LOL. Wasn't it just a couple years ago that WDFW went through a Staff only process of rule simplification??

Five or six years ago I made some rule change recommendations and finally saw one of them implemented this year.

One of the others which died of neglect was tied to collection relic shells. Did you know that relic shells have to have come from organisms which died a natural death? Arguably, unless you can prove a shell resulted from a natural death retention of said shell is a violation. Here it is, see (5) below:

WAC 220-320-060

General provisions—Shellfish.
(1) It is unlawful to drive or operate any motor-propelled vehicle, land any airplane or ride or lead any horse on the razor clam beds of the state of Washington, as defined in WAC 220-320-030. A violation of this subsection shall be punished as an infraction.
(2) It is unlawful to possess soft-shelled crab for any commercial purpose.
(3) It is unlawful to possess in the field any crab or crab parts without also retaining the back shell (carapace) of each crab.
(4) It is unlawful to willfully damage crab or other shellfish. Any crab taken incidentally to a net fishery must be immediately returned to the water with the least possible damage to the crab.
(5) "Shellfish" includes all bodily parts but does not include five pounds or less of relic shells of classified shellfish or relic shells of unclassified freshwater and marine invertebrates. A relic (dead) shell is defined as one which died of natural causes and contains no meat or soft parts; it readily exhibits noticeable sediment, vegetation, algal or mineral stains, discolorations, soiling, weathering or other visual evidence on its interior surface which clearly and unambiguously shows the shell has not been cooked-out or freshly cleaned.


A simple change would have been to delete the language referring to having died of natural causes.

Is LE really going to police this? No. But why have it? Seems to fall into the "simplification" goal.