I agree with you Mike!

So let's attempt to separate the issues at hand.

First, I believe that you have also agreed that the "department" (WDFW) could have made cuts in other areas to eliminate the need for this new tax (fee).

Some people will cover this up by calling it a "fee", but in reality, it's just another tax! It's not like a user fee, it is an additional tax if you want more.

You have read the RCW's and you are fully aware that the "Wildlife Fund" is an unaccountable fund that almost has no limits to what it can spend its revenues on. It can be for almost whatever the Director, or his staff applies it to! If I am wrong with this definition, please explain where.

Before WDFW can move forward, they must first establish trust among there users and supports. That means all users and all supports, and not just the ones who they may choose! The WDFW has lied too many to get the support of the few who are vocal in the legislation. That fact is almost impossible to now deny.

So how will WDFW correct this screw up that has been now exposed?

Could some of those "cuts" have been made in there own management? Could a Bio or two have been let go? Could a publication or 50 been cut? Could the Hunting and fishing rules been published in black and white instead of color? Could a few less computers been purchased? Could two or three new trucks or cars been cut back? The list is endless, except we were not even given a chance to see the list!

WDFW will never get any better in fish management until they are up front with the people who support their actions and pay their salaries; and that means all of us!

This is only a "tip" of an iceberg that has been floating astray for way to long. Sooner or later it's going to have to melt . . . and then what?


Cowlitzfisherman