What WDFW wants is the APPEARANCE of public input.
They absolutely do not want any real public input into decision making.
The advisory groups are there to provide a diversity of opinion sure to bracket the predetermined decisions that have already been made. Then the policy makers just say we listened to the public and chose something that balanced competing interests.
+100
I have seen that first hand.
There were around a dozen of us that handed out, collected, and turned into the commission close to 2800 signatures gathered in a short amount of time, to try to prevent the proposed closure of recreational sturgeon harvest in Puget Sound. The petition was presented to the commission and each of us gave testimony on various research topics. The result was a reduced season instead of a closure to harvest PS sturgeon. The Department staff wasn’t too thrilled and somewhat shell-shocked to say the least but rule changes throughout the state in the coming years with C&R of sturgeon in PS through the strait and down the coast occurred instead of harvest of sturgeon.
The rest of the story just for Larry B:
The most interesting part is currently the only place in this state allowed to harvest sturgeon recreationally or commercially during certain times of the year is at the terminal area, which is the Columbia R.
WOW, what a novel idea to not harvest depressed sturgeon in transit to their terminal area! State and federal salmon managers---TAKE NOTICE!?
I know there is a large disparity in maturation between salmon and sturgeon but the principal idea is the same and that it is easier to manage a depressed stock without everybody taking a portion out of the pie. Especially if that portion is an ESA listed Chinook salmon in an ocean mixed fishery.
Good Day