For the record, you've avoided the question twice now....

Your 'predictions' are as hollow as your methodolgies are shallow.

I'm no big huge AuntyM apologist and I am as anti 'gang' as they come...but I'd rather read one, one sentence post by AuntyM than:

100 cfm "wdfw is satan" threads

5000 bruce pearson posts where he uses his magic eight ball to predict the future.

Wanna take a stab at answering the question, again? I'll even rephrase it...."IYO, what law did the wdfw break in enacting this decision?"

I thought my answer was pretty clear.

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

BTW ~ where did I say that any laws where violated? I think I said that it would be "challenged".

Bruce, you are correct. For me to be consistent I should have jumped in when the whole "adipose or not on Gamefishin" was going on. My only defense is that I was hoping that by ignoring it, it would go away. You know, the definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. It seems whenever I ignore something and hope it goes away, it just comes back stronger. Maybe that is what I can learn from this megathread, I must stop desiring to be ignorant.

Boy I feel an awfully itchy finger syndrome going on here on my end. Let's stop the personal attacks here or there's gonna be a few "Delete User" buttons pressed

I can respect that Eddie.

Ok Bob. Boy you are on th Ball. Little pun there. I just hope that your warning is being heard by more than just myself.

Back to topic.

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?

...so new theories for us then, just crossed fingers?

You don't HAVE to be an attorney to understand and even create your own legal arguments cfm, as you well know. You and others have done an awesome job of doing exactly that around here for years...

...but, in this case you are all shooting the equivalent of legal airballs. I don't believe it takes an attorney to understand that the wdfw was perfectly within their jurisdiction to enact this decision.

No one, to my laymens eye, has provided any valid argument to the contrary.

"In fact, the agencies (WDFW) in charge of managing the states fisheries were opposed to this action"

This is false, no? Wasn't it the commission who voted or do I have it wrong?..it was the commissioner who opposed it...

...lemme know if i've got this all wrong.

H20

I believe that you are wrong. WDFW did not make this recommendation! You need to read what WDFW final Proposals were to the Commissioners. Jerry has them and he can email them, if you think that I am wrong. This was not an "agency recommendation" as you claim.

"Commissioner R.P. Van Gytenbeek of Seattle initiated the discussion about requiring the release of wild steelhead by calling for a permanent ban on wild steelhead retention. When that motion failed, the commission considered and rejected the idea of a six-year moratorium before scaling it back to two years.

"In this case, I think a half a loaf is better than no loaf at all," Van Gytenbeek said. "A lot of people in this state are concerned about the decline of our wild steelhead stocks and I think a moratorium gets us started down the right path."

Commission Chair Will Roehl of Bellingham did not share that view, noting that the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) is currently working on a new comprehensive plan for steelhead management, tailored to specific stocks.

"I can't support banning retention of wild steelhead on rivers where stocks are healthy and returns are strong," Roehl said. "I don't think this broad-brush action is warranted, but that appears to be the will of commission."

"As for the science behind it," he said, "commissioner Russ Cahill (in Olympia) told me it was pretty much a matter of whose biologists you believed. Our (state) people told him that even on a down cycle in the natural flux of things, we're easily meeting our wild steelhead spawning escapement goals on those (Peninsula) rivers. Biologists for the proponent groups, on the other hand, told him the runs are declining, period. With no clear consensus, he said he was forced to vote conservatively for the resource."

Yes they voted, but it was against the agencies recommendation.

That why Plunker is so pi$$ed too!
Cowlitzfisherman

The city is grasping at straws on this issue.

It is the position of a small group that has alot of power with politics in Forks that has minipluated the city government into taking this position based on false scare tacticts of things that might happen.

If the same small group had the other stance it wouldnt even be an issue.

After the logging issue out there a decade ago I can see it from their side but if they were more opened minded about the whole thing and looked at the bigger picture and looked at what WSR has done to similar economic areas in BC and such they could see that such a change will be good for the future of Forks.

Unfortunately most people are looking at today and tomorrow and not the future. Forks has an ecomemy that is very dependent on tourism and change to them is risk.

I you put yourself in their shoes it is understandable that they have the concern they do.

All people can do is let them know how important this is and how it will bring them to Forks to spend money. They will take it how ever they will..

This was going to happen eventualy everyone knew that, some prepared and some did not.

This year's proposal packet presented to the commission by the WDFW was a little different this time. The proposal packet now comes in two parts; Proposal Request with recommendations by the WDFW and all publicly submitted proposals. In previous years proposal packets the Commission only saw what was recommended by WDFW.

Approximately over forty requests were sent in requesting statewide release of all wild steelhead, year around, no exceptions. WDFW reason for not including it in their recommendations was something to the effect- it is too soon to revisit this proposal.

Anyone that was at Port Townsend knows there were further requests made for such a proposal, along with compelling argument for the proposal. Anyone is allowed to come to these meetings and provide public testimony for a proposal. And you are allowed to talk with your Commissioner.

After reviewing ALL parts the proposal packets and public testimony input it is within the Commission's due process to make a new proposal. After the Commission voted on the various proposals, the proposal for statewide release was made by the Commission, discussed and amended to the two year moratorium we have now.

So it seems to me that they did-

"Act in an open and deliberative process that encouraged public involvement and increased public confidence in department decision making."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are absoulutely on target with the public participation at commission meetings. The WSC and some fly fishing groups stacked the deck real well at the Port Townsend meeting which I attended. They learned something perhaps from the commercial fishermen who for years have stacked the deck in their favor just by showing up at the table every time a forum was afforded to them. Those vocal opponents of the WSR rule could have formed car pools and planned their presentations against the proposal just as those for it did. This is definitely a process where the squeaky wheel gets the grease

So Rich,

Was that meeting publicly advertised as per state policy?

Call one meeting and say that we are not going to address this issue, and then hold another meeting that the issue was not advertised and the pass it!

Is that what you call fair, legal or what?


Cowlitzfisherman

I call it tipycal, incriminating, soon to be overturned........

Hey CFM, are you wearing your armoured underwear? Plain to see you pizzed-off the gang. They have surlely strayed from rational.

CFM, I say your 1717 and 1. And the one, was an honest mistake. Let them bark at the moon, they are just upset because thier pot of gold turned to poop..

You know I don't care about keeping wild steelhead as I never have had the desire to and never will. I catch too many hatchery fish as it is....

But, for all you people to be excited over the fact that there will be a statewide native steelhead release blows me away, it's idiotic. It's been native steelhead release on the SW WA rivers since 1986 I believe give or take a year and the runs are still what they were then if not worse. Of course you have ocean cycles that result in a little better return but nothing that's out of this world or what it was supposedly like before white man got here.

Now you've only gave in to the state and game department and are getting a little closer to shorter seasons and year around river closures. As time has gone on with all you whining about the downswing of wildfish runs the game department has listened and started to REDUCE HATCHERY PLANTS TOO. This reduction has resulted in early closures and what not.

MARK MY WORD IT WON'T BE LONG (perhaps 10 years) AND THERE WILL BE MORE RIVERS IN THIS STATE THAT WILL HAVE YEAR AROUND CLOSURES... This will result in heavier sportsmen fishing in rivers that are open and overall will result in year around closures to rivers that have a native fishery...

It's too bad we can't utilize this energy towards the real problems. Again our rivers have been closed since 1986 for native steelhead retention and during that time period all or our rivers in SW WA (except the Cowlitz and Lewis) have had their hatchery plants nearly cut in half. This still hasn't helped the native fish returns.

Overharvesting is a issue but their are other issues out there that need to be addressed, I think what the penninsula had was perfect. Being able to retain 5 native fish a year, perhaps they could have cut it back to 2 fish a year... You will now start seeing shorter seasons, mark my word......

Keith

stlhdr1

That was excellent overview of what the problem has been and still is with the most recent actions that the Commisson has taken. If they could of shown that their was any rational for taking the action, instead of caving in to the pressure from special interests group, people may have been more acceptable to their action.

But instead, it was accomplished through a back door process that many believe undermines the creditability of the Commission. I don't believe that anyone here, if informed, can say this action was done in the spirit of open public meeting process. In that process, certain proceses must occur.

Todd, you have asked me why I believed that the Commission has acted illegally. I think that this case may sum up why I believed the Commission acted illegally. This case is "my example"! Each person must deciide what it means for themselfs!

Feb. 1975] HARTMAN v. STATE GAME COMM'N 177
85 Wn.2d 176, 532 P.2d 614
beneficiary standing under RCW 34.04.070 to seek a declaratory judgment regarding the validity of administrative rules issued under the authority of such statute.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Thurston County, No. 49337, Gerry L. Alexander, J., entered February 26, 1974. Affirmed.
Action challenging a fishing regulation. The State appeals from a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.
Slade Gorton, Attorney General, and James M. Johnson, Assistant, for appellant.
Cordes & McPhee, by Wm. Thomas McPhee, for respondents.
BRACHTENBACH, J. -

The Washington State Game Commission appeals from a declaratory judgment which held part of a fishing regulation to be invalid. We affirm the trial court.

The Game Commission adopted the 1974 fishing regulations which provided in part:
FISHING FROM BOATS EQUIPPED WITH MOTORS UNLAWFUL
--It shall be unlawful to fish from a boat or any other floating device equipped with a motor during the supplemental steelhead and whitefish seasons in the following waters: [A list of 11 rivers or parts of rivers follows.]

Three fishermen affected by the prohibition challenged the regulation. The trial court declared the section invalid on the grounds that its adoption was without statutory authority, without compliance with procedural requirements related to rulemaking, and in violation of the plaintiffs' constitutional rights to due process.

[1] It is noted at the outset that the regulation related only to 1974 and is no longer effective, regardless of questions concerning its prior validity. However, this court will review a case, otherwise moot, if matters of continuing and substantial public interest are involved. Criteria to be considered in deciding whether to hear such a case include the
178 HARTMAN v. STATE GAME COMM'N [Feb. 1975
85 Wn.2d 176, 532 P.2d 614
public nature of the question presented, the desirability of an authoritative determination for the future guidance of public officers, and the likelihood of future recurrence of the question. Sorenson v. Bellingham, 80 Wn.2d 547, 496 P.2d 512 (1972). Such elements are present here.
Did the Game Commission have statutory authority to adopt the challenged regulation?

Two statutes must be examined. RCW 77.12.040 authorizes the commission to adopt, promulgate, amend, or repeal, and enforce, reasonable rules and regulations governing the time, place and manner, or prohibiting the taking of the various classes of game animals, fur-bearing animals, protected wildlife, and predatory animals, game birds, predatory birds, nongame birds, and harmless or song birds, and game fish in the respective areas and throughout the state and the quantities, species, sex and size of such animals, birds and fish that may be taken.
The commission argues that the challenged regulation pertains to the "manner" of taking game fish and is, therefore, within its regulatory authority. Respondents, however, take the position that the commission's regulatory authority is qualified by RCW 77.12.010, which provides:

The wild animals and wild birds in the state of Washington and the game fish in the waters thereof are the property of the state. The game animals, fur-bearing animals, game birds, nongame birds, harmless or song birds, and game fish shall be preserved, protected, and perpetuated, and to that end such game animals, fur-bearing animals, game birds, nongame birds, harmless or song birds, and game fish shall not be taken at such times or places, by such means, in such manner, or in such quantities as will impair the supply thereof. (Italics ours.)
The chief of the Fisheries Management Division testified specifically that the purpose of the regulation was to govern the deportment of fishermen using a river, there having arisen disputes and dissension between bank fishermen and those fishing from powered boats. Such a purpose is obviously improper if the legislature intended to limit the

Feb. 1975] HARTMAN v. STATE GAME COMM'N 179
85 Wn.2d 176, 532 P.2d 614
commission's regulatory authority to the effectuation of those concerns enunciated in RCW 77.12.010.
[2, 3] Our essential object, in interpreting the meaning of RCW 77.12.040, is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the legislature, and we must look to the statutory context as a whole to derive legislative intent. Amburn v. Daly, 81 Wn.2d 241,501 P.2d 178 (1972). Where the legislature prefaces an enactment with a statement of purpose such as RCW 77.12.010, that declaration, although without operative force in itself, nevertheless serves as an important guide in understanding the intended effect of operative sections. State ex rel. Berry v. Superior Court, 92 Wash. 16, 159 P. 92 (1916); Whatcom County v. Langlie, 40 Wn.2d 855, 246 P.2d 836 (1952).

[4] Thus, we look to the prefatory section to explicate the extent of authority intended to be delegated by RCW 77.12.040, and that preface clearly pertains to matters of conservation, i.e., preservation, protection and perpetuation so as not to impair the supply. It is to that end that the manner of taking is to be restricted. There is no indication that the legislature intended that regulations relating to the manner of taking should be directed toward a different end, and to interpret identical language in the two sections as having different connotations would be illogical. As further support for this view, it should be noted that RCW 77.12.330 authorizes the commission to set aside exclusive fishing areas for minors. From that statute it can be inferred that the legislature believed it necessary to confer special regulatory authority upon the commission to enact a rule unrelated to the purposes contained in the policy section. The essential failing of the regulation is that its intended purpose bore absolutely no relation to the regulatory authority delegated to the commission. Indeed the respondents concede that if its purpose had been related to conservation it would be valid.
There is an alternative basis for holding that the challenged regulation is invalid. The administrative procedure
180 HARTMAN v. STATE GAME COMM'N [Feb. 1975
85 Wn.2d 176, 532 P.2d 614
act (RCW 34.04) establishes certain procedural requirements relating to an agency's rulemaking, and RCW 34.04.025 provides that, prior to the adoption of any rule, the agency shall:
Give at least twenty days notice of its intended action by
. . . giving public notice as provided in chapter 42.30 RCW, as now or hereafter amended. Such notice shall include (i) reference to the authority under which the rule is proposed, (ii) a statement of either the terms or substance of the proposed rule or a description of the subjects and issues involved, and (iii) the time when, the place where, and the manner in which interested persons may present their views thereon.

The only public notice given more than 20 days prior to the meeting where the rule was adopted was a Game Department news release which described the purpose of the meeting, in part, to be the establishment of 1974 fishing seasons. Such cursory notice obviously does not satisfy the requirements of RCW 34.04.025. However, 1 week prior to the meeting at which the challenged regulation was adopted, the Game Department distributed to an unspecified number of news media a news release which contained a text of the regulation. The commission argues that the adequacy of this public notice is to be measured in relation to RCW 42.30 rather than RCW 34.04.025.

[5] The meeting in question here was a "special meeting" (RCW 77.04.060), and RCW 42.30.080, which applies to special meetings, requires only that various news media be notified of the nature of business to be transacted at a special meeting and that such notice be given 24 hours in advance of the meeting. RCW 42.30, entitled the Open Public Meetings Act of 1971, obviously conflicts with RCW 34.04.025, both as to what information the notice must contain and especially as to the time at which notice must be given. We note that RCW 42.30.140 provides that the act shall control where in conflict with another statute. However, examination of the original language of the act (Laws of 1971, 1st Ex. Sess., ch. 250) clearly shows that the
Feb. 1975] HARTMAN v. STATE GAME COMM'N 181
85 Wn.2d 176, 532 P.2d 614
legislature did not intend that the notice provisions of RCW 42.30.080 should override the more detailed notice requirements of RCW 34.04.025. RCW 34.04.025 originated as section 17 of the Open Public Meetings Act of 1971, and reference to RCW 42.30 is not made in the original language. Instead, section 17 states that public notice shall be given as provided in this 1971 amendatory act. Therefore, the confusion resulting from reading the two statutes, RCW 34.04.025 and RCW 42.30.080, together results not from the language of the act itself but from substitution of language in the code version. A further indication of legislative intent can be inferred by the absence of notice provisions in RCW 42.30, with the exception of the special meetings section. As to general meetings, RCW 42.30 contains no provisions pertaining to public notice. Finally, we note the declared purpose of the Open Public Meetings Act of 1971 is to ensure that the people shall remain "informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created." RCW 42.30.010. It is implausible that the legislature intended to effectuate that declared policy by limiting substantially the kind of notice required in connection with rulemaking at special meetings. RCW 42.30.080 clearly relates only to the kind of notice required where a special meeting is to be called and does not qualify the notice provisions of RCW 34.04.025. Accordingly, the notice provided in regard to the adoption of the challenged regulation was inadequate.

In view of our holding we need not reach the constitutional issue of due process.
[6] One matter remains. The commission contends that this is not an appropriate case for a declaratory judgment action. RCW 34.04.070 provides in part:
(1) The validity of any rule may be determined upon petition for a declaratory judgment thereon addressed to the superior court of Thurston county, when it appears that the rule, or its threatened application, interferes with or impairs or immediately threatens to interfere with or impair, the legal rights or privileges of the petitioner.
182 IN RE SNYDER [Feb. 1975
85 Wn.2d 182, 532 P.2d 278
When the State chose to authorize fishing by licensing and otherwise regulating the taking of fish, it conferred upon licensed fishermen a privilege sufficient to give status to such persons to challenge the regulations.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
STAFFORD, C.J., and FINLEY, ROSELLINI, HUNTER, HAMIL-TON, WRIGHT, UTTER, and HOROWITZ, JJ., concur.


Cowlitzfisherman

Your case just got alot stronger CFM. Arguments in a court room follow the law, not the popularity coalition of this board.

For those of you that would like to know what is in the Open meeting Act, you can read it at:
http://www.atg.wa.gov/records/chapter1.shtml#1.1

A special interest group, like maybe recreational anglers? Recreational anglers who voiced their opinions at meetings and sent in rule proposals?