I think the review is great. If the moritorium stands will those that are against it now(for procedure) support it.

So the Mayor of Forks or something sends a letter and you think you won something... or something ??? A guy sends a letter and you think thats what it will take to get WSR changed.. A letter from some guy ???

Why eat crow, whats changed as a result of this "letter" a few of you are so proud of... I imagine a similar "letter" was sent to somebody when logging was restricted also

FYI, Plunk......fish don't talk.

Oh, and calling WSR supporters "fools" really doesn't add anything to your point.

Gee, Forks sent a letter asking WDFW to repeal statewide WSR. Yeah, well, BFD. Ya think if they write a letter to the IRS and ask them to repeal the Federal Income Tax that they'll have any luck? Let them write their stupid letter, and I'll write MY stupid letter........but Forks doesn't set fishing regs.

i do, the commision has to follow the law. i would realy like to see the laws that said what the commision did was legal, i cant find it, i did look thru the rcw`s that the commision must follow and found the one below

RCW 34.05.335
Withdrawal of proposal -- Time and manner of adoption.
(1) A proposed rule may be withdrawn by the proposing agency at any time before adoption. A withdrawn rule may not be adopted unless it is again proposed in accordance with RCW 34.05.320.

(2) Before adopting a rule, an agency shall consider the written and oral submissions, or any memorandum summarizing oral submissions.

(3) Rules not adopted and filed with the code reviser within one hundred eighty days after publication of the text as last proposed in the register shall be regarded as withdrawn. An agency may not thereafter adopt the proposed rule without refiling it in accordance with RCW 34.05.320. The code reviser shall give notice of the withdrawal in the register.

(4) An agency may not adopt a rule before the time established in the published notice, or such later time established on the record or by publication in the state register

RCW 77.04.090
Rule-making authority -- Certified copy as evidence.
The commission shall adopt permanent rules and amendments to or repeals of existing rules by approval of a majority of the members by resolution, entered and recorded in the minutes of the commission: PROVIDED, That the commission may not adopt rules after July 23, 1995, that are based solely on a section of law stating a statute's intent or purpose, on the enabling provisions of the statute establishing the agency, or on any combination of such provisions, for statutory authority to adopt any rule. The commission shall adopt emergency rules by approval of a majority of the members. The commission, when adopting emergency rules under RCW 77.12.150, shall adopt rules in conformance with chapter 34.05 RCW. Judicial notice shall be taken of the rules filed and published as provided in RCW 34.05.380 and 34.05.210.

A copy of an emergency rule, certified as a true copy by a member of the commission, the director, or by a person authorized in writing by the director to make the certification, is admissible in court as prima facie evidence of the adoption and validity of the rule.


[1996 c 267 § 35; 1995 c 403 § 111; 1984 c 240 § 1; 1980 c 78 § 16; 1955 c 36 § 77.12.050. Prior: 1947 c 275 § 15; Rem. Supp. 1947 § 5992-25. Formerly RCW 77.12.050.]

link to 34.05 rcw

B run,

The petition is not "just" a letter. It is the administrative process to remove the moritorium. It is not a love-letter. The lawsuit is next, if this doesnt work. Wait to judge the petition. At least untill the PDF comes out. It's a great read......

By boater1
"RCW 34.05.335
Withdrawal of proposal -- Time and manner of adoption.
(1) A proposed rule may be withdrawn by the proposing agency at any time before adoption. A withdrawn rule may not be adopted unless it is again proposed in accordance with RCW 34.05.320.

(2) Before adopting a rule, an agency shall consider the written and oral submissions, or any memorandum summarizing oral submissions.
#1 is meaningless because the rule WAS adopted.
#2 The commission did consider written and oral submissions.

jerry, read this, it says the rule was rejected.

NEWS RELEASE
WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091

February 11, 2002
Contact: Doug Williams, (360) 902-2256


Fish and Wildlife Commission adopts
2002-03 sport fishing rules, steelhead restrictions

The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission has adopted an overall sport fishing rules package for 2002-03, including a rule that allows for continued retention of wild steelhead, but with reduced daily and annual bag limits.

The nine-member commission, which establishes policy for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), met Feb. 8-9 in Olympia. On a five to four vote, commissioners rejected a proposal to ban wild steelhead retention throughout Washington state, opting instead to reduce the wild steelhead bag limit from two fish per day and 30 fish per year, to one fish per day and five fish annually. Wild steelhead retention is currently allowed only on rivers with healthy populations.

The sport fishing rules package, including wild steelhead retention rules, takes effect May 1, and was developed over the past year with considerable public input. Commissioners received hundreds of letters and e-mails, and heard direct testimony from dozens of citizens on a variety of proposed sport fishing rules at its December meeting in Vancouver.

In other action, commissioners rejected a proposal that would have allowed anglers to purchase a second freshwater fishing license and use a second fishing pole. The commission approved an updated policy outlining the acceptable use of rotenone to rehabilitate lakes and streams. Review of the department's policy was done to ensure the state's lake rehabilitation program is current with federal regulations regarding environmental health and safety issues. Rotenone, a natural substance, has been used by biologists for a number of years to rid lakes of undesirable fish species. Waters treated with rotenone are typically planted with rainbow trout or other desirable fish species to provide recreational fishing opportunity.

Commissioners also adopted a 2002 North of Falcon policy to help the department with its salmon season-setting process, plus amendments to shellfish disease control rules.

Amendments to Puget Sound commercial marine fish rules were postponed until the commission's March meeting to allow for more input by Fish and Wildlife Advisory Groups and commercial fishing interests. Also postponed, at the request of Grays Harbor County officials, was any action on a proposal to ban jet boats for fishing on the Wynoochee and Satsop rivers. County officials are planning to study the issue of jet boats and other motorized water craft on rivers within Grays Harbor County.

Check that date on the release.

Plunk...Don't know about natural swings , but do know that on Vancouver Island, where C&R has been in effect on wild fish for some time...they actually have lots of wild summer fish left. Sure does not seem to be hurting it there.

Chip ,do they have indians with nets?

Not sure YBNORMAL, but the Skeena watershed does ...

Just an FYI since this seems to be coming to a head: $$$ talks in this town and Ruby Swagerty owns Three Rivers Resort with her husband Scott, so if you don't agree with their stance, you might consider where you spend your $$$ in this town. Another one, the owner of the Texaco / Subway is strongly against any C&R and has begun eating breakfast elsewhere because of myself and the "people" I bring into the Forks Coffee Shop on a daily basis ... so another business you can place your vote with

boater,

The 2 year moratorium has been adopted...that's what happened at the Rules Adoption Meeting back in February. Those RCW's do not apply.

However, within 60 days of adoption of a rule, anyone can petition the Commission to rescind the adoption, essentially to "take it back".

That's what's happening now with Forks' letter to the WDFW/Commission.

Fish on...

Todd

Thanks for the info Bob. It works both ways so I'll be sure to drop some $$$ at both of those establishments when I visit and any other establishment that stands up and speaks out about what I feel is right. They are taking a stand and I respect that. We were blind sided by the commission. The petition that was filed on Friday with the support of many is the first legal step required in order to fix the commissions wrong doing.

why didnt they have to go thru the same procedure with this rule as they did the last time, they proposed it and it was rejected, how can they legaly un-reject a rule ?

at the springer allowcation meeting there were 3 proposals and the commision rejected 2 and adopted one of them, are you saying that anytime they want they can un-reject the ones they rejected and adopt any one they want ?

boater,

What they can do essentially is rescind the rule, and then put it through the rules adoption process again...then we'll see how it shakes out after that, if they choose to do that.

If they don't choose to do that, then the door is open for further challenges from the petitioners.

Fish on...

Todd

Does everyone remember that Dave Jackson dude that used to post on this board and others??...and he would routinely post that picture of that dead horse?

Hmmmmm...where is Dave Jackson and more importantly, where is that dead horse picture???

Hey......buzz off........I got a couple more solid shots to take at that horse. I think it just twitched.

todd, the last time it was put thru the prosses it was rejected in 2002, if you look at THIS link under the final rule proposals its not included

maybe i should try a difrent question ?

how can the commision adopt a proposed rule for 2004-2005 if it isnt on the list of rules that are being proposed ?