Tribal PDA Exemption Bill Swapped For Fish, Shellfish Task Force

[jackelope]

http://nwsportsmanmag.com/headlines/tribal-pda-exemption-bill-swapped-for-fish-shellfish-task-force/

An interesting end this afternoon at the final Senate Natural Resources and Parks meeting before the cutoff to get legislation out of policy committees in Olympia.

A bill that would have exempted certain information about tribal fishermen from Public Disclosure Act requests was, well, gillnetted and then gutted by the committee chair in favor of his amendment to set up a task force to look at related issues instead.

[CP]

McCoy is really a slimy POS.  I'd love to see him voted out or retired

[jackelope]

McCoy is really a slimy POS.  I'd love to see him voted out or retired

Agreed.

[Skillet]

Holy cow, that is some garbage legislation from my Wa State senator.  Clearly advocating for a lack of accountability and hide-the-ball co-management of the resource.  How does that guy walk?  Email to him will be sent as soon as I am able, with a cc: thanking Pearson for minding the store on behalf of the non-tribal interests.

Thanks for the heads-up Jackelope.

[HUNTINCOUPLE]

 

[pd]

McCoy is really a slimy POS.  I'd love to see him voted out or retired

No.  John McCoy is simply doing his job.  He is a decent man, and it isn't fair to denigrate him with such harsh words.

Tribal interests will always take issue with public disclosure of individual fish tickets.  Remember, the treaty tribes have a lock-solid right to harvest these resources (whether you agree with the treaties and the Boldt decision or not is another story). Of course the treaty tribes would ask for this type of exemption, and Sen. McCoy (representing his district, but also his own tribe) was the right person to ask for this change.  I don't fault him at all for what he attempted to do, and I doubt that Chairman Pearson finds fault with this action, either.

On the other hand, Sen. Pearson did the public a favor.  Although "legislative task forces" can be a colossal waste of time, this is a step in the right direction.

[Taco280AI]

It's 2017, when will everyone play by the same set of rules? Or if they want traditional rights, they should be required to use traditional methods and equipment (hand made).

[Whitpirate]

When they can show they are truly co-managing the resource and not actively pressing advantage to the detriment of the resource and the state I'll look to cut them some slack.  When the Tulalip's own enforcement officers are implicated in resource violations it proves they need to have questions asked.

[hunthard]

Well said White Pirate

[lokidog]

When they can show they are truly co-managing the resource and not actively pressing advantage to the detriment of the resource and the state I'll look to cut them some slack.  When the Tulalip's own enforcement officers are implicated in resource violations it proves they need to have questions asked.

 

[The scout]

GREED! It won't end untill something drastic happens. I really hope they piss trump off. They have zero respect for any resource

[Skillet]

McCoy is really a slimy POS.  I'd love to see him voted out or retired

Tribal interests will always take issue with public disclosure of individual fish tickets.  Remember, the treaty tribes have a lock-solid right to harvest these resources (whether you agree with the treaties and the Boldt decision or not is another story). Of course the treaty tribes would ask for this type of exemption, and Sen. McCoy (representing his district, but also his own tribe) was the right person to ask for this change.  I don't fault him at all for what he attempted to do, and I doubt that Chairman Pearson finds fault with this action, either.

I disagree on most of your points here.  The tribes have a rock solid right to harvest HALF of the agreed upon allowable catch, which is arrived at through co-management.  Clearly, the tribes are looking for an opportunity game the system by pushing for reduced accountability here.  To what end would this move serve, other than to avoid criticism for over harvest? 

This is a blatant attempt by a politician that has been bought and paid for by the Tulalip Tribe to continue to steal from the non-tribal fisherman with impunity.  This is the tribe, who as Whitpirate points out, has a systemic lack of integrity when it comes to harvesting shared resources to begin with.

It is disgusting, and I commend Senator Pearson for working against McCoy's shenanigans.

[Tbar]

What's crazy is we are fighting over the scraps!  The majority of our (puget sound)  fish are being caught either by high seas drift nets or by Alaska fisheries before they get here.

[WSU]

Agreed. That's the real fight.

[pd]

Skillet, all of the treaty tribes belong to (jointly form) the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC), which tabulates all of the fish tickets, by species, by date, by catch area, etc.  This data forms the objective basis for co-managment of the resource.  What the tribes probably (my speculation) object to is the disclosure of individual fish tickets, and they have a point: If the summary data is sufficient for co-management purposes, what need is there to expose the personal details of each harvester?  Remember, state law would not apply to treaty tribe actions, so the point is probably moot anyway.

There is a bigger question, and this revolves around the reliability of the data from each tribe (not just the accuracy of the data, but the timeliness of submission).  I concede that this question is very important, but there is no way to press the issue until the federal government decides to take the lead on the issue (with the new administration, this could happen).

My point was bigger than this.  Sen. McCoy is a good man, and it is not appropriate to denigrate him for doing his job.  Sen. Pearson is also a good man, and he also did his job.  Win-win.

[Skillet]

Skillet, all of the treaty tribes belong to (jointly form) the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC), which tabulates all of the fish tickets, by species, by date, by catch area, etc.  This data forms the objective basis for co-managment of the resource.  What the tribes probably (my speculation) object to is the disclosure of individual fish tickets, and they have a point: If the summary data is sufficient for co-management purposes, what need is there to expose the personal details of each harvester?  Remember, state law would not apply to treaty tribe actions, so the point is probably moot anyway.

There is a bigger question, and this revolves around the reliability of the data from each tribe (not just the accuracy of the data, but the timeliness of submission).  I concede that this question is very important, but there is no way to press the issue until the federal government decides to take the lead on the issue (with the new administration, this could happen).

My point was bigger than this.  Sen. McCoy is a good man, and it is not appropriate to denigrate him for doing his job.  Sen. Pearson is also a good man, and he also did his job.  Win-win.

I have met McCoy as one of his constituents, and have written him on several issues.  As a non-tribal guy that is supposedly represented by him I am not impressed.  I've yet to find reason to support him in any of his "Tulalip first" favoritism agenda.   I disagree with you on principle that the maneuver McCoy engaged in is "doing his job", since he appears to be only responsive to his tribal constituency yet he is my senator.  A tribal constituency that insists on sovereign rights when it suits them, or will engage in legislative maneuvers in stature and local government to gain advantage if that fills the bill.  Having that kind of impact on Washington laws without having to be subject to them is effectively the fox guarding the henhouse.  And with McCoy actively pushing the Tulalip agenda, the fox is now suggesting we not only don't count our chickens before they hatch, but we don't count them until after the pack of foxes have had their fill of chicken tenders.  Then we can see what's left over for the rest of us after the fish have already swam by.  It is a broken management system, and McCoy's amendment removes a way of verifying the numbers that the NIFC provide.  If he was truly concerned only about privacy, then he would introduce an amendment that works redact only the personally identifiable information on the fish tickets, not the important raw data itself.

To Tbars point, it is true that Alaska fisheries have an impact on some Big C king runs.  That is probably because the kings spend years in the rich Alaskan waters, taking advantage of the Alaskan forage fish and cool gulf waters, as they have for eons.  Are Alaskans not deserving of a share of that resource after having provided room and board free of charge for years?  The kings also swim through BC waters on their way to Washington, and we best not forget that the BC fishery fleets are also very good at catching kings both as a directed fishery and bycatch.  The single greatest impact on salmon returns, however, is the dams.  All of what we are talking about is a result of the dams' impact on the fish.

This thread was about the McCoy amendment, however, which is a blatant attempt at reducing the accountability of the tribes in their responsibility of co-managing the salmon resource in Washington.  While not surprising, it is disappointing that the ruse of "privacy" is being used to confuse the real issue here.

[Tbar]

Skillet-
How would getting the personal information from individual fishermen benefit the overall process? Would it not come from NWIFC? You seem to be far more in the know than I.  Is this information already available during negotiations and just not to the public? What all is shared during NOF? How is this a "ruse" and how would this information becoming public help overall?  Is there that little faith in the wdfw negotiators? What disclosure laws apply to NOF in its entirety?  These are real questions to those in the know. 

[pd]

Tbar, you ask several pertinent questions.

Regarding disclosure requirements for NOF, might I suggest you ask the state about that?  I am pretty sure you would be very dismayed with their answer.

[Skillet]

Im not on the inside of these negotiations by any stretch, so take my opinion for what it is - just an opinion.  I'm a commercial guy that trolls fur salmon in AK, but have been a Washington sport fisherman my whole life and am really getting tired of getting the shaft by the tribes here in WA.

If the tribes want to keep their personal info personal, I'm totally ok with that.  Names, catch value, etc. But fish numbers, dates, locations, etc., should be made public, since they are co managers of the resource and it is managed by individual fish numbers.  There needs to be accountability for the catch numbers the NWIFC presents to the WDFW, and McCoy's amendment seeks to remove that.  The tribes are seeking to not be held publicly accountable for their overharvest, and while the WDFW has likely known about overharvest in the past and simply (and quietly) adjusted the quota for sports and commercials lower, or eliminated seasons all together.  This is my opinion, and you would be hard pressed to find a WDFW official to go on record about it.

The tribes are currently entitled to half of the resource as per the Boldt decision. Fine.  But they are getting really aggressive about pushing the limits of "co-management" and the WDFW commission has not historically responded in kind.  The tribes have amassed a fortune through the casino business and have operatives (like McCoy, Gregoire, etc) to do their bidding, which includes legislative tools like this amendment to help them hide the ball when it comes to overharvest.

Again, I currently do not commercially fish for salmon in WA, and all of this opinion is really informed by my and my friend's and family's experiences with the constant diminishing fishing opportunities - particularly  in the Sound.  I'm about fed up with shenanigans like these that signal the tribes continuing desire to steal from the non-tribal side with impunity.

As for NOF, I only know enough to know that is a soap opera's worth of drama every year.  I do have a financial interest in the outcome (AK's king allottment) so I look at it a little differently.  Fair is still fair, however, and no matter how tough the negotiations are for individual salmon runs, the whole thing is predicated on negotiating in good faith.  I'll respect whatever comes out of the negotiations, and damn well expect the other parties to do so as well.  To me this means no attempts at legislation by the tribes that would remove accountability for the reported numbers.

[pd]

Skillet, Re: Post #18.  I am 99% of the way with you.  Earlier you made a point about your frustration as a constituent of Sen. McCoy, and how you see him serving his own Tribe's interests ahead of your own.  I cannot comment, as I don't live in your district, but I fully understand your beef.

I don't blame the treaty tribes for aggressively pushing for their fair share and even more; this is the way of the world.  And, that the co-management system is a dismal failure, mostly due to poor representation by the department and partisan politics played by the dominant party in this state, is beyond question. 

My only point in this entire thread was to push back again the sliming of Sen. McCoy.  I think those who are very deeply involved in all aspects of resource management would understand better when I say Sen. McCoy deserves more respect that that.

[Skillet]

I understand pd, and appreciate your contribution to this thread.  I am frustrated as an Everett resident, Washington recreational fisherman, Washington hunter, etc., and that informs my opinion of "my" Senator in Mr. McCoy.  I do think it is important to shine bright lights on attempts like his to play hide the ball with the state's share of the resource, since I do not accept that level of table tilting as the way the world works. 
Good discussion, in any case.

[Tbar]

I understand pd, and appreciate your contribution to this thread.  I am frustrated as an Everett resident, Washington recreational fisherman, Washington hunter, etc., and that informs my opinion of "my" Senator in Mr. McCoy.  I do think it is important to shine bright lights on attempts like his to play hide the ball with the state's share of the resource, since I do not accept that level of table tilting as the way the world works. 
Good discussion, in any case.

If anyone is playing hide the ball or lacks accountability it's the wdfw! I agree it's a broken system but lack of accountability it's both sides biggest argument, only difference is the masses. Add arguing about a metrix for unaccounted catch and a mortality metrix.