Quote:
Originally posted by boater1:
. 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.
todd, read the last sentance in this rcw.

RCW 77.04.013
Findings and intent.
The legislature supports the recommendations of the state fish and wildlife commission with regard to the commission's responsibilities in the merged department of fish and wildlife. It is the intent of the legislature that, beginning July 1, 1996, the commission assume regulatory authority for food fish and shellfish in addition to its existing authority for game fish and wildlife. It is also the intent of the legislature to provide to the commission the authority to review and approve department agreements, to review and approve the department's budget proposals, to adopt rules for the department, and to select commission staff and the director of the department.

The legislature finds that all fish, shellfish, and wildlife species should be managed under a single comprehensive set of goals, policies, and objectives, and that the decision-making authority should rest with the fish and wildlife commission. The commission acts in an open and deliberative process that encourages public involvement and increases public confidence in department decision making.

todd, what is your legal opinion of what the last sentance says, what is "open" does that mean for everyone to know or just a few people ? what is a deliberative process, does that mean they can make the process up as they go ?