In a meeting with Director Unsworth, Ron Warren and others on 26 Oct, we were told several things;

They agreed they would provide us a draft of the letter to Chairwomen Lorraine Loomis before it was sent.
THEY DIDN'T!

We requested and they agreed to publish ALL the meeting schedules, to include the Tribal/WDFW North of Falcon ones. Ron Warren sent us an email stating they intend to publish only the public meetings!

They professed how vital and important open meetings are and said they are doing everything they can to work for transparency.
At the very same time, they were in secret meetings crafting the TEN YEAR PLAN!

Just examples of dishonest behavior from the senior leadership of WDFW. I know you guys can give many, many more.

In our recent poll Do you trust DFW a full 94% said they do not trust WDFW.

And NOW with the Ten Year Plan, we have undeniable proof that the Senior leadership engages in dishonest practices, especially in negotiations with the tribal co-managers to the detriment of the non-tribal public.

SO HOW CAN WE POSSIBLY TRUST WDFW TO REPRESENT US BEHIND THE CLOSED DOORS OF THE NORTH OF FALCON?

GD...These meetings are right around the corner and we are supposed to trust that the same people who just negotiated in secret and created the tremendously damaging Ten Year Plan will represent us any better than they just did! How can we possibly let that happen!

We need to tell the Commission LOUD AND CLEAR! WE DO NOT TRUST WDFW AND WANT THEM TO MANDATE PUBLIC OVERSIGHT IN THE NORTH OF FALCON POLICY! THEY HAVE THE AUTHORITY AND CAN DO IT, THEY JUST NEED TO KNOW WE SUPPORT THEM AND THEY NEED TO FIND THE COURAGE!

Can't "force" the tribes to open the meetings? Arn't they "forcing" us to keep them closed? Let the court decide if secrets are the appropriate way to manage our fish. Just look at the Ten Year Plan to see how well secret meetings work!

Two comments. One to stir the pot because it is so much fun and the other to offer what has worked in the past.

The purpose of that Plan is to restore Chinook. It may actually take complete closure of us because nobody else will do **it like AK, BC, Tribes, Pinnipeds. They are looking for solutions and apparently the vise on the WDFW balls (the few remaining) are being squeezed. But, the measure of success is restoring the runs. If THAT does not happen, they need to do something different.

When I started in WDF it was at the height of the Fish Wars. I was in the Unit that managed the PS commercial salmon fishery. This was at a time when staff were physically assaulted, shot at, had boats rammed. We weren't popular and were not believed. So, we took the show on the road. We had meetings (open, public) with the netters. We laid out how we manage and why. What data we used, what the Courts had ordered. As a followup, we talked with whoever called/dropped by. We explained why this opened, why that closed. Eventually, we had their support. They might yell and scream about what we had done but it was venting. We also learned from them and many of the issues they raised got included in management or proposals we made were dropped as unworkable.

Trust and openess. I would add that we tried this with the Tribes with rather similar results. Honesty and a willingness to explain solve many problems.

As a side note, though, we actually managed the fish. Weekly updates of runs, daily updates of all catch so that when a decision was made (every Thursday from late July to early December) we had real numbers to act on.

Toby Nixon, President of the Washington Coalition For Open Government, has suggested that the DFW Commissioners need only to vote on, approve and WRITE INTO THEIR THEIR BY-LAWS the Open Meeting Principle(s) for all interactive functions--that move would bring about some much-needed change. Pursuing that path and completing that simple action would then put them in compliance with the recent Sunshine Laws and the Open Public Meetings Act.

The recent formulation of the Ten Year Puget Sound Management Plan was done without the inclusion of the nine DFW Commissioners' participation, perspective or oversight--which are primary facets within their administrative duties. The Director and his Fish Managers took that task on alone.

Looks to me like the Board of Commissioners need the Transparency guarantees of the Open Public Meetings Act just as much as we Rec stakeholders do...

Writing that into Policy/Rule/Law is meaningless unless there are actual consequences attached.

Since they communicated to WDFW that they wanted open meetings, since they were blindsided by the Plan, then the consequence is that those whom the Commission has the the ability to terminate are terminated. Anything less than that is approval of what staff did. Without consequences, nothing will change.

It's like passing all these gun laws to "reduce crime" and then not enforcing them. You may feel good, but have accomplished nothing.

We are in agreement there. Let's see if meaningful and appropriate due "consequences" result from the Manager's transgression...

Carcassman, that is an excellent statement!! I agree completely, and have expressed that to the Commission along with the need to have all future negotiations the department is engaged in overseen by an independent method!

I hope you've sent that statement to the Commission with a cc to the Director and Ron Warren! Without a lot of public input and frankly, outrage the path to least resistance will be taken. WE, THE STAKEHOLDERS MUST HOLD THE DEPARTMENT ACCOUNTABLE THROUGH THE COMMISSION! And in order to do that, we MUST let the Commission know our position.

Thank you for all the hard work you do, and for being INVOLVED!!

Hey CM, I didn't see in your historical account how you guys handled the calls for open-public meeting between the tribes and the WDF, back in your day. Could you elaborate on that a bit? I'm only guessing that this issue was raised then as well.

Also, Your examples were from the commercial fishery, how did you handle the sport contingent, since that's who's on here?


Thanks!

I was not a participant in the ocean harvest circus of meetings. Nobody ever said anything that I heard about even wanting to be at the meetings and I don't ever recall anyone being kept out except for executive sessions, which I was kept out of too.

Rules were somewhat simpler then, too. Rule 1 was you will achieve escapement goal. Rule 2 was you will achieve 50:50 sharing as outlined by Boldt. So, the NI side had X to catch. Sport seasons were set first, with an estimate of catch. Then, taking those into account, commercial seasons were proposed. Not set. Openings were based on information to date.

The rec seasons were set and then ran on autopilot, except for Lake WA sockeye that was intensively monitored. All adjustments for conservation were made on the commercial/net side. Since the rec harvest was a prior interception they generally continued unless it was obvious, through the updates, that the run had really crashed. From experience, WDF knew in-season management of recs worked less than poorly.

Since we were working from the same numbers and concepts the Tribes generally complied. When they didn't (when, for example, they fished into "escapement" in the model) it was because of differential run timing and the way catch was accounted for. With few exceptions, nobody purposefully fished into escapement.

This was for PS salmon. I was not involved in steelhead management which was conducted in an entirely different manner.

Most of the problems we have now, I believe, are a complete unwillingness of the managers to explain their reasons and for the users to hear what should be said.

You're right on one account, the rules were much simpler then and those simple rules are partly responsible for the predicament the fisheries are in now, you know, back when you guys knew how to manage fisheries...

Every thing is easier when there's plenty of fish, including management.

That's been my point. North of Falcon worked just fine until the fish became too scarce to support both fisheries. Imagine that....

Still works, we just don't like the outcome as much.

with the amount the tribes get from casinos, and the grants they get from the federal government, they should be putting way more money into something they deem "is needed" than they do...

the state doesnt make billions from us, so they shouldnt be the main source of revenue... the people that take the most should be, commercial, and tribal....

Back then, there was a conservation ethic.

Hoh v. Baldridge said that a preceding fishery can't create a conservation concern, and closure, for a Tribe. Hoh coho were taken in the ocean rec fisheries. Very small numbers but enough to "overfish" and then the Hoh was closed for conservation. When the court said you couldn't do that, WDF said "OK, we'll close the ocean". Feds and Tribes said "Don't do that, just share the impacts. Both sides overfish."

But, it is easier to manage when you have fish. And lots fewer humans.

But my point is that the agency was willing to communicate, unlike now.

"It works" is a relevant term. To a dictator, shooting the opposition works...not so much to the opposition.

This brings to memory a comment Ron Warren made in our Oct 26th meeting when discussing the rec fishermen's opinion on the North of Falcon. Ron said, "We surveyed the tribes and they unanimously agreed the North of Falcon is not broken and working fine."

Thanks Ron for being concerned about YOUR stakeholders opinion!

We "simply" can't go on trust, when the evidence shows that WDFW is not trustworthy.

Maybe it's just me (and over five thousands others so far) who see there is no place in our fisheries for secret negotiations.

If your happy with the way things are being done, more power to ya, but I see room for improvement and it doesn't include being pushed off the water.

So do you actually harbor the assumption that the entire goal of the "secret NOF meetings" is to screw the very constituents that they depend on for funding?

Yes or No.

yes....


Just like the city of Seattle is paying the settlement for Ed Murrays rape crap, taxpayers are paying for the stuff he did....

thats screwing over the people they depend on for funding....

If there is nothing to hide, then why hide? If they are in fact doing everything above board, show the people so we can again have faith and confidence.

Would you continue to use a broker if your money kept disappearing and he would not show you the books, rather just told you to "Trust Him"? Would you trust him if you just found out he got caught embezzling from his boss?

The department just intentionally by-passed any public oversight and Commission authority to craft a RMP in complete secret that will devastate recreational fishing, and we're supposed to be OK with secret meetings after that? To trust them that they will represent US in the secret deals they make?

Yes or No?

That's a dodge.

The RMP "fiasco" is not a good example as you continually forget to mention that the Dept was under a federal court gag-order during the deliberations. I think that is an important fact - you seem to not.

That "default-language gag order" could have easily been waived by the two parties if they were at all interested in above-board negotiations that affect us all. I'm sure the gag order was not intended to keep the policy-setting board in the dark. That's just BS!

In fact, AG Mike Grossmann, the AG assigned to WDFW told me that the confidentiality order specifically DID NOT include the Commission, as under the court order, the Commission is considered "part" of the department. Thus, the department intentionally left the Commission out and even worse, sent the plan for approval without the Commissions having even seen it!


The Commissioners can walk into the North of Falcon negotiations anytime they want. (But we've been told the tribes really don't like it) but the public can't even see a video stream of what's taking place! BullSHI^!