It's true that the co-managers could walk out, IF PEOPLE ARE CREATING A DISTURBANCE TRYING TO GET IN..having a protest outside and getting media coverage is no reason for the tribes to walk out. Of course, they will probably not like the attention, but it is our civil right to peacefully assemble and protest.

Getting some responses for commitments to be there. Still have plenty of room for more. Time to put talk to action.

I thought this was cleared up a long time ago. The tribes are sovereign nations. Is a meeting between WA state and a Canadian delegation open to public? or does Canada have the right to say: "we don't want US citizens in the meeting, only government reps?"

Both the Canadian government and the state government in this hypothetical are both public entities, but its the sovereignty issue that I think allows one party to request the meeting to be closed on a legal basis. Can I walk into the White house (a public building, paid with tax dollars) when our Pres ( a publicly elected representative) plans to meet with the North Korean goober? I would expect they could legally hold me out. Am I wrong, can't they also restrict the press from entering too? From this thread, I don't really see what the gain is? Unless its attention, which from the protest a few years ago...what did we get from that? Was the non-fishing public swayed by that protest at all?

link: http://www.king5.com/article/tech/scienc...shing/175301227

didnt we do this 2 years ago?

The tribes are sovereign not foreign. Big distinction there. Do you need a passport to go on the reservation? Do tribal members vote in elections, hold public office, give campaign donations?

People often confuse sovereign as meaning they are a foreign government. They are actually wards of the Federal Government. To clear this up, we called the Federal Bureau of Indian Affairs and asked about "Gov't to Gov't meetings" They said that title is unique by state, and there is no precedence for prohibiting the public in these meeting. To the contrary, they ENCOURAGE the public to attend because if fosters TRUST!

Also, the AAG assigned to the WDFW agrees that there is NO LEAGLE reason these meetings are closed to the public. They just can't force the co-managers to participate if they open the meetings. However, the co-managers are in fact, forcing US to participate without public oversight!

Have we done this in the past, sort of. There was a rally at NOAA during the breakdown of negotiations over Coho fishing. Did it work, sort of. It brought the attention of the public and got everyone back to the table. Did it end the secret meetings, NO..so we just have to keep fighting.

I will not participate in this obstructionist war that will only further sympathy for tribal fishing interests. Until we can change the narrative of Cowboys vs Indians, you might as well wear hoods and robes.

Oh boy. If you have that impression then you have not been paying attention. This is NOT about, nor has it ever been about the "Indian's". It's about the lack of transparency and about WDFW and the Co-managers conducting meetings that result in laws that impact all of us and doing so behind locked doors.

It doesn't matter one bit WHO is preventing transparency, it's ALL ABOUT there is NO TRANSPARENCY. Making it into some sort of "racist" slant by saying something as inflammatory as "you might as well wear hoods" just shows how uninformed you are. Oh, by the way, just a note to you....I'm half native american.

There are informed, educated sportsmen who understand what the struggle is about. We don't need, nor want anyone with "slanted" conceptions as to what is at stake and what the issue is. Thank you for not participating.

Your welcome sir and thank you for continued efforts to help sportsfishermen.
Obviously I am referring to the public perception to obstructing the NOF meetings. We need to start winning the public relations battle and sportsmen alone cannot do that. The public needs to understand what we are fighting for and we must have a broader coalition to achieve any success.
I am not saying give up the fight to make NOF public. The commission just denied your petition. It was not going to force open meetings, even if successful.
It seemed like the perfect time to switch efforts on to who would be our next WDFW director. The commission is asking for input. I expected to be much debate on who should lead wdfw. Instead silence. Very similar to when I asked what we should change with PSCHMP. People willing to protest, but not one person has come forward with a specific change.
As to being “slanted” as you call it, yes I am slanted because my Filipino wife immigrated to this country thinking it is the land of the free. They didn’t tell her that she would not have the same rights of 1% of the population determined by blood. This is the message we need to get out. We need the aclu and all equal rights organizations on our side. Look at the Atlantic Salmon issue. Get environmentalists on your side and things happen fast. Think bigger.
There is no Ark of the covenant in the NOF meetings box. What you will find is a turd sandwich. We should not ignore everything else just to view it.

Jake, I'm impressed! You are spot on in a lot of your points. The fight for better fisheries is indeed, multifaceted and very political. However, that is not a reason to give up, or to become unfocused. We have been laser focused on transparency, and primarily in the North of Falcon. There are a million other things wrong but this is our fight. What you refer to as a "turd sandwich" must be important enough to hide that both WDFW and the NWIFC have spent a lot of energy keeping is hidden. We are fully aware that a simple picket line will not win the fight. Especially since we are not only fighting the transparency issue, but also the resistance to challenge a culture of appeasement within the Department. However, having this in the paper, or on the nightly news may just reach a few more people who will stand up and speak out.

What's frustrating is, although we have over 5000 people signed on the petition, and are reaching thousands with our facebook and twitter feeds, when it's time to put the rubber to the road, it's crickets. Sure, not everyone can take off work, or find a babysitter or whatever else is too important, but we should have hundreds of people committing to show.

Yes, we need to sway public opinion. One way to do that is to get the truth into their living rooms. Getting the media's attention so we have a platform is one way to do that. However, we need to have the people support this by execution rather than speech.

I take back my words Jake, we would appreciate your participation if you and your wife feel open government is fundamental to a fair and equitable seat at the fishery management table. Abusing rights based on culture is wrong. Doesn't matter who does it. But please, remember, this has nothing to do with race and has everything to do with fairness and democracy.

Has anyone surveyed the different tribes individually and asked what their stance is on opening the meetings. I have a feeling that the NW commission is controlled by some of the larger and wealthier tribes and do not always advance the interests of all the tribes. I was told that some of the tribes were against some of the actions taken by the Muckleshoots as it also reduced their ability to access fish. It would certainly help if some of the tribes were to sign on, as they may be being pushed around a bit in these meetings too.

In my experience the Tribes will fight among themselves but unite against non-Indians. Doubt they would split up. Also, the NWIFC has no "real" authority. If one of the tribes says "no" to NOF (for example) they win.

Sad to say it but it seems this has boiled down to suing WDFW.