Marsha, you are wrong on so many points. (Out of respect for you, I won't use my reply from Dan Akroyd to Jane Curtain on SNL news) Rather than answer me directly, you offer no proof, deflect, or answer my question with a question. Yet you stubbornly say you aren’t wrong. Why don’t you answer a question instead of spewing falsehood after falsehood? Well here’s your proof that you are wrong on many points.

1. RMEF doesn’t have an active lobbyist here. Check here. http://www.pdc.wa.gov/home/page2.aspx?c1=0&c2=99 The person mentioned is a land use specialist, not a lobbyist. Check for Rance Block as a lobbyist, check RMEF as an employer of a lobbyist, and you will find nothing. Any private citizen can go to Olympia, or an employee of a company, and speak to reps, senators, and testify in the public comment periods. That doesn’t make them a lobbyist, it makes them a person interested in the issue. I’m not a lobbyist for suppressor manufacturers, I have an interest in them. You are wrong.

2. The CCA earned my wrath because they specifically went for the higher fee bill, and I have been a member of CCA. They testified in support of it. PSA did too. I wasn’t a member of PSA before, probably won’t be either, even though a family member was high up in their organization. I was a member of CCA. I’m not a member of any group Ed Owens lobbies for, and he testified in support of the higher fee bill. He gets a thumbs down. The snowmobilers testified against the senate bill, even though it appears they got their deal. They wouldn’t support Brian’s lower fee bill, so maybe they get a pass, but then again I’ve never been involved in Snowmobiling. (No answer needed)

3. I’d like to know how I place more importance on hunting and firearms than fishing. I was very vocal about my support on the area 4a/b private dive park issue, and Jennings as a whole. I probably worked 40-50 hours behind the scenes tracking down data, talking with senators and reps, and I testified 4 times and was ready to testify a 5th time, but they only allowed my friend from the Makah Tribe to speak. I maybe had 20 hours of effort into the suppressor legislation, and only made the trip once to testify, and once to see the bill signed. The funny thing is, I didn’t have time to go fishing up there last year, and I probably won’t this year, but I certainly worked very hard at laying on the heat on that issue, or set of issues related to Jennings. Jennings specifically knows who I am, as does the chair of the commission, and Phil, as I was in front of them many times. I would say based on time spent in the past two years, more time has been spent on fishing issues, so I would say you are wrong on this point. Please explain why you think you are right.

4. How do I feel differently about gillnetting than everyone else here? I hate it, don’t like it, and wish there was a way we could stop it. I can't change the tribal fishing, neither can you. You think differently how? If you think I’m for it, you are wrong.

5. How do I feel differently about commercial crabbing? I think it is sustainable in the ocean, wish the Tribes had to compete equally with the cowboys and start at the same time, with no special reserve zone. They don’t belong in the sound at all, tribal or commercial. I think you and I see eye to eye here.

6. On commercial fishing, I don’t like Hake or Pollock fishing that catches salmon and halibut destined for Washington waters. I don’t like the lopsided way halibut are managed to the commercials and Alaska. Bank a number of commercial fishermen, part of my job. None of them fish in Puget Sound. Don’t know your specifics on what you don’t like. Don’t know how we feel differently here. Explain.

7. I don’t like the Quinaults overfishing the Chehalis. It is my back yard. I don’t like them overfishing any river. I’ve taken photos of them shooting at sea lions with pellet guns, and posted them here, and forwarded them to enforcement. So does having a good friend who is a Quinault who invites me fishing once per year make me support overfishing by the Quinaults? No. By that association, since you are friends with Brady, and Brady is Brian's brother, you must agree with everything Brian does. (so why are we arguing? ) That's a bit of a leap. You are wrong here.


8. Am I so ingratiated to Brian for running the suppressor legislation so much that I will go out of my way to piss off a lot of folks here as a sort of repayment? No. You are wrong here. I’ll send you Brian’s cell phone #, give him a call. Ask him how many times I’ve blasted him on his stance on issues, sometimes even here. Better yet, call Brady. He knows as well. There is no [censored] for tat. I’m pissed of that an organization that I had supported chose to make me spend more money when I already spend hundreds of dollars in license fees for me and the boys, and I get no break for that. I’m pissed at Hatfield for supporting this senate bill without giving partial credit for fees already paid, and he was instrumental to the suppressor legislation passing as well. You are wrong on the t!t for tat conspiracy.

9. You said, “CCA is not in the business of promoting STATE PARK CONSERVATION funding and as I tried to tell you before, they CAN'T, by their own rules and possibly the rules of their charter.” You were wrong here. Not only does the organization that you are supporting have the ability to lobby for State Park Conservation, they did it. Wrong again.


10. You said “Could have??? You mean, CC could have taken a stand (that would be against their own rules to lobby for STATE PARK FUNDING) and still not have saved the day???” They did take a stand, it wasn't against their rules or charter, and they did support the higher fee bill. You were wrong here, again.

11. I am far from gullible, and I’m not a gun nut. I just have a substantial firearm and ammunition collection. Okay, I’m a gun nut . I am far from gullible. We'll split this one.

12. RMEF and DU don’t have active lobbyists. They didn’t take a stand. CCA took a stand, for higher fees and no credit given for fees already paid in. If any organization took a stand for higher fees, I would rail against them. (no answer needed)

13. Quite honestly, I wasn’t aware of the Discover Pass issue until it was too late. I work a full time job (50+ hours per week), I’m a husband and dad with two active boys who I actually parent daily (taught my oldest how to fill in potholes a few weeks back, the right way), I work construction on the side, and I have a mini-farm that after 15 months is in the black (with over 120 birds and another 80 or so on the way). So I’ve got a bit of a full plate. Sorry for being a slacker. I usually end my day around 9:30 or 10:00 when I finally get to sit down on the couch and visit with the wife. Until then I'm moving, every day. Do you catch every piece of legislation that affects you in a bad way? Probably not.

If Brian is really trying to scuttle the CCA’s efforts, why didn’t he let me know before all of this happened? I mean, since I am his shill, who blindly follows every direction given. (This is sarcasm for the less intelligent folks here, google the words if you don’t know what "it" means. (shill, sarcasm, is, it))

14. Something Smells Fishy, you said “How could CCA have played ball? By pursuing an issue that has no impact on conservation?” Well, they did, didn’t they? It’s in black & white. Here's your IBS. STFU and let the adults talk here.

15. Dr. Rick, here’s your “WRONG” buzzer, because you said, “I am not expert at CCA but as an involved member I know that CCA was actively involved in mitigating costs by advocating against charging hunting and fishing license holders another fee above the one already paid to "use" public WDFW lands.” You certainly are not an expert because they specifically DIDN’T advocate for mitigating costs charged to hunting and fishing license holders. They specifically supported HIGHER costs and chose not to mitigate the impact. Explain this answer please. Is this some form of new math they teach in med school? Less is more, or is it more is less? (Challenge meant in good humor, with no ill will)

I think I have sincerely answered any questions anyone has had, no matter how pointed they may have been, and rather than answering my questions back, all the CCA supporters have consistently deflected and or avoided my questions.

Marsha, I’m happy that you have chosen to discuss this in a respectful manner. I think of you as a good friend, so I feel it is my duty to keep you from being lead astray. Thanks for not "unfriending" me on Facebook.

So to get back to my question to CCA members. Are you happy with CCA's stance on this Discovery Pass issue? If not, have you let them know it? I would if I were you.

I am a CCA member. . . .
I am not happy with their stance on the "Dicovery Pass" . . . .
I WILL be letting them know (as soon as I figure out to call) . .. .


This whole situation sucks ass and just adds to an already FUC^ED week (and it is only MONDAY) . .. . .

I might just have to set fire to something. . . .. .(sorry Dan, not trying to steal your job).. . .

I take the time to answer, very specifically, and you don't. That shows that you know you are wrong Marsha. If you had anything of any substance, you would have a rebuttal. So instead, you run. Saying something that isn't true "is true", doesn't make it so.

Why didn't I testify on what? Be specific.

I testified on area 4 A/B numerous times, but at Jenning's confirmation hearing the members of the senate hearing didn't allow anybody to testify. Hargrove, who lead the meeting for Jacobsen who was out ill. He did read from my notes though, and that provided the body of his comments, so I did get my licks in.

I went to tesify for the suppressor legislation, but Kline limited testimony to one person form our group, so we chose someone from the industry to do it.

If it is the Discovery Pass legislation you are talking about, I wasn't aware of the issue at that time. Wish I would have known. I would have made time to be there. I expect organizations to look out for me, and in my opinion, the CCA did not do that.

See Marsha, specific answers, it is pretty easy when you speak the truth. I don't have a thing to hide. You do, as do the other CCA apologists.

Dogfish for Governor!
Freshly garnered supporter here!

Off to slam on a couple of CCA folks.

I have way too many skeletons in my closet to run for governor, but I have been asked to run for State office. I'd fit right in, but my wife would divorce me. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....

Don't slam CCA folks in particular. The intention is good, but their execution is poor. Challenge folks based on facts, don't take the word of reporters, or politicians, and research the issue yourself. Get involved, be active, be vocal, and have facts to support you. Feelings don't count.

Dogfish, Thank You for all of your work on the various issues you have been involved with. Always have been a stand-up guy from my perspective.

More bluster, no facts, and still you haven't answered any questions I asked. I answered yours.

Besides, who needs facts when you can just make sh!t up.

What? Did you run out of sh!t or facts?

If you really wanted facts, you know where to go and who to talk to. Instead you went public. There was never a guarantee from Blake you would get a Discovery pass for 7 bucks. I told you before, he could have come back for a car salesmans "bump" and put cca in the same spot as now. Ive seen the guy in action on his own time. He has no interest in helping out an org that is doing battle with his gillnetters.

You hold cca accountable and undermine the entire membership and you may not have heard the entire offer. It sounds like you dont know all the reasons it was rejected. You have not quoted anyone from cca, so I have to assume you didnt ask, if you did and got an answer, then why make a fuss here? Its BS All this over 23 dollars or less.

If cca had been the odd man out, then you ask why. All the orgs agreed, which only means in private meetings, they only had two choices. Bad and worse. You want to spend the time to research all the testimony add in the 2 substitute bills that came from that, go ahead. If they had to make a decision on the spot or suffer the consequences of dept consolidation or dumping the commission, Im not going to piss and moan about it. WDFW could have suffered a lot more hatchery closures to make up the difference of your "deal"

Dogfish - Apparently this has hit a nerve with you and while I don't necessarily agree with the increase I will not second guess their actions here on the internet. I will be sure to ask that question in person.

My post was tongue in cheek and I told Marsha so.

Just because you may be more informed on this issue does not mean that I have been sitting on my hands up here on the North end. I have worked just as tirelessly here and will continue to do so, I just don't break my arm patting myself on the back about it cause that gets us nowhere.

I'll continue to sit at the adult table as there are some people on the north end that truly appreciate what I do and want me there.


Fishy

Penny. . . my head hurts. . . please make it stop. . . .. .

SSF, LB,

The CCA had 3 choices, essentially. They went for the highest cost option. They could have also supported a mitigated cost, or done as the snowmobilers did and voted against it entirely. The snowmobilers certainly have more integrity than the folks who voice their opinion for it. There were not two choice there, the number of choices was actually 3.

The funny thing is that there were CCA members spouting inaccuracies that were debunked in rapid succession about the process, and when challenged and presented with facts, they ran. Nice debate style. Nobody from CCA or PSA has spoken officially here, but it doesn't matter because the bill was signed into law. I know Ron and Bear from working on the Jennings issues, and I'll call them on the carpet for their actions on this if I see them in person, but I'll still shake their hands. Good men, poor decisions, in my opinion.

No amount of back room action review at this point in time will change that. The paper trail shows that assumptions by many CCA members here were incorrect, yet nobody has said "my bad, I was wrong", even after 10 or 12 points have been specifically rebutted with facts from the official records of Washington State. Only one CCA member at this point in time has actually answered a pointed question from me, "How do you feel about this decision by CCA?" I'll give you half credit for your wishy washy answer, SSF. Admit you were talking out of your ass about CCA's ability to support this issue, and I'll give you full credit.

Every question asked of me has been answered in detail. Did I leave anthing out? If you really want to know my penis size, I'll go measure it. You want flacid, turgid, or just lightly roughed up? Penis size was mentioned, so I don't want to disappoint anybody. (centimeters, milimeters, or inches?) So I'll ask the rest of you CCA and PSA members, "how do you feel about the CCA's and PSA's position to support a bill that gives you no benefit of the license fees that you pay? Really, honestly, without any spin on the issue." You want to step up to the adult table? The first step is to admit your errors. The second step is to state your honest opinion.

Remember when I said "The more you stick your heads in the sand and complain about this, yet fail to recognize where they had a chance to lessen the impact on our wallets, the sillier you look?" That statement has rung true on almost every single CCA apologist response. Deflect, deny, and try to defame the person challenging you. Nice organizational strategy. Is that in the bylaws or charter somewhere?

How about an honest answer? Step up, get your balls out of your wife's purse, and be truthful about facts, and your answers.

I don't mean anything as a personal attack, but seriously folks, you need to bring your "A" game. Don't EVER let anyone lead you to slaughter by blindly following the herd. Stop drinking the Koolaid. Inform yourself. Make the organization you support conform to your wants, don't conform to theirs'.

Nice try, but you will call a man on the carpet who didnt know about the deal. I spoke to him. You can reference the defenders with all the vulgarity you want. Other than the number 3, its not relevant to my post to you. You have not said you talked to the right people and so I assume your 3 choices came from Blake. Your praise of the snomobilers is simple ignorance. I watched the dam video and they testified against the bill on the basis the fees they paid were higher than the discover card fee. A committee member acknowledge their complaint and supported their position. Your argument is not the same as the snomobilers, they pay a fee for entry. You pay a fee to take game and the access has been pretty much free. Absent the general funds, the depts had to raise fees or cut more services.

You want to ignore the math. You give nearly 700,000 anglers and hunters a "deal" on the prices of the pass and the budget will not balance out, therefore they take more away from something else. You cant prove the money would not come from hatchery closures anymore than I can prove it would. It would give them more ammo to dump the commission or merge the departments.
71,000,000 dollars divided by 30 is 2,366,667 discover pass sales. Subtract 700k X 23 bucks and you have to cover another 16,100,000 dollars in the budget. I suspect the user group in low income brackets is rather large these days.
Population, 2010 6,724,540 So they have to sell a discover pass to about 1 out of 3 people.

You ignore reality. If CCA had opposed it, the money would overrule the advocacy. What the hell were they suppose to say, yes? just close all the hatcheries to make up the difference? Once you lose the budget debate, the politicians can close, merge or dump any part of the dept it wants to. Only a fool would leave that choice up to Blake and a couple others.

The reality is, CCA never asked anyone whether members wanted them to negotiate fees for them. It was dumped in their laps. Based on the Columbia river fee, the increase in fishing licenses, it probably going to be part of the work they do. It does not change the math or how to balance the books. It affects our wallets or opportunity. The only difference is you want to hold them responsible in the face of 60 million dollar shortfall in the parks budget. They cant print the cash. You either surrender services or your members cash. I guess if you lost hatcheries on the Chehalis system, you might rethink the other 23 bucks. What a great choice that would be for a statewide org. Which chapters lose services and opportunity and still pay more for access to parks and DNR land. Oh, but we got a deal thanks to Brian, to bad the hatchery is shut down.

You wanted it your way. Loan money to a Burger king. There is noone in CCA more positioned than YOU to get what you wanted, from Blake. To bad you didnt talk about it when he stopped by for a beer and whatever events you attended together.

Originally Posted by Nwcid
I asked Brian Blake to run the bill. He did. He also garnered a lot of support, as did I, prior to the bill being drafted late last year. Lots of conversations behind the scenes, keeping things on track while other folks were saying "the bill is in trouble."

"I talked with Brian Blake today, and once the session is over we will have a meeting of a core group of people, including RanB, who will help shape the direction of the SBR bill. The goal is to do this in an organized manner, using all of the resources we can muster. As RanB said elsewhere, it is nice to know folks were working on the issue in other forums and media. Things don't just happen on the internet though."

"I did read what you wrote, and I don't want to get into a pissing match with you. Lots of people were a part of that, and it was acknowledged. What's the issue there? I'm not perfect, neither is RanB, nor you. We all make errors, I owned up to my error. Does that make me tainted for the rest of this process?"

Well now. Was it your error in going public, when nothing good comes from it? The only winner here is the guy sitting at home in the 19th district, laughing about the heat you brought down on the organization working to keep the commission intact, the fish in the hatchery and enough LEO to protect your next deer, while you were doing something else.

Frankly, I dont care who is right or wrong. It happened. You made it public and it wasnt necessary. Grow up. **

** Contingent on the premise you are not on vacation while some sick bastard hacked into your account. Which is possible here.

Here's a portion of the pdf file from CCA:

Discover Washington Access Pass (SB 5622):

As originally introduced, this legislation would
have required recreational anglers and hunters to pay an additional $30.00 to access WDFW
lands. CCA and others stepped forward to highlight the unfairness of asking anglers and
hunters to pay another charge for accessing lands already covered by current license fees. At the end of the day, lawmakers agreed and allowed fishing and hunting license holders to access all lands managed by WDFW and certain lands managed (unimproved) by DNR, without paying an additional fee. Once again, if we weren’t constantly present in Olympia 24/7, you would be paying $30.00 more to launch your boat at a WDFW launch on opening day of trout season next year.
It is important to note that all state residents will have to pay $30.00 to access all State Parks and DNR improved camping and recreational areas.

As far as anyone goes, I was pissed at the oversite (or so I thought....I trusted that no one would do this crap on purpose) of giving away WDFW access with the Discover Pass, but not recognizing its value when a Vehicle Use Permit Holder purchases one. I voiced that rather clearly and wrote to the DFW as soon as I heard of it. The problem is that unless one is willing to spend their time (aka life) babysitting the dipsticks making laws, there is no public exposure until the deed is a done deal.

I hate sneaks, weasels, and back door deals.

You see what I did there LB, I admitted an error when talking about the short barreled rifle legislation. We're going to get our asses handed to us and the bill will likely end in failure next spring. At least I'm making an effort.

Oh my gosh, I had lunch with Brian at my house, he's a friend. Roll the presses. Just because I am friends with someone doesn't mean I can't disagree with them. Case in point, Marsha. Haven't I called her on the carpet? I love her dearly, but I can still disagree with her, and I've known her longer than Brian.

When CCA started up in Washington, didn't I send you documentation how we ran our banquets for Ducks Unlimited? I also sent information to the folks in the GH chapter. Not sure if it was helpful, but oh my gosh, I tried to help the CCA. How could that be?

So are you happy with the fee LB? Try not to go off on another tangent.

Oh, and by the way, I didn't bring up a the measuring contest, a CCA member did.

Next time you blast Brian Blake, invite him on PP. Id like to see that. You gave him the courtesy of doing it in person or over the phone or by email. You treat your other friends like crap.

Instead of contacting those who represented cca in those hearings, you came to the web, piled on the general membership and expected us, to side with you without knowing all the facts. You didnt care what damage you did in the long run. You didnt want to do it by yourself, so you wanted to whip up a mob. Im not crazy about the fee, but Im not going to put the blame on the negotiators. This comes down the legislature robbing Peter to save Paul and then giving Paul a free pass and asking Peter to pay for both. This is not new. The first thing politicians buy is parks, the first thing they cut is fire and police.

I dont care that you had Brian over to your house. Have a caucus for all I care. The point was, you and he did legislation together, but when it came to such a vital issue of saving a few bucks, you didnt even talk about it. You have no counterpoints to the math and Im not surprised. There is no escaping the numbers, although it seems the banking industry
and deficit spenders, like to think so. Youre still stroking your own fur on your efforts, but efforts made by others simply dont count. Failure of others is not allowed. Blake wants to look good and you want a pound of flesh. You got it. Get your camera out.

Mission accomplished.

The CCA is so weak that I single handedly disarmed them?

I have blasted Blake publicly. Here and elsewhere. You want his number? I'll send that to you if you want.

"Next time you blast Brian Blake, invite him on PP. Id like to see that. You gave him the courtesy of doing it in person or over the phone or by email. You treat your other friends like crap."

That is such an insane thing to say LB, Andy has to be one of the most standup people that I know. When you say such utter drival it undermines your credibility.