Todd
Quote:
At the meeting they took public testimony on some of the exceptions within 232-28-619, had a discussion on them, had two different votes on two different ways of dealing with the particular exceptions, which were not passed, then a third amendment that was indeed passed, removing the exceptions from WAC 232-28-619 that allow wild fish retention in spite of the statewide WSR rule for two years
Correct me if I am wrong Todd, the proposed rule changes that were given to the Commissioners to vote and approve DID NOT HAVE THIS RECOMMENDATION in them. Just because people brought it up at a meeting and request that the Commission pass such a rule DOES NOT meet the legal standard for public notification. The Public was not notified that this issue was up for a vote BEFORE it was proposed at the meeting.

Do you feel that just because a group of people brought this up at a meeting, that it meets the public notice standards rule?

It is my opinion that if this issue was not listed and included in the final recommendation that were mailed out to the public, the public was not given legal notice. Since this WAS NOT included, the public did not get notice of this proposal!

Cowlitzfisherman
_________________________
Cowlitzfisherman

Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????