Fighting this is just going to look greedy and make part of the sport fishing community look like meat mongers.

People are grasping for straws here who ever fights this is going to be made a laughing stock and is going to look really bad when its all over.

The only reason to fight this is for money and meat and neither favor the wild steelhead.

Whew! I'm out of town for a few days and look what happens to this thread! If I feel that I want to make any comments whatsoever about how asinine it is, then I will later.

For now, I'll just stick to the topic at hand.

CFM,

WAC 232-28-619 is entitled the "Freshwater Exceptions to Statewide Rules"...and included each and every exception to statewide wild steelhead release...and was on the agenda...and was announced months in advance as being on the agenda.

December 5 and 6, 2004, the public had an opportunity to go and testify on the agenda items, and February 6, 2004, the Commission met, considered the agenda items, including WAC 232-28-619, and decided to remove a few of the exceptions to statewide rules under WAC 232-28-619.

Plenty of notice, specific WAC was on the agenda, public testified to it, they made a decision on it.

Fish on...

Todd

Grasping at straws, trying to look confident, even through inside they know its over.

If you dont look confident in your argument how are you gonna draw people to your side.

Little bit of phychology folks, that s all.

This is a dead issue, for the next two years.

In all the information I have seen on this thread it is very clear the commission acted within the power they have.

The opposing opinion makes no sense to me at all. The way I have read the law on this thread they are pissing into the wind with their opposition.

Grasping at straws.

Todd

Are you saying that the Commission can give public notice once, that an item will be up for a "scheduled" vote at an open Commission meeting, and then decide not to vote on it. And then at some other meeting that has no scheduled agenda for this issue to be voted on, then without any further public notice, or scheduled agenda can at will, without due public notice again, bring up the issue and vote it in?

Is that what I am hearing you saying?

Is so, the game is already over for the Commission!

Rich

I was asked by Todd to show why I believed the Commission acted illegally. I have given Todd the information that he asked me to supply. This case WILL have merit to this issue, and I do not call this " Grasping at straws"

Even those Todd may not agree with the importance of this case (which I highly doubt), he damn well knows that it isn't "Gasping at straws" A lot of work and research has gone into finding this case, so take it for whatever it is worth!

PS

Can Todd or anyone else show us where it said that this is only a "2 year Moratorium" ? ?

Cowlitzfisherman

Grasping at straws.

Rich

we will see!

Cowlitz,

The only question I have is why!

If you agreed with WSR as a model for management would you still appose this decision based on your opinion that it was not legal or policy was violated?

I just dont see where you are going with this.

Do you think the way management has been done was the right way?

I know there are other factors then sport harvest that have a much larger impact but why should we have an opinion on another user group when we continue to kill wild steelhead?

Rich,

Thanks for asking without making attacks!

I believe that Todd can tell you that since "day one" on this board, I have always said, If a river has more fish then they need for biological escapement, we should have the "opportunity" to harvest them, if we so choose to do so. That does not mean that we should take every single fish that is available either. It's our choice to make!

It is my understanding that several Commissioners are not really comfortable with this decision either, so it's not just me, or a few other sport fishermen. I like wild fish, and I usually don't keep any, but there have been times when I do. I do not feel guilty when I do. I understand more then many on this board about fish and their needs. But I also understand how rules must be followed by all. In this case, I believe that the rules were twisted, and that the Commissioners members knows it.

Our wild fish survival, in my opinion, will not tilter on this decision one way or the other. Over the years that I have dedicated my life to fish, and the act of fishing, I have learned much. Some of what I have learned drives me to challenge the Commissions recent decision. There is a process that we all must follow, and in this case, it is my belief that the Commission failed to do so. I expect them (the commissioners) to follow the same rules and laws that both you and I must follow.

I may not be right on this issue, but I truly believe that they have not followed the processes that our society as set up. If we can't do that, then all of our wild fish are doomed anyway!

Cowlitzfisherman

What the deal?

I can't find where this states this is a "2 year moratorium", can anyone show me where WAC 232-28-619 states that is a 2 year moratorium?

RCW 42.32.030
Minutes.
The minutes of all regular and special meetings except executive sessions of such boards, commissions, agencies or authorities shall be promptly recorded and such records shall be open to public inspection.

So where are those minutes????

So why hasn't the Commission posted the minutes of this meeting? It's been almost one full month and no minutes have yet to be posted of that meeting. Sounds like they may be very concerned about what was said and what was done to me. One month is not a "reasonable" time to wait to post the minutes and actions of a "public" meeting. In the past, they were post very soon after the meeting had occurred. Since the "Commission" has held two other meetings with agendas on the phone, why hasn't the meeting minutes where they passed the 2 year moratorium, been posted by now!

Something is begging to smell fishy!

Cowlitzfisherman

a plastic bag over your head should take care of that fishy smell... :p

Piper, old wise one,

Can you show me where the Commission stated that they were going to propose a 2 year moratorium for WSR anywhere in their minutes, or agenda or public notice? Better yet, can you show me where in WAC 232-28-16 that it states that this was only for 2 years?

If you can, let me know so that I can take off that bag and read it!

CFM,

The general statewide rule regarding wild steelhead retention is that there is statewide, year round, wild steelhead release.

WAC 232-28-619 has all of the Exceptions to Statewide Freshwater Rules listed in it.

Some of those exceptions in WAC 232-28-619 are the exceptions to WSR, specifically the 1 per day, 5 per year exceptions for the coastal streams.

WAC 232-28-619 was listed on the agenda as being up for review at the rule proposal meetings.

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.

There's no need for there to have been words about a two year moratorium in the WAC beforehand, just like there was no need for the words "1 per day, 5 per year" in there two years ago. The two year moratorium language is part of the new 232-28-619, adopted on February 6, and will be in this May's packet of rules when it is published. The words that were voted on and agreed to will become part of WAC-28-619.

Fish on...

Todd

Todd
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

CFM,

There were two listed sets of proposals; one that had agency proposals, and one that had public proposals.

Both had agency recommendations. The WDFW recommended that WSR not be addressed, for the highly scientific reason of "it was just brought up two years ago".

The Commission will contemplate what is on the lists, and will also contemplate what the agency recommendations were, for both the agency and public proposals.

While almost every proposal they contemplate is one that the agency has made a favorable recommendation on, they in no way have to accept the agency's recommendation that they do or do not address a particular proposal, nor do they have to in any way only adopt the recommendations of the agency.

You'll remember that two years ago NO ONE, agency or public, proposed a 1 per day, 5 per year regulation, yet, that is what came out of the meeting. However, issues of steelhead retention were on the table, and they made a final decision on steelhead retention.

Did WDFW propose WSR? No. Did they have to to be legal? No.

Did WDFW recommend WSR as propsed by the public? No. Did they have to? No.

Was WSR recommended by the public? Yes. Did it have to be? Not necessarily, but it was.

Was any recommendation regarding steelhead seasons and retention on the table? Yes. Did it have to be? Probably.

Did the public have notice that 1. rules proposals were to be considered at the public meetings in P.T., 2. what was proposed by the public and agency personnel, 3. notice of when and where the meeting was, and 4. notice that the public would be able to testify?

The answer to those questions is yes. I'm guessing you will again respond with something like this;

"I (or the public) did not have a proposal packet that said "The Commission will decide whether or not to remove the exceptions to statewide WSR that are now in place" in words just like that.

You will be right if you say that...just like you would have been right two years ago if you said that the public didn't receive a packet that said they would consider adopting one per day, five per year regulations.

That type of notice may be desirable, but it is not legally required.

Public notice, as you're finding out with the Tacoma HGMP, does not mean the public sets the agenda, decides the issues, and makes the rules. We can argue (and probably agree) that more notice and participation ought to be required, but that doesn't have any relevance to this discussion.

The question is not did you get what you want, nor is it did you get what you deserve, nor is it did you get what you think is fair.

The issue is whether or not you got what is legally required, which I think it's pretty clear that you did.

If all proposals had to be approved by WDFW as one that the Commission will address, then public participation would be severely curtailed. If the agency had to also approve of any action that the Commission did take, then there would be no public participation.

The agency would decide what the Commission will hear, and then decide what the Commission will decide. We would have no role in the process at all.

The whole point of the public participation process is to be able to go beyond agency bureaucracy and politics to make decisions that affect us all. That's exactly what happened.

I don't expect to change your mind, there's no legal explanation I can ever give you that will make you stop feeling screwed, so I'm probably done trying. I'd be happy to continue discussing it, though, so long as we don't go over the same ground over and over again.

Anything new on the Cowlitz HGMP? You can shoot me an e-mail if there's anything to talk about that would clutter up this thread any more than it already is!

Fish on...

Todd

Todd - I assume that also you disagree with the statement that...
"Catch and release is not needed for conservation. It will only allocate away from the current class of fishermen who may want to keep some of their fish, to another class of fishermen who do not. Neither group has it necessarily wrong, and the present system of extensive catch and release sections plus the five fish annual limit is a good and working compromise."

If you want to convince me that the Quillayute is showing any sign of decline you will have to post some recent run-size, harvest and escapement numbers.

Got any for the Hoh or Queets? I'd love to see them also.

Without numbers I must assume that you are making much of that stuff up.