Hmmm, no thanks.

An interesting aspect of the discussion on electronic catch data submission is what would appear to be shifting costs from WDFW to the angler. Instead of having staff read and enter the data it is now the responsibilty (and cost) to the end user.

Wonder if that would free up agency funds to provide more research or better management.

That plus my concern of being responsible to input data immediately and accurately:

Honest officer.....

the battery just died (kids were bored and were playing games)

I couldn't get service

I leaned over to unhook a wild fish and it fell out of my pocket (into 300 feet of water)

I was so sea sick I input the wrong species/date/etc.

My new phone is incompatible with WDFW's archaic system

and on and on.....

Recreational "opportunity" doesn’t pay the bills attested to by the bottom dwelling non-resident angler effort of the Pacific NW States affecting drastic revenue loss from both out-of-state angler licenses and tourism compared to the other 21 U.S. coastal states.

As far as the original question of meeting places at the six regional WDFW sites for convenience there seems like some interest along with a good idea from Larry B to change general public comments from first agenda items to last for convenience for far away travelers and to be able to comment on daily items. I have on occasion really wished that the public comments were the last item on the daily agenda to respond to the staff reports to the commission.

I’d even suggest an open microphone to be able to ask questions or comment on what has been presented.

My impression has been the same as DrifterWA about the purposeful early morning public comments period because of possible WDFW staff objections.

It is a public forum that would be nicer if more accessible and user friendly.

On a number of occasions folks have requested that WDF&W staff share their presentations with the public BEFORE meetings at the Commission. This would allow folks to comment at the time in the public input portion on WDF&W's ( whatever is being discussed ) in particular the Commission meetings. Lets just say using actions speak volumes as a guide it appears that the agency staff are not all that supportive of that concept.

They probably try to avoid turning these meetings into document reviews, probably to avoid blowing up the agenda while picking apart documents, and possibly to avoid well-prepared opposition to their proposals.

Whatever the case, in my daily work, I am expected to deliver an agenda, complete with links to resources, at least one business day prior to any meeting I organize. I'm sure that's true for internal meetings at WDFW as well, and I think it's reasonable for us to expect that courtesy in public meetings where we're intended to function as stakeholders in a process to which such documents are relevant.

We are about a month out from the Commission meeting to be held in Port Townsend and there is no agenda posted yet although a status report on the Point No Point launch project has been promised.

It would really be interesting to see that presentation in advance as I am sure there will be a heavy spin factor at play. And to have an opportunity for questions and/or "rebuttal."

WDFW staff reports to the commission remind me of MLB umps that during the last century were judge, jury, and executioner on the bad calls that they made until recent review on certain calls were enacted.

The looks on some faces of the old school faction is priceless.

Paul Harvey's line "And now for the rest of the story" comes to mind.

In defense of staff, the public is allowed to say what they want at Commission meetings and staff is (at least were) not allowed to provide data to refute public statements.

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

There is the understatement of the century.

The icing on the sh!t cake: Why the FVCK is my licence and CRC still a wadded up mess of paper in my wallet??? In this day and age....

The Chair requested the PT meeting agenda if available and Tami said that she could send it to him today.

Thanks for that info. If an agenda was sent to the Chair yesterday it was not concurrently posted to the Commission's webpage (http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings.html this morning). Hopefully the agenda will be posted not later than Thanksgiving to allow for interested stakeholders to be properly informed of that interface opportunity.

That agenda posting should include the Region 6 Director's presentation. After all, this has been a hot issue for a couple of years and was most recently raised to the level of the Commission at their June 2015 meeting when at least two Commissioners indicated they wanted more information. So, she will have had at least six months to prepare and timely provide her presentation for review BEFORE her presentation to the Commission and public.

What with this project's history and the long running issue with access to the Cowlitz at the Wallace gravel pit where WDFW paid for a large easement maybe WDFW needs another Advisory Group tasked with oversight of WDFW's current and potential public access.