The "real facts" about the Feb. 6 Commission meeting!

Well we heard a lot of different opinions on if the moratorium; was it legal or not!

There's been much debate on this issue, and now I have been lucky enough to have an opportunity to read what really went on at the Feb. 6 Commissioners meeting where this all went down at! This is the record, that will soon be made public, so this board gets to see it first!

Now these are real fact, like it or not! You decide if this issue will hold up in court.
There are over 15 pages of recorded Dictaphone record of the Feb 6 Commission meeting, so it was imposible for me to attempt to type all of the back and forth talk that went on about WSR. So here are my highlights of what was said! If others want to post "their version" of what was said, and what the record says ….go for it!

_______________________________________________________________

9. ADOPTION OF 2004-05 SPORTFISHING RULES (in progress)
WA 232-12-619- Permanent Washington statewide game fish rules

ROEHL: Commissioner Ozment, then Commissioner Hunter.

OZMENT: One of the things, at this point, that I'm uncomfortable with is this whole process is that when the original rule change proposals were brought to us early on in this process, this was a subject that was not included within those proposals. (I told you so!) They did pop up and were addressed to some degree at the Port Townsend, but they weren't – I don't feel- brought to the public because of the way that the subject was ultimately broached to the Department and the Commission, and to my knowledge, I don't feel that there really has been a balanced public testimony process in regards to a motion that we're on the cusp of dealing with. And I am sure all of you on the Commission have been recipients of letters from organization and individuals, particularly in the form of postcards in opposition to any change in the retention rule. Correct me if I am wrong, but it was but it was not part of the original testimony process (I told you so). And I think we would be setting ourselves up for a really significant public relations problem if we address any motion in regards to this subject at this point.

OZMENT… But I would just like , again, to- -whether this is the proper time to address this, considering what I've stated about what I think is a lack of proper public process"

ROEHL: Commissioner Hunter.

Hunter: As the newest member on the Commission, I'm being flooded with science and being lobbied, whether it's a sack of postcards for one position, personally lobbied, or by phone calls."

ROEHL: Commission Pelly.

Pelly: …So, I think it was not brought forth, and I'm not sure that I didn't agree with the Department staff that maybe in this particular situation, to put it out for out for public process, we were going to hear the same things we had heard the year before. But I felt from day one as we started this regulation cycle that this Commission in its policy position does have the right to bring this forward to us, and I think that I had every intention, from day one, of making sure that this Commission with any new information. So, while it did not go through the normal public process with the regulation process with the regulations this year, whether or not it was an actual proposal. So I think that's one issue." " And sometimes, maybe we, you know, everybody –we like to use science when it's working or when it supports what we're doing and, you know, peoplel can blame science on the other hand. There are times when you sort of have to do what you really feel in your heart is the right thing."

ROHEL: Commissioner Van Gytenbeek.


"…I wouldn't have felt good about asking if there was a proper legal way to bring it forward. And I assume, in making this motion, that those people who were opposed to it before are just as opposed to it as they were."

Much more discussion by Van Gytenbeek and Pelly.

CAHILL: Are you saying, if this amendment fails, are you proposing that as a moratorium?

PELLY: Yes.

ROEHL: … Vote by show of hands ? [this was Van's motion, which failed a 4-4 tie] Ayes: Van, Lisa, John, and Bob. Opposed: Will, Ron, Fred, Russ]

ROEHL: Motion fails. And the main motion is before us.

PELLY: I guess I'd like to try another amendment.
[Jim Hearn, from the audience, asked for the motion to be re-read]

ROEHL: … The Rule is before us right now is the …[audience: did that pass or fail?] Failed. That motion to amend failed. So what we have before us now is a proposal to adopt the permanent, certain amendments to the permanent Washington statewide game fish rules, which really only includes, as I understand it, tiger trout. Are there any further motions to amend?

PELLY: I would, but I'm afraid I'm going to need a little help from Evan or Bill with the language. Could we take a 5 minute break?

BREAK

More discussions after break was over and then:

SHIOSAKI: So, what I'm seeing then is that this miniscule take will have no impact on the study that Director is talking about, and it will have very little impact on wild steelhead at all, so I just fail to see the utility of declaring a moratorium on the take.

[Mr. Hearn spoke from the audience]

ROEHL: Jim; not an appropriate time. [ HEARN: I'm out of order, aren't I?] You are.

ROEHL: One of the comments that Commissioner Ozment made earlier was that this didn't come through the normal planning process, and I think the effect of that is that, while those groups who were intensely watching this issue-whether it was the Wild Steelhead Coalition and various fly fishing groups, Kin County Sportsmen's Council – those groups, they're watching it. But the average person out on the river, steelhead fishermam, doesn't have a clue that this discussion has been an ongoing issue. That's because it wasn't out there in the sport fish rules proposals package. And consequently, they don't know. And I think to all of a sudden have this appear, whether it's a two-year moratorium or a six- year moratorium, it's something that I think will really do disservice to our relationship with the public. " "But rather than setting up something, which I really think is going to shock a lot of people who have no idea that this discussion has been ongoing at all."

OZMENT: "…I can tell you right now that this whole discussion in the course of this afternoon, to me, has translated from policy issues to an issue of principle. And I am extremely upset with where this is going."

So Pelly and Van Gytenbeek bruogh up the final motion and the rest was history!

Now you know the real facs!


Cowlitzfisherman