Here's my take on situation...

First, sporties are not being screwed by this statute...it has nothing to do with sporties or sport seasons. The way that it works has no application to sportfishing, except possibly one, which I'll talk about below.

CFM,

The legislative intent/findings do have some role in interpreting statutes, but it's pretty rare and wouldn't really have much to do with anything like this, anyway.

As statutes are looked at in court to determine if and how they apply to a given situation, the first thing that the court wants to see is the statute itself. If the words of the statute are clear, the statute says what it says, then that's the end of it.

If there's some sort of confusion or ambiguity within the statute itself, then there are several tools that the court can use to try and clear up any confusion. The court will use statutes around the one in question to see if that helps clear it up, will look at other, less-related statutes to see if that clears it up, may look at how other states have interpreted similar statutes, and may use dictionaries to find the common definitions of words in the statutes, if those words are the cause of the ambiguity or confusion.

Legislative intent and findings can also be used to clear up the confusion. These come in two ways; as an actual statute section, or as a note following a statute (as in this case).

In this case, there isn't any ambiguity or confusion as to what the statute section is saying. It says if a commercial fishermen has to buy a license for a specific fishery, and then that specific fishery does not take place, he gets his money back.

Since there's not any confusion or ambiguity in the statute, the findings and intent are pretty much irrelevant.

Here they are, by the way...

Finding -- Intent -- 1993 c 340: "The legislature finds that the laws governing commercial fishing licensing in this state are highly complex and increasingly difficult to administer and enforce. The current laws governing commercial fishing licenses have evolved slowly, one section at a time, over decades of contention and changing technology, without general consideration for how the totality fits together. The result has been confusion and litigation among commercial fishers. Much of the confusion has arisen because the license holder in most cases is a vessel, not a person. The legislature intends by this act to standardize licensing criteria, clarify licensing requirements, reduce complexity, and remove inequities in commercial fishing licensing. The legislature intends that the license fees stated in this act shall be equivalent to those in effect on January 1, 1993, as adjusted under section 19, chapter 316, Laws of 1989." [1993 c 340 § 1.]

The part that would apply to this statute section is probably the part about removing inequities in commercial licensing. This statute pretty clearly does that, so it's right in line with the intent and findings.

Here's the one way this type of statute could be useful for sporties...

It would have to be if the state required you to buy a license for a specific fishery, then didn't have that specific fishery. Sorry, but closing hatcheries, even all of them, wouldn't even come close on this one.

However, the Puget Sound Enhancement fee might be a spot...this was created to fund and provide for a Puget Sound salmon fishery...and then those seasons for a while never happened, though they are a bit now.

This would be a case where PS fishers were required to buy a license, the fees went to a specific fishery that you needed the license to fish in, then the season never happened.

It's the only one I can think of...

Fish on...

Todd.