Having read through both Mr. Phil Anderson’s and Mr. Curt Smitch’s declarations, it struck us the stark difference between how the views of public involvement in the fisheries management have changed.

We’ve seen a staggering transition from Former Director Smitch’s time, where he states “… *the commissioners wanted the public to know what the agency was doing for them”. To now, where a culture of secrecy is the norm, and Mr. Anderson justifies it by stating: ** “Furthermore, integrating public input is particularly challenging where members of the public simply cannot apprehend all of the coordination and compromise that must occur between the various fishery managers, and where members of the public often come to the process with their own unique perspective on a single conservation issue, a single species, or a single preferred fishery outcome.”

Here is what Director Smitch had to say about Phil Anderson’s statement: “ Mr. Anderson, whose declaration I have read, expounding on the complexities in simply stating the obvious and boarders on patronizing.  It is intended to lay the foundation as to why the public is unable to understand the NOF process.  Once you buy into the assertion that mere mortals cannot understand the process, you can then argue that increasing public participation makes no difference.”

So we asked ourselves. Just what qualifications ARE needed to “apprehend” the complexities of the North of Falcon process that Phil states is beyond the citizens comprehension?  Mr. Anderson does not state, but it’s interesting to note that Mr. Pat Patillo holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Fisheries, and Miranda Wecker served as the Commission Chair, as an attorney for Ocean Law in D.C, and for twenty years was leading  a marine research program for the University of Washington. In addition, she was a member of the Washington State Bar Association and earned a JD and LLM in Marine law.  So, it would seem that if these citizens aren’t “qualified” to understand the North of Falcon process, no one involved in the process is.

Further, to justify prohibiting the public from the harvest negotiations by stating “members of the public come to the process with their own unique perspectives”, is just plain crazy.  Isn’t that what Co-management negotiation is supposed to be? Both sides presenting their unique perspectives?

Again, we have not been petitioning to have a huge colosseum filled with people attending the negotiations;  we realize it could possibly be chaotic and unproductive.  What we do demand is that these harvest negotiations, where OUR salmon are divided up, be public, in real time for the citizens of this state to witness the how and why of the agreements. 

We’ve taken a few excerpts from Director Smitch’s declaration that highlight not only the changes that have occurred in our citizen Commissions role, but also why the Tribal Co-managers and WDFW are fighting so hard to keep the citizens from finding out what really goes on in their harvest decisions.

Please, read these excepts and let your friends and family know how destructive these secret meetings are to OUR salmon.

EXCERPTS FROM DIRECTOR SMITCH’S DECLARATION:

*  “In responding to Former Commission Chair Miranda Wecker’s statement that in hind sight it made sense to have the Commission “undertake the North of Falcon process, Mr. Anderson states that it would be "very hard for the Commission to perform that function.” That is simply not correct. When I was Director, my citizen’s commission was so involved in the workings of the agency that I had to assign my deputy director to coordinate the commission's requests for staff time on their various projects and areas of interest in order to manage the workload. They cared deeply about the issues that were the responsibility of the Department and they were committed and eager to know everything they could about the issues. This was in part because the commissioners wanted the public to know what the agency was doing for them. The job being too ‘hard" was not a representation they would have accepted. In summary, it is absolutely "practical" for a citizen's commission to make sure that the public interest is being served and to implement regulations as contemplated by Referendum 45. It was done while I was Director and can be done now. “

“NOAA must approve any agreement between the state and tribes on harvest allocation that comes out of NOF. The approval requires NOAA to consult through Section 7 of the ESA with another federal agency, in this case the Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA"), in order to determine if the agreement meets the requirement of the ESA. This, in effect, means that the tribes have a permit to harvest ESA listed fish. The state does not have a similar permit process. NOAA has taken the position that unless there is an agreement between the state and tribes, only the tribes be granted ESA authorization. 

The result of NOAA's proclamation is that the state is entirely beholden to the tribes in order to get an agreement. In effect the state enters into the NOF “negotiations“ fully understanding that at the end of the day the allocation of harvest between state and the tribes will be what the tribes agree to. NOF participants annually frustrated by the inequitable sharing of the harvestable fish are familiar with the Department's refrain that "a bad deal is better than no deal." This refrain was repeated many times by Mr. Anderson while working for WDFW. In short, the NOF process is not a true negotiations between equals. 

The results of this situation raises several inconvenient facts that state, tribal and federal fisheries managers, including Mr. Anderson, would rather the public not be made aware of. They do not want the public to understand that the NOF process does not comply with the Boldt decision (U.S. v. Washington).For example, the treaty tribes annually harvest approximately 60% to 65% of the Chinook and 65% to as high as 80% of the Coho in Puget Sound. If the situation were reversed, you can be certain the tribes would be in federal court, where jurisdiction to address these kinds of disputes has been retained, and engaging elected officials to address this situation.” 

“WDFW and NOAA want the public to accept the claim that its salmon management is just too complex for people other than fisheries managers to understand. Instead, WDFW and NOAA want the public to focus on habitat and environmental issues, which (not coincidentally) are not controlled by NOAA and WDFW, and ignore two of the biggest factors, controlled by NOAA and WDFW, effecting salmon recovery: harvest and hatcheries. This is why they do not want an open and transparent NOF process. 

With transparency, the public might come to understand the inherent inequality of the negotiations in the NOF process, the failure to comply with federal court orders (i.e., the Boldt decision), the failure to address hatchery impacts on wild fish recovery, and the failure to manage harvest appropriately. The public might also become aware of the fact that hundreds of thousands of Puget Sound salmon anglers have no say in how the state regulates their fishing opportunity.  It should come as no surprise that WDFW, and NOAA through Mr. Anderson, want the public to remain uninformed.”

——END OF EXCERPTS——-

Director Smitch clearly states the damage caused by holding negotiations behind locked doors.  He also highlights that a Commission who allows the Department to exclude it’s constituents from being fully informed and fully participating in harvest decisions are failing in the intent of the Open Meetings Act and the peoples choice in forming the Commission.

Every Citizen of this State, has a right to be fully informed as to the decisions that go into the harvest of our endangered salmon. This right is not based on WDFW’s assumption on the citizens ability to “understand” nor can it be ignored based on any inconvenience the truth would bring to anyone involved.

Here is the Legislative Declaration on the Public meetings Act, RCW 42.30.010, in case anyone wants to send a copy to their legislators, the Commission Chair Larry Carpenter, or to Director Susewind.

Legislative declaration.

The legislature finds and declares that all public commissions, boards, councils, committees, subcommittees, departments, divisions, offices, and all other public agencies of this state and subdivisions thereof exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business. It is the intent of this chapter that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.

*Excerpts from declaration of Mr. Curt Smitch, dated 5 Feb, 2020.
** Excerpt from declaration of Mr. Phil Anderson, dated 31 Jan, 2020

Bold added to emphasize points