Been following the lawsuit(s) against WDFW and the Commission for a variety of reasons including non-compliance with disclosure laws. This seems to be a decades-long issue with the agency.

Oh heavens always! The open meeting laws were always something they dodged. The tribe thing always hanging around.

Yeah. According to the lawsuit, they would hold "relay" meetings where a quorum would talk serially, but not at the same time. That, and texts saying to destroy texts. Somehow, I think I've most all this before.

but they still don't change their ways. Hell the present Director and Commission is the worse I have seen. Just for the record I sued their lips off on a similiar issue and settled out of court, so it is safe to say they have no intension of changing.

Well, yeah. But these new Commisioners seem to have an agenda that even cuts out staff input.

D’oh !

And here, any folks left to watch this trainwreck with half a brain, ( I know that’s a stretch! ) , have been knowing that the agenda implemented in question by these political weasels is about as SUCKS as it could get for the fishers and hunters in this state that are actually the bent over population that gets to fund the progress, and then watch the implosions of their actions.

Keep voting for Progress in this state, and this is what hatches.

No spring bear hunting but Save the Butterfly’s...

WDFW's mandate is to all animal resources, and they should be funded so that they can meet the mandate. There should be, in the areas of damage, an ethical spring bear hunt. But that in no way diminishes their responsibility to other species.

I also maintain, and have been vocal about, that the preservation of habitat benefits all species. I also think that if we had intentionally managed swans, cranes, curlew and plovers for hunt able populations that we would not only have a lot more of them around now but we would have significantly more and better habitat for many pf the species we love to hunt and fish for.

While the Department espouses open communication with the public it is continuing to expand the use of Advisory Groups while at the same time taking the position that their meetings are not subject to our Open Meeting law meaning in part that no formal minutes need to be kept.

Hey, Rivrguy, where have we heard what Larry says before???

Not only do they not like minutes, but even when they are taken they are not kept by the Leadership. Gets interesting when a Court asks for them...

Minutes are part of a permenate record and lord do they hate them. I remember the line you used once ( might be a word or so off ) " Dave expressed his exteme displeasure loudly " I damn near died reading that months minutes which was not the agencies preferred choice of words. LP about had a stroke but he got the Skook mitigation back up basin as it was supposed to be. Thing is staff usually held thier own but you, Paul, Jim and Sara were the exception to the rule being forthright.

I took minutes for three different forums, probably 4-500 meetings. I do know that theyvtried too force me out of Bristol, but Paul paid for it.

I might still have the electronic copies, which may be all that exists in Oly.

The story I was told unofficially was that Advisory groups are just that - advisory. That leads to there being no decisions made therefore.....not subject to the Public Meeting Act.

I would offer that for the crab and shrimp advisory group the only interface managers have with the public to discuss options is the Group before the managers make a decision.

7/11/2025

I was never a "advisory member" but did attend most meetings. Public wasn't allow to speak until the last hour....I did speak or ask questions about many Region 6 items:

1. always tried to keep Wynoochee Mitigation on the table, still can't believe the 2.4+ million was never spent.....grrrrrrr

2. Always cared about the salmon that was not talked about by the advisory members, and is killed if they reach the hatchery....jacks, fun fishery and smoked are excellent eating.....tried hard to get limit raised, another...grrrrrrr

3. Was/still am, that seasons are pretty well "set" before the advisory meetings even started, and all the hours for some advisory members in being prepared, and the miles of driving to meetings did very little good......grrrrrrr

4. Current way of doing NOF meetings, is a bull [Bleeeeep!] method, I still listen, many don't, but still feel its nothing but a "dog and pony" show......grrrrrr

For those that do like to converse with WDFW, please do so email and send CC's to as many people as you can......that way they can't hide from the written word!!!!

Larry B I was a GH Adviser and this. The Adviser meetings were closed and no record kept until forced to allow public to set and listen not participate in GH. Sure the Advisers suggested this or that but the agency simply used it as window dressing. Now if the Advisers really got after an issue it resulted the agency in being shall we use the word defensive? Hell they did not even follow the APA.

Washington State's Administrative Procedure Act (APA) outlines the procedures that state agencies must follow when adopting rules and conducting adjudicative proceedings. It also details procedures for judicial and legislative review of these actions. The APA ensures transparency and public participation in the rulemaking process, requiring agencies to publish proposed rules, solicit public comment, and consider those comments before finalizing rules.

Advisers are window dressing and not intended to transform or reform anything that concerns WDFW. There was a period of time that was not the case but with Phil Anderson as Director that left the building. The current director has not changed that direction instead institutionalized it.

One other factoid regarding advisory group operations. Last I was aware of advisors are provided a handbook giving them directions on their participation . The current (but undated) one is at least the third iteration.

What are missing (to the best of my knowledge and WDFW response to my inquiry) are a formal Commission policy on how the Department is to implement the concept of Advisory Groups and written guidance from the Department to each assigned Staff responsible for a Group.

If that is no longer current info please let me know.

There was a time, and it was way pre-merger, that WDG pretty much required at least field staff to attend the local fishing and hunting group meetings. I know that some agency folks were as high as president in some of the groups. Staff were expected to interact with the public and know what was going on.

When I was in active management, which again was soon after Noah landed the Ark, that we were expected to interact with any and all fishermen and groups when they called. We (WDF) even developed a half-day presentation on the details about how commercial salmon management occurred, including the legal constraints. After we did this it really made discussions easier. They may not (and often didn't) agree but they knew what rules we were forced to work under.

I don't think the Agency, now, really values the users except for the money they provide through license purchases. Sad.