Nof Meetings

Discussion in 'Saltwater' started by Stonefish, Nov 14, 2016.

  1. Stonefish

    Stonefish Triploid, Humpy & Seaplane Hater

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2003
    Messages:
    7,230
    Likes Received:
    8,201
    Location:
    Pipers Creek
    I saw this on several other boards and thought it this was worth posting here.

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2tWjgmgVy3yUWtFUlB3c3RKQ1U/view

    I've always wondered why these meeting were closed to the public and why there is so much secrecy behind them.
    After this years salmon seasons, perhaps some transparency is called for.
    Open meetings would allow us to see how we are being represented by WDFW on our behalf and what type of power plays go on between the co-managers.
    SF
     
    plaegreid, JS, c1eddy and 1 other person like this.
  2. Go Fish

    Go Fish Language, its a virus

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    Messages:
    1,470
    Likes Received:
    379
    Location:
    Rheomode, Wa.
    I saw that too. They (Tribes and WDFW) are in violation of the states
    public meetings laws.
     
    Bob Triggs and Blktailhunter like this.
  3. Jonathan Tachell

    Jonathan Tachell Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2004
    Messages:
    1,293
    Likes Received:
    864
    Location:
    Gig Harbor, Washington
    Yeah I have always thought it was completely wrong and probably illegal the way they segregate each user group during the NOF meetings. The conversations of each user group along with the WDFW should be made available to the public. Blows my mind how the WDFW meets with the tribes and non tribal commercial fisherman in private. You think we would at least have the rights to transcripts of what was said behind closed doors.
     
    Bob Triggs and triploidjunkie like this.
  4. Blktailhunter

    Blktailhunter Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    Messages:
    284
    Likes Received:
    160
    Location:
    Bainbridge Island, WA
    You would think that this law applies:

     
  5. triploidjunkie

    triploidjunkie Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    5,129
    Likes Received:
    6,755
    Location:
    Grand Coulee, WA
    You'd be correct, Blktailhunter. As usual, someone will probably have to sue WDFW to get them to pull their collective heads out of their asses.
     
    JS and Bob Triggs like this.
  6. mbowers

    mbowers Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    610
    Likes Received:
    493
    Location:
    Jupiter, FL / Victoria, BC
    Looks like job for CCA?

    Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk
     
    Bob Triggs likes this.
  7. c-dawg

    c-dawg Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2013
    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    35
    Location:
    Elk Plain
    NOF is a Federal deal, though, isn't it? Would WA statute still apply to a Federal process?
     
  8. _WW_

    _WW_ Geriatric Skagit Swinger

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2005
    Messages:
    3,482
    Likes Received:
    2,805
    Location:
    Skagit River
  9. HBB

    HBB Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2016
    Messages:
    53
    Likes Received:
    39
    It's a little more complicated than that, but that's more or less part of the problem.

    I appreciate what THFWA and others are trying to do, but they don't seem to understand that this has been litigated extensively in the past, and their viewpoint has been rejected. There's a 1992 Washington Supreme Court opinion that addresses the applicability of Washington's OPMA to the NOF process; it's worth reading if you are interested in these issues. It's available online here: http://law.justia.com/cases/washington/supreme-court/1992/57757-9-1.html

    I haven't really studied this issue, but I'm not aware of anything that would change the outcome if this was litigated again today. This seems like an issue that needs to be addressed through legislation, not litigation.



    *Edited to add the holding from the opinion linked above if you just want the bottom line: "The OPMA does not apply to the Columbia River Compact and 'North of Falcon' negotiations, as these are neither meetings of a governing body of Fisheries nor decisions binding on the agency." Salmon For All v. Dep't of Fisheries, 118 Wn.2d 270, 279, 821 P.2d 1211, 1216 (1992).
     
    Ollie likes this.
  10. Stonefish

    Stonefish Triploid, Humpy & Seaplane Hater

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2003
    Messages:
    7,230
    Likes Received:
    8,201
    Location:
    Pipers Creek
    I think everyone would agree that having more transparency in this process would be a good thing.
    The way it is now, it is like some secret society where two groups meet in a dark room and emerge to proclaim...."here are your salmon seasons, live with it" and that is it.
    We have no control over what the tribes want and ask for, but we should at least be informed and be able to see how the state is negotiating on our behalf.

    Curt made some good points in this post on PP.
    I do like the in-season quota updates, but they need to be done as frequently as possible.
    WDFW isn't known for collecting data and posting it in a timely manner, but I still think it is possible to get updates done quickly with the technology available today.
    SF
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2016
    Kfish and Ollie like this.
  11. Jonathan Tachell

    Jonathan Tachell Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2004
    Messages:
    1,293
    Likes Received:
    864
    Location:
    Gig Harbor, Washington
    The WDFW is representing us while all of this is done with our tax dollars and license fees. It makes zero sense to me how they can keep us in the dark. Transcripts of all NOF meetings should be available to the public at the very least. I am tired of the back door deals, trading fisheries for others not based on science and the WDFW bending to the tribes will. It all just seems completely wrong and should be illegal.
     
    DimeBrite and Kfish like this.
  12. HBB

    HBB Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2016
    Messages:
    53
    Likes Received:
    39
    I'm not sure if I understand what you are looking for, but all of the NOF briefings to the state fish & wildlife commission are already available online (audio only, I don't think anyone is generating a transcript). Here's the most recent: http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2016/01/audio_jan2216.html

    Have you tried a public records request? There's a fair chance that some materials are going to be withheld under a deliberative process exemption, but you should be able to get quite a bit of information with a properly worded request.
     
    Ollie likes this.
  13. Jonathan Tachell

    Jonathan Tachell Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2004
    Messages:
    1,293
    Likes Received:
    864
    Location:
    Gig Harbor, Washington
    I am looking for the actual discussions between the WDFW and the co managers behind closed doors at NOF. Word for word. Same with non tribal commercial fisherman.
     
    JS likes this.
  14. Jonathan Tachell

    Jonathan Tachell Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2004
    Messages:
    1,293
    Likes Received:
    864
    Location:
    Gig Harbor, Washington
    If I wanted to hear the same rehearsed political bull s**t from the WDFW like in the briefings provided in the link I would just send them more emails or continue to call them. WDFW should not be a welfare program. We are paying them to do a job and getting shafted in return.
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2016
    JS and High Flyin like this.
  15. Ollie

    Ollie New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2016
    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    2