This is the first page of a 16 page ruling. Pretty well lays out the denial. If I can get a link to the ruling, I'll add it later.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF W
DIVISION II
PUGET SOUND CRAB ASSOCIATION;
BRIAN E. ALLISON; JOHN RANTZ;
VINTON WALDRON; KENNETH CREWS;
BRIAN MELVIN; and BRIAN MACKEY,
Appellants,
V.
STATE OF WASHINGTON and
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE,
A
No. 42718 4- I-I
F11 - ED
COURT O APPPALS
J1141Siol"
2013 APR 23 Pi's 12: 03
l ASS 1 " ro 1\E F Y' ,
PUBLISHED OPINION
PENOYAR, J. — The Puget Sound Crab Association (PSCA) is challenging the new Puget
Sound Dungeness crab management policy, C73609, and the rule defining the recreational crab
season, WAC 220 - 56 - 330, as promulgated by the Department of Fish and Wildlife (the
Department). The policy and rule expand the recreational season by adding an additional day a
week to the recreational harvesting schedule. PSCA argues that (1)th e Department violated its
statutory duty under RCW 70710.24.to improve commercial fishing and to seek to maintain the
economic well - being and stability of the fishing industry, (2) the Department acted arbitrarily
and capriciously, and (3) PSCA is entitled to attorney fees. We hold that the Department did not
violate RCW 70710.24.because (1)it must allocate a finite resource and it owes a duty to both
recreational and commercial harvesters and (2) the fishing industry includes both recreational
and commercial harvesters. Additionally, the Department did not act arbitrarily and
capriciously, and PSCA is not entitled to attorney fees.
1 PSCA is an association of licensed Puget Sound commercial crab harvesters.'


From the attorney who provided me with the initial report:

All WA state court decisions , appellate and Supremes , are recorded electronically with the WA State Office of the Administrator of the Courts ( “the OAC” ), an independent administrative agency.

Here is the OAC general link : http://www.courts.wa.gov/

The OAC usually downloads the decisions in .pdf format .

And here is the direct link to the case reported today:

http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=427184MAJ

Click on the pdf link at the top of the page to see the full report.

That is great news Dave, I would love to read the rest when you can get it.

Thanks for keeping us informed.

Fishy

Link to the court case is added to the original posting

I Love It when a plan comes together and actually CONCLUDES!!!!!

"(2) the fishing industry includes both recreational
and commercial harvesters."

This is the most important part...the LCR gillnetters went ballistic on me back during the hearings from 2000 to 2004 when I used to say that.

That part of the ruling squarely pits the economic value of the commercial industry versus the sport industry when talking about "improving and protecting" the fishing industry...and we can kick their asses with it.

Fish on...

Todd

Sharpen your boots!

Great news and a big step.

I'm a huge believer that the principle argument sportfishing advocates should make is economic. Clearly the value of a recreationally caught fish is dramatically higher *and* benefits a dramatically wider segment of our population than a commercially caught fish.

I think the right goal is the outright elimination of non-tribal commercial fisheries, and their impacts should be split between recovery efforts and recreational fishing.

Huge decision!

RCW 77 04.012 has far reaching implications past this court crab ruling. That crab and fish are both included in the decision making between the commercial and recreational industries.

This ruling recognizes that there is a recreation industry and in doing so opens up all the imbalances of fisheries in this state between the commercials and recreation. Positive economic impact can also be used as part of decision making by the commission, and will be backed up by the courts.

“Although the Department arguably confused net economic value with personal income, net economic value is an economic indicator that may be useful in
making policy decisions; thus, it was not improper for the Department to consider it.”

John, you must be on your happy pills today!! I just hope you are correct and that this one is finished. Kudos to the Commission and Staff for keeping the process "pure" so as to withstand what they knew would be coming - a court date.

Nope, 50mg Predisone, 100mg Azathioprine, and a couple of others. Diagnosed with a rare (1 in 1 million/year) autoimmune disease called CIDP, similar to Gillian Barre' only mine maybe chronic and rehab takes a whole lot longer. I was in Swedish Cherry Hill Rehab from 2/1/13 until 2 1/2 weeks ago, now home getting around in a wheelchair & walker. Improving a LITTLE bit everyday. By Sept/Oct, my goal is to be able to walk (probably with a cane) out to my 40 foot Diesel Pusher Motorhome, fire that beast up, cruise on over to US101/I-5 and terrorize the hell out of Prius Drivers

A worthy goal John.

Todd is right on.

This is huge and the implication is that the commercial fleet will no longer trump the rec fleet. If the rec fleet can catch them and return a greater economic value, then it stands to reason that's where the allocations will go. Long term this sort of policy will eliminate non-tribal commercial fisheries where the sporties can catch all the allowed impacts.

Unfortunately, I don't think this is the end of the matter. I would expect additional appeals up the chain to the state supreme court to follow. The stakes are very high for the commercial industry . . .

Glad you are on the mend, John.

Second that!