HB 2593,
This was introduced yesterday about crabbing gear and the amped up penalties to the sport crabbers along with commercials. Also lost crabbing pot gear recovery and gear recovery fund.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/2593.pdf

Yeah read that one too..I would be terrified to pick up a lost pot when you could be charged with theft 20 minutes later.

Aunty M,
You're quite right. The link I provided states on the top paragraph that the bill was read 01/11/10 and referred to ANR and the hearing was Tuesday.
Whether it's ghost nets or in this case ghost crab pots, they shouldn't be allowed to keep killing. They were handing out for free the rot strings at the boat ramp last year, which rot strings are just one part of this bill.
The way they deal with ghost nets and now ghost crab pots funding for retrival is a concern.

Well Aunty M, I've finally cooled down just a tad to write Just One Reason Why I think that audit was just one big pile of steaming Dawg Doo . . . .

Remember, the Audit was "Commissioned", i.e., started in September of 2006, and MGT America was awarded the Performance Audit Contract and started work in December 2006, and continued to work (at least billed & received payment from SAO) through May 2007.

Ask yourself one very simple question, "What date was that Ten Dollar Fine/Administrative Fee talked about, debate, and passed by the legislature???? Simple answer, last year, and aptly pointed out (Corrected by our own BrushBear) could NOT be implemented as soon as Junior Childers wanted to get his grubby hands on it (legistature's own estimate of One Million Plus per year). So now you think Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, what Prime Crab Audit Recommendation was the "Solution" to all things Crabby?????? I find it somewhat amusing that single finding and recommendation is in that audit that was supposedidly written a year before it was enacted. Do Yah possibly think maybe Junior Childers re-wrote the Audit when he did his Technical Review???? Or in the alternative Senior Sonntag and Company Paid out in excess of four hundred and fourty four thousand of our Fee Dollars for ZIP NADA ZILCH?????? Either Junior or Senior 's should go directly to jail and become Gurl Friends to Bubba, more tha likely both deserve that Luv Nest. Just One More Day in Democratically Controlled Cook County West.

(3) is the crab penalty section. It was added to the RCW in 2008. The Commission didn't have to set a penalty amount - the statute says "...may..." and could have chosed a smaller amount but that the penalty couldn't exceed $10.

I'm curious how many hunters return their tag information and how much money the agency takes in off the hunting community.

Another question is how good is the agency doing in providing a "...live operator..." to report the harvest information to. See the last sentence in (1). Here's a section from the WDFW website on reporting crab harvest. No mention of a "live operator"

The catch from summer catch record cards must be reported by September 21st, 2009 and the catch from winter catch record cards must be reported by January 15th, 2010. CRCs must be reported online (click here) or returned to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). Cards should be reported online or returned whether or not the cardholder caught or fished for crab during the season. Completed catch record cards can be returned to WDFW by mailing it to the address printed on the card or dropping it off at one of WDFW's six regional offices. Beginning with 2009 winter harvest, failure to report crab catch by returning your CRC card or by reporting the catch online will result in a $10 penalty on your next license purchase.

.....so many questions.....

RCW 77.32.070
Information required from license applicants — Reports on taking/effort to harvest fish, shellfish, and wildlife — Administrative penalty.

(1) Applicants for a license, permit, tag, or stamp shall furnish the information required by the director. However, the director may not require the purchaser of a razor clam license under RCW 77.32.520 to provide any personal information except for proof of residency. The commission may adopt rules requiring licensees or permittees to keep records and make reports concerning the taking of or effort to harvest fish, shellfish, and wildlife. The reporting requirement may be waived where, for any reason, the department is not able to receive the report. The department must provide reasonable options for a licensee to submit information to a live operator prior to the reporting deadline.

(2) The commission may, by rule, set an administrative penalty for failure to comply with rules requiring the reporting of taking or effort to harvest wildlife. The commission may also adopt rules requiring hunters who have not reported for the previous license year to complete a report and pay the assessed administrative penalty before a new hunting license is issued.

(a) The total administrative penalty per hunter set by the commission must not exceed ten dollars.

(b) By December 31st of each year, the department shall report the rate of hunter compliance with the harvest reporting requirement, the administrative penalty imposed for failing to report, and the amount of administrative penalties collected during that year to the appropriate fiscal and policy committees of the senate and house of representatives.

(3) The commission may, by rule, set an administrative penalty for failure to comply with rules requiring the reporting of data from catch record cards officially endorsed for Puget Sound Dungeness crab. The commission may also adopt rules requiring fishers who possessed a catch record card officially endorsed for Puget Sound Dungeness crab and who have not reported for the previous license year to complete a report and pay the assessed administrative penalty before a new catch record card officially endorsed for Puget Sound Dungeness crab is issued.

(a) The total administrative penalty per fisher set by the commission must not exceed ten dollars.

(b) By December 31st of each year, the department shall report the rate of fisher compliance with the Puget Sound Dungeness crab catch record card reporting requirement, the administrative penalty imposed for failing to report, and the amount of administrative penalties collected during that year to the appropriate fiscal and policy committees of the senate and house of representatives.


[2008 c 244 § 1; 2005 c 418 § 1; 2004 c 248 § 3; 1998 c 191 § 11; 1995 c 116 § 3; 1987 c 506 § 79; 1981 c 310 § 18; 1980 c 78 § 108; 1955 c 36 § 77.32.070. Prior: 1947 c 275 § 99; Rem. Supp. 1947 § 5992-108.]

...and, lastly, here's the WAC on Catch Record Cards. The penalty is found in (6)(b)


220-56-175
Catch record cards.
It is unlawful for any person to fail to comply with the catch record requirements as provided for in this section:

(1) In order to fish for or possess for personal use any Dungeness crab in Catch Record Card Area 4 east of the Bonilla-Tatoosh Line, and in Catch Record Card Areas 5-13, an angler must obtain and have in his or her personal possession a valid and appropriate Puget Sound Dungeness crab catch record card as described in WAC 220-69-236.

(2) In order to fish for or possess for personal use any anadromous salmon, sturgeon, halibut, or steelhead, an angler must obtain and have in his or her personal possession a valid and appropriate catch record card as described in WAC 220-69-236. The only exception is for commercially caught salmon retained for personal use, as provided for in WAC 220-20-016, and commercially caught sturgeon retained for personal use, as provided for in WAC 220-20-021. Also, a catch record card is not required for landlocked steelhead or for salmon in waters designated as "landlocked salmon rules apply" in WAC 232-28-619.

(3) To validate their catch record cards, anglers must completely, accurately, and legibly complete all personal identification information in ink on the catch record card before detaching the card from its underlying copy or, for automated licenses, affixing the appropriate validation sticker to the catch record card. A catch record card remains valid as long as there is one or more unfilled spaces available for the species being fished for, except:

(a) In the mainstem Columbia River downstream from where the river forms the common boundary between Oregon and Washington, a catch record card remains valid for catch-and-release sturgeon fishing when the sturgeon portion of the card is full.

(b) A person may not use a second or subsequent catch record card to retain sturgeon and wild steelhead after the first card is full.

(4) Immediately upon catching and possessing a salmon, steelhead, sturgeon or halibut, anglers must enter, in ink, in the appropriate space on the card, the place, date of catch, and species (catch type). For sturgeon, anglers also must record the length of the fish; for halibut, anglers also must record the vessel type; and for salmon, anglers also must indicate whether or not the fish was marked.

(5) Immediately upon retaining a Puget Sound Dungeness crab aboard a vessel or on the shore, a fisher must enter, in ink, in the appropriate space on the Puget Sound Dungeness crab catch record card, the place and date of catch, the fishery type, and a tally mark for each Dungeness crab retained from each catch record card area fished. At the end of the fishing day, the fisher must enter the total number of crab tally marks for each fishery type.

(6)(a) Every person issued a catch record card must, by April 30 of the year after they used the card, return the card to the department of fish and wildlife. People issued a Puget Sound Dungeness crab catch record card must return the card to the Washington department of fish and wildlife or report the card information at the designated internet site by the dates indicated on the card.

(b) Effective December 1, 2009, and thereafter, failure to return a Dungeness crab catch record card or to report the Dungeness crab catch record card information at the designated internet site by the dates indicated on the card will result in a ten-dollar administrative fee. The administrative fee will be collected from anglers when they acquire a subsequent Puget Sound Dungeness crab endorsement.

(7) Any person possessing a catch record card must show the card to any law enforcement officer or authorized department employee who asks to inspect the card.

(8) A catch record card must not be transferred, borrowed, altered, or loaned to another person, unless pursuant to Substitute Senate Bill No. 6260, effective June 12, 2008.

Yeah, they finally emailed me back today.

Duh, and still that Steaming Pile Of Dawg Doo Audit Report was supposedily COMPLETED with all Findings & RECOMMENDATIONS before 2008, i.e., 2007. And that's what begs the question, "How Did That Get Into A Completed Performance Audit?????" Was Childer's and ShellFish Company operating a (sound of SyFi Movie) Time Machine???" If it was, let's ask Junior Childers what Crab Allocations will look like next year, annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd whether or not he and Senior Sonntag will be gamefully employed next year by Generalissimo Christie & Company

And a Note To Parker & Senior Sonntag, the paperwork necessary to file a FOIA for any and all work papers regarding what "Passed Gas" for a Performance Audit is being worked on. Also I'm thinking about filing a complaint with the State Accountancy Board. One of my many hats I wore working for the Fed was the Computer Security for BPA. Parker, PM me and I can provide you enough "Good Stuff" to sink their Piss Ant Sized Bureacratic Monitoring Boat.

Just a quick note that Rep. Kelley, Chair of the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee, responded to my pointed comments re: SAO Crab Audit to the effect that his committee will be reviewing the performance audit on 17 February. Seems I have his attention and I will try to attend his brown bag lunch with District 28 constituents which, fortunately, is scheduled before 17 Feb.

Larry B

Larry, is Kelley's Committee going to like a "Open" meeting for that review, i.e., "Open to JohnQ Public????" If so, do you have a time and place???? I promise to be a very good boy and will hoot & hollar everytime Senior Sonntag's (or his Office) is mentioned

I will inquire.......and post his response. I would expect that a committee meeting should be open to us taxpayers/voters.

I wonder if you should try to use the FIO act to get ahold of the first audit that they claimed was incomplete. Given the nature of information given in the complete audit, I think there is reason to suspect that information could have been deleted or altered from the audit they deemed unsatisfactory. There should be no reason to not release it now, since any incomplete or inaccurate information should be correct in the final version. If I were to file a request, I would ask for any instructions given on the first audit, any email or tranmissions between them company and the department, the incomplete version, and then any emails or transmissions given to the company that finished the final version. I bet they try to refuse to give it up, but I think there is is sufficeint grounds to be suspect of what transpired, and if nothing else, the waste of money by the department in paying off the first company.

COF minds thinking alike . . . . This went out this morning. I would suggest to ALL PP'ers to plagerize and aggrevate your own elected critters:



From: JohnQ

Date: Mon, Jan 25, 2010 1:24 pm
To: Kessler.Lynn@leg.wa.gov
Cc: COF's


From Subject (UnThread Messages) Date Size
Rep. Kessler,

Apparently you "Corrected Some Bad/Inappropriate SAO Behavior" because the first thing this morning I received my very first notification from the system, "Opportunities for Washington", reissued 2010. Remember, I signed up for those "Alerts" at the beginning of our "Embarrassing Odyssey." Please keep up the good work keeping the SAO Bureaucrats at least a bit honest about whom they serve.

Since you know just how I (and others) feel about the validity of the Crab Performance Audit results, I would like to enlist your help with my efforts to file a Freedom of Information requests for the work products of the Performance Audits, and the initial MGT America Contract. What do I have to do, i.e., fill out forms, and send them to whom.

JohnQ -- Freshwater Bay

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: FW: Performance Audit of Puget Sound Dungeness Crab
Recreational Fishing Program
From: JohnQ
Date: Fri, January 22, 2010 5:37 pm
To: "Kessler,Rep. Lynn" <Kessler.Lynn@leg.wa.gov>


Rep. Kessler,

Yes I was made aware of the posting of the audit results. And I can assure you that awareness was achieved with No Involvement from the SAO. Not even their automated website notification system that I dutifully signed up for in 2006. Friends on the internet gave me a heads up and I downloaded it.

Yes, I read it with great disappointment at what passed for a performance audit. What happened to the original Statement of Work, especially the part regarding whether of not WDFW performed within the narrowly enacted legislation fundinng restriction of the CRC. As a sorry example of my disappointment, look at the amount of emphasis place on the findings/recommendation regarding low reporting rates of Sports Crabbers (CRC's). Read the recommedation that WDFW should get more aggressive with that ten dollar administrative fee (fine). Now really think about when your legislature (and WDFW for that matter) proposed and adopted that fee process. It was after the Crab Audit was supposed to be completed (2008 proposed -- 2009 adopted) by MGT America. I smell a very stinky WDFW Childers Rat here writing/participating in the actual Performance Audit. That is very unethical and probably illegal.

Another one of your constituents and friend of mine, BrushBear who retired from the Colorado F & W agency has stated that most State F & W agencies are happy with catch reporting rates around 30%. Why is this States WDFW different????? Also, another couple of folks you might contact who are active PARTICIPANTS/citizen volunteers with the shellfish advisory committee are Duane M & AuntyM. Ask them and all of the other Shellfish advisory committee members think and feel about what has transpired. In a nutshell, we are NOT happy campers.

If it were up to me, I would do a wholesale gutting of the entire Shellfish Management program in WDFW. There is absolutely zero credibility there. Phil Andersen (WDFW's new Director) should be very ashamed of that end of his agency.

One of the other folks who have been helping me has gotten the ear of Representative Kelly who is also NOT happy with the SAO and these important Performace Audits. Please meet with him and get his perspective, maybe a rare bipartisan effort could be made to correct these major WDFW problems.

JohnQ -- Freshwater Bay

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: FW: Performance Audit of Puget Sound Dungeness Crab
Recreational Fishing Program
From: "Kessler, Rep. Lynn" <Kessler.Lynn@leg.wa.gov>
Date: Thu, January 21, 2010 9:03 am
To: JohnQ


John,

I am sure you are already aware that the audit report has been released, but I wanted to make sure you received a copy. I asked that they send it to you as well. Have you received it yet?

Feel free to call with any questions that you might have. I apologize it took so much of your energy and effort to get it done.

Regards,

Lynn Kessler



From: Linda Long [mailto:longl@sao.wa.gov]
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 2:34 PM
To: Kessler, Rep. Lynn
Subject: Performance Audit of Puget Sound Dungeness Crab Recreational Fishing Program

Representative Kessler,

Brian asked that transmit to you the performance audit report we are releasing today on the Puget Sound Dungeness Crab Fishing program.

http://www.sao.wa.gov/AuditReports/AuditReportFiles/ar1002690.pdf

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Brian or me.

Linda L. Long, CPA/CGFM/CGAP
Legislative Liaison
Longl@sao.wa.gov
360.402.3797 cell
360.902.0367 office

Larry,
It would be worth mentioning to the Reps that:
Since the public (rec fishermen) paid for the audit, the govt should post the document in a manner that provides unfettered public access to the data.

Some a-hat put protections on the pdf document that only allow download and print. No copy, no extract, P.O.S.

Gary:

I sort of understand putting "protection" around their audit report to prevent it from being altered. (And am glad to find out that my inability to copy it was systematic rather than a personal FUBAR)

I noticed on the Commission's message yesterday laying out the agenda for their upcoming meeting (4-6 Feb) the following set for Friday (5 FEB) morning:

3. PERSONALIZED LICENSE PLATE REVENUE, WILDLIFE FUND DEDICATED ACCOUNTS – BRIEFING:
At the request of the Commission, Department staff will brief the Commission on the Personalized License Plates restricted account, including uses of the account, historical revenues and expenditures, fund projections, and the process for determining how funds are allocated. The presentation will also include a brief overview of the other restricted accounts within the Wildlife Account.

Staff Report:
Jeff Olsen, Assistant Director, Financial Services


Given all of the bashing lately I got a laugh out of the initial 25 January message promulgating this agenda wherein WDFW required that written public input be submitted not later than 5 January. They immediately recalled that message and sent out a corrected one allowing written input until 2 Feb. Cut and paste has its limitations!

One suggestion might be for WDFW to post audits to its own website or at least a link to the SAO's and each individual audit which would at least make it more visible to those of us who try to work through the WDFW website.


Larry B

Rep. Kelley's office just called to inform me that the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee will be holding a hearing on 17 February at 12:00 Noon in the Cherburg Building, Senate Hearing Room 4. During this hearing they will be going over the crab performance audit with the State Auditor's Office (probably among other business before the Committee). I was also informed that there will be an opportunity for very brief input from citizens; 2 minutes or less. I was not provided any specific schedule for this hearing so I do not know when this particular audit will be addressed.

Rather than try to squeeze all of my comments into that two minutes I will be sending each of the members an email with my concerns and then refer to that correspondence at the hearing. That approach also helps me stay on point and take the edge off of my frustrations so as to allow the committee to focus on the issues. These folks are hopefully part of the solution rather than the enemy so best to not offend them. Rep. Kelley has been very responsive to me on this matter.

Here is the link to the membership of this committee:

http://www.leg.wa.gov/JLARC/Pages/members.aspx


By the way, as of this 10:20 A.M. this morning the performance audit of the Delayed Release Chinook program has still not been released. Uff Da!

You can monitor the State Auditor's Office audit issuances at:

http://www.sao.wa.gov/EN/Audits/Pages/Search/AuditReportSearch.aspx

If you wish to read the crab audit access it through the above link using its audit number of 36986.

Larry B.

I'm thinking about it

Gary (Plus1) and others (myself included) who may have had questions as to what Initiative 900 is intended to evaluate I pulled this information from the JLARC website:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overview of Initiative 900

The State Auditor is elected directly by the people of the State of Washington and operates as an executive office that is separate from the Legislature. Both the State Auditor's Office and the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee conduct performance audits. Performance audits published by the State Auditor have been prepared independently of the Legislature and the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee.

State Auditor’s Office Performance Audits
___________

*
The voters approved Initiative 900 in the November 2005 general election.

*
Initiative 900 authorized the separately elected State Auditor to conduct independent, comprehensive performance audits. The resulting law provides the State Auditor with the authority to audit any state agency, local government, or public education agency/institution.

*
The scope of State Auditor’s Office performance audits is not limited but must include the following:

o
Cost savings
o
Identification of services that can be reduced or eliminated
o
Identification of services that can be transferred to the private sector
o
Gaps or overlaps in programs or services and recommendations to fix these
o
Feasibility of pooling information technology systems within a department
o
Analysis of roles and functions within a department and recommendations to change or eliminate them
o
Recommendations for statutory or regulatory changes to properly carry out departmental functions
o
Analysis of department’s performance data, performance measures, and self-assessment systems
o
Identification of best practice

*
The Initiative established the Performance Audits of Government Account, a non-appropriated account solely for the use of the State Auditor to conduct performance audits. The account is funded by a dedicated portion (0.16%) of the existing state sales tax.

*
The Initiative requires the Legislature to hold public hearings within 30 days of the State Auditor Office releasing audits of state agencies, to consider audit findings and receive public testimony. Public hearings shall be held by the appropriate legislative bodies for audits of non-state agencies (such as city councils or school boards).

*
The Initiative states that the Legislature must consider the state auditor reports in connection with the legislative appropriations process.

*
The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee is required to report on the implementation of any State Auditor recommendations for legislative action.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I do not see that the JLARC has the authority to "reject" an audit from the independent SAO. I will try and ascertain what level of feedback the JLARC does have relative to perceived audit deficiencies.

Most importantly the SAO is required to address the bullet items but is NOT LIMITED TO those items. In short, it is within the purview of the SAO to look at additional issues during a performance audit. This brings us to the question of why the contractor was tasked to review expenditures but that the subsequent SAO in-house performance audit did not address expenditures? One might be able to spin the next to last line into a requirement that the SAO look at the legislatively established funding (dedicated fund).


Larry B