You got RW up & down / left - right about half right & Penny retired.

This is a bit of an eye opener but to understand what is going on in the E mail one needs to get the lay of the land at that time. At the Montesano NOF public input meeting Ron Warren was bounced rather hard on the APA process and how he was representing it as one thing when it was really another. Now the sad part about that? In 2010 Lori Pruess notified Ron, Kirt Hughes, and Barbara McClellan that they could not alter the CR process without a redo. There is a set of internal guidelines that staff are supposed to follow also.

Now that Ron Warren could have forgotten the Email from Preuss in 2010, OK maybe but ain't noway nohow Kirt & Barbara did as they are the District 17 ( GH & Willapa ) staff who fill out the forms many times each year. So they set there in Montesano knowing full well RW was putting out pure BS at the Montesano meeting. So fast forward to the March 29th NOF meeting in Olympia and prior to the meeting the gentleman that got into it with RW at the Montesano NOF concerning the misrepresentation of the legal side of the WAC process & NOF in general sends RW the E mail in the thread.

To the heart of the matter. First RW has no intention of responding at this point? When would he respond then? After everything is done? ( that is the normal WDF&W approach ) Second up is the fact that R -6 Fish Program manager is asking the WDFW Criminal Justice Liaison & Administrative Regulations Coordinator for talking points? What the h--- are we paying the District 17 staff for anyway? To do needlepoint? Third just look at the CC list in RW's E mail. Now that RW would want to make others aware of the difficulties he was encountering in the NOF / CR 102 process strikes me as a rather straight forward approach. Again the question, where and earth are District 17 staff at? Mars? To even start to do the CR 102 for the Commercial WAC they have to know what RW is looking for to present as talking points.

Now to Lori's response which I will highlight but as always read the E-mail thread bottom up. I cannot imagine her surprise when she received that request as it in all likelihood " made her day".

From: Preuss, Lori (DFW)
To: Warren, Ron R (DFW);
Subject: RE: My position
Date: Thursday, March 28, 2013 4:56:00 PM

Hi, Ron. I really am not the appropriate person to ask for speaking points. I have never attended a NOF meeting or a NOF public hearing. Shouldn't your own staff be able to tell you what goes on at NOF public hearings and give you speaking points? Shouldn’t they know how a rule change should be presented to the public? I'm confused.

Lori Preuss, WSBA #33045 WDFW Criminal Justice Liaison &
Administrative Regulations Coordinator 360.902.2930
Fax 360.902.2155

This e-mail message, including any attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential information that is legally privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify this office by telephone at 360.902.2930, and return this message to the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife immediately.

-----Original Message----- From: Warren, Ron R (DFW)
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 4:21 PM To: Preuss, Lori (DFW)
Cc: Hughes, Kirt M (DFW); Scharpf, Mike M (DFW); Mcclellan, Barbara A (DFW); Frymire, Bill (ATG); Long, John A (DFW); Thiesfeld, Steven L (DFW); Pattillo, Patrick (DFW); Scott, Jim B (DFW); Culver, Michele K (DFW)
Subject: FW: My position

Lori, at least at this point in the process I don't plan on replying to Mr. Hamilton, but was hoping that you could provide me with some speaking points in case this comes up at tomorrow's meeting.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 3:20 PM
To: Warren, Ron R (DFW)
Subject: My position

Ron- As a courtesy, I offer the following comments.

I've never attended a NOF meeting in Olympia before but I've listened to dozens who have. I find their description of past meetings very disturbing. Slide show presentations called "proposals" without any language of a proposed WAC change being made available. This puts the "horse behind the cart". A written proposal is typically laid out for a proposed change in a rule or law, then a slide show helps the viewer understand the effect of the expressed language.

Then, they describe how all present are denied any ability to express an opinion on the slide show presentation broken down individually to match the two separate WACs (rec & commercial). Worst, they describe how all present are pressured to vote on a proposal that has never been expressed in writing and again, both the unpublished proposals are somehow combined into one. In this type process, it can hardly be consider public input on a proposal as no one has ever seen a proposal and a slide show can not be substituted for disclosure of the expressed language of a proposal.

Finally, they describe extreme pressure from WDFW leaving them with the impression all present have to "vote" (not certain how this works as this is not a legislative body with any authority to pass law). Having to vote and combining rec and commercial seasons together denies anyone in attendance the ability to comment in favor or opposition of either WAC independently so no public input is provided on either one as well.

I find these comments similar to those coming from observers in the GH Harbor Advisory Group. So, from beginning to end, the 2013 and previous NOF processes do not conform with state law and procedures used in public input processes.

In closing, it is my position that WDFW has confirmed between 400-500 citizens are now "on the record" opposing the proposed commercial fishing seasons in Grays Harbor and Willapa during the WAC process underway and NOF process as well. Any "vote" held Friday in the NOF process will have to recognize those who have already voted no. One can not be required to be present in the room to participate in a public process. Therefore, unless all those on the record in opposition attend and reverse their position, no consensus can be reached regarding commercial seasons and selective fishing for nets in Grays Harbor and

Willapa unless that consensus rejects a selective fishing commercial net season in both estuaries.


Edited by Rivrguy (10/03/13 01:30 PM)
Dazed and confused.............the fog is closing in