The "real facts" about the Feb. 6 Commission meeting!

Well we heard a lot of different opinions on if the moratorium; was it legal or not!

There's been much debate on this issue, and now I have been lucky enough to have an opportunity to read what really went on at the Feb. 6 Commissioners meeting where this all went down at! This is the record, that will soon be made public, so this board gets to see it first!

Now these are real fact, like it or not! You decide if this issue will hold up in court.
There are over 15 pages of recorded Dictaphone record of the Feb 6 Commission meeting, so it was imposible for me to attempt to type all of the back and forth talk that went on about WSR. So here are my highlights of what was said! If others want to post "their version" of what was said, and what the record says ….go for it!

_______________________________________________________________

9. ADOPTION OF 2004-05 SPORTFISHING RULES (in progress)
WA 232-12-619- Permanent Washington statewide game fish rules

ROEHL: Commissioner Ozment, then Commissioner Hunter.

OZMENT: One of the things, at this point, that I'm uncomfortable with is this whole process is that when the original rule change proposals were brought to us early on in this process, this was a subject that was not included within those proposals. (I told you so!) They did pop up and were addressed to some degree at the Port Townsend, but they weren't – I don't feel- brought to the public because of the way that the subject was ultimately broached to the Department and the Commission, and to my knowledge, I don't feel that there really has been a balanced public testimony process in regards to a motion that we're on the cusp of dealing with. And I am sure all of you on the Commission have been recipients of letters from organization and individuals, particularly in the form of postcards in opposition to any change in the retention rule. Correct me if I am wrong, but it was but it was not part of the original testimony process (I told you so). And I think we would be setting ourselves up for a really significant public relations problem if we address any motion in regards to this subject at this point.

OZMENT… But I would just like , again, to- -whether this is the proper time to address this, considering what I've stated about what I think is a lack of proper public process"

ROEHL: Commissioner Hunter.

Hunter: As the newest member on the Commission, I'm being flooded with science and being lobbied, whether it's a sack of postcards for one position, personally lobbied, or by phone calls."

ROEHL: Commission Pelly.

Pelly: …So, I think it was not brought forth, and I'm not sure that I didn't agree with the Department staff that maybe in this particular situation, to put it out for out for public process, we were going to hear the same things we had heard the year before. But I felt from day one as we started this regulation cycle that this Commission in its policy position does have the right to bring this forward to us, and I think that I had every intention, from day one, of making sure that this Commission with any new information. So, while it did not go through the normal public process with the regulation process with the regulations this year, whether or not it was an actual proposal. So I think that's one issue." " And sometimes, maybe we, you know, everybody –we like to use science when it's working or when it supports what we're doing and, you know, peoplel can blame science on the other hand. There are times when you sort of have to do what you really feel in your heart is the right thing."

ROHEL: Commissioner Van Gytenbeek.


"…I wouldn't have felt good about asking if there was a proper legal way to bring it forward. And I assume, in making this motion, that those people who were opposed to it before are just as opposed to it as they were."

Much more discussion by Van Gytenbeek and Pelly.

CAHILL: Are you saying, if this amendment fails, are you proposing that as a moratorium?

PELLY: Yes.

ROEHL: … Vote by show of hands ? [this was Van's motion, which failed a 4-4 tie] Ayes: Van, Lisa, John, and Bob. Opposed: Will, Ron, Fred, Russ]

ROEHL: Motion fails. And the main motion is before us.

PELLY: I guess I'd like to try another amendment.
[Jim Hearn, from the audience, asked for the motion to be re-read]

ROEHL: … The Rule is before us right now is the …[audience: did that pass or fail?] Failed. That motion to amend failed. So what we have before us now is a proposal to adopt the permanent, certain amendments to the permanent Washington statewide game fish rules, which really only includes, as I understand it, tiger trout. Are there any further motions to amend?

PELLY: I would, but I'm afraid I'm going to need a little help from Evan or Bill with the language. Could we take a 5 minute break?

BREAK

More discussions after break was over and then:

SHIOSAKI: So, what I'm seeing then is that this miniscule take will have no impact on the study that Director is talking about, and it will have very little impact on wild steelhead at all, so I just fail to see the utility of declaring a moratorium on the take.

[Mr. Hearn spoke from the audience]

ROEHL: Jim; not an appropriate time. [ HEARN: I'm out of order, aren't I?] You are.

ROEHL: One of the comments that Commissioner Ozment made earlier was that this didn't come through the normal planning process, and I think the effect of that is that, while those groups who were intensely watching this issue-whether it was the Wild Steelhead Coalition and various fly fishing groups, Kin County Sportsmen's Council – those groups, they're watching it. But the average person out on the river, steelhead fishermam, doesn't have a clue that this discussion has been an ongoing issue. That's because it wasn't out there in the sport fish rules proposals package. And consequently, they don't know. And I think to all of a sudden have this appear, whether it's a two-year moratorium or a six- year moratorium, it's something that I think will really do disservice to our relationship with the public. " "But rather than setting up something, which I really think is going to shock a lot of people who have no idea that this discussion has been ongoing at all."

OZMENT: "…I can tell you right now that this whole discussion in the course of this afternoon, to me, has translated from policy issues to an issue of principle. And I am extremely upset with where this is going."

So Pelly and Van Gytenbeek bruogh up the final motion and the rest was history!

Now you know the real facs!


Cowlitzfisherman

From what I heard, it seemed that Mr Hearns was at the meeting to be a voice against the moritiorium. I don't suppose you would like to include Mr. Hearns comments.

For record, Jerry

I have included ever single word that Mr. Hearn has said in the 15 pages of legal transcript recordings. If you got more than what is on the Commissions transcript record, I would suggest that support that with fact and not hear say. The facts are what are stated in the record! Not what some else thinks that they had "heard".

Cowlitzfisherman

It will be interesting to see the WHOLE transcript of the discussion. Again it amazes me that the fact that 39 people asked for this to be considere 10% of the total requests and they were blown off because of "it is too soon" arguement But people seem to forget that.

So I see that there were groups opposed to this that were lobbying as commented on by one of the commissioners. Sounds like that the opposition was out there and in their face. People were opposed to what the WSC did so are you opposed to what they other side was doing to?

JJ

Rutro Scooby!

CFM your the man! Seems this definatly validates what we've been saying all along. I'll have the entire transcript very soon and I'm looking forward to it.

Funny how the AG told people whom wanted to challenge this legally that everything was done legally.

JJ

After the vote Mr. Hearn asked his friend that was sitting with him "Did we win?". His friend answered "No".

One of the interesting aspects of this transcript is the revelation (shocking though it is!) that the Commissioners had been talking about this outside of a formal meeting. Now, how does that fit in with our "public meeting issues"? The reality of course is that is Standard Operating Procedure for every Government entity. Most of the heavy lifting and discussion occurs outside the realm of a public meeting so that the Commissioneers, Council members, Legislators can speak frankly and bluntly without it being recorded. Probably not what the Public Meetings rules wanted, but a workable solution nonetheless. Here is my take on the Feb. 6th meeting.

1. The Commission had the Sportfishing Rules on the Agenda for a long time prior to the Feb. 6th meeting. They also indicated that Public Testimony would not be taken at the Feb. 6th meeting. By looking at this transcript, it appears that they only heard from one member of the audience and did not take testimony from him.

2. It appears (by comments by the Commissioners) that the Commission had been heavily lobbied by interested parties about WSR. IMHO, this was due to the fact that WDFW had chosen not to forward the request for WSR on to the Commission in this cycle of Rules Changes. Nothing wrong at all about undertaking that lobbying effort, whether you were for or against WSR.

3. I can find no indication that the Commission is prohibited from talking about any specific rule proposal and acting upon it. Clearly, as early as Dec. of 2003 (if not earlier) anyone that cared to would have found out that there were several requests for WSR forwarded to the Commission. Just because WDFW chose not to forward that proposal for Commission action does not prevent the Commission from acting upon it.

4. Having said all of this, I believe (as a layman, not a lawyer) that the Commission acted legally. Another part of my editorial opinion - I think the Commission was blindsided by the Region 5 request to petition NMFS to have a higher allowable impact on ESA listed Steelhead in the Springer season and that may have played a role in this action as well. It could have been as simple as the Commission saying "The Commission runs WDFW - not the other way around."

CFM, I'm not going to engage in another pis*ing contest with you. I have learned my lesson. Please do not take my lack of responding to you as an indication that I think you are right. I will leave it to other, very worthy folks to respond to you if they feel that it is appropriate.

Eddie,

As a layman I feel the commission acted illegally. Only things to be considered were what was on the agenda. If it wasn't there, then it should only be for FUTURE discussions and FUTURE agendas.

This is why I'm for the repeal of WSR.

Put it on the next agenda, have discussion on it and public input, and after that if it passes, it passes.

My concern is the "system" had an end run done on it and this method was unethical and illegal.

While the commissions intentions were sincere and ethical, their method of enactiing this rule was not.

Like you really think that AG was going to say …. "Sorry, our Commission just screwed up" !

Remember, it's isn't a about any one group or persons, it’s all about a process of law that we are talking about Aunty, so please don't try to make it any more then just that!

It appears that due process was not done. Remember, it's about the process and the "process" only!

That's my only position, no mater what other may try to say.

Keep saying that word over and over, Process-process-process-process….sooner or later you will understand what I have been saying from the very beginning.

Eddie
I have no problem with what you have stated. I believe that new information now allows this board to see some factual information that they have not been allowed to see before.

As I write, I am verifying even more information about this process being legal or not. It appears that the Commissioners and the AG may have even bigger problems then just the folks in Fork's! there will more to come, when I do some more homework!

All I can say now is, it's not looking real good for the Commission.

Zen Leecher aka
I couldn't agree with you more!


Cowlitzfisherman

Here's a simple question to all who oppose the Commission's decision on WSR:

Would you still be making this kind of fuss if the Commission had decided to increase posession limits or create year-around kill seasons without "due process"?

Zen, I do not see that it wasn't on the agenda. Sportsfishing Rules for the next cycle was what was on the agenda. Clearly, there was a large and vocal group of WSR supporters that lobbied the Commission publically and privately for WSR. I think what surprised everyone (including me) is that the Commission took action on an item that was not forwarded to them by WDFW. No question, that was very unusual, but I don't see where it rises to illegality. But, I'm just a fisherman from Puyallup. Finer legal minds will make a better judgement.

JJ - Can you post a link to that AG Opinion or a copy of it?

It would be interesting to see what that opinion was based upon and what legalities were addressed.

I'd like to know who in the AG made that claim. I'd like to see the name of the person with that opinion.

Absolutely! If the commission passed a statewide blanket increase of possession limits and use this process to do it. Of course I would. Thats a silly argument.

Good luck with that....I believe your assertion that the commission acted without due process has been legally refuted like six times already....

There really aren't that many straws to grasp at, are there?

...and...

Again folks, and this is probably the most important aspect of what we are talking about here....more than two thirds of all steelhead fishermen are in favor of wsr. I don't know how many times i've heard cries of foul over this or that over how the wdfw spends our money...

Sounds to me like they are FINALLY doing things the way the majority of their constituency would have them do it.

...but i sense alot more boo-hooing about its being all the city folks, even though I could easily provide you with the names of five Forks based guides that are also in favor of the wsr rule....

In the end, the courts may have to decide..................................................................if it even gets that far.

"more than two thirds of all steelhead fishermen are in favor of wsr."

What makes you think that? I'd be very interested in the source of that statistic. I'm in favor of using WSR as a management tool also, but that doesn't mean I like this policy or how it came about.

.


All of the information is not public. When it is, you may have a different opinion.

EXACTLY !!!!!

This will be my only post on this thread...so don't bother asking for more.

1. It wasn't illegal. See the numerous discussions on all the other threads where CFM brought up 24 pages of different laws and policies trying to find something...and didn't find anything.

2. The Commission doesn't think it was illegal.

3. The AGO doesn't think it was illegal.

If you really think it was illegal...all of you armchair lawyers jump in and...

1. Sue them yourself

2. Hire an attorney and sue them

3. Wait for Forks to do it for you (which they aren't going to do)

4. Post on the internet all day about how illegal it was, which does nothing.

5. Piss and moan about it, which does nothing.

I already know that it's not illegal, and all the folks that think it was will not do either #1 or #2, and Forks will not do #3, so all they have left is to post about it and show how great of attorneys they are, or sit home and complain about it in private.

Unless you plan on doing #1 or #2, drop it. You're doing worse than nothing, because besides nothing getting done, you're making yourself look foolish.

Fish on...

Todd