After our 26th October meeting and many follow up emails and call, Mr. Ron Warren sent us the following email. The "plenary" meetings he mentions are something that the WDFW proposed to NWIFC as a means to better transparency. Pay attention to "WHO" was allowed to attend those meetings in the past, and "WHAT" they discussed. It doesn't sound to us like it increases transparency in the North of Falcon at all!
WE DID FINALLY GET THE TRIBAL/WDFW MEETING SCHEDULE! THAT IS POSTED BELOW. Just in case you happen to be in the area and want to drop in!

Here is a copy of Ron Warren's email.

*************************************************************************************
Dear Washington Citizen Sportsmen - Twin Harbor Fish and Wildlife Advocacy:

Thank you for your recent email dated January 14, 2018 that followed up on your previous December email inquiring about plenary sessions within the North of Falcon process. As you know, the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission’s (NWIFC) Chair, Lorraine Loomis, stated in her recent letter (dated December 21, 2017) that the NWIFC’s member tribes cannot agree to WDFW’s request to open the government-to-government negotiations during NOF to public participation, observation, and/or recording. However Chair Loomis indicated the tribes would be amendable to reinstating plenary sessions during the 2018 North of Falcon process, as were held approximately 10 years ago. The details of such proposed plenary sessions have not been planned yet, and will need to be developed in coordination with Ms. Loomis and the tribes. WDFW leadership will keep in mind the suggestions in your letter and will keep you and the public apprised of any developments. In the past, such plenary sessions were basically an evening round table discussion -- after a day of meeting with the public at Lynnwood Embassy Suites (i.e., NOF #2 meeting in early April) -- in which both non-tribal and tribal representatives took turns sharing their perspectives on cultural values regarding salmon resources, conservation concerns, and fishery management priorities. Non-tribal representatives in those past sessions included agency advisors and industry leads from both the commercial and recreational fishery sectors.

I can assure you that WDFW takes seriously the input from our stakeholders and the public on the transparency issue and is not avoiding or delaying efforts to find solutions. WDFW works hard to maintain openness and transparency with stakeholders, advisors, and the general fishing public throughout the NOF process, giving the public numerous opportunities to attend meetings and provide needed input to Department staff in developing and refining fishing proposals. The current meeting structure during the NOF process reflects the State-Tribal co-managers’ desire to encourage public participation and maximize time with our own constituencies to discuss the annual biological constraints and corresponding management options for salmon fisheries. During 2018, as in previous years, the NOF process will consist of a series of public meetings involving federal, state, tribal and industry representatives and other concerned citizens. The table included with this letter presents the preliminary schedule of 2018 NOF meetings, with locations and meeting times noted. Be sure to check the WDFW web site for updates at the following link:
WDFW North of Falcon Web Page .

Once again, thank you for your letter and valuable input. We look forward to continued conversations on the topic of transparency. Looking forward, WDFW will continue to pursue meaningful dialogue with our stakeholders and the tribes to identify a format for plenary sessions that will be workable for the different parties in attendance. We will keep you apprised on this topic and any progress made with the tribes moving forward.



2018 TRIBAL/WDFW NOF Meeting Dates and Times: *

2/26/2018
Co-manager Technical Modeling Meeting (PUBLIC PROHIBITED)
Location - NWIFC

3/1/2018
Co-manager Policy meeting (Public Prohibited)
Location - Muckleshoot Casino

3/22/2018
NOF #1 - State – Tribes (PUBLIC PROHIBITED)
Location - Lacey Community Center

3/23/2018
NOF #1 - State – Tribes (NWIFC – as needed) (PUBLIC PROHIBITED)

4/2/2018
NOF #2 - State – Tribes (PUBLIC PROHIBITED)
Lynnwood Embassy Suites

4/4/2018
NOF #2 - State – Tribes (PUBLIC PROHIBITED)
Lynnwood Embassy Suites

* These still have not been published on the WDFW NOF web site as of the writing of this post. Although, WDFW said they would be.

He could have saved writing that long email by just summarizing the process: PUBLIC PROHIBITED

Tired of WDFW walking on eggshells around the tribes. In light of the ridiculous manner in which the Management Plan was negotiated--a secret process absent any Commission oversight or involvement, that the tribes should also have realized was inappropriate--WDFW should just note that NOF will now need to be open to public observation. Not an ask, just a reality, in response to the b.s. 'process' that the tribes and the former WDFW head engaged regarding the Management Plan. The tribes can weigh in on how that looks in practice, but we are not talking about the kumbaya meetings described above, and the tribes should not be allowed to veto something that is essential to a properly functioning governmental process. Democracy dies in darkness, and WDFW needs to quit facilitating tribal insistence on cloaking management decisions under a veil of secrecy. If that is too much for the tribes to accept, if they want to abandon NOF because they are afraid to allow some sunlight into their dealings, then WDFW should separate and pursue their own plan. This leads back to my NOAA thread and whether CCA's national lobbyist could/would help if it came to that. Now would be a good time to lay some foundation.

Let’s discuss this in a “plenary session”

WDFW should, since they have the available tools, develop fisheries that take only the NI share. Do it in such a way that the Tribes, collectively, can get their share.

It has been done the other way before. The Tribes presented the states of OR and WA with their fishing pattern. "This is what we're doing, deal with it".

Just ensure that the Tribal share is available and go forward . May mean missing a year, but it will force NOAA to act in the public view.

Cman, We are basicly fishing out of escapement. WDFW Senior Staff leaves us with 3.5 paper fish to harvest? IMHO this is not equitable sharing.

The US-Canada Treaty reform needs to happen to ensure a viable fishery.

BTW this is also the fastest way to provide returning Chinook for the Orcas.

If we are fishing out of escapement then there should be no fishing. My proposal is for WDFW to design, propose, and submit seasons that meet conservation and Court requirements. Entirely above board. Fish on truly harvestable fish. Take the high road.

"WDFW works hard to maintain openness and transparency with with stakeholders, advisors and the general fishing public"

Lol.
SF

Fine World Class comedy writers there.

From Ron Warren's email: " . . . WDFW takes seriously the input from our stakeholders and the public on the transparency issue and is not avoiding or delaying efforts to find solutions."

Avoiding the solution is precisely what WDFW has done and apparently intends to continue doing. Carcassman described the appropriate high road solution: develop a state plan that meets US v WA and ESA requirements, hand it to NMFS and let the feds deal with it. I cannot understand why WDFW continues to follow NMFS' Bob Turner's advice to agree with the tribes and ride the BIA coattails to fish. There is another way. NMFS just doesn't want to deal with it as long as they can get WDFW to go along.

If WDFW put together a season package that met conservation, achieved the 50:50 sharing it would likely be unacceptable to the Tribes because of selective fisheries. Because they CHOOSE to fish non-selectively they need more than half the impacts to achieve their share of harvestable hatchery fish.

I don't think NOAA wants to deal with their having to publicly cut NI fisheries so that the Tribes (the First Conservationists) can fish non-selectively. That would look bad, especially in the current Federal climate.

Come on guys, remember the way the court law is written. Going to the NOAA is not the answer. If the state can actually write up a plan that is fair, they simply need to bring it to the table. The tribes can bring their solution. If no agreement is made, open up the fisheries advisory board and take both plans there. Once the court has made a decision, both sides could live with it or take it to the next level. In between, if I read the law correctly, we get to fish on the courts decision. May not be perfect, but if nothing else I would think all the differences would become public. The courts anticipated bullying by the State, not the tribe, but they set up a plan to deal with it. It is up to the state to implement it.

Bingo!!

That might work if the Court was willing to provide ESA coverage. Absent ESA coverage, that is what the State and Tribes did. They went to FAB and then implemented the decision.

The State, though, as part of all the warm and fuzzies around getting to Co-Management, agreed not to use the FAB but rather to negotiate.

I would think the advisory board would bring in the ESA as an advisor and get basic approval. The court order should not be subject to it, but would be smart to get the basic approval up front too. Since we are talking about breaking off negotiations, the FAB is the correct path. If we aren't, then nothing changes.

Tells it all.............

Everyone who attends the wdfw meetings should be handed one of those buttons at the door.

Therein lies the problem. Because of selective fisheries, especially some of the rec fisheries, the NI side can access abundant stocks with minimal impacts to weak/ESA stocks. The Tribes, fishing non-selectively, can't. They need more than half of the impacts to harvest their share. So WDFW could propose a schedule that gets them only the fish they are "owed" but forces the Tribes to either fish selectively, take the hatchery surplus at the hatchery, or leave fish on the table.

That, I believe, is the crux of the problem. The non-Indian side "has" to give up impacts. I doubt NOAA wants this to go to court because it would ask which law is supreme, the Treaties or ESA. I don't think they want that can of worms opened.

Carcassman is correct. NMFS does not, and cannot, divide the ESA incidental take 50/50 due to the differing exploitation rates, which are based on gear type.

Instead, NMFS divides the incidental take such that each side can get roughly 50% of the catch. Since the recreational anglers can fish selectively, they need less incidental take. And since the Tribes don't fish selectively, they need more. Nothing wrong with that, provided each side has the opportunity to catch their share. For example, on the Columbia River, the Tribes need about 75% of the incidental take to reach their 50% allocation.

I'm not sure there is a direct conflict between the ESA and the Treaties. The court rulings have clearly stated that the State can restrict Tribal fishing, but only for the purposes of conservation. The courts are silent on Federal restrictions due to conservation, but if the State can restrict Tribal fishing, so can the Feds.

But it is guaranteed that if the State is going to restrict the Tribes, they would need to place even greater restrictions on State residents, including recreational anglers, commercial fishermen, homeowners, developers, farmers, etc, etc. Those are the painful decisions that the State, and the Feds, don't want to make. Or even discuss.