Todd and others:

I am sorry that it has taken so long to reply on this thread, but I was one of those guys that got cut off when Bob made his new changes and upgrades. Apparently my Netscape was just too darn old to post on Bob's newest upgrade. That should no longer be a problem!

When I was researching the RCW's, I came across RCW 77.04.020 (Composition of department and the Powers and duties). After reading your reply about the commercial fishing license refund issue, some serious questions have now come to my mind. In particular, I am very concerned after reading RWC 77.04.020 and then applying your reasoning to it about the "Legislative findings and intent". I have just a few more questions to ask you.

Under the "Composition of department and the Powers and duties" of RCW 77.04.020 this is what is stated as the Legislative findings and intent; "Legislative findings and intent -- 1987 c 506: "Washington's fish and wildlife resources are the responsibility of all residents of the state. We all benefit economically, recreationally, and aesthetically from these resources. Recognizing the state's changing environment, the legislature intends to continue to provide opportunities for the people to appreciate wildlife in its native habitat. However, the wildlife management in the state of Washington shall not cause a reduction of recreational opportunity for hunting and fishing activities. The paramount responsibility of the department remains to preserve, protect, and perpetuate all wildlife species. Adequate funding for proper management, now and for future generations, is the responsibility of everyone." (Notice it did not say : "Native" species it only refers to "native habitat")

Using your reasoning, I am very concerned that WDFW has not maintained its legislative mandate. I cannot understand how the WDFW can justify their current position of closing down hatcheries; when under this Legislative finding and intent, it is clearly stated that. . ."However, the wildlife management in the state of Washington shall not cause a reduction of recreational opportunity for hunting and fishing activities." Clearly in my view, when the state fishery agency closes down a hatchery site, it has unquestionably created a "reduction" to our recreational fishing opportunity. The language is extremely clear when it states that wildlife management in the state of Washington "shall not cause a reduction" of recreational opportunity for hunting and fishing activities. I don't think that the majority of sport fishers would disagree with me on this one!

I understand and fully expect that you will come back and use the word "paramount"! But the word [S]hall overrides everything else when it comes to interpreting the law!

I have read the following foot notes that are listed below this RWC, but I still did not see how or where they would change the above statement, or how it could be construed in any other fashion. I know that you are not a "big" hatchery supporter, but this appears to me to be in direct conflict of what the management of WDFW was mandated to do.

Moreover, RCW 77.04.012 states the: "Mandate of department and commission. Wildlife, fish, and shellfish are the property of the state. The commission, director, and the department shall preserve, protect, perpetuate, and manage the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish in state waters and offshore waters.
The department shall conserve the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish resources in a manner that does not impair the resource. In a manner consistent with this goal, the department shall seek to maintain the economic well-being and stability of the fishing industry in the state. The department shall promote orderly fisheries and shall "enhance and improve recreational" and commercial fishing in this state.


What am I missing? Or have we really been SCREWED! How can one interrupt this in any other fashion?

Or are you going to say again; "You don't drive a van with tinted windows, do you!! Or work for the cable company! I hope not!!" ?


Cowlitzfisherman