I want again clear up one thing...I have been trying to help you see the "other side"...I was out of state when PSA voted to support the stand of the NOP chapter....that would be the chapter on the North Olympic Peninsula who seem to be the members most touched by the moratorium they object to. I'm not sure what I would have said had I been in the meeting where the 100% consensus vote occured after some debate.

I have been at plenty of meetings where WDFW was at odds with the commission. The same meetings where the commission was at odds with most of the public input. So the process to me means the commission system. The system has seemed to be broken for some time with unbalanced advocates for commercial fishing ruling the agenda. Lately it seems that sports fishing has gotten the commission's attention for better or worse. That doesn't mean that the "process" is all fixed or even on the right track. Too many arbitrary decisions still abound and I suppose that is what many object to.

Frankly I see interaction with the legislative process far more important at this time. I hate to see so much animosity back and forth over a decision such as WSR. Releasing wild steelhead and salmon is a proven smart bet whether it cures all the ills in fish country or not.

Believe me if the commission had made a snap judgement on crabbing based on our show of solidarity and presentation of facts I know a bunch of folks who would have called the process flawed and raised a real ruckus. As it turned out our efforts raised awareness and helped open doors in the legislative arena which ultimately resulted in the new CRC for crab. Hopefully this will result in a more fair allocation of crab between sports and commercials. We did not stage our protest and then speak to the commission and have a snap decision made to change the allocations even though data would have supported such a move.

If there were previous meetings where WSR was discussed then the Port Townsend meeting could have included WSR on the agenda for further debate before a binding decision was reached. That did not happen and it doesn't matter if the issue was discussed 50 times before the official meeting. Having an important issue on the public agenda well in advance of the meeting would have resulted in atleast the opportunity for those who now voice so much opposition to be heard in a timely fashion and would have allowed preparation for the short presentation times allowed. By stacking the deck with pro WSR folks testifying at the meeting and not hearing from the other side made the decision seem one sided and unfair.

And, again , many issues have been decided in this same manner and each time the system failed to live up to its mandate.