Bob,

The Commission has to comply with existing laws (can't allow a fishery that violates the ESA, for example), and follow the guidelines and policies within the Wild Salmonid Policy.

"Policies" are just that: policies. They have to be complied with, but they don't say anyone "must do this" or " absolutely can't do that"...they stay stuff more like "should create escapements consistent with the ecological and biological needs of the fish". What the heck does that mean?

What it means is that the biological and ecological needs must be considered. What are the biological and ecological needs? Well, that depends. It depends on who you ask, what fish you're talking about, what aspect of the fish's life cycle you're talking about, how it affects other fish and wildlife, etc., etc., etc.,

Now, all that stuff under "depends" is hashed out somehow...that somehow is that the public and governmental agencies involved submit testimony to the Commission on what they see, and what the scientific, social, and economic concerns are if one choice is chosen over another.

The Commission then exercises its discretion, taking those things into consideration, and makes a decision.

If someone doesn't like the decision, is it illegal? No, of course not.

If a better decision could have been made, is it illegal? No.

If it violates the ESA, is it illegal? Yes.

If it violates federal treaty rights, is it illegal? Yes. (actually, it's not really illegal, but unenforceable)

The DFW Commission has really, really, wide latitude to make decisions regarding the disposition of fish and wildlife in our state. Choosing to take away the exceptions to the standard WSR regulations in Washington is so easily within their powers that there's really not even any question...if they were somewhere in a gray area, then we could talk. But this is firmly in the kind of stuff they do every single meeting that they have.

It's just usually not as controversial of a topic as this.

Fish on...

Todd.