What science can you or WSC show that supports this assertion to be a fact? Will you please define what "healthy" means? I understand your passion, but what science supports this theory of yours?

I think that WDFW has done the "smart" move on extending the start time on the moratorium. If they were to lose this issue through summary judgment on the facts alone, the City of Forks and every guide who may have lost business or customers because of an arbitrary and capricious decision that was made by the Commission.

Forks has shown both the WDFW and the Commission that over $684,273.93 is spent by tourism for lodging only in Forks from November 02 to March 03. Lodging represents about 35-40% of that, and the remainder being spent on food, shopping, recreation, transportation and fuel. Gross impacts for logging, food & all winter visitors for that time period would be 1.09 to 1.13 million dollars.

Now if WDFW or the commission were to lose their case, besides the attorney fees, what part of these figures would you think that Forks would ask for as damages? The "game", and stakes may be much bigger then some had counted on.

If the "Commission" was so very confident that they were legally right, why would you suppose that they would allow this time to move to May1?

I'd like to have a legal opinion on this question.

Cowlitzfisherman

( I changed logging to lodging and loose to lose)