Should the commission be disbanded?

WDFW Commission Mission Statement: To preserve, protect and perpetuate fish, wildlife and ecosystems while providing sustainable fish and wildlife recreational and commercial opportunities. (see https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/mission_goals.html)

Doesn't seem like they're getting it done.

I thought the idea was to insulate management decisions from politics so that science based management can prevail. That's not what's happening.

Heck, they can't even seem to fire WDFW staff when they directly usurp commission responsibilities (see http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/forum...Sound_Fish.html)

While its not clear exactly how bad NOF will be this year, the long term trajectory is pretty clear.

Am I missing something or is it time to find a different management model for WDFW?

Okay, fair enough to question whether the Commission is meeting its obligations and responsibilities. However, if you are going suggest that it be disbanded you need to recognize that it's current existence was achieved by Initiative and you should offer up a better solution. Otherwise, you are encouraging the Legislature to simply vote it into oblivion and revert to the prior untenable, short term (politically driven) management "strategy."

As to criticism that the Commission has not been willing/able to fire Staff the Commission has never been able to take such personnel action. It's power to hire and fire is limited to the Director. It is the Director who has the authority to deal with hires, fires and reassignments of his management team within State law so as to successfully implement direction provided to him by the Commission.

The most current debacle over the 10 Year Chinook Management Plan is a clear failure of the Director to engage with the Commission prior to and during those negotiations and ultimately to obtain their approval of the final Plan prior to his signature and the Plan's submittal to NOAA. The Draconian effects tied to the Stilly SUS impacts (8%) may have been avoided had there been a broader involvement of all parties - something that has actually occurred albeit after the fact.

The good news is that NOAA has apparently sent the Plan back for further negotiations over concerns related to other stocks. Hopefully that will enable the co-managers, NOAA and Federal judge to find a less painful way to address their management concerns w/r/t the Stilly (and others?) and to set the stage for a more balanced annual NOF process.

I would not expect NOAA, by themselves, to relax the management objectives that would allow more for more fishing during their own review of the Plan. However, they may require additional restrictions if they feel that protections for some populations are inadequate. The comanagers would need to request an adjustment to the Plan they originally provided which allow for more fishing and for NOAA to consider these new provisions in their evaluation of whether the overall plan meets conservation/recovery objectives in salmon fisheries. It may be tricky to get the comanagers to agree with these kind of adjustments to the Plan. A request from just WDFW and/or the Commission is unlikely to be recognized or considered by NOAA.

Well, that is to be determined. Will the reported action by NOAA sending the Plan back to the co-managers open the door to re-addressing the Stilly component? Stand By!

1. The Commission has the authority to hire and fire the Director. It does however require a majority vote, and most probably a chain of administrative procedures like performance evaluations. Those things take time. While there are many who want to hold the Senior Staff at WDFW responsible for failure to supervise (the buck stops at the top), there are some who may want to pardon. The best way forward is to let all the Commissioners know where you stand on the issue.

2. There have already been bills submitted to reduce the Commission to an advisory board. Having the Commission dis-banded or worse yet, reduced to an advisory role would be a catastrophe! Remember, The Deputy Chair of the Commission publicly scolded Director Unsworth on his handling of the PSCSHP. It was not the Commission's fault that the Director intentionally removed them from any oversight of the plan. That responsibility rests solely on Director Unsworth and his Deputy for Fish Management.

3. The cancer in this plan was lack of transparency, and that cancer is spread from the North of Falcon. We MUST support and encourage the Commission to convert the NOF policy to a WAC (Washington Administrative Code) and put language in the WAC that gives stringent supervision over the department and mandates having full transparency in all negotiations conducted by the WDFW.

I think its obvious at this point that the only possible solution for some of the problems at WDFW involves new leadership. So far, the commission has been reluctant to provide it. A mild public tongue lashing does not qualify as leadership, nor will it provoke meaningful change.

While the director has many redeeming qualities, understanding salmon management does not seem to be one of them. If they value him so much, they need to insist on a better deputy/leadership team with knowledge of salmon management and skills at negotiation.

I think an ultimatum to the director is in order. Fix the salmon side of the house or leave.

If the commission is willing to stand for this nonsense of salmon managers making policy without consulting to the commission, then I think the commission no longer has a purpose.

While I appreciate the logic of the commission structure, its clearly not yielding positive results for the resource or users. How does WDFW get out of its current tailspin? Can the commission help, or is it just cover for more status quo? Right now it sure feels like it reinforcing the status quo. In a decade we won't be able to fish perch let alone salmon or steelhead if the current trajectory continues.

I've read NOAA feedback to the Dept over the plan as originally submitted. It ain't pretty!... and calls for a more conservative approach on 4-5 other watersheds. It isn't just the stilly, it's the Noosack, white, lake Washington, and dungeness all in or near critical status.
I expect this to come out next Friday.

Take heed...the Commission is far away our best hope to somehow turn this mess around. Those Managers entrusted to act on their (and our) behalf, as well as everyone's best interests, have failed tragically. When this all comes to a climax, the devil will be in the details--a good many of which are already hidden behind a veil of secrecy and cloaked by devious deception. Make no mistake...this whole mess deserves to and has landed squarely on Jim Unsworth's and his Fisheries Manager's desks. This is his quandary until he saves Puget Sound Recreational fishing--or yields, steps aside...and hands the crisis to someone else.
I have some serious concerns. They culminated when I listened to the audio tape of the Commission's special meeting yesterday. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Jim Unsworth was included during the roll call of all those actively listening in and prepped to participate. From that point forward, he never spoke a word.
I'm baffled by how that could take place. Why didn't he plea mea culpa, pick up the reins and contact NOAA to explain what actually transpired, request an extension or review of the Puget Sound Management Plan or even graciously offer to fall on his sword?
The nine Commissioners now saddled with untangling this mess are well qualified and resolved to deal with what must transpire at this point. Give them the support they need. If they were not in place to do just that---this nightmare would already be reality.

GB - The Director looked absolutely ambivalent when Commissioner Carpenter offered up his polite, understated criticism during the early December Commission meeting.

As for the Commission I hope that they individually and as a group fully comprehend the magnitude of the problem as seen by us stakeholders and are up to the challenge.

I think some of the Commissioners are afraid to fire Unsworth because they don't know how we will react. Especially the board members from the east side. They are insulated from the fisheries issues. But they got punked just like the rest of the Board. They really do need to show their in charge, or risk losing all their authority and respect of the people.

Your not kidding! The Stilly is a driver but not the only concerns in this plan. For example Lake Washington with a 12% escapement rate: The lowest observed SUS ER was 8.9% in 2010 and it’s the only time since 1992 the SUS ER has been below 12%.
26 years!

Here's is where the concern should be, I think.

PS Chinook listed in the early 90s. We cut back hydro, worked on habitat, tweaked fisheries, based on our models. The runs have not rebounded.

Starting with Stilly, they (Tribe) stopped killing wild Chinook, the state made great reductions and went selective in some fisheries. Little use of hatcheries. Put in all sorts of land-use restrictions. IT HASN"T WORKED.

We are getting to the point where the real world data says what is being done is not enough. This includes AK and BC as NOAA is open to lawsuits for not enforcing ESA and CITIES but that would come from a third party like Greenpeace or Sea Shepherd.

As the 2016 fiasco showed, some Tribes do not support the NI fishery achieving its allowed catch and impacts if it affects theirs. When selective fisheries occur, and they take their full ESA impact, it the precludes a non-selective fishery from taking all the target fish.

I think we re approaching a point where NOAA has to face some hard choices. Cut back/eliminate AK mixed stock catch, negotiate BC off of US fish, either get the tribes to fish selectively of close down NI.

It is the fish or cut bait, [Bleeeeep!] or get off the pot time. Do something so that the return to the gravel significantly exceeds the parent year. Real numbers, not model runs.

SG,
Thanks for the update.
Will that be released on the WDFW or NOAA website?
SF

I like the Commission right now, but I see Geoduck's point...

Maybe a bad analogy, but if WDFW were a company and the Commission were the Board of Directors, they would NOT look at the results and say:

"Hey, great job folks!" (decades of declines of both natural origin and hatchery production)

"Keep doing what you're doin'!" (further reduce harvest, which is proven to not work)

They would fire the guy in charge.

I know WDFW's managers feel that their hands are tied by ESA, treaties, Boldt, insufficient funding, and probably a bunch of other reasons. But an entity that perpetually claims its hands are tied is an entity with a severe leadership problem.

A Board would never accept "sorry guys, our hands are tied" from a CEO and the Commission should not accept that from WDFW. Solutions exist, and finding them starts with leadership.

Yes, the replacement could end up being yet another goober just like Unsworth turned out to be after Anderson left. But that's not a reason to leave said goober in charge.

Having said all that, we should give the Commission a chance. They have been blindsided right along with us. The Commission is likely in the process of deciding what to do.

I'm writing the Commission recommending the delegation of authority to the director be withdrawn, and the director replaced.

Should be an interesting meeting Friday

Maybe, just maybe...we can stop this train wreck and turn things around. Thank you, CB. The one thing we all can agree on is Puget Sound without a well researched and soundly deliberated approach to get gear in the water is a most depressing scenario. Your message carries wisdom...and encourages others to keep it moving!

We just received this email:

"I learned late last night that the Senate Nat. Resources committee had unanimously confirmed 5 WDFW Commissioners - Baker, Carpenter, McIsaac, Thornburg, and Graybill. The names will be sent to the full Senate for a vote of confirmation. Hopefully, it comes sooner rather than later. Contact with your local State Senator encouraging a quick vote would be appropriate, I think. We, the people, need the Commission confirmed so they can't be easily removed and can do what we're asking of them."

I met with my District Rep this afternoon and asked for his support, which he agreed to. Please, contact your representatives and lets get this done.

1. If the Commission has the power to fire the Director, they should do so immediately. His handling of the Mgmt Plan is reprehensible. And really, at this point, it's pretty clear that he's a dipsh*t (and this from a guy who has defended WDFW on this board for years).

2. Am I the only one who finds it odd/depressing/mystifying that Trump's administration is pretty much abandoning the environment on all fronts and yet NOAA is still all over us about catch and release encounters? Shouldn't a little Federal help on the NOAA/Mgmt Plan front be the silver lining of Trump?

Numerous folks made the trip yesterday to Ridgefield in order to testify at the morning public comment session prior to the afternoon Staff briefing on the 10 Year Chinook Harvest Plan (Plan). I don't recall there being even one person who spoke in favor of the Plan or the manner in which it was developed and presented.

Questions were raised as to why the Southern U.S. (SUS) is being more severely restricted that Northern fisheries (which includes current negotiations with Canada of the Salmon Treaty) in ways to reduce perceived risks to the stocks and particularly the Stilly which is the poster child as NOAA/NMFS is dealing with its ESA responsibilities (note: NOAA has taken issue with the Plan's impacts on several other stocks). And does that direction from NOAA open up the opportunity to renegotiate the 8% SUS cap on Stilly impacts? Others testified as to the expected economic impact of a full salmon season shutdown. The Commission was also "encouraged" to step up and assert its role as the Policy setting policy, others recommended that the Commission rescind its broad delegation of authority to the Department, and one individual directly asked that the Director resign.

Some takeaway points (and personal comments):

1. AAG Grossman briefed on the legal aspect of the "secret" nature of the negotiations leading up to the Plan saying confidentiality was dictated by the Federal judge. It was said that the Commission had been informed while Staff also acknowledged that they could and should have done a better job of informing the Commission.

2. I believe it was AAG Grossman who took exception to the contention that only 11 Stilly fish would have been saved had the Plan been applied to the 2017 season. But that person did not say how many fish the after-the-fact modeling (and such modeling only occurred after the Plan was signed) would have saved. Maybe 12?? 13??? Only they know and that seems to be another pertinent fact covered under the confidentiality veil. And they wonder why there is distrust?

3. During the afternoon Staff briefing it was Commissioners McIssac and Carpenter who asked the most pointed questions. Their background in complicated fisheries issues was apparent and a true value to the process. Thank you both!! And Governor Inslee - be sure to re-appoint Commissioner Carpenter!!

4. It was stated that NOAA is not concerned about economic impacts. It was also opined that NOAA/NMFS is willing to accept without discussion impact figures which they perceive as adequately conservative but become far more concerned as impact numbers become close to or below their minimum recovery figures because of a fear of being sued by certain conservation groups.

5. On one hand there was a perception that the SUS impact cap is 8% but then there was discussion that the 8% was when low returns were anticipated and up to 12% for good years (overall 24% in both conditions). I was left wondering who will make that assessment and against what standards? In response to Commissioner McIssac's probing questions the Staff acknowledged that even if northern impacts were ZERO the max SUS would remain at 12%. Why is that? And why is the burden being placed disproportionately on the SUS? There was no discussion as to how in-season adjustments might be accomplished leaving us with the impression that our fisheries would be locked in to the annual NOF agrements which are based entirely upon expectations.

6. There was also one comment to the effect that it would be recreational fishers taking the brunt of SUS restrictions. Does that mean that the tribes will be fishing (mostly non-selectively) even if we don't have a season? Staff would not confirm assertions that the Plan will under certain conditions (such as now) result in a total closure (or at least the State's) of salmon seasons. They simply couldn't say those words - kind of like Fonzie (Happy Days) not being able to use the word "mistake." I recall that when pushed Staff used a term like "potential significant impacts." Paint your own picture.

7. There was a push to have the unofficial Plan utilized for 2018 and probably 2019 because NOAA's process probably won't be completed prior to those seasons.

8. There was no formal action taken by the Commission.

After the public session the Commission and Staff went into Executive Session. Wish I could have been the fly on the wall for that one.

These are my recollections from what was about 3 hours of testimony and briefings. The Commission will be posting an audio recording to their webpage.

Thank you, Larry, for making the long trip and sharing the details. After reading through your comments, my immediate impression was that the Director and his Managers have "circled their wagons" to somehow create a defense of relying on strength in numbers...pointing the finger of blame at the Feds, the Commissioners and a few misinformed radicals out there in the public.

Until the Management Group comes clean on just exactly how the 8% quota was applied to the Stilly situation, AND ALLOWED TO REMAIN AT THAT FIGURE WHEN BEING SIGNED OFF BY THE DIRECTOR, thus warranting his approval...their feet remain in the fire. More and more stakeholders, businessmen, and patrons are becoming aware daily of how this nightmare is shaking out.

This MP would have all been "fait accompli", and on its way to implementation, had not the Commission taken exception to being excluded in the policy-making procedure. Ironically, WDFW is pushing forward in this process as though nothing out of the ordinary has happened--and we, collectively, are not buying a word of it.

There is no better example of making the case for mandatory transparency in the dealings of the Dep't. than what has transpired, and is being spun as reality.

I look forward to hearing the audio record of the proceedings--if only it were more comical than pathetic...

Thanks Larry. I find it troubling that Mr. Grossmann’s involment in details of the plan seem more like a lobbyist than legal counsel. It appears he has exceeded his role as advisor on legal matters and is now actively taking part in the negotiations and inserting his objectives rather than advise.

Clearly the Commission needs to see through the BS that lack of transparency is necessary to good fish management as Mr. Grossmann has professed on a couple of occasions now. If that were true, then the current MP would of been perfect!

There is no confidence in the senior leadership of WDFW. Unsworth needs to go, Ron Warren needs to be re-assigned as does AAG Grossmann. That triad is directly responsible for not only the piss poor MP and attempting to undermine the Commission’s authority but for continuing to attempt to shift blame and hinder transparency. Man up, accept your responsibility in this disaster and resign!

WE NEED to tell the Commission to agree to convert the NOF policy to a WAC. It is the ONLY WAY they can affirm their authority and be true to their word as supporting open and fair meetings. If the Board memebers listen to Grossmann and deny conversion, they are clearly sending a message that they are not in support of transparency and are subordinate to the Department, just what WDFW wants!

Thanks so much for the detailed summary, Larry. Excellent.



IIRC there's a fair amount of "horse trading" in these negotiations, correct? I think I heard that one of the reasons Columbia river chinook bounced back is because of a deal with BC to lay off them a bit (I think if we laid off fraser sockeye or something)



This seems like an egregious dereliction on the AAG's part. I listened to the last conference call and Grossman was basically exclaiming "GOTCHA" to the Commission. I envisioned him tapping his fingers together and cackling diabolically.

Instead of performing olympic-level legal gymnastics to cut the public out of the process, he *COULD* have been doing the same to make sure the public was INCLUDED. The AG is after all the "people's lawyer".

First Amendment: "...right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." I'm sure Grossman would scoff at the assertion what he did was uncontitutional, but I THINK the spirit of of the 1st amendment was pretty clearly violated.



Not sure if it was the same person, but the Bham PSA president testified that a complete sport closure of area 7 (summer/winter fisheries occupying #3 and #4 the stilly impact list) for the 2016/17 season would have saved only 3.4 stilly chinook. I couldn't believe that, but it was verified by WDFW.

Closing one of the most popular, productive, economically valuable, beautiful etc etc marine areas WOULD SAVE ONLY THREE AND A HALF FISH.



Yeah McIsaac is awesome - I am very impressed.



Not terribly surprising, but it's it just adorable that NOAA is part of the Department of Commerce?

And I find it baffling that the fishing economy is NOT a factor for them. At the very least, the seafood market is a pretty big part of the picture is it not?



I LOVE the Fonzie similie In the last conference call Kyle Adicks did say out loud that if the plan had been used as a guideline for 16/17 that area 7 would likely have been totally closed. Can't take that one back Kyle.

Remember the vociferous backlash in 2016 when the Tribes went ahead and fished before an NOF agreement was reached (and recs were off the water)? I think that would pale in comparison to this scenario. Or would it. Sportfisherman haven't been able to galvanize too well around much, so I'm not sure why I think this would be different. We've been taking a slow-motion beatdown for ages. We might just peter out with a whimper.



Push by who? That's upsetting.

Thank you. I would have written it up last night but the brain was numb.

As for using the Plan for 2018 and 2019 that came from Staff during the briefing. Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "push" but it was clear to me that the Plan would certainly be the template for NOF for those two years because NOAA would not be able to formalize the Plan in time for 2018 and most likely not for 2019.

Sportfisherman haven't been able to galvanize too well around much, so I'm not sure why I think this would be different. We've been taking a slow-motion beatdown for ages. We might just peter out with a whimper.

True dat!

We have over 5000 sportsmen who have galvanized around the lack of transparency issue, and probably a hell of a lot more who are following the issue. It's not having sportsmen come together and support something that's the problem. WHAT'S THE PROBLEM IS MOST WANT SOMEONE ELSE TO DO ALL THE WORK TO FIX THE PROBLEMS!!

Example: How many sport fishermen live in S.W. Washington, say within an hours drive of Ridgefield? How many showed up to speak at the Commission meeting?

How many have actually sent emails? How many have contacted their state representatives?

It's not about "galvanizing" around an issue. It's apathy and laziness. It's an attitude that "somebody ought to do something", AND THEN NEVER BECOMING "THAT SOMEBODY",that has us in the mess we are in.

We sports fishermen have given away our voice and our power by in-action. Just like the Commission will give away it's authority if they do not fire Unsworth.

For every guy that bitches here on the internet, and does NOTHING else, we grow weaker!

For every fishermen who says "Nothing will change". We are assured, nothing will change.

And for every person who bought a license and then leaves all the heavy lifting to everyone else, shame on you! You are part of the problem!

We are at a critical point in our fisheries. We have a petition in front of the Commission asking them to convert the NOF policy into a WAC. Never in a long time have we been this close to having a real voice in our fishery management. There should be a laser focus right now by every single sport fisher on getting the Commission to move forward on the conversion. WE NEED TO HAVE THEM VOTE "YES" TO CONVERT THAT NOF POLICY TO A WAC. THEY NEED TO HEAR FROM EVERY SINGLE LICENSE HOLDER. THEY NEED TO KNOW WE ARE UNITED, STRONG AND WILLING TO DO THE HEAVY LIFTING TOGETHER!

The Commission needs to stay, Grays Harbor has a Policy that was reached with agreement of parties concern....lasts until 2023, then ????

I have included a web address......pretty clear in wording !!!


https://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/policies/c3621.html

There were several guys who testified about the status of the Cowlitz and particularly the loss of early return steelhead and its impact on the local economy.

There was also testimony urging the Commission to stay the course with regard to their original policy to remove gillnets from the main stem of the Columbia. That issue is still perking and will be coming up for Commission action. As an issue it certainly did not receive the support I would have expected. As I recall the CCA reps focused their testimony on the PLAN; hope they are able to quickly shift focus and push support for the CR policy.

"We are at a critical point in our fisheries. We have a petition in front of the Commission asking them to convert the NOF policy into a WAC. Never in a long time have we been this close to having a real voice in our fishery management. There should be a laser focus right now by every single sport fisher on getting the Commission to move forward on the conversion. WE NEED TO HAVE THEM VOTE "YES" TO CONVERT THAT NOF POLICY TO A WAC. THEY NEED TO HEAR FROM EVERY SINGLE LICENSE HOLDER. THEY NEED TO KNOW WE ARE UNITED, STRONG AND WILLING TO DO THE HEAVY LIFTING TOGETHER!"

Changing the NOF Policy so that is part of the Washington Administrative Code will allow us a pathway to rule making through the Commission. This proposal will be considered for approval on or around Feb. 2nd.

I ask you...in light of recent (or past) events relating to issues long deliberated, put off or just plain ignored by WDFW...why wouldn't this action be of vital importance to everyone of us? We all piss and moan re: WDFW's strategy of procrastination and utter lack of action. WHY NOT MAKE THAT WORN OUT TACTIC UNLAWFUL? Get familiar with, and behind this effort. Let the Commission hear your point of view and worthy rationale...more than just once!

The Twin Hbrs Group wholly endorses this procedure, and the track record of their efforts to initiate stakeholder participation and subsequent change is definitely something to look up to.

This is a major Game Changer--but only if we fiercely pursue and support the effort to make it come about.

Sorry Bay wolf, I wasn't trying to diminish the incredible effort you've put into this (and also all the great work Twin Harbors has done). You have my full support AND participation.

I am just moaning about the historical lack of participation of sportsmen in the process. Too often in the past I've been shocked and disappointed by the apathy of license holders, so perhaps I'm trying to manage my own expectations about the future.

That, added to the general feeling by those who have participated that their engagement hasn't made a damn bit of difference. Heard this from a former sportfishing advisor the other day.

I've always asked, "what would it take to REALLY get people involved?" The numbers for effecting real change do exist (license holders). Perhaps it would take a total closure for that to happen. I would seriously hope that if there were a total closure PLUS the tribes still fish, people would finally speak up.

But lets hope it doesn't get to that point!

Side note...people who "just talk" are way more valuable than we think. Thinking about the issues and participating in discussion IS engagement. Even if they never send a letter to the governor or go to a meeting or a protest, we need people out there thinking about the issues, talking with others.

So what do you think is THE most important:

1. Shake up at WDFW leadership (Fire Unsworth and reassign senior leadership).
2. Convert Policy to WAC
3. Get rid of AAG Grossman


#1 would seem to be a question of when not if. I am all for right now. It would seem neither Unsworth nor his direct reports are actively engaged in a constructive effort to salvage the situation.

#2 is hardest to accomplish as it will involve legislation.

#3 should be easy given that Grossman has not been functioning in a manner consistent with the AG's mission statement (http://www.atg.wa.gov/mission-vision-values) and works for an elected politician. The lack of transparency alone should be enough to catalyze change here. Anyone feel like writing to the AG?

We need to all get behind some concrete goals and start pushing. I nominate any one or all of the above.

One of the problems with simply reassigning staff is that they are still there.

A new Director will work if the Commission makes non-compliance a fireable offense and then follows through.

Reassigning staff will work if the new leadership no only takes direction from the Commission but gets compliance from below.

Otherwise, all that happens is that the Titanic's deck chairs are rearranged again.

All of the above are interesting questions/scenarios. I'm faithful that NO Director--present or future--will again flirt with non-compliance after this dust up. Existing staff should be put through a comprehensive performance review, and the dead wood should be cast aside. AAG Grossman has stepped over the line, and should be the subjected to reassignment...or, better yet--termination.

The future course of WDFW will be determined by actions soon to transpire.

Grossman's performance will be reviewed by AG Fergusen. Need to find out what he thinks of the performance.

Geoduck

Making the policy a WAC is in the powers of the Commission. It doesn't require legislative action.

To clear up regs, a WAC (Washington Administrative Code) is the rules that are made by agencies to enforce RCW (Revised Code of Washington) which are what the Legislature enacts.

RCWs are "Laws"
WACs are "Rules"

....and it is much easier to change a WAC than a statute.

The conversion process is essential. Here's why. First, a policy is advisory. There is no method to sue for violation of a policy. It can be ignored with little ramifications.

With a WAC, there are consequences for violating. And it would allow us to sue if needed.

Here is a link to the steps, if anyone would like to read through them:

Steps to Rule Making

The advantages to a rule, and particularly the process, is the public input period! We then can speak to the Commission directly to include open meetings! They can also address their delegations in a very narrow manner, so we will never see what happened in the Ten year plan. A WAC can be easily changed, so it is flexible enough to evolve as we progress in our fisheries.

But, it's all for nothing IF THE AAG CONVINCES THE COMMISSION TO KILL IT!

So easy even I could do it.

1. What does the commission have to do to fire him? How is this addressed?
2. Anything that doesn’t help Salmon will lead to less Salmon.

The Commission can fire Unsworth through a simple majority vote.

Other's can address the NOAA/Trump question.

I am somewhat surprised, given the Administration's "leanings" regarding race and government over-reach that they haven't jumped in here with both jack-booted feet. Seriously. Their base is being screwed. Maybe it is because WA is too blue that reds here can just flounder around.

I wrote a letter to the AG. I'm just dealing with the dereliction of duty aspect, not the plan itself.

Attorney General Bob Fergusen,

I am writing you to express my shock and dissatisfaction at the Attorney General’s dereliction of duty as it relates to the development of the Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan.

May I first remind you that the AGO’s mission, as outlined on your own site, states that you will “…provide excellent, independent, and ethical legal services to the State of Washington and protect the rights of its people.” Your first core value states, “…remember that we serve the people of Washington.” Also, the first amendment of the Constitution of the US states that the people have the right “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” A right, which I assume extends to the people of the State of Washington and our state government.

Advising WDFW to secretly develop a plan, whose ultimate form is intended to become law, clearly violates all of the above principles.

Mike Grossman is an incredibly talented attorney. I am both astounded and horrified at the creativity he employed to keep the public out of the development of this plan. But he easily could have chosen the other path. Instead of claiming that WDFW’s hands were tied by the mitigation, he could have used his talent to figure out a way to include the public. Failing that, he should have just said “No – excluding the public violates the principles of my office and would be a disservice to the people of my state”.

Additionally, AAG Frymire, who apparently was supposed to be looking out for WDFW’s Commission (and therefore the public) remained quiet and out of view. Which to me smells of collusion.

Grossman’s actions, and Frymire’s inaction are a dereliction of duty by them, and by extension, your entire office. I am formally requesting that Grossman and Frymire step down. I am also requesting a review of the Attorney General’s handling of this matter by an independent entity outside of your office. I will be pursing this with the Governor.

You have failed the people of this state, and betrayed our trust.

Very well written and exactly what needed to be said and to who it needed to go to. Thank you for taking the time to send a letter.

I've been consistently harsh regarding the ridiculous and inappropriate manner in which the Management Plan was negotiated. But we should also remember that the AG's office has some really talented and dedicated attorneys. The AG's office did a good job protecting the revised crab allocation several years ago against attack from commercial crabbers. It will be more difficult for them to prevail against the law firms and campaign donations that the tribes intend to use to get their way as we move forward on tribe related issues. That said, it was the WA AG's office that first stepped up to oppose Trump's Muslim ban, and they had their successes. Regardless of your politics, the action that they took required guts, creativity, legal skill and hard work. I believe they also pulled in private lawyers, probably working pro-bono, for short term support--something I wish they would also do on certain WDFW matters. When WDFW, the Commission and the AG's office are all on the same page, they can be formidable.

I don’t get what these emails hope to accomplish.

So I take it you're a-OK with fishing policy being developed in secret, with no forum for input by the public?

It was a different AG but way back the AG's office went to Federal Court over a dispute as to where a reservation boundary was. WDF wanted the AG's Office not to pursue it but they did and they won. The Tribes don't always win in court.

Obviously I think they should be public, but that’s not up to me.
I don’t see what that has to do with telling the attorney general what a loser he is.
You guys keep up this cowboy vs Indians game and ignore that we split half our fish with another entity that gets a free pass.

If I may. What we (Washington Citizen Sportsmen) have been fighting for is fair, open and equitable fish management. That the management of our resources should not be done in closed door meetings, with select participation. We have NEVER advocated for, and NEVER will advocate for an Us vs Them situation. We have always stated, WE can accomplish a great deal of good by woking together. And the current place of our fisheries DEMANDS cooperation. What we are wanting is to have EVERYTHING out in the open, no matter WHO is involved. It just so happens that at this moment, our tribal co-managers are the ones blocking transparency. As we said, it doesn't mater who it is blocking, it is wrong and is damaging to the resources and to true trust and cooperation.

I think what the letter about the AAG'S are about, is that they have crossed the line as legal advisor's and have actually pubically come out with a position on confidentiality, in fact SUPPORTING it in as a means to allow "people to express themselves". We agree, the AG's office in all probability is going to have to step in to help resolve this loggerhead we find ourselves in. The Citizen's of the State demand Open and fair government, the Tribes say NO! It will eventually need to go in front of a judge. However, we don't feel really comfortable with a guy pleading our side of the case, who has already publicly said he see's an need for secrets in our fisheries.

It's interesting on the one hand, that our state legislators believe they are exempt from the Public Disclosure Act and had to hire private attorneys to fight it in court (and lose). The judge asked the state AG's office to file a friend of the court brief, because it would be normal in such situations for the AG to defend the state legislators in a court proceeding. However, the AG's office declined, saying they disagreed with the legislators claim that they could keep their public records secret and actually agreed with the media groups (newspapers) who are suing the Legislature to open up such records.

Yet the same AG's office, or its representatives for WDFW believe it's appropriate for the agency to violate the Open Public Meetings Act and negotiate in secret with the tribes at NOF while shutting out the very constituency who fund their existence and ability to be participants in NOF.

Weird.

Baywolf and Salmo, I think I just got schooled. Thanks!

The Tribes don't always win but I would be surprised that the States batting average on the big cases is above the Mendoza line.

Sometimes, when you lose you win. The second appeal that the State made to the Supremes they "lost". But, the sharing was expanded to include all Tribal catch, not just off-rez commercial.

The situation with the courts was not as bad as the state would like to portray it.

I’m trying to split the problems. The first being the secrecy in which the plan was developed, the second being the plan itself.

I am crafting my communications regarding the plan itself, which include addressing NOAA’s double standard as it relates to ESA and AK harvest.

The commission better hire people that are up to speed. and make sure THEY hire people up to speed..because when people above you tell you things like 'i thought i knew about hatcheries before i came but now i realize i don't know that much at all...' well..it doesn't inspire confidence...

unsworth would go off and talk to the wildlife folks and ditch the fish people at regional meetings...not inspiring either...