This is so tiring... The charade that WDFW is fairly representing the sport fisherman is being swallowed by so many. When all the signs point to the exact opposite. It doesn't take a lot of digging to see how the rec. fishermen is being fooled into thinking they are an equal party in the fisheries management.

The WDFW points to the Fish advisory boards as the bridge between the rec's and the department. Well, look who is the interface between the two. Take a look at who is the WDFW lead on the Puget Sound Fish Advisory Board:

Puget Sound Sport Fishing Advisory Group
Mark Baltzell
Puget Sound Salmon Fishery Manager
Coordinator
360-902-2807
mark.baltzell@dfw.wa.gov

Now read what he replied when asked to provide the time the Tribal/WDFW North of Falcon meeting was starting:

"...If you are wanting to know the time and location of any planned co-manager meetings for that week, I cannot help you. Doing so would not only betray any trust that I have built in my relationships with co-managers, it would also violate the obligations I have as a representative of the State of Washington. I understand your desires for transparency, but I will not be the one that enables your endeavors.
As always, if you have specific questions or ideas about fisheries, I am a great listener.
Kind regards.

Mark E Baltzell"

Clearly, he is telling us that the Rec's trust and his responsibility to represent us is not his priority. AND HE IS GOING TO BE REPRESENTING YOU IN THE NORTH OF FALCON!

When we sat down with the Dir. and Ron Warren, we were told that the departments strategy for dealing with the tribes is to "cooperate and wait". In other words, keep giving into the tribes and someday they will give back. It hasn't worked yet and it won't work. It results in us losing a piece at a time. But the way the department gets away with it is by keeping us in the dark.

We thought the Commission had finally gotten the wake up call when the Department completely by passed them by working with the tribes to craft the RMP in secret. Commissioner Carpenter even publicly scolded the Director, and Unsworth was let go. But now what. The Commission got pissed when it impacted them, but could care less when the department continues it's practice against the rec's.

And now as we move into yet another North of Falcon with the doors closed in the faces of the largest group of stakeholders in the state, we have gained nothing but lip service from the Commission and Department. They are liars! They tout support for the Rec's and make all the noise to build the facade, yet do nothing to change business as usual. This might piss off some of the people who have drunk the cool-aid, but the truth is, the Department and to some degree the Commission do not support transparency, in some cases they work hard to make sure the public is not told all the facts.

You can attend all the public NOF meetings you want, but in the end, ask the WDFW representatives and they will tell you. All your idea's and recommendations and suggestions and public input in the world still comes down to what the tribes allow! And that all takes place in the Tribal/WDFW NOF meetings, in which the departments policy is to "COOPERATE AND WAIT"!

We are losing our sport and our fish a piece at a time. Just like the frog in the pot with the water being warmed slowly, we will eventually be boiled and never leave the pot.

The first Tribal/WDFW closed door meeting is scheduled for the 22nd of March, at the Lacy Community Center. Wonder what would happen if someone showed up and wanted to sit in? Public property, public employees meeting to discuss public resources that result in laws that result impacting all the citizens in the state...

Let's take a closer look at the newly-created Puget Sound Advisory Board , headed by Mark Baltzell.

From their published and specific list of duties, below are a few that are included:

b. Communicate stakeholders opinions, attitudes and needs to the the Agency.
d. Members are responsible for understanding their group's role and responsibilities.
i. Assist the Department in developing communication strategies and communicating with members of the public regarding issues that come before the advisory group.
j. be respectful and carefully consider the views of others.

This mess is loaded with contradictions and hypocrisies--it's not necessary to underscore the examples. The only possible way each of the above could be achieved is through COMPLETE TRANSPARENCY BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT AND ITS STAKEHOLDERS. Baltzell's response to Baywolf's inquiry above is not in harmony with his group's duties and responsibilities...so, the deception and mismanagement continues on, status quo.

For years, we have heard the Dep't. say one thing...then watched them do something else. I'm in line with those amongst us who maintain it's a culture problem, as their thinly veiled effort to persuade us differently falls miserably short of even a minimal degree of success.

Deal with us truthfully, honestly, and in a straightforward manner so that we can do the same in return--and replace your mock efforts toward transparency with THE REAL THING. Drop the priority of politics, and follow the law!

They are afraid that the recs won't like what they hear. In a discussion with Phil Anderson he was asked why WDFW did not push for a C&R season on the Hoh that closed 4/30 (instead of 4/15). Never said why, only that "We got the fishery we wanted". Also never told us who "we" was.

WDFW is responding to/dealing with a lot of pressures and their response is arrive at a solution that keeps them out of court. Pretty sure that staff, even the leadership, are doing what they are told to do by higher-ups.

I really believe that if they were transparent it really would not change management but would p**s off the NI license holders. I think there are bigger forces at work; bigger than who catches fish where.

Here is a link to that Advisory Group's WDFW webpage: https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/advisory/pssfag/.

A bit of an aside but WDFW is on its second iteration of the Advisory Group Volunteer's Handbook but no where can one find a Commission policy for WDFW to follow when facilitating an advisory group. And, no surprise, there are existing advisory groups which are not even listed or are not having their webpage maintained.

Not on the list? Puget Sound Recreational Crab Advisory Group.

Not maintained? For an example see the Cowlitz River Advisory Group: https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/advisory/crag/. According to its webpage its last meeting was Nov 2016 and Cindy Le Fleur was the WDFW point of contact.

Looks like you came up with yet another gem,Larry...excellent work!! Worthy of additional attention...

Can a member of the public be excluded from a meeting held in the Lacey Community Center if it was rented by a public agency? If I have time in the morning I might call and see if they can legally bar entrance. They rent it out for wedding receptions and the like, so I can see how a wedding group wouldn't want to be crashed by uninvited people.

True, but go ahead an show up...bet you after someone did that, they would simply end the meeting, or the tribes would walk away and every meeting would thereafter be held on a reservation at one of the closest casinos. Pretty easy workaround if you ask me.

They rented the entire facility even though they only need one room. Why?, to prevent me from renting the room next door so I can enter!

If they moved it, that would be pretty chicken [Bleeeeep!], and send a very clear message that they (the tribes) have no intention of "Co-management." If they move the meetings to further prohibit transparency, they remove any facade of wanting to be a partner in management. They would prove they want to dictate the terms. Maybe the time is overdue to draw a line in the sand and say NO MORE GIVING UP TO AVOID CONFLICT!

The Open Public Meetings Act clearly states that the Public will be allowed entry, and IF they disrupt the meeting, they can be asked to leave. QUIETLY SITTING IN THE ROOM AND LISTENING IS NOT DISRUPTING. Incidentally, there is NO LEAGLE REASON the meetings are closed to the PUBLIC..IT IS ONLY BECAUSE THE TRIBES SAY THEY ARE AND THE DEPARTMENT DOESN'T WANT TO MAKE THEM UPSET!

And what about FREEDOM OF THE PRESS? WHY IS IT THE TRIBES CAN PREVENT A MEMBER OF THE PRESS FROM ATTENDING?

Here's the million dollar question? WHY CAN THE TRIBES SAY "NO PUBLIC" and the Department can't say "YES, THERE WILL BE"?

What gives them the right to dictate the terms of the negotiations? Again, there is no legal reason the meetings are closed. I'm sick of hearing "These are Gov't to Gov't meetings, therefor the public is not allowed." That's just BS! Even the Federal Department of Indian Affairs says they encourage the public to attend these meetings because it builds trust! The Tribes use this Gov't to Gov't BS to mask the true intent, and that is to keep the public from seeing how they act and what the demand!

We are losing guys, and as long as we keep buying the BS we will continue to lose! As for me, I'm sick of it!

What we need to happen is for some of you young, tech savvy, well connected (through social media) sportsmen to put a kinda "flash mob" together to just show up at the meeting. If we can get enough people to commit, we can inform the media outlets and get this in the living rooms of the masses. After what the legislature just tried to pull with the Public Information Bill, I'm pretty sure the people will be supportive of transparency in the WDFW!

Already got a commitment from some, but we need a MASS, not just a few old, fat guys like me. WE NEED YOU AND YOUR FAMILY!

I called the Lacy Police Department and they gave us the A OK for a peaceful demonstration! Just said "don't block traffic and don't prevent people from entering the facility." Occupying the sidewalk and the parking lot is fine!

When you meetings like this, negotiations, you need at least two if not three rooms as each side needs a private room to caucus in. Internal discussions for them only.

While I think Bay wolf is correct about tribal intent here, nobody in power is willing to challenge them, the state least of all. I think that their response will be that all future meetings are on reservation. They have been placed in a superior position by the state because it suits the state's purposes.

Bay wolf,

Did you verify from City of Lacey that the Community Center is open to the public when a state agency has rented it? If it is open, I think it would be funny, altho not so "ha ha", if the tribes got up and left, leaving WDFW with egg on its face.

Salmo--either way, this is a "win-win" situation...as both outcomes definitely further the Rec fishermen's purpose. Traction so that we can move forward is an opportunity we can't afford to pass up.

Having the center open is not an issue. Since the land is public. I verified with the Lacy police and they said a gathering on the sidewalk and in the parking lot is ok.

Having the visual of a lot of citizens outside protesting the fact that this meeting is dealing with a public resource, on public property with public servants that are paid with our money is perfect.

The fact that the public is shut out of these meetings solely because one special interest group says so is not going to play well with the rest of the citizens in the state.

But, we need participation. We need guys to commit to show and bring a sign. We need families there. It's their future we are fighting for.

Commit! Send an email to OpenNOF@Gmail.com and let us know you will support the end to these secret meetings!

The time is NOW to put action to words! Send that email!

Baywolf,

Are the Lacey police OK with people going inside the Center and not just hanging out on the sidewalk and parking lot? I'm interested in whether a public agency can keep members of the public out of the public building during their meeting. Seems like a key point to me.

You need the Seattle TV stations and the Daily O there as well.

Salmo, I dont know what you expect to accomplish even if you couldnt be prevented from entering a "public building by a public agency". I suspect that as a renter of the facility the Department has the responsibility to monitor those entering the facility and the outcome of the usage. Demanding that the Department can only have public meetings and this meeting is public would likely only result in the tribes walking out, ending up with a open comanager meeting without one of the comanagers.

We are working on alerting the various media outlets.

Of course, it would be lame for them to show up in mass, and outnumber the protesters. WDFW would laugh their butts off.

We need commitments to show before we can pull the trigger on the media.

It doesn't matter really if we can get in the building. In fact, if the media can get a picture of a bunch of citizens locked out of a public building, the better. It lends credibility to the reason we are there!

So? Are you all in or what? Let us know: OpenNOF@Gmail.com

Already got a few guys committed. Lets pull together and get this done!

The Leg is allowed, for example, to have "Executive Sessions" and the Capitol is a public building. Not sure if they could legally keep a member of the public out of the building but could certainly keep you out of the meeting room(s) I would think.

This is not a legislative session, and has no legal basis for public prohibition. They choose to prohibit the public. Getting access is not the goal, it is to protest the lack of public oversight in fish management and conservation.

ARE YOU IN? WILL YOU COMMIT TO PARTICIPATE? WILL YOU BRING A COUPLE OF GUYS WITH YOU?

I think that both the State (whole, not just WDFW) and the Feds want to keep the tribes reasonably happy for a couple of reasons.

Boldt said the Tribes had a right to 50% of the harvestable fish. While that normally was confined to WA the Tribes can still file a "All Citizens" suit wherein the fish are shared with all US citizens. AK was/is scared about this.

Let's just say that the Tribes get half the harvestable and that the habitat has to be retained to produce them (Boldt II). If they pushed the issue, and won, then not only would all fish count but the habitat destruction would need changing. Who controls the cross-state and international fisheries? Da Feds. Who controls habitat? Da Feds and da State. They could lose big time and have to pay reparations for lost harvest (past and future) and so on. So, a state that can't fix its roads, educate its students, treat illness, etc. is going to pay for habitat destruction? A Congress that can't even agree as to what day of the week it is is going to meet their obligations? That would put real teeth in treaty obligations.

On the other hand, the Feds and State could win (State argued that the Tribes should have known that we were going to pave over the state). If they did win then any sort of conservation ethic would go by the wayside.

Seems like so many ways to lose and so few to win.

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.