I recently spent some time reading the bios of our commissioners. I posted the entire bio of each on another thread, but then thought that many folks may not want to read all that. Here is a very brief summary of their bios.

Will Roehl - Chair. Attorney and wholesaler of several products including fish.

Ron Ozment - Co Chair Dairy Farmer

Russ Cahill - Retired law enforcement, active with Nature Conservancy

John hunter lV - Apple Marketer

Lisa Pelly - Serves on lot of boards including Farming and the Environment and Washington conservation Voters.

Fred Shiosaki - Chemist, has held positions related to the environment with Washington Water power and NW Electric light and Power

Bob Tuck - Fisheries consultant

R.P. Van Gytenbeek - Fishing magazine publisher. Past Executive Director of trout Unlimited.

You should be able to look at this list and make an educated guess as to who is on the sportsman’s side

Dave...I give!@ is the answer no one?

Thanks Dave for telling us who all the commissioners are and what there backgrounds are. It really seems strange that Todd, WSC attorneys thinks that it was all done in the open and up front, and then you have a COMMISSIONER (commissioner Roehl) who is also an attorney saying something totally different

Now one with plan old common sense would certainly think that when this issue goes to court and a judge reads the "complete transcript" that taken at the Feb. 6 commission meeting and sees that a commissioner who has been train to read and interrupted law and has a degree in law basically said

Now don't you guys think that this same "judge" will see that the public was not fully informed or notified of the actions that the commissions were considering before they took their actions? It looks to me, like the "judge" will not have much of hard time or problem deciding if the rules in the WAPA were followed or not.

boater,

Chair Roehl may not agree with WSR (he doesn't), but he met with Nedra Reed and the Forks Chamber of Commerce when they went to Olympia and he assured them that everything was done aboveboard.

That doesn't mean that he liked the way it came about...I don't think that he did. I think he would have rather seen it in the package that the WDFW staff sent over.

But, like everything else about this subject, just because someone doesn't like it in no way, shape, or form means that it was illegal. He may not think that they should have done it, but he in no uncertain terms told Mayor Reed that they could.

Do you see in there, boater, anywhere where Chair Roehl said that it was illegal, or that it violated the APA?

Fish on...

Todd

todd, read the last sentance in this rcw.

RCW 77.04.013
Findings and intent.
The legislature supports the recommendations of the state fish and wildlife commission with regard to the commission's responsibilities in the merged department of fish and wildlife. It is the intent of the legislature that, beginning July 1, 1996, the commission assume regulatory authority for food fish and shellfish in addition to its existing authority for game fish and wildlife. It is also the intent of the legislature to provide to the commission the authority to review and approve department agreements, to review and approve the department's budget proposals, to adopt rules for the department, and to select commission staff and the director of the department.

The legislature finds that all fish, shellfish, and wildlife species should be managed under a single comprehensive set of goals, policies, and objectives, and that the decision-making authority should rest with the fish and wildlife commission. The commission acts in an open and deliberative process that encourages public involvement and increases public confidence in department decision making.

todd, what is your legal opinion of what the last sentance says, what is "open" does that mean for everyone to know or just a few people ? what is a deliberative process, does that mean they can make the process up as they go ?

boater,

You've kind of answered your own question. Those statements come from the "Intent" section of the statute.

The "Intent" section is supposed to put the rest of the statute in context...to tell everyone why the statute was passed, but not to necessarily control anything. If you keep reading the statute you'll come to the point where it also says that the Commission can pass no regulations based solely on the "Intent" portion of any other statute.

If a law says "we are forming this Commission because we want an open and deliberative process" that's cool...that's why they're forming the Commission. However, without putting in specifics and saying "Shall" or "Shall Not" about those specifics, it doesn't add anything to the duties of the Commission that isn't already in the APA.

This answer applies to your question over at the other BB's, too, where you posted it.

Fish on...

Todd

todd, i`d have to ask why we even have a commision, you legaly make it sound like the whole thing is a joke and they can do whatever they want, or, can you legaly say they "cant" do whatever they want ?

boater,

One, they do have to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act when they act in their rulemaking capacity.

Two, there are lots of "shalls" and "musts" and "shall nots" in the Fish and Wildlife Code...but the Intent subsection of one part of one section of RCW 77.04, et seq., is not one of them.

If you look at the thread that has the legislators' letter to the Commission in it, you can find where I went through the entire first section of 77.04 and spoke about what each of those sections means...but that's only one part of the entire Fish and Wildlife Code.

Fish on...

Todd

Which is it now? You anti-harvest guys have been crowing about an Attorney General's representative being at the meeting with the dignitaries from Forks and assuring everyone that the process was legal and proper.

Now it's Chairman Roehl doing all the assuring.

.
Until you can document what you claim Roehl said it is a rumor at best and a fabrication at worst. It is also becoming even more confusing as to who might have said what at the meeting with the good people of Forks considering the following factual quotations from the transcript of the Feb 6 meeting.

.
It appears that Roehl, Ozement and Van Gytenbeek all agreed that the proposed moratorium was improper and/or illegal and a disservice to the public. Even Pelly agreed that it was improper...

.
So even you Todd can now see that Chairman Roehl and at least three other Commissioners believed that the proposal was probably illegal, and that it violated the public process?

Even you Todd can see that the Commission did not act in an open and deliberative process that encourages public involvement and increases public confidence in department decision making.

Why would they worry about doing the public a disservice while at the same time feeling as though they are increasing public confidence in what they are doing?

It becomes obvious that the Commission did not comply with the Administrative Procedure Act when they misused their rulemaking capacity.

I guess I'll repeat myself again...and leave it at that.

Normal process? Perhaps not.

Does that make it wrong? At least five of the eight Commissioners don't think so, or they wouldn't have voted for the moratorium. And Chairman Roehl, while having reservations about not going through the "normal" process, assured Mayor Reed that it was not improper.

So that's at least six of the eight who don't feel it was improper. Extraordinary, maybe, but improper, no.

An AAG was at the meeting, who also assured the Mayor and CoC that it was not improper.

Being extraordinary does not in and of itself make it a violation of the APA. Violations of the APA make it a violation of the APA, and we'll soon see what Fork's petition alleges about the APA, and perhaps then we'll have a clearer idea of what APA violations may or may not have happened, at least to their minds (Forks and the Forks CoC).

As I've said many times, not liking the way it happened does not make it illegal, or improper...just extraordinary.

Fish on...

Todd

Chairman Roehl assured Mayor Reed that it was not improper?

An Assistant AG was at the meeting, who also assured the Mayor and Commission Chair that it was not improper?

Were you there Todd?
Can you document the hearsay above?

I do enjoy your extraordinary arguments.

At least we can agree that you have a BS degree.

Todd are you really sure that the AAG was at that meeting? Think really hard before you answer that question.

Ya know, if not, we've been spoon fed BS with a shovel.


Does anyone else hear the music?

Is there any wonder why sportfishermen don't have a voice with all the shouting, self-aggrandisement and name-calling that goes on?

Maybe when sportfishermen start acting like men and start pulling on the oars together will others be more inclined to consider their point of view and listen to their concerns. If sportfishermen can't even show respect for each other then why in this world would anyone want to sit down with them?

I have to wonder if these other interests really have a greater voice and representation because of their unity, political clout and interest or because of the sportsmen's lack thereof?

It just seems like we are more content to act like the fools we are. Truth is sportfisherman are no less self-interested than other groups but they certainly appear to be less civil, unified and effective than they could be. Why not learn from the things the other special interests do right and come together in strength on issues instead of dividing in weakness.

Leadership starts where the kvetching stops.

Thanks for the heads up, Dave.

Hey Mooch! If you are done kvetching can we get back to the subject here?
…and doesn't the cleaning and cooking start where the kvetching stops?
:p

Regardless of the opinion one might have about the desirability of the moratorium or the manner by which it was imposed it is clear that the result has been to divide the angling community more than anything else within recent memory.

In order to heal that division and restore public trust the Commission should be advised to rescind the moratorium and, if they believe in its desirability, to re-initiate the rulemaking process with provision for greater public involvement.

--- --- ---

Todd - Some of us are very concerned about where you and WSC are getting some of your information from, and are wondering if you really got all of your facts straight about what really was said at the March 3 meeting in Olympia? Other people have told a different story. Yet you have posted that "An AAG was at the meeting, who also assured the Mayor and CoC that it was not improper."

Are you really sure that the AAG was at that meeting?
Who is your source of information about this meeting?
What is this man? Hide-n-seek?