting to note that there was a process to elect to NOT have the mediation be "Confidential" and that they agreed to loosen the confidentiality to include NOAA, but not the Commission.

Kinda makes it look like they intentional wanted to keep the Commission in the dark, huh? Just saying...


Mike Grossman just emailed me and explained that the confidentiality DID NOT restrict Director Unsworth from sharing information with the Commission.

So, since it appears Mike, you or someone is paying attention to the social media blogs, perhaps we can simplify things and have you answer any questions here on out. That way, we get the facts correct! Thanks...

I guess the Attorney General's Office now runs the department. I'm lost in all the rhetoric. Who requested the mediation? I apologize for not being there today. I'm under the weather so to speak.

It appears that Mr. Grossman is reading the posts, so please defer any legal questions you might have about WDFW to AAG M. Grossman at the Olympia Natural Resources Bldg. He likely will be most happy to reply...

Mr. Grossman could just reply on the forum, that would be faster than replying to lot's of separate emails.........and more open, like Governor Inslee wants.

WDFW can use the court decisions all they want, bottom line is the people have a right to know.

WDFW/Tribal has used the court decision, relative to NOF.

Wynoochee mitigation has been 25 YEARS, in the process......The hiding behind closed doors IS NOT a very effective way to get the process done. I realize that this is just 1 river, about 27 miles in length, effects steelhead and Coho, BUT there is $2.4 million in a fund, by Tacoma City Light, to get these fish into the system.

Commission in February of 2016, commented on Wynoochee Mitigation..."tired of hearing about this Wynoochee mitigation", let's get it done..............still the fight goes on and those in the community have NO idea, what the issues are, video feeds would allow insight.

The State had a hatchery/rearing pond in the final design stages for Wynoochee. I think the Forest Circus said you couldn't do it on their land and Region pushed to use the money for habitat restoration.

Problem with that is the fact the money was for a specific amount of production (mitigation, by definition). Habitat work would have resulted in significantly fewer fish than was called out in the agreement. That would leave WDFW open to lawsuits for not properly using the mitigation funds. So, doing nothing keeps their backsides out of court. Always Goal One.

I havent posted here in awhile. My personal opinion, trying to get anything done with the WDFW or in any other organ of Washington State government is hopeless.

Last Spring I did send an email to the Dept of the Interior at least stating my complaints. That probably wont do any good either, but at least it made me fill better. If you want to do the same, the DOI has a link that makes it easy to send them an email. At one point I hoped this Zinke guy might do something but now it looks like he just wants to wear cowboy hats and fart around with Trump stuff.

Nevertheless, I do know enuff about the federal government, that if they just get a few emails nothing happens but if the get hundreds of emails from real live taxpayers and voters, things can change. Hope for the best, here's the email I sent them last Spring.



Subject: Puget Sound salmon fisheries, Judge Bodlt decision and tribal relations

Feedback:
The relationship between sports fishers, the Tribes and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) is hopelessly broken. The original treaty was a Federal Treaty and the Judge Boldt decision was made by a federal judge. The WDFW is stuck in the impossible position of negotiating with a sovereign nation, the Tribes. The State has no power over the Tribes. I don't know if you people are following this mess. Negotiations with the Tribes should be done by another sovereign nation, the Federal Government, specifically your Department. The federal government has not done its job.

The original Boldt decision envisioned a "fair share" between Tribal and non Tribal fishers. There is no "fair share" at present. Sports fishers are bean counted for every salmon we catch but there is no accounting over salmon the Tribes catch. Negotiations between the WDFW and the Tribes are done in secret.

Your Department should take over all negotiations with the Tribes and these negotiations have to be done in the open. Negotiations have to be done between two sovereign entities. You are not in compliance with the goals of the Boldt. Your Department is under new management and this is the time to fix this mess. If you cant fix it then just call a halt to all salmon fishing in treaty waters. We are all fed up.

Barchaser--Like you, I read posts on this blog occasionally, and add my point of view sparingly. Now and then, I feel compelled to respond to what I read. Your letter to the Dept. of the Interior figuratively grabbed me right by the short hairs. In a modest fashion and with a comparative number of few words, you summed up the scenario that sees hundreds of thousands of recreational stakeholders, patrons, stewards and supporters in this State feeling disconnected, and left to twist in the wind.
Any way you cut it, WDFW has failed miserably to put its stakeholders before all else...and to simply demand that the Federal Govt. come to our State, and enforce the treaties they made on our behalf. The fact that the Director and Commissioners have been put in an untenable position is beyond doubt, and most of us get that...but what really frosts my a$$ is the obvious reluctance to go to the source of the problem, then deal with it firmly and directly. Two AAGs (Asst. Attorneys General) are pulling down big bucks to handle the legalities involved in this mess. They are overwhelmed, they claim, by the burden of that responsibility and finding any practical path to success. However, Judge Boldt and his decision made the law clear and simple.
Your letter served a worthwhile purpose, and a compliment of many more like it would certainly add to your cause...but the right letter(s) and actions by the right people--the ones hired and paid to protect our collective rights under the law--could, and should, make the difference. For years this problem has festered, so why has the State Attorney General's Office turned a blind eye to doing their job? Is this lack of action an effort to provide some level of job security? If so...it should be the other way around...

Second half of the meeting (Reg Simplification and Willapa discussions/hearings) is MIA on the videotape, but I've been assured by the TVW folks they'll get it up later today.

It's fixed... full meeting now posted to TVW. Be forwarned... it's over 5 hours long. Thank God for the fast forward slider!

Attorney General is bogged down? They just sued the Trump administration for the 18th time, along with additional actions on a national level. seems to me if they were so busy they could step back and let someone else take the initiative. If they are the only one, then maybe there's a reason. I am not talking about the merits of the lawsuits, only on his insistence on putting his name out there on issues that he could let others take on.

I think it's a bit naive of anyone to think he would reply on a public forum, let alone this one.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that's never gonna happen. I could be wrong.

I could just ask him since he's my fraternity brother, but I won't.

Reg Simplification starts at about 2:15 with public comments at about 2:45

Willapa Bay staff presentation starts at about 3:51 with public comments starting at about 4:30

I would invite Mr. Grossman to make the effort to engage in an educational overview. It would certainly decrease speculation and would go a long way in bringing facts to the table, rather than interpretation by those of us who are passionate, yet not lawyers.

WDFW has for a long had the problem of not correcting mis-information in the public. They should make every effort to educate the public, give them the information, refute false statements, and so on. Should.

Help is on the way. I've contacted my elected state officials about this issue. I'm sure John McCoy will be looking into this for us.

THANK YOU! If every person who signed our petition and every person who has agreed with our fight on our Facebook and twitter pages, would contact their representatives, it would mean they would be getting contacted from over thousands and thousands of stakeholders.

It only takes a couple of minutes out of your busy day, but the weight it carries, compounded is huge! As I've said, a drip is easy to ignore, but a flood is another thing entirely.

LocalTalent, can you post John McCoy's contact information so others can follow your lead?

Here's an easy link to find both your local representatives and senator:

http://app.leg.wa.gov/districtfinder/

Just type in your address and it'll pop right up with links to contact them.

Expected answer......Who pays his salary?????? If it is the "tax payers", then there is a "right to know" but if it is individuals within WDFW then I guess its right for everyone on that side to not be "forth coming".

I did contact my 2 representatives, but wasn't sure if senator McCoy has a Tulalip email address that he might check more often.

One thing to keep in mind is if you email state senators or representatives off the state's website, you are limited to 1,000 characters.
I had to shorten my letters to conform to the character limit.
Maybe 1,000 characters is their attention span on any types of issues like this.
The state's site also doesn't show you what their email addresses are.

If anyone as a list of important senators, representatives, WDFW employees email or anyone else involved in these issues, maybe they can post it here.
Maybe a sticky at the top of the page with the list of emails might be helpful.
I'd like to send out more emails and not be limited to 1,000 characters.
Thanks,
SF

Sorry, but I do not have those answers for you.

Thanks Stonefish. EXCELLENT IDEA.

Just looked at Bills sponsored by Senator McCoy. Have you looked into this bill? Seem's it might be productive to better transparency?

SENATE BILL 5511,By Senators McCoy, Chase, Darneille, and Hunt

AN ACT Relating to tribal-state relations

(1) The legislature recognizes and
respects the sovereign status of the tribes and the state in a
government-to-government relationship and seeks to enhance and
improve communications and facilitate resolution of issues between
tribes and the state.

Maybe you can ask Senator McCoy to expand on his bill with us, and explain how the bill can improve the transparency in our fisheries management?

That Bill might be a start. One of WDFW's many problems is that the law and rules about making regulations, whether emergency or permanent, don't line up well with state law. Perhaps, and it is probably a pipe dream, the Leg could develop a process for WDFW and the Tribes that would be legal and as transparent as possible.

You can understand the motives behind Sen. McCoy so it might be more useful to pose the question to the other three sponsors. By the way, I seem to recall several meetings of the Senate Natural Resources and Parks Committee to which Sen. McCoy is a member where tribal member testimony espoused the need for co-operation and I am sure one of those tribal reps was Tulalip. Was that merely lip service?

The best way to get an answer is to ask a question! Here is a copy of an email I just sent to Senator McCoy.

********
Senator McCoy,

As the author of SB 5511, I am hoping you can expand on the intent of the bill, and perhaps how you see it helping in protecting our open government laws.

In addition, we are wondering how you envision your bill, if passed into law, impacting the current situation in our fisheries, wherein the question of open government and greater transparency has been brought to the forefront by recent developments within the Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Although I am not personally a constituent of your district, we have well over five thousand stakeholders who support greater transparency and open meetings in our fisher management, many of whom are your constituents.

Since the matter is of importance to all citizen sportsmen in this state, we hope you will take a moment to address the bill and perhaps expand on your position on open meetings in the conservation of our salmon.

Thank you for your attention to this request, we are looking forward to your response.


With respect,

Citizen Sportsmen
Open WDFW/Tribal North of Falcon


Secrecy, once accepted, becomes an addiction.
Edward Teller

Economy of WORDS is a difficult skill to master, especially when trying to explain a complicated matter. A newspaper editor once told me doctors are probably the worst offenders of verbal diarrhea.... then told me he'd publish my article ONLY if I cut out half the word count. His direction is something I've taken to heart ever since. Modern communication DEMANDS small digestable sound-bytes.

Feel free to copy/paste my remarks below.... with one character to spare!

...

Negotiations to set salmon seasons in WA between WDFW and tribal co-managers, a PUBLIC process known as North of Falcon, are veiled in unnecessary secrecy. This is contrary to the spirit of transparency championed by the Open Public Meetings Act

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=42.30

Sportsmen are floundering in their attempts to correct this situation. Salmon are a natural resource that belong to ALL the citizens of Washington. We are looking for every avenue possible to make these meetings open to the public eye. Our full concerns are beyond the scope of the word limit filter. Might I suggest opening these links to see just how WA sportsmen feel.

http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/980157/1.html

http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/982436/1.html

If you lack the time to review them personally, please direct one of your legislative staff to do so. Our passion, angst, and frustration will be clearly palpable.

King5 5:00 news just ran a story on the 10-yr plan and our frustration with the secret negotiations as well as the commission's frustration.

TTT...

... so everyone can use the convenient link to contact their legislators. It even includes options to forward your letter to the ENTIRE delegation in your legislative district

Help a brotha'out and JUST DO IT!

http://www.king5.com/article/news/local/salmon-fishing-restrictions-may-get-severe/281-498970670

Just shared it to Fb.

Does anyone know where the court order for secret negotiations can be found? What case did it come from?

WSU, Mr. Mike Gossman sent me a pretty detailed email which covers this and a couple of other questions I asked at the Commission meeting.

I hesitate to "cut and paste" anything, as I don't want to put words in Mr. Grossman's mouth. I apologize, but it is best for Mr. Grossman to personally answer.

I appears he reads, or is at least aware of the posts on this board, as he has contacted me about posts I've made here.

So, perhaps Mike, you would like to answer WSU's question? We then, get the facts. Since WDFW is famous for leaving us and the Commission in the dark, maybe you can be the one to show some inclusion to the masses?

There is another thing that WDFW should do. Have a huge Dog and Pony Show before NOF. Input the models with the agreed to forecasts and then take audience requests for seasons. The ONLY limiter is that the NI side can't exceed 50%. Show people how catch shifts when you close the ocean, or take them all in the ocean, and so on. We need to know how we stay within our share and what the fisheries options are to do that.

Don't need to actually choose a fishery but know what the constraints are. For example, any ocean fishing means the Skagit is closed to coho. Now, if we fish coho in the Skagit, how do we take the rest of the stocks without the ocean? And so on.

They have the staff, they have the models. Once this is done, then we will know what to ask post NOF.

Don't know if this is appropriate here, but if some are having a hard time with codes imbedded in the technical documents.

SUS=Southern United States
MUP= Management Unit Profile
RER= Recovery Exploitation Rate
TRS = Terminal Run Size
ER= Exploitation rate
MSY= Maximum Sustainable Yield
ESU=Environmentally Significant Unit
MSH=Maximum Sustainable Harvest
UMT= Upper Management Threshold
EDT=Ecosystem Diagnostic Treatment
LAT= Low Abundance Threshold
PT= Pre Terminal

Any and all additions and corrections welcomed.

I admittedly haven't read the new plan and don't know whether it is appropriate or not. But, a few thoughts on the process come to mind.

1) Mediation, and the "secretive" nature of mediation, is voluntary. Perhaps the tribes can compel mediation through the ongoing jurisdiction of the court. But, the tribes cannot compel agreement. WDFW had and has no duty to agree with the tribes and the court can address disagreements that are unresolved. It's simply the easier path for WDFW to agree.

2) Even if mediation is secret and can be compelled, I see no reason that WDFW had to keep the commission in the dark. Are they really taking the position that they had to keep the governing body of WDFW in the dark because only the parties to the litigation, one of which is WDFW, can be privy? It seems like their position is they had to keep the head decision makers in the dark. Ask yourself: why is that? Could it be because, like coming to an agreement, it's simply the easier path? I suspect Unsworth and the other managers would rather take a Saturday morning tongue lashing than deal with doing their jobs and standing up to the tribes and feds.

3) When will WDFW stand up to NOAA? NOAA approves fisheries that kill vastly more ESA Chinook than our local fisheries do. Why is it OK to keep giving away our fish, begging for NOAA's approval, and being fine with 80% of the harvest occurring north of our border? Easier path, anyone?

My takeaway: this is more of the same. WDFW is scared of "litigation risk," won't push back on the tribes or the feds, and takes the easiest path forward. If that means finding creative reasons to keep everyone in the dark, including their bosses, so be it. We're in the same place we were 5 years ago. The tribes know that we will reach an agreement no matter what. That's not a great bargaining position to be in.

One last thought as I was about to push submit: at what point to we stop caring if we don't get a season? WDFW constantly falls back on needing to agree or getting "left on the beach." With the new plan, there appears to be lots of risk that no fishing will occur in lots of places in lots of years. We are giving and giving and giving. Pretty soon, we'll have nothing left to give. At least we can say we got an agreement.

Excellent post...lots of angles to ponder

The problem with those northern interceptions is that you are dealing with two more countries. Alaska is the Big Dog, politically. Plus, nobody catches their fish. The lower 48 and Canada have no hammers to compel a change.

Now, Canada takes Lower 48 fish, and we take theirs. Wilkerson, in the first US-Canada treaty (80s) allowed their take of coho to numerically match the expected US share of Fraser sockeye. If we want Canada off "our" fish, we just need to stay off theirs. That would still leave Canada in a pissing match with AK because they take Canadian fish up north. As I recall, Canada was hoping that the other 49 states would exert some control on AK.

Politically, it may be difficult and would require some leadership up the food chain. But, WDFW could and should push back in a number of ways. Let's think outside the box for a minute.

How about our beloved ESA listed killer whales? They are starving to death because the feds OK a taking of too many ESA listed Chinook. Pick an over exploited ESA stock and push the issue. What would the effect be if we managed to curtail the mixed stock intercept fishery in the great north that systematically harvests our immature ESA Chinook and thereby kills our ESA orcas? How many Washingtonians would be in support of stopping the killing off of our whales to feed some far off commercial interest?

Even more simply, how about WDFW stop being a doormat? Why not insist that NOAA take into account the vast amount of harvest that occurs in Alaska instead of agreeing to a 30% reduction in our fishing?

Honest question: what would the feds do if WDFW said we aren't agreeing to reducing our impact until you stop others from killing all our fish, and, if you don't, we'll see what a judge says? What does WDFW have to lose?

There are laws in place, ESA, CITES, etc. that could be used. But, NOAA has said that fishing is not the problem for Killer Whales.

But, if we could get Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd on the water to protect the Killer Whales, it might work.

NOAA tied itself in knots to protect Alaska. That is why some of the stocks have a recovery based on all harvest while others have recovery based on fisheries after leaving BC and AK.

Since the intercepting fisheries are somewhat capped, managers down here could shut things down to provide for the whales. Could still catch the fish, just after they became inaccessible (freshwater) to the whales. We could take some action on pinnipeds.

Any action, that actually has a real chance of working, is going to massively inconvenience somebody who votes and buys politicians. If dead whales start floating up on beaches regularly, then maybe something will be done. But, my money is on the idea that we need to fix all the habitat, quiet down the water, keep non-Indians away from the whales and all will be fine. That way, no major donor is harmed.

I'm having a hard time understanding how a few dozen fish (the Stilly wild chinook), that have shown no signs of recovery since being listed, are worth bringing the entire system to it's knees for. I do realize that's not a decision WDFW can make.

I mean, maybe they are worth it. Can somebody tell me a reason, or at least play devil's advocate? (though in this case I think I am the devil for suggesting we should throw in the towel on an endangered species)

Our state is growing which is probably better than shrinking...and habitat loss is a big downside to that. Its obvious we can't have a growing state and retain habitat, it's one or the other. And, isn't this what hatcheries were originally intended to mitigate?

I liked Curt's idea of just taking all the 200K-ish Stilly hatchery Chinook and releasing them without clipping. AFAIK that's something like what was done on the Nooksack for Springs, and it's showing success.

I also liked Curt's query as to why this wasn't addressed years ago. It seems like not all options have been tried and exhausted before writing a 10-year plan that will cripple sporfishing.

Your question is at what point do we give up on a population? The Stilly, when listed, was probably in better shape. Decisions made by all involved agencies, whether natural resource managers or land use managers or planners all had a hand.

By "going slow" events have conspired to put the Stilly in a real hole. Take the Southern Resident Killer Whales. They are starving and aborting fetuses. So, old ones die and no new ones come in. In a few more years, recovery will be moot. If we diddle around, close some areas to boating, let the pinnipeds continue to increase and we won't have to worry about the whales. Same with salmon. We allow more growth, the Sound has issues, and it pretty soon will become impossible for the salmon to live there.

We have tried the easy and cheap stuff. We either step up and seriously deal with the whole ecosystem's problems or we watch them disappear.

Wow, I agree with Carcassman!!! (on this one)

Additionally, you have to realize that, when it comes to the ESA, it's very hard to bring economic effects into the consideration, at least as a reason for not acting.

It's like saying, "yeah we passed this law and we really, really, would like for these animals to be around, just not if it's really hard, or makes us have to change too much".

We all know what types of things need to be done, at least to stabilize and stave off extinction, they just run completely counter to how we operate as humans in our communities, i.e., growth , growth, and more growth!. I think that's why the pesky law was needed in the first place. Salmon just represent the most complicated of situations to try and implement it.

Yep

We know what we need to do. We need to effectively stop and/or reverse some human impacts.

At one time, for example, we could preserve large tracts like Yellowstone. We know now, that even that, is too small for the animals in its ecosystem.

We could (probably) save wild salmon on the OP, north of Grays Harbor watershed, by essentially depopulating it. Manage the land in such a way that human impacts do not harm the fish at all. But, that slab requires fixing the ocean and similarly reducing human impacts.

JustBecause identified that our society is founded on growth. As we have more people, we need more food, water, fiber, energy. The earth has a fixed amount of resources and as we get more people, they need more which takes it away from the resources.

As humans evolved we moved out of the ecosystem, where we were no more than a functioning part of it to a creature that is able, for the time being, to avoid the ecological consequences of stupidity. The Human Race is trying really hard to win the Darwin Award.

Right now we "legally" cannot give up on the fish (esa fish at least). The legal "give up" is the "God Squad" provision, put in the law in 1979 (I think).

The God Squad ain't that keen on "giving up", either.

Recall Snake River sockeye where in 1992 only ONE fish returned to Redfish Lake... Lonesome Larry.

https://www.opb.org/news/article/lonesome-larry-at-20-still-a-symbol-of-idaho-socke/

We're still spending millions to keep this run petering along the brink of extinction.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/...ith-poor-return

The latest multi-million expenditure saw ZERO return. "This year, 162 adults returned, NONE from the Springfield Hatchery."

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2017/nov/17/experts-idaho-hatchery-built-to-save-salmon-is-kil/

We'll spend money because it is cheaper than fixing the problem. And certainly more socially acceptable.

Take those Idaho sockeye. Remove all the dams between the lake and the ocean. Or, spend a few million a year on other things in hopes they work. As a Medical Professional you know that a box of band-aids is always cheaper than fixing the real problem.

It took us 150 years of harvesting salmon commercially, recreationally, and otherwise to our hearts content to deplete the populations to the levels that they are at today.... and still today we continue to harvest fish for the table although with more oversight than the past...

Why the hell anyone would think it would take any LESS than 150 years to bring the runs back (naturally) to where they once were is beyond me.

Because if you look at the natural swings sometimes they go faster. Puyallup and Green pinks went from tens of thousands, at most, to millions in maybe a decade. Canada laying off chum for four years took some runs from, again, 10-20K to 100-200K.

They have shown that it CAN happen. Certainly, until the dams come out we can't restore populations from above them but in the dam-free systems we can accomplish a lot by killing a lot less. The fish themselves will improve gravel quality and egg-fry survival by the simple act of spawning.

We can't lose sight, though, that to get back our salmon we need to fix the ocean issues from the base of the food web up to the apex predators. Keeping in our comfortable silos is a one-way ticket to failure.

Didn't know the SR Sockeye had been through the God Squad "successfully"? I thought there were still Endangered and being pushed for recovery, hence the final, 2015 Snake River Sockeye Recovery Plan:
http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/...overy_plan.html

I think Doc was referring to the God Squad in general. It easier to let politics and events "solve" problems rather than going on record with an actual decision.

It would look pretty bad for them to say, essentially, that it was just too much trouble and cost to save those fish. As human population grows, pressures will only increase.

Habitat is the ultimate, but we're not making the most of the habitat we have now. Not by a longshot. Reducing the Alaska and BC ocean fisheries by any percentage will increase the number of returning spawners to the mainland US by very nearly the same percentage. Quickest, most reliable means of putting more fish on the gravel. Whether those fish hitting the gravel results in better future returns would remain to be seen....

We basically engineer our spawner returns so that only the number we think we need to sustain future fisheries will spawn. Why on earth would we ever expect that to result in any increase, let alone anything resembling recovery?

Salmon are managed not by biology/ecology but by economics. What is the minimum investment that I "have" to put in to maximize return? The only value that a spawning salmon has is what it can contribute to the catch in the next generation, of that particular stock. We want to maximize short-term profits, period. It's the American Way.

Couldn't agree with this more. It has always been the number one big flaw in hoping for "recovery".

If only AK and BC would see that letting some of our fish come home would mean MORE fish for them in the future...

Thing is, "we" could see the same thing. AK and BC are pretty much capped. The US/Canada Treaty had (hope it still does) a statement that enhancement/restoration benefits should accrue to the folks who absorbed the cost of not killing fish.

So, we could put more fish on the grounds, maintain the Northern caps, and have the increases pass through to us.

Wonder how long we have before Wa state has to start paying the tribes for lost
fish opportunity due to lost enviroment. I also do not see us fishing in rivers or salt much in the near future. The law suits that are coming are going to be crazy. Do not have any facts but above opinions are gut feelings only.

Redlodge, your crystal ball is spot on. In my pet project at Point No Point, I predict the tribes will file a suit and be granted an injunction if the Corps approves the ramp installation permit. This probable suit will set major precident on the scope of tribal influence and control over land and all waterways in Washington. I do hope the Govt gets their act together for that litigation, and they better "get right" as to who they represent, and get it right the first time, because there won't be a second chance.
As they say, "This is it."

As a reminder, Boldt II held that the Tribal Right is Dead Fish in the Boat. That is viewed as the habitat hammer. They won the Culvert Case and WA continues to drag its feet on compliance. The State does need to appeal the Culvert Case to the Supremes. The stakes are really high. Tribes win, and the state(s) will either owe a lot of money for habitat loss or they will have to stop growth and probably roll back quite a bit.

Alternatively, if the State wins the resources lose because money is needed so we need to develop, develop, develop.

I do not think the general public is aware as to what is going to happen to them on these issues. The amount of money needed is going to be astronomical. With as screwed up as this state we are going to lose. Our people are not smart enough to battle the tribes

carcassman you are spot on

I'd heard that only 40% of the available habitat was being utilized by wild spawning salmon on the Nooksack. And the Nooksack springs are one of the big constraining stocks.

But is the same true on the Stilly? I had heard that the problem on the Stilly *IS* lack of habitat (perhaps due to rapid development and also the landslide?). Does anyone know any details on the habitat situation on the Stilly?

Back in the 70s, WDF put out some interesting reports about PS salmon. In one, the discussion was about how well management was doing. They pointed out, correctly, that in some rivers like the Green they were both not meeting the wild escapement goal and having extreme hatchery surpluses (unmarked at the time). The solution? Lower the wild goal and claim success that they could now hit the target.

When they set the Chinook goals, still mostly in use today, it was clearly stated that these goals did not use all the available habitat but that it was not rational to do so. And yet, ask any property owner how imoportant protecting that habitat is "for the fish".

We have met the enemy and he is us.-Pogo

"Wonder how long we have before Wa state has to start paying the tribes for lost
fish opportunity due to lost environment."

Where is the "in common with" in that statement?

The Treaties granted a Right to fish. The non-Indians have a privilege. Plus, the argument can be made that we took our share of fish as development.

Chasin' Baitman posted: " I had heard that the problem on the Stilly *IS* lack of habitat (perhaps due to rapid development and also the landslide?). Does anyone know any details on the habitat situation on the Stilly?"

All of the north PS watersheds suffer from the geomorphic condition called unstable steep slopes. Since all of the forestlands outside of national parks and designated wilderness areas have been logged, these unstable slopes have been and continue to dump huge quantities of eroded soil, and especially high concentrations of fines that smother incubating eggs and alevins that are incubating in the gravel of tributary streams and mainstem rivers. Both forks of the Stilly and the SF Nooksack have that in spades. As spawning habitat is degraded a higher % of a salmon population is necessary for escapement and reproduction. With Canadian interceptions and a few WA state harvests, the Stilly doesn't get enough spawners to maintain a population. The recruit per spawner output is consistently lower than 1.0. This means that without the supplementation from the Stilly Tribal hatchery, Stilly Chinook would go extinct, and likely already be extinct.

Given the slow rate of habitat recovery in the Stilly basin, I don't think there is any way a wild Chinook population can maintain itself going forward, let alone recover to a self sustaining level with a harvestable surplus.

Bingo Salmo!

On the hopeful side, we know that mass spawning cleans fines out of gravel. On some Fraser tribs, spawning sockeye account for way more than 50% of the total annual sediment movement.

Assuming we could at least maintain the level of sediment input (ideally reduce) if we totally stopped killing pink and chum they could be put to work cleaning the gravel. And providing nutrients for the ecosystem. But, it would be the fastest way to reduce the fines and increase egg-fry survival.

The downside is that the recent super-abundance of pinks depressed the Chinook. But, if that problem was in the ocean and due to lack of food there then maybe other actions could also be taken.

We are in the last few minutes of the 24hr survival clock but we can turn back the hands, I think.

According to Cliff Mass the "blob" is dead. The Blob was blamed for poor ocean conditions in 2015 and 16, particularly impacting Coho and to a lesser extent for Chinooks. If it turns out to be true and the death of the blob does result in large salmon runs, how is the WDFW going to explain the "massive" cutbacks in treaty waters sport salmon fishing?

http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2016/11/amazing-warmth-doesnt-end.html

The "Blob" affected smolts and immatures in the ocean. Had nothing to do with the escapement or freshwater conditions that affected the fish coming back next year.

The Blob was simply another kick in gut to a reeling resource. Now, if in 2013, 14, and 15 we had exceeded the escapement goals, had great freshwater rearing, then maybe the good ocean conditions would give us a bumper crop. But since we find ourselves most years starting near the bottom of barrel.........

A Board member asked if I could post the link I used to send an email to the DOI.

Here is the link I used. If the link doesn't work for you, then I think you can just copy the email address and send it with your email system.

https://www.doi.gov/contact-us

You aren't a billionaire who rapes public natural resources for personal profit; therefore Zinke doesn't give a sh!t about you and your piddly little fishing issue.

OOOkkkk, Back on topic.

As the "The Plan" is being digested, the outrage grows. Check out the latest edition of the Reel News!

Also, there are several of the MAJOR players in the Sport fishing industry that are really concerned about how this is going to impact the trades and are starting to howl!

Fish Advisory Groups are roaring mad because they just got kicked in the nuts.

And the Commission was left standing with egg on their face and very publicly embarrassed DURING THEIR MEETING by a Director who seems to have lost all leadership ability! Talk about pissin off your BOSS!!

And this all came about in large part because the Senior Leadership at WDFW feels immune to any repercussions. Why? Because we have been letting them screw us over for so long, they figure we must like it!

Don't know about you, but I'm not bending over anymore. Someone is going to be held accountable and appropriate administrative action is going to be taken!

Well of course.... trying to get the DOI and Zinke involved in the tribal issue is at best a 1000 to 1 shot. But we should all admit that trying to work with the WDFW and all the organs of Washington State government is completely hopeless. Its just stacking deck chairs on the Titanic.

The 1000 to 1 DOI shot is pretty much all there is left.

Speaking of the Reel News, did you read the U of W Student Position papers that they published: http://www.thereelnews.com/fish-for-fun.html?

One of the issues covered was the NOF process and here is a bit of what they had to say:

"With respect to NOF, we must support the Co-managers in their efforts to balance opportunity and conservation needs. This means that recreational anglers must trust the State (WDFW) to represent them in negotiations with the Treaty Tribes and provide input on the options that are presented to them during the scheduled NOF public meetings. Much has been made about the fact that negotiations between the Co-managers are closed to the public and that in 2016-17, meetings between the State and the Treaty Tribes began earlier (without public input) in an effort to start to address key conservation concerns given the difficulties to reach an agreement in 2016. Efforts to “open Tribal negotiations” may be well intentioned, but are unlikely to be realized and convey a lack of trust in WDFW. There are 20 Treaty Tribes in Puget Sound, each a sovereign nation comparable to the U.S. Negotiations among nations are closed to the public out of respect for the viewpoints of the parties at the table and to encourage open (frank) dialogue. The Treaty Tribes and the U.S. (represented by the State [WDFW]) should enjoy the same respect. The Washington Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) simply does not apply. In addition, negotiations supporting NOF are not just between the State and the Treaty Tribes, but also between each of the affected Treaty Tribes, each with their unique perspectives, needs, and geographical location relative to the salmon runs they can harvest. Furthermore, we encourage the Co-managers to meet early and often to address major issues so that WDFW can more confidently present/discuss options for the upcoming salmon seasons during the NOF public forums. There is no reason that representatives from the recreational fishing community cannot convey their desires to WDFW prior to the NOF public process. We believe this would be energy well spent."


Interesting...

It is my understanding that the Open Meetings rules and the rules WA has about the actual making of rules, apply to WDFW. They don't apply to the Tribes, which is the conundrum. In order to meet with the Tribes and develop the fishing regulations WDFW must violate state law. Comply wit the law and the Tribes won't play.

The Tribe's reticence to allow open meetings is not law but rather a "policy" choice. Regardless, there is this basic conflict.

There is a very simple reason that the recreational fishing community can't agree to just "trust" WDFW to represent us in Secret Meetings, THEY JUST PROVED THEY CAN'T BE TRUSTED...ASK THE COMMISSION!!!

Valdimir Lenin would have called those students Useful Idiots......

College students are good for collecting data; not so much for advising policy. To do that right requires real life experience, which, through no fault of their own, they lack.

Like it or not, however, theirs is the viewpoint if the general public. The Tribes are virtually immune to smearing, as our culture of guilt has devolved to the point at which disagreement with what tribal spokespeople say is immediately dismissed as racist ignorance.

That's actually okay with me, because I want to focus on reducing commercial open ocean quotas so enough fish will return to support tribal and non-tribal fisheries (in other words, so that North of Falcon can work again). I have about the same chance of success, if not even less.

Sort of. Actually, the Open Public Meetings Act covers the Commission meetings, since they are the governing body. When they delegate to the Department, things get a little fuzzy. The simple solution, if the Commission really believes in transparency, is for the Commission to move to turn their NOF policy to a WAC, and to write open meetings into the law! That way, there is no question they are in compliance with the spirit of the law. Remember, they aren't talking about National Security matters in these negotiations!


If the Tribes refuse to attend the NOF because they feel the meetings are better served through secret meetings, then they can justify it in mediation with the court.

We might have to forgo fishing until it is sorted out, however, if things continue like they are, with the public being systematically taken out of the picture, we are going to eventually lose all our fishing altogether.

WDFW is covered by the Administrative Procedure Act, which outlines how regulations are to be developed. Regardless of how the law applies to the Commission, the Agency itself (each Program) Has to follow the APA.

There are lots of layers to the the making of rules and WDFW seems to have a systemic problem with complying with them. That said, the APA is not set up to deal with regulations as they apply to aural resources that vary annually.

In the Administrative Procedure Act, you can find RCW 34.05.325
Public participation—Concise explanatory statement. Within that section there is this statement;

(4) The agency head, a member of the agency head, or a presiding officer designated by the agency head shall preside at the rule-making hearing. Rule-making hearings shall be open to the public. The agency shall cause a record to be made of the hearing by stenographic, mechanical, or electronic means. Regardless of whether the agency head has delegated rule-making authority, the presiding official shall prepare a memorandum for consideration by the agency head, summarizing the contents of the presentations made at the rule-making hearing, unless the agency head presided or was present at substantially all of the hearings. The summarizing memorandum is a public document and shall be made available to any person in accordance with chapter 42.56 RCW.

Kinda says WDFW needs to be more transparent. With that there are also fixed timelines for the process.

I seem to remember Unsworth trying a bit of this at his first NOF. Remember what happened?

The public just won't stand for it.

From the Reel News UW article:

"The NW Indian Fisheries Commission was invited to participate, but schedules conflicted."

Wow, I am truly surprised they were tooooooo busy to participate....

19 or 20 separate Tribal entities unable to form a quorum and participate in an effort to move forward on the issues?...must have had a priority of mending nets--rather than mending fences...

How will this 10 year plan affect Puget Sound Winter Blackmouth seasons?

Any PS fishery, including the winter blackmouth, that encounter Stilly fish may be looked at for reductions. Those times and areas that have higher concentrations of Stilly fish relative to other times and areas (even if very low) may get the most reductions in order to get down to the ER ceilings ala "Bang for the Buck" approach. The season setting discussions would revolve around tradeoffs between "Bang for the Buck" vs keeping important times and areas open despite the impact on Stilly fish.

Before those discussions of who takes what hit(s) to stay below the combined 8% figure we need to establish a foundation of how that 8% will be split. That is, what has been the sharing over the past few years and, more importantly, will the State and tribes now be sharing that 8% on a 50/50 basis?

It will look really ridiculous in the mixed stock fisheries. Very few fish in a large pool. To save one Stilly fish you may have to give up 1,000 other PS Chinook. (made up numbers). If that encounter is released and you use a 10% mortality you now have about 10,000 fish to give up. If they are really serious about saving as many as they can there will be a lot of fisheries shut down.

Is it worth it will be a big question. From the NI side, it will be critical to reserve 50% of the impacts or force WDFW, the Feds, and the Tribes to say maintaining the Tribal fisheries trumps all. For history, see Lake WA Chinook.....

If the NI impacts over the past years were effectively less than 4% a simple (for me) and logical approach (to me) is to say the State does not need to further restrict its P.S. fisheries. If we have been exceeding that 4% then our efforts should be to ensure that our fisheries do not exceed that number.

Well, yeah. But that then means the Tribes, who in some cases are taking more than a 50% share, need to cut back. Since that's not gonna happen...

Really? I am shocked by that revelation! But seriously, if restraining impacts become the new measure of sharing then 50/50 should be supportable by both sides. And, no, despite it now being legal I am not partaking.....

We saw it wit Lake WA where the sport impacts went to the Tribes. And other places. WDFW has a reason, obviously unstated, why departure from 50:50 is acceptable.

I suspect that the allowance for ocean fisheries is the driver. Give us the ocean, we'll give you the rest. Also, by taking the NI share, or even more, in the ocean guarantees the Tribes at least as much under Hoh v. Baldridge. It's a great trade. You fish on the forecast (ocean) and we fish the fixed schedule, based on the forecast, inside.

There is obviously some trading going on. Maybe fish, maybe crabs, who knows because the public can't see the sausage being made.

Be careful what you ask for. If you take a hard line on 50:50, then the tribal response could likely be "ok 50:50 everywhere" . You won't be allowed to just pick the stocks and pops you want to do this on. You want 50:50 you gotta do 50:50 everywhere. For some stocks like Strait of Juan de Fuca (Dungeness, Elwha), Mid Hood Canal and maybe Stilly there isn't much or any terminal area fishing by the tribes. The dead fish are in mixed stock fisheries. These are primarily NT troll, ocean and PS sport, and San Juan Island Fraser sockeye net fisheries. In these fisheries, it takes a big whack on total catch to save a handful of the constraining stock to get the NT share down to 50% for these stocks.

There is also a rather sizable tribal troll fishery off the coast and a significant fishery on Fraser sockeye and pink. Since their Fraser fisheries occur more in the Straits (where US stocks are more predominant) tight holding to 50:50 would, per your example, hit them as hard or harder. I think that the Tribes now take more than 50% of the Fraser share to the US.

But, Darth, you raise the point that many here want to know. Why is there a deviation from 50:50. What does the NI side get for giving up PS fisheries? And, they (the actual users) should have a say in the decision. At least they should know why it is being made.

I think herein lies the real dark kernel of our need for transparency. WDFW and the tribal Co-managers (we have been told) have been making deals, trades, gives and takes for some time. So much so, the concept of a straight division of 50/50 is a mere figment of the imagination. There are probably areas where trade offs are appropriate, say impacts. But it should be done out in the open! Is it contentious, yes. Are there some uncomfortable conversations that have to take place, of course. We believe one of the biggest reasons the Tribes don't want the meetings in the public, is because they don't want the public to see them fighting amongst themselves over who's gonna get the most fish! YES, they do! But, again, we have to put all that past us and have trust in each other or our fish are doomed! And to have trust, we cannot do things behind locked doors!

Exactly! Years ago there was a situation where a Tribe could get more than half of the coho but less than half of the chum. For a while, both sides went through the process of filing foregone opportunity claims, killing a lot of trees in the process. After a couple rounds of this, they just agreed that one side was better at catching one species than the other. As long as the two fisheries did not interfere and escapement was met they just let it go.

So, while I know there are good reasons for at least some of the decisions, unless the license-buying public knows they shouldn't just blindly trust WDFW.

CM. Yes the Fraser fishery in the San Juans has a higher catch of sockeye and Chinook in the treaty fishery than nonIndians. My point was that for those Chinook stocks that have minimal to no terminal fishery which is mostly treaty catch, the sum of pre-terminal fishery Chinook catches (or dead fish) in the treaty troll and net fisheries may be less than 50% of the total. Strait of Juan de Fuca Chinook fit this pattern. So for JDF Chinook stocks, the non treaty fisheries would need to be reduced to get down to a 50:50 split on dead fish. To get to 50:50 may require significant reduction in the Area 5 fishery. Of course, reducing Area 5 catch would also reduce the catch of other stocks passing through the area. Reduction of the catch of these other stocks could aggravate the 50:50 sharing such that the non treaty share gets further away from getting up to 50%. It becomes very difficult to restrict some fisheries and increase others to get all of the stocks at a 50:50 sharing level. There are just too many fisheries to juggle to get everybody at 50:50 while meeting the management objectives of the most constraining stock(s). In reality it can't be done for all stocks everywhere.

The state and the tribes each have their list of highest priority fisheries. For the state, this might mean that having a fishery in one area is the highest priority and to get that it may not be the most efficient way to achieve biological objectives or 50:50 sharing. During the preseason process, the "negotiation" is we need this and will accept not having that (which may be 50:50). Presumably the advisory groups and constituents help the department to identify those high priority fisheries, recognizing that you can't always get what you want.

Carcasman, I've followed many of your posts, and I just want to say, You seem to have a pretty good handle on things. We all have our bias and opinions, but one thing I think we can all agree on. Secrets breed suspicion. Suspicion leads to dis-trust, and dis-trust has gotten to where we are today. There is NO PLACE for secrets in the management of a public resource. There is no excuse good enough to justify keeping things out of the light of day.

Obviously, WDFW has done a very poor job of educating users as to the tradeoffs. Personally, putting all the harvest in the terminal and extreme terminal areas is the ecologically best way to go. There's a lot of folks who want to whack 'em in the ocean.

I am not begruding the trades. As I said, there are good reasons for many. But the Public has to know them, know the basis, and the reasons.

WDFW has very little credibility with just about anyone who interacts with natural resources in WA, and they seem to be going out of their way to perpetuate that view.

There is another thing at work here that is quite possibly the root of much of the conflicts.

The Tribes and NI Commercials can get along rather well as they operate from the same playbook. See fish, kill fish, move on. It is rather easy to divide up something when everybody uses it the same way.

The sporties play different. They have always been able to release by catch. In the last 20 years they have developed the ability to release wild fish versus hatchery fish of the same species. This gives them the opportunity to kill more of the target stock than a "kill them all" fishery can.

Couple this with a PR machine that casts the Tribes as the first and foremost conservationists whose only concern is the welfare of the resource seven generations in the future and you develop a disconnect between what is said and what happens in the real world.

But, WDFW steps in and uses some of the most creative (what is the right word for light years beyond creative?) ways to use release survivals to justify a fishery, when the research looks at really short-term survival post release rather than the effect on spawning success, and so on that significant doubt can be thrown at any number used.

Making the meetings public would throw a light on a process that I believe neither side wants exposed. Each has shortcomings that they want to keep hidden.

How about just publishing the decisions made in the backroom deals, with a plain language summary of how each decision impacts allocation in the fishery in question, as well as the overall allocation of the State/Tribal share?

It would be easy to build an allocation tracking system that keeps constant tabs on what percentage of harvestable fish each side is allocated in each fishery. Those data could be aggregated to represent the overall percentage of harvestable fish each side has been allocated.

I imagine both sides have modeling tools (that likely disagree with each other, if the State vs. tribal forecasts are any indication). What I propose is one, agreed-to tracking system, developed and maintained by a neutral party (consultants from out of state?), that can be used to show the current allocations for individual stocks, species as a whole, and total, harvestable salmon, throughout the NOF process. Build in catch reporting (a very minor upgrade), and you've got a system that shows all stakeholders the overall allocation vs. catch and whatever individual allocations vs. catch they care to look at for deeper understanding.

Two problems I anticipate with this solution:
1. Could WDFW and the Tribes work together (even with a mediator) to establish a unified planning model? Nothing we've seen so far suggests that's at all likely.
2. (Probably very closely related) It doesn't allow for the insertions of politically-motivated decisions without clearly calling them out as such. (I think this is the transparency most sorely lacking in the process.)

Well, maybe there needs to be that paradigm shift - let's say it would certainly shake up the status quo.

But the current reality is that the Plan includes extremely restrictive impacts on Stillaguamish NOR and hatchery produced "wild" (broodstock) fish.

I posed a question earlier asking for the tribal and non-tribal SUS impact stats on those particular fish. So far no response. Okay, maybe no one has that info at their finger tips so let me again opine that given the potential ripple effect of an 8% impact it should be shared equally between users.

If the tribes want to make a bigger deal out of that then let's have that discussion out in the open.

progress report anyone?