Ron:

Wish I had been a fly on the wall........

Yes, it is done FOR NOW. My comment about it not being over is an expectation that certain folks will make another run at this during the next full cycle of rules. Again, my thanks for your efforts on this subject and to the Commission for getting it right.

Thanks everyone, The Wild Fish Conservancy data was not used in decision making FYI. It was thrown out. The big thing to remember is that agendas cover up the truth.

http://wildfishconservancy.org/about/press-room/press-clips/action-required-help-recover-rockfish





The creel data at the docks was what was used. I was able to provide data that explained why what fish were turned in and that you cannot use MA 4B data to manage a totally different fishery-the ocean or 4A. Once this was data was exposed, it paved the way for reality.

Thanks Fishinnut, you are invaluable! Kudos to the Commission for wanting to right their wrongs, and in a timely way.

I listened to the audio from friday's conference call. http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2013/03/audio_mar1513.html Fascinating stuff if you guys have any interest in how the sausage is made. The first segment is all you need to hear (about an hour), and you can skip the first 20 min if you're not interested in the shark ruling. The following sturgeon, cabezon and rockfish discussions are very worthwhile though.

Commission Chair Miranda Wecker called this unscheduled meeting in reaction to the wave of criticism coming out of their Mar 1 meeting (re: the four rules previously mentioned). She's pretty up front about how she thinks the commissions rule adoption process is flawed and that the process needs to be re-examined. She also openly chastised the commission for not having a full understanding of the rules they were voting on. At the Feb 8 public testimony I was impressed with mrs wecker and I continue to be. But I am stunned that a) they actually make rulings without having a full understanding of them and b) they admit it publicly (I guess that's good in a way).

Though the language used in this meeting is quite staid and there's alot of protocol (motions and seconds and yays and nays), the dynamics of the Commission are apparent. In other words, it's pretty clear who our friends are. Jennings' influence on the Commission is pretty clear too. His behavior is prototypically that of a rogue and a bully. He was unapologetic about the methods he used to get those rules adopted, and didn't back down even when Director Phil Anderson insinuated that they unethical (note I said "insinuated" - they use language *very* carefully).

Jennings spoke forcefully and had prepared statements in which he cited "science" that appeared to support his opinions. We already know what kind of science he uses (re: 2011 test fishery), and the science he cited seems equally suspect. He even contradicted himself. Needless to say, he voted AGAINST overturning the Cabezon season restriction and the 4A rockfish retention rules. I mean, who cares if it's unethical...I'M ADVOCATING FOR THE FISH WHO HAVE NO VOICE!

Most of the other commissioners disagree with him, though he has a couple friends. My assumption is that they are probably cowed by him. He definitely comes across as a bully. Not many of the others spoke against him directly. They let him speak his piece, and just voted to oppose the BS he supports. I am hoping that more and more he is being viewed as an extremist among the Commissioners, which is what he is. The more they perceive him as such, the less obligated they will feel to bargain with him.

The good news is that they overturned the 4A rockfish retention restriction and don't appear to want to revisit it this year. I'm with Larry B in suspecting this is something we'll see again.

Here's the bad news. While they did overturn the ruling that shortens the Cabezon season, they are re-introducing it very soon for public comment. Once they set that in motion, it's 60 days until they can rule again. Which means that if it passes, then the essence of the original rule will be in effect: Cabezon closure after June 15. Nevermind that the CPUE data do not show declining stocks.

But at the very least they realized they could not in good conscience support a rule that short-cutted the public comment. Please note, it's also illegal. It falls under the Administrative Procedure Act (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=34.05.340)

These are battles. The real war is against Jennings. He's extreme, he's unethical and he's cutthroat.

Jennings short-cutted the process at the last rules go around 2 years ago. No reason to believe he won't do it again.

jerry - Do you remember which rule changes?

It had to do with closing M4a to fishing and make that area a world class diving area. He bypassed the rules by submitting after the closing date for proposals. That is my memory--- Dogfish might be able to help. maybe a search in the archives for Jennings in that year.

I think Bushbear is also up on the specifics of two years ago.

Time flies when you are having "fun".

Actually, this attack on recreational bottom fishing in and around Neah Bay began in the summer of 2009. Commissioner Jennings was appointed on 18 June 2009 and had supposedly submitted a number of rule change proposals immediately before his appointment. By the way, the cutoff for submittal of proposed rule changes for that major cycle was 1 June 2009.

At the time I was told by a WDFW Staff member that the proposed rule changes from Jennings had been submitted timely but that Staff subsequently believed that Jennings had withdrawn his proposed rule changes which included extending closures outside Tatoosh. As a result those proposed rule changes WERE NOT included in the list for public review and comment. The WDFW's publicly published schedule for rule making included the 1 June cutoff followed by informing advisory groups in July and obtaining feedback, August for WDFW to prepare rules package for public review and to brief the fish committee, 16 Sept to notify public that proposed rules available for comments, and 29 Sept - 13 Oct to hold public meetings to discuss proposed changes. Apparently during that entire process Commissioner Jennings did not notice that his proposed changes were not included.

Commissioner Jennings' proposal for closure of Neah Bay to outside Tatoosh Island was not added to the list until 16 October which was three days after the last public meeting and almost two weeks after he made postings to at least three diver oriented websites as Biodiversity Guy pleading for members to write the Commission and support this proposed change. No where in those postings did he identify himself as a WDFW Commissioner! Supposedly it had only then been discovered that Jennings' proposed rule changes were not on the list. Frankly, that story did not pass the whiff test then and it still stinks.

You can search PP or you can go to BloodyDecks under WA Fishing Rights and several threads to include Cape Flattery Closure and find a lot of dialog to include when Jennings went before the Senate Committee for possible confirmation - and failed miserably although they did not force him off the Commission.

There were additional efforts in the 2011 cycle to include establishing a no fishing area (MPA) somewhere between Sekiu and Neah Bay and now the efforts during the most recent cycle.

The man is an unabashed advocate with an agenda.

I brought lots of friends, including members of the Makah Tribal council to bear on the 4A/4B issue back then. Jennings is a turd. His term is up in 2014. Let us hope that someone flushes him down the toilet before then.

Is there an electronic version of his statements somewhere, such as TVW?

Baitman, was the following statement his, or you paraphrasing him?
"I mean, who cares if it's unethical...I'M ADVOCATING FOR THE FISH WHO HAVE NO VOICE!"

Original Jenning thread was in 2010. http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/forum...html#Post616764

We'll see if this works; here (hopefully) is the link to the NW Dive Club's website/forum/thread where "Biodiversity Guy" (AKA Commissioner Dave Jennings) actively solicited support for his own (late) proposed rule changes:

http://www.nwdiveclub.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=10360

This type of action should have disqualified him immediately from making any decisions on closures in that area and possibly terminated his involvement with the commission completely!

Fishy

that's me taking more than a bit of editorial license there.

I specifically raised that issue at a commission meeting, and handed out a page from this pdf. Ethics pamphlet

Page 5 of the “Ethics Handbook for Washington Board and Commission Members gives an overview on objectivity. In that handbook it states:

•A conflict of interest occurs when you have a private interest that may benefit from your actions, or when a private interest could interfere with official duties.
•An interest need not be financial to create a conflict of interest.
•Most conflicts result from the exercise of discretionary authority.

That halted the meeting for about a half hour while they confered with the State attorney general's representative. The attorney came over to me and tried to explain to me why is wasn't. I told him bullsh!t. I don't need to have someone define what the meaning of the word "is" is. The fact that they literally had to stop the meeting to confer over the issue I was bringing up shows that they knew it was an ethics violation right then and there.

I also personally handed the same information over to senator Hargrove prior to Jenning's confirmation hearing. Which Hargrove specifically referred to here.
http://www.tvw.org/media/mediaplayer.cfm...7127&bhcp=1
Forward to 45:16 to see the fun.

A Commissioner certainly should not have a conflict of interest. In fact, even the appearance of a conflict of interest can undermine credibility and, consequently, effectiveness.

If one visits the REEF website (http://www.reef.org/enews/articles/reef-...39s-outer-coast) there is clear evidence of Commissioner Jennings actively participating in data collection activities within what I took as being MA4. This was their sixth annual effort. Click on the David Jennings hotlink and it will take you to his personal picture sharing page where he offered his opinion that he had perceived fewer rockfish. One would think that their scientific approach would allow for a definitive statement.....oh, and does WDFW then entertain that so called "data" in making its recommendations to the Commission?

Anyway, it is the diver community in which he is actively entrenched which is pushing for these restrictions/closures. That in my mind creates a real conflict of interest as covered by the definition in the ethics pamphlet. And if you can't quite come to accept that there is a real conflict then the next level is the perception of a conflict.

Another little tidbit is that Commissioner Jennings is listed by the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (http://olympiccoast.noaa.gov/management/managementplan/mgmtplan9_personsagencontacted.pdf) as having participated in the development of their most recent management plan as enacted in 2011 - two years after his appointment as Commissioner. No sport fishing organization is listed as having been contacted or having participated.

Draw your own conclusions.....and this is exactly why we cannot afford to have the Commission become a group made up of special interest representatives.

Regardless of the conflict of interest aspect, can the Audiror's Office look into whether ot not WDFW complied the law and rules (Administrative Precedures Act) in first approving the Jenning's regs and then in disapproving them?

That might be more of an AG issue than one for the SAO. The fact that they acknowledged the error of their ways and took action to effect a remedy probably precludes any other action. And while mistakes do happen it is imperative that the Commission and its members stay on top of the process as well as the facts pertinent to each proposed rule change under consideration. And, of course, that is why it is critical that we be actively involved in the process.

Another spin on the ethics issue is to question when an individual Commission member should recuse himself/herself from participating in discussions relative to a particular proposed rule change and/or voting upon that particular rule change.

Edit: Carcassman: If you were referring to the 2009 debacle I am sure that there was a lot more there than we were ever made privy to and a formal complaint to the AG might have warranted their involvement. Now? Probably water under the bridge but not to be forgotten.

I just listened to the tvw on Jennings Confirmation hearing, wow, the tribal rep slammed the door on commissioner Jennings, and the Senators were right on as well. Will just have to wait and see what the new govenor gives us and with the commercial pressure, who knows what that will be.

Thanks Dogfish, good work as I remember

What I was getting at is that the action to adopt the regs in the public meeting officially closed the process. To fix it with a permanaent reg, you need to re-start the process.

And i don't think they did. Which, to a good lawyer, could mean that what was adopted in the Public Meeting is the actual rule. Until it is legally changed.

At least that is how the process was taught to me..

I do believe that one of the news releases indicated that the Commission had directed Staff to begin that process. Whether they can initiate a new permanent rule process at this time is a good question. We are supposed to be on a two year cycle but they seem to manage to fit in some changes during the "off" year. A special effort for this one proposed rule change would seem over kill.