The stories and testimony we heard from the commercial side were so over embellished, that I suspect these people don't respect the intelligence of the current commissioners and Director Anderson. I expected to hear logical and rational reasons why the policy change was a bad idea, but those folks couldn't come up with any. Perhaps because it does not exist.

Illegal commercial crabbing is just that. It has NO bearing whatsoever on the legal sport crabbing public and to present it as anything else is absurd. LE knows that. Managers know that, and sporties know that. It speaks more to the stranglehold that commercial crabbers have on the industry than anything else. Maybe commercial licensing requirements need to be revamped. The public does NOT owe these people sole access to the resource. The growth in population is the reason we need a new policy. The average catch rate for an individual is not going to increase significantly.

One thing we should have asked managers to provide is a breakdown of endorsements sold from out of the area. West of the mountains and non-resident. The dollars and economic contribution will be much greater for tourists who access the resource. I will inquire at the next advisors meeting.

Besides boating, the resource is accessed by dock, by wading and by diving. I hope Commissioner Jennings reads this and I wish our advisor who is a diver had been there to describe his experience and why he wants Alternative A. Divers also deserve a fairer crab policy.

Anyone who is familiar with the RCW requirements (read during his testimony) by the commercial crabber knows that he deliberately left off the requirement that the department must provide a "quality" recreational fishery and the current policy and managers have not provided one since 2000 IMO.

Alternative A will get us closer to that, and the commercial sector stands to lose about 10% of their allocation in trade. Sounds fair to me. The difference between Alternative A and B to my way of thinking isn't a large increase in harvest, it just improves our access and helps fulfill the "quality" requirment.

Alternative C would be a disaster, as it sends a message to the sportsman/woman that we are not valued by WDFW.

A couple of the commissioners are not in favor of "Alternative A" and putting FAIRNESS back into the PS Crab Policy, but I hope the majority are.

Lastly, the violations that were broken down by Director Anderson were much lower than what I expected to hear, based on managers and LE comments made at the Shelton public meeting. When taken in the larger context of an emphasis patrol, knowing that LE can read body language and target violaters, I think we're doing better than we were 5 years ago. I hope Deputy Chief Mike Cenci understands, it's not a criticism that we believe they are capable of singling out violators on the water or the ramp. It is not. It shows that his officers are well trained and doing a great job under the circumstances with the budget cuts they've had to work with. I hope he continues his dialog with PSA and CCA on how we can all work to promote better compliance in all Washington fisheries.