WDFW: Join us for the "FRAUD AND BULLSH&T SHOW!"

Hey Guys and Gals. Don’t forget to tune-in for the:

!!! WDFW FRAUD AND BULLSH%T SHOW !!!

JUNE 9TH AT 9 A.M.

Keeping in the traditions of pretending and illusion, WDFW has put together another GREAT SPECTACLE, where they intend to fool the public into believing THEY ARE PART OF THE PROCESS!

STARRING: PUPPET MASTER RON WARREN
and his talking puppet Susewind

Co-starring the famous cast of characters from WDFW.


Tomorrow, 9 June at 9am, they are holding the 2020-21 rules hearing. There will be time for, believe it or not, PUBLIC COMMENT!

As we all know, this is pure BULL. They hide behind locked doors and let the tribes dictate our season. Already sent the List of Agreed to Fisheries to NOAA, and the rules pamphlet is at the press as we write this!

SO, WHAT IN THE HELL IS PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE SEASON FOR?

Well, there IS some comment that we can give. WE CAN TELL THEM THIS IS BULL!

And let them know, we know. Tell them to FIX THE BROKEN CO-MANAGEMENT PROCESS!


HERE IS THE LINK TO REGISTER FOR THE MEETING AND SIGN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT:

CR-102 RULES HEARING REGISTRATION

Don't forget the show resumes again this afternoon at 1pm!!!!

Only 15 people signed up. One commissioner said, "well I see we don't have hundreds."

Now up to 30 people joined.

Up to 55 now.

Perhaps there would have been more show up if they didn't schedule it on the one single day we can go shrimping.

And... how would people even know about such meetings if they are not regulars on a bulletin board such as this. Did they email every license holder in the state to promote?

Are they really that dumb? Those 15 people speak for everyone. Why not have it in a chat room if their concerned about numbers?

Schedule is here:
https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/commission/meetings#upcoming


Chair Carpenter asked Ron Warren about the state getting their own permit. Ron basically asked the commissioner if it was willing to sacrifice 2 years of no fishing pursuing a permit? Ron said that it is just too big a mountain to climb. That the tribes permit is the best option.

My comment/question is why can't the state get it's own permit, start the process, and still continue to with the current season setting process? Can you not do both at the same time?

And that is the Boogie Man pulled out of the closet whenever the idea of WDFW obtaining its own permit is raised.

Would NOAA/NMFS actually be willing to NOT find a way to facilitate a State fishery should the State seek its own permit? Maybe that question needs to be posed directly to Barry Thom - NOAA's Regional Director.

You can't find out if NOAA/NMFS would say no unless you file for it. What's the worst that can happen? We would just go back to what we have now. Do the tribes have the authority/right to not allow the state a fishery through their permit if the state filed for their own? Or is it NOAA/NMFS that would say no to a state fishery if the state filed a permit....until said permit was approved? Like you are only allowed to be on one permit at a time? I just don't see why the state can't file for a permit and still do what they do each year for a state fishery currently.

Has Ron Warren or anyone else within WDFW written NOAA/NMFS asking that very question and received an official signed response that there would be NO State fishery pending issuance of a permit?

One would think that if such a record of question/response exits it would have been presented to the Commission. I'd love to see it!

Then again, why didn't Chair Carpenter or one of the other Commissioners ask???

I' think it's time to ask one of our "friendly" legislators, from a district that has suffered fishing cuts, these hard questions, so that they can help the situation. I'm not sure who that might be, but I'm fairly sure who they are not. Maybe it should be one of our congressional reps? It's an election year.

It was after the public comment period was over when Chair Carpenter asked Ron Warren about a state permit or I would of asked why not go for a state permit while continue doing what the state is doing in negotiating a fishery. In my opinion I got the feeling that Ron Warren did not want to upset the tribes by the state filing for their own permit. He was almost emotional over the state not trying to get their own permit in my opinion. It was recorded. You should watch it when it is posted. They said something about it being televised.

I am trying to educate myself. So is this why the state doesn't pursue it's own permit cause they think NOAA/NMFS would not allow the state to fish during the process of deciding on issuance of a permit? So if the state filed for their own permit NOAA/NMFS would not allow the state to fish on the tribes permit?

It might be that the tribes wouldn't allow the State to piggyback on their permit which would then put NOAA/NMFS in the awkward postiion of being the gatekeeper for a State fishery.

While I would like to think the political pressure would generate some form of interim permit I also recall the recent history of WDFW's early winter steelhead program and how the WFC lawsuit came about because NOAA/NMFS didn't timely review WDFW's submittals.

Also, I do think upper management at WDFW is afraid to unset the status quo.

Well after watching the NOF discussion yesterday it is pretty clear in regards to NOF and the 10 year Chinook management plan that WDFW is just spinning it's wheels. It was good to hear Commissioner McIsaac saying something to the effect that this has been going on for 3 years or more and clearly wdfw dealings with the tribes on these topics is not working and new ideas are needed.

I simply cannot understand how one side can apply for a permit without consideration of the other side's fishery. Each fishery affects the other and all succeeding fisheries.

The one way that it makes logical sense is that the fisheries are ALL fixed quotas. Hit that number and you are closed. Because to fish any other way requires that all fisheries be considered.

You can't fish a rate, because, again, the run sizes are different if there is a preceding fishery.

The State and Feds simply don't want to challenge the Tribes in any way, shape, or form.

CM:

While I generally agree with your first point I am unsure of your position on the State applying for its own permit. If there was an emoji for head scratching I'd use it here. Just my thought but the State having its own permit would give it a more equal status in the season setting process. I will further opine that fixing the NOF process would defuse much of this angst.

As to the second - yes.

Sorry--you're white. Only reds can fish here.

In this river.
In this bay.
In this state.

The state can apply for their own permit but it has a lot of potential downsides attached in addition to the time lag between submittance and approval. The time line is layed out in the permit process for the state fishing plan. There are required analysis, review, comment period etc that drags this out that is not the same for the tribal permit. NOAA/NMFS can't just expedite things because the state wants to fish. Not following the rules would immediately mean lawsuit by somebody. That said a state permit would probably have less uncertainty about an upcoming season structure as this would be outlined in the plan which is good. However, its probably unrealistic to think that these seasons would be less restrictive than what has happened in recent years. Its more likely that they would even be more restrictive. NOAA/NMFS in evaluating the state plan would do so with on eye recovery of ESA species (Chinook, SRKW etc) and on the assurance of protecting treaty fishing rights. IE if the state fishes with these seasons is recovery of ESA jeopardized or is treaty fishing rights at risk? There are established values for acceptable ERs, escapements etc that if followed are allowed for ESA recovery. However, treaty fishing rights are not well defined anywhere. Hence, the uncertainty means that the edge is towards more treaty fishing not less than what has occurred recently. Consequently, these issues take priority over state fishing. NOAA/NMFS is not going to be a referee of 50:50 splits. After all, the states and the tribes have presented joint plans that were approved that aren't 50:50. NOAA/NMFS is definitely not going to swing things towards this in their analysis/approval as they have no obligation to do so and it is precedent that it hasn't been 50:50 anyway. In their evaluation of separate state and tribal plans, they will give the "ties" in uncertainty towards the tribes. So a state plan that gets approval may not be as wonderful as some hoped. IMO. Flame on.

My point is that the Tribal fishery cannot be evaluated in a vacuum unless it only managed as each fishery is a fixed quota. Otherwise, harvest changes with run size and if the Cowboys don't fish, the runsize is larger and more fish are caught per day. They must be evaluating the Treaty fishery based on some sort of non treaty fishery which means that when one is approved, so is the other.

Yes CM, NOAA/NMFS will have to evaluate the state plan in light of the effects of all the other plans like PST, PFMC, and tribal. They can't look at the state plan by itself to assess whether it meets ESA requirements for Chinook, SRKW etc. The state could submit their plan but for sure the tribes would submit their own too. The tribes may proclaim that there plan defines their treaty fishing right. Not surprisingly, both the state and tribal plans would probably have some fat in them (dont lead with your target in negotiations). NOAA/NMFS would like at all the provisions in the plans together and likely conclude "sorry, fishing according to these plans will significantly impede the chance of recovery for ESA animals. You gotta cut back". The PST and PFMC plans are in place now and not going to change soon. Well, who do you think the burden of that is going to fall on? NOAA/NMFS is not gonna say both the states and tribes each have to cut X%. Its gonna be more like "state, you have to work with tribal plan to get down there so the combined fisheries work for ESA". The tribes could easily stand pat on their plan and say "good luck state" which could very well be that the state has less to work with than they do now. Or you get right back to the leverage that the tribes have every preseason, only in this case its a multi-year plan. Presumably, the multi-year state plan wouldn't have the annual late night deal making but you would know early on that the state fisheries are crap. Uncertain crap like now vs known crap under a multi-year state plan. You pick em.

You have Boldt, as further defined by the Supremes (twice) that defines sharing. I know that the state and tribes have chosen to deviate, but given that the Supremes have set sharing, the co-managers and the Feds should be bound to follow it. I know that strict 50:50 would probably push the NI off the marine mixed stock fisheries but it could be a strong bargaining chip.

WDFW has leverage but chooses not to exercise it. WDFW could prepare and submit a multi-year, say 20 year, Section 10 Conservation Plan (CP). The CP would set the side boards within which annual fishing plans would be submitted according to run-size projections. WDFW could hold open NOF negotiations with the tribes, which the tribes may choose not to attend - but they will be paying attention to what is presented there. WDFW could present that recent plans have delivered too little to the constituency that pays WDFW's bills, keeping the doors open and lights on at the NRB. Unless WDFW's higher paying constituents get a worthwhile share of the hatchery salmon that they pay for producing, WDFW will simply stop raising so many. Besides, the east-side and central regions say they don't have enough money to stock more trout in lakes, so WDFW will switch from raising hatchery salmon for BC, WA commercials, and treaty tribes and instead raise and stock hatchery trout throughout the state, returning more of what taxpayers and license buyers pay for to them. And then call the bluff and do it.

Sorta' like the piss-ant deal with no non-treaty fishing on the Skokomish River. Shut down George Adams hatchery unless and until the Skoks decide sharing the river is better with fish in it than without.

I think it still gets back to the whole issue of Boldt II. The Tribes are guaranteed Dead Fish in the Boat. Not the right to net empty waters. That means that they control, to some point, all development. Look at how hard the State fought the Culvert Decision, even arguing before the Supremes that the State has the right to extirpate salmon for progress. State lost.

If the Tribes get pushed too hard, they have the option to tie up all development/growth in the state. The Political Class and Business Class have realized that the risk to the State's economy from pushing to hard (say for equal sharing, to pick an example at random) is too great.

We can get pissed off at the Commission and WDFW but they are just following orders and I doubt that a change in leadership from the "Blue environmentalists" to the "Red environmental destroyers" will change one thing in fish management.

I don't think Boldt II guaranteed dead fish in the boat. I believe the Court held that the treaty right to fish would be meaningless without fish. The Court did not establish any minimum threshold number of fish, only a treat right maximum up to "a moderate living." There would still be hatchery fish - federal Mitchell Act hatchery fish and the several mitigation hatcheries operated and funded by PUDs and the like. And some state hatcheries that return enough salmon to justify the taxpayer investment, assuming for the moment there are any.

Yes, WDFW likely has leverage to do things like close hatcheries that don't benefit the State's citizens. I suspect there are two reasons why they won't ever exercise any such potential authority:

1. WDFW doesn't want to close hatcheries, for a variety of organizational reasons.

2. The non-tribal, commercial lobby doesn't want hatcheries closed, and they contribute to the real deciders' campaigns to protect that interest. Not all "citizens" are equal in the eyes of the body that approves budgets; those who bring the most money get the best representation. Not much different than any public issue in that respect....

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me!

Larry is once again trying to pull the wool over your eye's. Let's recap where we started and where we are:

Back in 2016, we had "Coho gate". The tribes refused to give an inch in the NOF. Unsworth was brand new, and (good for him) stood up and refused to give in. There was no LOAF signed and everyone turned to NOAA. Unsworth and Lorraine Loomis received a letter from Bob Turner, Assistant Regional Admin, NOAA, outlining the section 7 process, and how, without Tribal agreement, the state could not receive the same expedited process since the Tribes have the Bureau of Indian Affaires which is a federal agency that passes the tribal requests to NOAA. The complexity of the fisheries and the pitfalls of not having an agreement signified by the LOAF are clearly spelled out in that letter. So, it is incomprehensible that the Commission and leadership of the Department were not made aware of details.

Unsworth was prepared to hold his ground, until certain members of the Commercial and Recreational community realized that a fight over this could potentially end all salmon fishing for non-tribal citizens. Under a great deal of pressure from those groups, Unsworth relented and gave in to the Tribal demands. THIS SET THE PRECEDENCE!

Each succeeding NOF has seen an increase in the tribes unwillingness to negotiate, and the use of the leverage they see provided them under the current NOAA policy and directives.

Unsworth, still feeling burnt by Coho gate, and the publics lack of support in his willingness to fight, entered into the (first) Puget Sound Ten Year Chinook Harvest Management plan, giving Ron Warren and Mike Grossmann immense leeway and authority. This was the rendition of the RMP that was crafted and signed by Unsworth without the Commission even knowing anything about it. The RMP was heavily influenced in favor of the tribes, and if approved, would have cut they guts out of Recreational fishing. Fortunately, it wasn't approved, and Unsworth was asked to resign over his part in it. It is interesting to note, Ron Warren went unscathed for his part..but more on that later. The new addition of the RMP is currently being negotiated, but the leverage the tribes hold is still there, and so are all the advantages.

When the "Secret RMP" scandal was exposed, Larry Carpenter was due to have his seat on the Commission expire, and though he was going to be re-appointed, he was fearful that if he did not get senate confirmation quickly, any move he made to challenge Unsworth could result in the Governor pulling him off the Commission. So, Larry asked us to put all our efforts into getting his confirmation pushed through. He told us " I'm working on some big changes to NOF, and I need to be protected. I can't go into details right now, but big changes are coming soon." This was FOUR YEARS AGO. OF COURSE, WE TRUSTED HIM, and put every effort to his confirmation, which went through.

Five years ago, we started our campaign to remove the leverage that allows the tribes to walk out of negotiations, leaving the non-tribal citizens with nothing. We've spent thousands of hours in conversations with the Commissioners, and Department leadership. Hundreds of letters and emails. We even had a face to face meeting with all of them, Larry, Unsworth, Warren, Grossmann, clearly outlining the issues and pleading for them to intervene.

Originally, we thought having the Tribal/WDFW negotiations made public (live video broadcast) would, perhaps, reduce the bad behavior. The Commission absolutely refused to take up that fight. We even petitioned them to change the NOF delegation "policy" to a rule, and put language in it to make the negotiations public. Every single Commissioner voted that down without even any public input allowed.

So, here we are today.

Larry Carpenter is now the Chairmen of the Commission. Ron Warren is in a new position with even greater influence in the North of Falcon and Susewind is in the role of Puppet spokesperson for Ron Warren.

Larry has been involved in the dirty underbelly of Tribal NOF of a very long time. In fact, he was one of the three people that Phil Anderson asked to be "observers" back in 2010. Larry was asked because he has a long standing relationship with Lorraine Loomis. Anderson knew that holding "secret negotiations" might not pass the Open Public Meetings Bar, so he asked Lorraine to allow "observers" in. The stipulations were, the observers were not allowed in the Harvest discussions, only the planning meetings, and they had to sign non-discloser agreements. THEY COULD NOT TALK ABOUT ANYTHING THAT TOOK PLACE, even though the only thing they were allowed to "observe" was fram timing meetings anyway.

Lorraine trusted Larry, so she asked him to sit in on a meeting between the state and a couple of northern tribes. Which he did. What we can gather, LARRY came out of the meeting and made some public statements about what took place, and essentially burned Lorraine's credibility with the other tribes. The "observer" program was cancelled.

From that moment on, there has been no public oversight in the negotiations.

Now, back to Ron Warren. Ron is a lifelong employee of WDFW..Coming up through the ranks. He has been intimately involved in the North of Falcon for years. He is in fact, the lead negotiator, so he is very familiar with how the tribes are using leverage. It goes without saying then, that something smells really bad here.

Every year, the results of NOF are getting worse. Every year, we hear Warren say, "Any deal is better than no deal" and yet, Warren is NEVER HELD ACCOUNTABLE for the poor performance! Warren has made himself indispensable. Susewind practically gives him public BJ's. Hell, he's even given him more influence and authority over the decisions. I dare say now, that HE IS RUNNING WDFW!

So, to hear Carpenter ask Warren about getting a state stand alone permit during the last Fish Committee Meeting would be amusing if it were not so pathetic! Carpenter and Warren are about as dirty as they come when talking about scheming and skullduggery. Both are so deep in the tribal muck that asking them to "Fix" the broken co-management process is like asking a thief to house sit for you. They roll in the chit of tribal and state confrontations.

No, Larry, you're not fooling us this time. We are not falling for the "I'm working on something big", bullchit any more. YOU PROVED YOU'RE NOT TRUSTWORTHY. You're not working on anything except your own self interests, just like the rest of the cronies in leadership at WDFW.

Maybe it will be a good thing when the tribes ultimately take control of all the fisheries. At least then we know without a doubt where we stand.

Overheard at the last Commission meeting, two salmon biologists talking: "We sure managed them salmon good while they lasted, didn't we?"

Must have been young biologists because the old ones wouldn't (shouldn't) say that. The good old shifting baselines.

That's rich! If measuring success means managing the fish into extinction, then they deserve a medal!

The boss I had at WDFW that got me out into the whole arena of "we don't want to actually recover salmon" said that all the biologists/managers are doing is managing the rate of extinction. Have to agree.

It will be too politically painful to take the harvest and habitat and hatchery steps necessary to recover the salmon and their ecosystems. Given that reality, just don't let it happen so fast that I get blamed.