Good point grandpa!

Hey Plunk

I think it's just a matter of time before that "rope" that H2O thinks everyone is pi$$ing on ends of on some Commissioners neck! Their decision was made arbitrary and capricious. They will have to defend their decision by what was of record at the Time that they made the decision.

They will not be able to defend their position on facts in the record, especially when the "agency" that is responsible for making the decision had stated and recommended that it was not justifiable. Give it a little time, and this decision will be overturned in the courts. The records are full of cases just like this one, and all its going to take is a couple of attorneys to turn it over.

That's my opinion, and I am sticking to it, and I don't care how many of the "gang" wants to hear it or not.

Cowlitzfisherman

I don't believe they are in a position to have to defend it.

That's my position.

H2O

I don't know if you have Todd's permission to post his pictures or not, but you sure know how to catch his moods changes!

I know this is him before he changed his hat and shaved off his beard. . . and heads off down to release all those wild steelheads

Looks like you caught him in the snow!

H2O

You never are until they serve you the paper!

The information they sent me specifically said that mandatory wild steelhead release would not be considered by the Commission at the meetings.

I'm not in a position to offer a legal opinion but I do think they violated the public trust and probably violated the Administrative Procedure Act.

One thing is certain!

They did not:
"Act in an open and deliberative process that encouraged public involvement and increased public confidence in department decision making."

I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens next.

Mother, Mother, Mother,

Is that you I hear?

Yes mother, I hear you , I hear you!

I know you know what is best! I hear you mother, I hear you!

Bulls eye Aunty. I declare game, set and match for Aunty.

One of the few things CFM has said recently that I agree with is that the discussion should get back on track. But to see where the train derailed he needs to take a long hard look in the mirror!

I agree Dave, but you two got to quite emailing each other too!

One at a time Please

We all know how the "gang" works!

Dang Aunty by that definition just about everybody here can fall into that catagory!

Better try a little harder AuntyM, you start more crap on this board than anyone and add very little value. If anyone has a different opinion than you then you attack them, you tell lies and spread mis-information. Seems to me that you are just seeking acceptance and you will jump on board with anyone that will accept you and put up with your mouth. Of course that is totally my own opinion which really doesn't mean squat, but I now understand why you've been banned off more than one board. After watching you post on a couple different boards it is obvious to me that you just seek and thrive on controversy.

This ruling will be challenged and will be overturned. I doubt seriously that Forks would be pursuing legal actions if they didn't believe that they had a case. They also most likely would not be pursuing it if they didn't believe that it was in their best interest.

If some people want these rivers to be CNR only, then why don't they just try closing each river on an individual basis? Could it be that they don't because they would have a very hard time justifying that action?

Bruce

You can see what the game is!

The game is painfully clear to me.

"This ruling will be challenged and will be overturned. I doubt seriously that Forks would be pursuing legal actions if they didn't believe that they had a case. They also most likely would not be pursuing it if they didn't believe that it was in their best interest."

On what legal grounds will the ruling be overturned, Nostradamus?

People pursue legal action ALL THE TIME when they have no case, hell, when they KNOW they have no case...

...the city of forks is not well known for its foresight.

I'm sure I've missed in amongst the 5oo+ reponses, but could someone explain to me which part of the law was violated in making this decision?

The information that should answer all your questions is in the writing. Just read young grasshopper and you will be enlightened.

I am going to break my own rule and respond to the recent parts of this thread. I would sincerely hope that the recent personal attacks would end and we could focus once again on the fate of the resource.

CFM - You made a mistake and admitted it. It takes a big man to do so. A bigger man may have left up the post where you made your admission, but so be it - if there is somebody on this board that has never been wrong please post. I would love to meet you.

Aunty - One of the things that I have learned being a parent is that I have to choose "which mountain I am willing to die on". In other words, there are so many big issues that demand our attention, I just can't give all my time (or skills) to every one of them. Changing CFM's approach may be a noble cause but I think your talents are more likely to succeed elsewhere.

Bruce - It takes a lot of kahonies to come on to someone elses board and make a personal attack. You, of all people, should recognize how low that is. Your comments about the validity of the Commission's actions, what Forks may do - those are very welcome (by me at least) for they advance the debate. The other, well, you can do that on your board just as effectively.

I'm not certain there is a lot more to say on this thread but, like Jerry I believe there may be additional input over the next two years.

you speak of these writings as if they are some sort of ancient text.

This is the internet, brotha. I shouldn't need to heft a stone tablet or press scroll more than three times to get an answer to my question, which, restated is:

What law did the commission violate in enacting this decision?

Just answer the question if you want to have a discussion about the issue.

If you are just here to troll....

stlhdh2o if you can't take the time to read what has already been posted, then I can't help you.

Eddie my post was an observation not an attack. Why didn't you speak up when she came after myself and a couple others here? You don't have to answer that question, I already know the answer.