Thanks Dave for telling us who all the commissioners are and what there backgrounds are. It really seems strange that Todd, WSC attorneys thinks that it was all done in the open and up front, and then you have a COMMISSIONER (commissioner Roehl) who is also an attorney saying something totally different

Quote:
ROEHL: One of the comments that Commissioner Ozment make 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, King County Sportsmen's Council- those groups, they're watching it. But the average person out on the river, steelhead fisherman, 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 rule proposal package. And consequently, they don't know. And I think to all of the 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 a disservice to our relationship with the public. The fact is, if we have an ongoing update, or an update of the steelhead management plan going, and it’s going to be done in two years, let's wait and see what it comes up with and move ahead then. But rather than setting up something, which I really think is going, and it’s going to be done in two years, let's wait and see what it comes up with and move ahead then. 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.
Now one with plan old common sense would certainly think that when this issue goes to court and a judge reads the "complete transcript" that taken at the Feb. 6 commission meeting and sees that a commissioner who has been train to read and interrupted law and has a degree in law basically said

Quote:
"But the average person out on the river, steelhead fisherman, 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 rule proposal package. And consequently, they don't know. And I think to all of the 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 a disservice to our relationship with the public." And says "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"
Now don't you guys think that this same "judge" will see that the public was not fully informed or notified of the actions that the commissions were considering before they took their actions? It looks to me, like the "judge" will not have much of hard time or problem deciding if the rules in the WAPA were followed or not.