CFM,

There were two listed sets of proposals; one that had agency proposals, and one that had public proposals.

Both had agency recommendations. The WDFW recommended that WSR not be addressed, for the highly scientific reason of "it was just brought up two years ago".

The Commission will contemplate what is on the lists, and will also contemplate what the agency recommendations were, for both the agency and public proposals.

While almost every proposal they contemplate is one that the agency has made a favorable recommendation on, they in no way have to accept the agency's recommendation that they do or do not address a particular proposal, nor do they have to in any way only adopt the recommendations of the agency.

You'll remember that two years ago NO ONE, agency or public, proposed a 1 per day, 5 per year regulation, yet, that is what came out of the meeting. However, issues of steelhead retention were on the table, and they made a final decision on steelhead retention.

Did WDFW propose WSR? No. Did they have to to be legal? No.

Did WDFW recommend WSR as propsed by the public? No. Did they have to? No.

Was WSR recommended by the public? Yes. Did it have to be? Not necessarily, but it was.

Was any recommendation regarding steelhead seasons and retention on the table? Yes. Did it have to be? Probably.

Did the public have notice that 1. rules proposals were to be considered at the public meetings in P.T., 2. what was proposed by the public and agency personnel, 3. notice of when and where the meeting was, and 4. notice that the public would be able to testify?

The answer to those questions is yes. I'm guessing you will again respond with something like this;

"I (or the public) did not have a proposal packet that said "The Commission will decide whether or not to remove the exceptions to statewide WSR that are now in place" in words just like that.

You will be right if you say that...just like you would have been right two years ago if you said that the public didn't receive a packet that said they would consider adopting one per day, five per year regulations.

That type of notice may be desirable, but it is not legally required.

Public notice, as you're finding out with the Tacoma HGMP, does not mean the public sets the agenda, decides the issues, and makes the rules. We can argue (and probably agree) that more notice and participation ought to be required, but that doesn't have any relevance to this discussion.

The question is not did you get what you want, nor is it did you get what you deserve, nor is it did you get what you think is fair.

The issue is whether or not you got what is legally required, which I think it's pretty clear that you did.

If all proposals had to be approved by WDFW as one that the Commission will address, then public participation would be severely curtailed. If the agency had to also approve of any action that the Commission did take, then there would be no public participation.

The agency would decide what the Commission will hear, and then decide what the Commission will decide. We would have no role in the process at all.

The whole point of the public participation process is to be able to go beyond agency bureaucracy and politics to make decisions that affect us all. That's exactly what happened.

I don't expect to change your mind, there's no legal explanation I can ever give you that will make you stop feeling screwed, so I'm probably done trying. I'd be happy to continue discussing it, though, so long as we don't go over the same ground over and over again.

Anything new on the Cowlitz HGMP? You can shoot me an e-mail if there's anything to talk about that would clutter up this thread any more than it already is!

Fish on...

Todd