Post by: pianoman9701 on February 24, 2014, 11:33:10 AM
My question is whether Jay Kehne, a member of the WA Wildlife Commission and board member of the pro-wolf environmental lobby group Conservation Northwest, is using his position on the commission to funnel information, information not released to the general public, to the his employer. I believe this would be an abuse of his chair on the commission and leave him open to investigation, removal, and possible criminal charges. Does anyone have any knowledge or opinion regarding this?
Post by: ghosthunter on February 24, 2014, 11:39:36 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 24, 2014, 11:41:33 AM
File under freedom of Information for all emails from all commissioners regarding wolves or the mention of wolves.
He is a commissioner. Is he using his position unethically?
Post by: MtnMuley on February 24, 2014, 11:46:25 AM
Post by: ghosthunter on February 24, 2014, 11:48:16 AM
I doubt discussing the incident with any interested party would be a violation, but maybe.
However if you discover that he is using his position some how to benefit his employer or to further their interests could cause a ruckus.
If he embarrasses Ensley he will be gone.
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 24, 2014, 11:49:45 AM
No way to know unless you get something in writing. File the request for his emails regarding wolves. For a specific time frame, prior to the killing and see what you get.
I doubt discussing the incident with any interested party would be a violation, but maybe.
However if you discover that he is using his position some how to benefit his employer or to further their interests could cause a ruckus.
If he embarrasses Ensley he will be gone.
Is there a specific form to request this?
Post by: KFhunter on February 24, 2014, 11:52:15 AM
Wildlife cops investigate dead wolf in Stevens County
Posted by Rich
Feb. 18, 2014 11:07 a.m. • 4 comments
http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2014/feb/18/wildlife-cops-investigate-dead-wolf-stevens-county/ (http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2014/feb/18/wildlife-cops-investigate-dead-wolf-stevens-county/)
The $7500 reward was offered on Feb 21
http://www.conservationnw.org/news/updates/7500-reward-offered-for-illegal-wolf-killing (http://www.conservationnw.org/news/updates/7500-reward-offered-for-illegal-wolf-killing)
Quote
$7500 reward offered for illegal wolf killing
Feb 21, 2014
$7500 reward offered for illegal wolf killing
Wolves are protected as an endangered species in Washington, and illegally killing a wolf is a criminal offense.
Today, Conservation Northwest and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife announced a reward for up to $7,500 to anyone who can offer information leading to the conviction of the person or persons involved in the illegal killing of a female collared gray wolf which was once part of the Smackout Pack in northeast Washington.
The question is relevant though, continue on.
Post by: 6x6in6 on February 24, 2014, 11:55:57 AM
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2009/01/jan1009_14_electionrules.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2009/01/jan1009_14_electionrules.pdf)
But it may be difficult to get around the CNW non-profit status (that's a guess that they are) and CNW using the radio collar and $7500 reward as a "donation" of sorts.
Yes, I am vastly assuming non-profit and donations here. It's just something to consider when researching whther or not its a conflict of interest.
Post by: snowpack on February 24, 2014, 11:56:59 AM
Post by: buckfvr on February 24, 2014, 11:58:02 AM
Post by: KFhunter on February 24, 2014, 12:00:17 PM
Hes not exonerated, hes slippery............ofcourse he is using his seat to facilitate the goals of Conservation NW. GUARANTEED
:yeah:
I didn't mean he wasn't guilty, I meant that he has an "out" in this case. If anything HW will make him more careful.
Post by: ghosthunter on February 24, 2014, 12:03:43 PM
Post by: buckfvr on February 24, 2014, 12:06:41 PM
Hes not exonerated, hes slippery............ofcourse he is using his seat to facilitate the goals of Conservation NW. GUARANTEED
:yeah:
I didn't mean he wasn't guilty, I meant that he has an "out" in this case. If anything HW will make him more careful.
I knew what you meant, just didnt want anyone else to think otherwise.......... :tup:
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 24, 2014, 12:17:01 PM
Post by: ghosthunter on February 24, 2014, 12:20:43 PM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on February 26, 2014, 03:52:09 AM
What kind of info might CNW get from a commission member that would be a concern?
Post by: Northway on February 26, 2014, 10:05:20 AM
I'm not sure I understand why it would be a problem in this case... CNW is quite active and would have been on the wolf poaching case right away whether or not Jay was an employee.
What kind of info might CNW get from a commission member that would be a concern?
That was what I was wondering. I don't even know if offering a $7500 reward for turning in a poacher is anything other than a symbolic move. If you are dumb enough to tell someone that would turn you in about poaching a wolf, you're probably dumb enough to leave a trail of other clues as well. You know, like trying to mail a bloody wolf pelt to someone.
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 26, 2014, 10:20:00 AM
Post by: KFhunter on February 26, 2014, 11:04:26 AM
What kind of info might CNW get from a commission member that would be a concern?
- Someone on the commission floats an idea, it's a fantastic idea :whoo:
- Jay Kehene informs CNW about the fantastic idea :o
- CNW disagrees with the idea, instructs Jay Kehene to kill the motion :'(
- The commission proceeds anyways, Jay is out voted :rockin:
- CNW is made aware Jay couldn't sway the vote to their favor :IBCOOL:
- CNW funnels money to the governors office, makes demands. :o
- governors office removes certain commission members (Gary Clark) :tdown:
- new commission members are appointed, members that are better aligned with CNW ideology. :tree1:
- no more arguments, CNW has no trouble pushing forward their agenda now. :puke:
This is all speculation on my part, I have no special knowledge this is how it went down.
Post by: idahohuntr on February 26, 2014, 11:11:17 AM
Post by: KFhunter on February 26, 2014, 11:13:44 AM
I fail to see how CNW getting information about a possible wolf poaching from a commissioner is an issue. Are commission meetings not public anyways?
Who say's it has to be in a meeting, it could be an official Email - or heck even unofficial.
Something like:
director@dfw.wa.gov TO> commission@dfw.wa.gov
February 10, 2014
ALL;
Commission members this is to inform you that there was a wolf poached in northern Stevens CO.
Expect it to be addressed at the next committee meeting. The investigation is ongoing and won't be made public until the end of the month.
Phil Anderson
Then Jay fires that off to CNW:
Hey CNW buddies! Terrific news!!!!
I just learned a wolf was poached in northern Stevens CO
We need to get our ducks in a row and gather up donations, let's not let this crisis go to waste!
This will bring a LOT of money to our coffers, we'll offer up a $7500 reward!
We need to break this story with our reward attached to it, national media attention will give us a tremendous boost to our membership and donations.
If we make national media and our donations will far exceed the $7500 payout!
If we're lucky we won't even have to pay out a reward!!
Yours forever;
Jay
crude, but something along those lines
Post by: idahohuntr on February 26, 2014, 11:16:52 AM
Post by: KFhunter on February 26, 2014, 11:35:25 AM
Again, wheres the problem? Jay heres about a wolf poaching and tells somebody. ?????
Do I need to break out my crayons again? :chuckle:
How is what I described above any different than insider trading? I agree it's crude, and puts a lot of words in their mouths - but it's necessary to draw a picture sometimes for those who either can't understand or don't want too.
Post by: idahohuntr on February 26, 2014, 11:54:32 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 26, 2014, 12:06:38 PM
Post by: KFhunter on February 26, 2014, 12:08:16 PM
Lets try this a different way so you can try to understand the issue: Please direct me to the law or regulation where a commissioner is limited in who (s)he discusses public information with...seems like you are trying real hard to create a problem that does not exist. I think commissioners should communicate with any interested group that is willing to listen...whether they share my opinions or not. :twocents:
Sounds like a confession.
You seriously don't see a problem with that?
Post by: KFhunter on February 26, 2014, 12:27:40 PM
Lets try this a different way so you can try to understand the issue: Please direct me to the law or regulation where a commissioner is limited in who (s)he discusses public information with...seems like you are trying real hard to create a problem that does not exist. I think commissioners should communicate with any interested group that is willing to listen...whether they share my opinions or not. :twocents:
The commission is REQUIRED to take ethics training
Quote
OPERATING PRINCIPLES:
Through principles of operation, the Commission is striving to provide the best possible
environment conducive to fulfilling the Department of Fish and Wildlife's mission and
goals.
1. Commission members shall:
a. Be clear when speaking for the Commission versus as an individual;
present only the results of formal decisions (e.g., where five or more
Commissioners have agreed) as official Commission positions.
b. Work collaboratively with other Commission members and Department
staff on decision-making.
c. Be respectful of other Commission members.
d. Establish sound working relationships with other Commission members.
e. Be a customer using and observing the opportunities the Department
affords the public.
f. Be responsible about where work is best done, i.e., issues pertaining to a
specific sub-group shall be given to the sub-group chair.
g. Maintain confidence about all matters of Commission executive business.
h. Keep focused on big decisions and issues (big picture).
I. Represent all citizens of the state (who own the resource), not
constituents from a particular area or special interest.
j. Serve actively on Commission sub-groups.
k. Keep other Commission members informed on individual activities of
Commission business.
l. Not engage in any activity which gives rise to a conflict of interest or
appearance of conflict of interest as a Commission member.
I bolded some of the areas of concern by having Jay Kehne on the commission.
ethics training here:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=42.52.365 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=42.52.365)
commission members are subject to ethics rules, so take your pick! some of these probably fit pretty good
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=42.52 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=42.52)
Post by: KFhunter on February 26, 2014, 12:36:49 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on February 26, 2014, 12:47:40 PM
I get people don't like this commissioner...but lets not confuse legitimate disagreements over issues with ridiculous allegations of ethics violations when no such evidence exists.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on February 26, 2014, 12:49:52 PM
What kind of info might CNW get from a commission member that would be a concern?
- Someone on the commission floats an idea, it's a fantastic idea :whoo:
- Jay Kehene informs CNW about the fantastic idea :o
- CNW disagrees with the idea, instructs Jay Kehene to kill the motion :'(
- The commission proceeds anyways, Jay is out voted :rockin:
- CNW is made aware Jay couldn't sway the vote to their favor :IBCOOL:
- CNW funnels money to the governors office, makes demands. :o
- governors office removes certain commission members (Gary Clark) :tdown:
- new commission members are appointed, members that are better aligned with CNW ideology. :tree1:
- no more arguments, CNW has no trouble pushing forward their agenda now. :puke:
This is all speculation on my part, I have no special knowledge this is how it went down.
I think your points are moot. The commission operates in the open and their meetings and e-mails are public documents. A Manchurian candidate isn't needed
Post by: KFhunter on February 26, 2014, 12:55:09 PM
The stuff I'm talking about isn't going to show up on any information requests.
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 26, 2014, 12:56:41 PM
A commissioner discussing or sharing public information with any organization, even one he works for, is not an ethics violation. If mr. jay shared some executive business related to hiring say a new wdfw director with CNW...that would be a violation. Discussing public information about poaching...not so much.
I get people don't like this commissioner...but lets not confuse legitimate disagreements over issues with ridiculous allegations of ethics violations when no such evidence exists.
I've made no allegations, ridiculous or otherwise. I've simply put the question out there. And yes, I'm unhappy he was confirmed to the commission. Everyone including he is aware of that. And, the requirements posted above by KF clearly show that he should've been disqualified for the position, given his position in an environmental organization which has a clear pro-wolf agenda (I. Represent all citizens of the state (who own the resource), not constituents from a particular area or special interest.).
Post by: Knocker of rocks on February 26, 2014, 01:02:33 PM
Everyone including he is aware of that. And, the requirements posted above by KF clearly show that he should've been disqualified for the position, given his position ..........................(I. Represent all citizens of the state (who own the resource), not constituents from a particular area or special interest.).
Would you boot this guy too?
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/bios/kehoe.html (http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/bios/kehoe.html)
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 26, 2014, 01:05:49 PM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on February 26, 2014, 01:07:29 PM
Post by: KFhunter on February 26, 2014, 01:13:33 PM
A commissioner discussing or sharing public information with any organization, even one he works for, is not an ethics violation. If mr. jay shared some executive business related to hiring say a new wdfw director with CNW...that would be a violation. Discussing public information about poaching...not so much.
I get people don't like this commissioner...but lets not confuse legitimate disagreements over issues with ridiculous allegations of ethics violations when no such evidence exists.
I've made no allegations, ridiculous or otherwise. I've simply put the question out there. And yes, I'm unhappy he was confirmed to the commission. Everyone including he is aware of that. And, the requirements posted above by KF clearly show that he should've been disqualified for the position, given his position in an environmental organization which has a clear pro-wolf agenda (I. Represent all citizens of the state (who own the resource), not constituents from a particular area or special interest.).
I haven't made any allegations regarding violations of ethics, only presented a possible scenario, so let's be clear on that.
He is violating the operating principles of the commission that is clear.
What that means I don't know, but I don't think it carries the weight of law behind it.
Post by: Northway on February 27, 2014, 09:38:43 AM
Let's say hypothetically only that someone is working within our state government in a paid position. That person also works for a non-profit in their spare time. The state department they're working for is planning on launching a new program. However, the new program is against the ideals and thrust of the non-profit. The person in question gives privileged information, info not yet released to the public, to his non-profit. His non-profit then gets others involved. When the department goes to launch the program, the opposition has everything in place to block their efforts and the launch is a failure. Any state employee taking advantage of their position to the gain of a private organization has some problems to address.
I think the risk for that is relatively low. The reason for that is because I believe it would be hard for that scenario to occur without other commissioners figuring it out. You would have to the whole commission and maybe others complicit in not whistleblowing in that scenario. How hard would it be for others to see that you've leaked info to someone with an association or strong sympathies with CNW who then goes and lobbies to get an initiative killed? A change in policy doesn't come from nowhere, and if government employees are anything like corporate employees, rumors fly.
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 27, 2014, 09:42:57 AM
Let's say hypothetically only that someone is working within our state government in a paid position. That person also works for a non-profit in their spare time. The state department they're working for is planning on launching a new program. However, the new program is against the ideals and thrust of the non-profit. The person in question gives privileged information, info not yet released to the public, to his non-profit. His non-profit then gets others involved. When the department goes to launch the program, the opposition has everything in place to block their efforts and the launch is a failure. Any state employee taking advantage of their position to the gain of a private organization has some problems to address.
I think the risk for that is relatively low. The reason for that is because I believe it would be hard for that scenario to occur without other commissioners figuring it out. You would have to the whole commission and maybe others complicit in not whistleblowing in that scenario. How hard would it be for others to see that you've leaked info to someone with an association or strong sympathies with CNW who then goes and lobbies to get an initiative killed? A change in policy doesn't come from nowhere, and if government employees are anything like corporate employees, rumors fly.
You're probably correct that the risk is low. But, to do with your whistle blowers comment, I'm not sure how much access the other commissioners have to each other's email and other communications. I'm sure if someone were to do something unethical, they're not going to run to the other commission members to tell them.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on February 27, 2014, 09:47:04 AM
Let's say hypothetically only that someone is working within our state government in a paid position. That person also works for a non-profit in their spare time. The state department they're working for is planning on launching a new program. However, the new program is against the ideals and thrust of the non-profit. The person in question gives privileged information, info not yet released to the public, to his non-profit. His non-profit then gets others involved. When the department goes to launch the program, the opposition has everything in place to block their efforts and the launch is a failure. Any state employee taking advantage of their position to the gain of a private organization has some problems to address.
I think the risk for that is relatively low. The reason for that is because I believe it would be hard for that scenario to occur without other commissioners figuring it out. You would have to the whole commission and maybe others complicit in not whistleblowing in that scenario. How hard would it be for others to see that you've leaked info to someone with an association or strong sympathies with CNW who then goes and lobbies to get an initiative killed? A change in policy doesn't come from nowhere, and if government employees are anything like corporate employees, rumors fly.
You're probably correct that the risk is low. But, to do with your whistle blowers comment, I'm not sure how much access the other commissioners have to each other's email and other communications. I'm sure if someone were to do something unethical, they're not going to run to the other commission members to tell them.
:yeah: That and just HOW honest have the huggers been proven to be??
Post by: Knocker of rocks on February 27, 2014, 10:06:08 AM
As far as e-mails, all e-mails by public employees are open to FOI requests.
Post by: Special T on February 27, 2014, 10:17:52 AM
Did he share the info? quite likely, is it illegal, possibly... Is there a way to prove it in a court of law or the court of opinion... Not likely.
As much as it makes me sick i think the only real way to boot some of these guys is to keep a record of their decisions and performance. ONE event doesn't change much but several may
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 27, 2014, 10:21:10 AM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on February 27, 2014, 11:00:59 AM
Quote from: Special T
Did he share the info? quite likely, is it illegal, possibly...
I actually don't think they have access to confidential information, by definition
Post by: AspenBud on February 27, 2014, 11:26:10 AM
Quote from: Special T
Did he share the info? quite likely, is it illegal, possibly...
I actually don't think they have access to confidential information, by definition
Looking at the news reports it sounds like the wolf's collar was among those being used to guide their range rider program and where the incident occurred was somewhere near a cooperating rancher's land, at least that's what they claimed on their website. I'm guessing they were in tight with the state on this one since they were/are funding the project.
If they really wanted to push the issue they could look for active cell phones and GPS units in the area at the time it happened. That data is available if the law sees it as enough of a problem. I doubt they do however.
Post by: KFhunter on February 27, 2014, 03:27:37 PM
total dead zone
Post by: AspenBud on February 27, 2014, 05:07:58 PM
one problem with that plan Aspen - no cell coverage there
total dead zone
May be so, but that doesn't apply to GPS. I'm just saying if the law saw it as a real problem there are ways to narrow down the suspect list, especially if the person was sloppy in covering their tracks. Given the mountain of subpoenas and/or warrants they'd have to submit I'm betting they'll never find out who did it unless the person is truly stupid. One wolf is simply not worth the effort.
Post by: KFhunter on February 27, 2014, 05:16:38 PM
one problem with that plan Aspen - no cell coverage there
total dead zone
May be so, but that doesn't apply to GPS. I'm just saying if the law saw it as a real problem there are ways to narrow down the suspect list, especially if the person was sloppy in covering their tracks. Given the mountain of subpoenas and/or warrants they'd have to submit I'm betting they'll never find out who did it unless the person is truly stupid. One wolf is simply not worth the effort.
Thanks for that, I was under the impression that my S3 wouldn't work without service. So after you wrote that I checked it out and it seems the GPS does work, but what's happening is that without data service the map isn't working or updating your location so it's appearing the GPS isn't working. I need to use an offline map,
Thanks Aspen!
There is some good after all from you being on HW :tup:
Post by: AspenBud on February 27, 2014, 05:47:14 PM
one problem with that plan Aspen - no cell coverage there
total dead zone
May be so, but that doesn't apply to GPS. I'm just saying if the law saw it as a real problem there are ways to narrow down the suspect list, especially if the person was sloppy in covering their tracks. Given the mountain of subpoenas and/or warrants they'd have to submit I'm betting they'll never find out who did it unless the person is truly stupid. One wolf is simply not worth the effort.
Thanks for that, I was under the impression that my S3 wouldn't work without service. So after you wrote that I checked it out and it seems the GPS does work, but what's happening is that without data service the map isn't working or updating your location so it's appearing the GPS isn't working. I need to use an offline map,
Thanks Aspen!
There is some good after all from you being on HW :tup:
I was actually thinking of Garmin Nuvi's or any of the back country handhelds for sale out there, not to mention some PLB's like SPOT. I hadn't thought of phone GPS but that's another to consider. If you have OnStar in your car that's another and so is onboard GPS. I also wouldn't count on cell coverage, or a lack of it, to cover tracks. Just because your out of the coverage area doesn't mean the phone isn't talking.
Like I said, I really would be surprised if the law is that interested, but there's a lot of ways to narrow a suspect list in the electronic age if they want to bad enough.
Post by: AspenBud on February 27, 2014, 05:54:16 PM
Again, I think it's highly unlikely. But...
Post by: Houndhunter on February 27, 2014, 06:29:31 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 27, 2014, 06:39:01 PM
He is violating the operating principles of the commission that is clear.
What specific operating principle of the commission are you saying he is violating?
So far all I'm seeing is what ifs and innuendo.
I could make up a scenario that could make you look like a possible suspect in this wolf poaching incident but it would be intellectually dishonest, just like your case against Mr. Kehne.
Post by: KFhunter on February 27, 2014, 08:43:38 PM
one problem with that plan Aspen - no cell coverage there
total dead zone
May be so, but that doesn't apply to GPS. I'm just saying if the law saw it as a real problem there are ways to narrow down the suspect list, especially if the person was sloppy in covering their tracks. Given the mountain of subpoenas and/or warrants they'd have to submit I'm betting they'll never find out who did it unless the person is truly stupid. One wolf is simply not worth the effort.
Thanks for that, I was under the impression that my S3 wouldn't work without service. So after you wrote that I checked it out and it seems the GPS does work, but what's happening is that without data service the map isn't working or updating your location so it's appearing the GPS isn't working. I need to use an offline map,
Thanks Aspen!
There is some good after all from you being on HW :tup:
I was actually thinking of Garmin Nuvi's or any of the back country handhelds for sale out there, not to mention some PLB's like SPOT. I hadn't thought of phone GPS but that's another to consider. If you have OnStar in your car that's another and so is onboard GPS. I also wouldn't count on cell coverage, or a lack of it, to cover tracks. Just because your out of the coverage area doesn't mean the phone isn't talking.
Like I said, I really would be surprised if the law is that interested, but there's a lot of ways to narrow a suspect list in the electronic age if they want to bad enough.
Here's another good one, look for all ammo sales of the caliber used in the last six months within a certain range of the incident, see if a match can be made to a credit card, and then do something crazy like get a list of IP addresses hitting H-W (again, just because H-W doesn't collect that info doesn't mean the ISP's don't) and then see if any names match on the wolf forum. If you think that's not doable you got another thing coming.
Again, I think it's highly unlikely. But...
excellent advice Aspenbud.
make sure the GPS is left at home - check
no on start equipped vehicles - check
buy ammo with cash while wearing a hoodie - check
pull the battery out of any cell phones - check
You sure are a wolf zealot!
boy you'd just love to bag someone on HW huh, hang em by their nutsacks upside down with their hair dangling in an ant hill :chuckle:
It must be painful for you to be here having to read and post among your enemies.
Post by: KFhunter on February 27, 2014, 08:45:11 PM
He is violating the operating principles of the commission that is clear.
What specific operating principle of the commission are you saying he is violating?
So far all I'm seeing is what ifs and innuendo.
I could make up a scenario that could make you look like a possible suspect in this wolf poaching incident but it would be intellectually dishonest, just like your case against Mr. Kehne.
You'd like to hang someone from HW too huh
Gotta be painful for you as well to hang out rubbing elbows with your enemies.
Post by: KFhunter on February 27, 2014, 08:56:51 PM
Here's another good one, look for all ammo sales of the caliber used in the last six months within a certain range of the incident, see if a match can be made to a credit card, and then do something crazy like get a list of IP addresses hitting H-W (again, just because H-W doesn't collect that info doesn't mean the ISP's don't) and then see if any names match on the wolf forum. If you think that's not doable you got another thing coming.
Again, I think it's highly unlikely. But...
Hey Aspen and Sitka , you wanna see a really neat picture?
click this
http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/5309/42175631324088015431604.jpg (http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/5309/42175631324088015431604.jpg)
Post by: AspenBud on February 27, 2014, 09:14:58 PM
Are you gonna cry kf? :chuckle:
Heed my warning Einstein.
Carry on with your flailing.
Post by: idahohuntr on February 27, 2014, 09:22:20 PM
:chuckle: :chuckle:
Are you gonna cry kf? :chuckle:
Heed my warning Einstein.
Carry on with your flailing.
Post by: KFhunter on February 27, 2014, 09:29:14 PM
Are you gonna cry kf? :chuckle:
Heed my warning Einstein.
Carry on with your flailing.
Why would I cry? You humor me.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 27, 2014, 09:35:17 PM
He is violating the operating principles of the commission that is clear.
What are you saying he is violating?
So far all I'm seeing is what ifs and innuendo.
I could make up a scenario that could make you look like a possible suspect in this wolf poaching incident but it would be intellectually dishonest, just like your case against Mr. Kehne.
You'd like to hang someone from HW too huh
Gotta be painful for you as well to hang out rubbing elbows with your enemies.
Not trying to hang anyone. But nice deflection.
Seriously, you didn't answer the question. What specific operating principle of the commission do you have proof of, that Jay Kehne violated?
Post by: KFhunter on February 27, 2014, 09:36:08 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on February 27, 2014, 09:45:48 PM
Fact is, there is nothing unethical or illegal about a commissioner sharing public information with a conservation organization. End of discussion. Furthermore, you don't even know that he (legally and ethically) shared information with CNW in the first place.
Gosh, I wonder if one of the commissioners has shared any other wildlife related public information with other wildlife organizations...those outlaws!!! Go get 'em KF...go file FOIA's demanding to know when WDFW commissioners are communicating public information to the public and then report back to us...run along now...we need our best and brightest to solve this crime of the century. :chuckle:
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 27, 2014, 09:55:07 PM
click page two and read, already been addressed.
That's what I thought..........
And idahohuntr, JLS, AspenBud, and I, aren't really hunters. We're spies for the "other side", right?
Boy it must be fun chasing shadows.
Post by: KFhunter on February 27, 2014, 09:58:13 PM
Already been addressed...right... :chuckle: :chuckle: Just keep deflecting and changing the subject.
Fact is, there is nothing unethical or illegal about a commissioner sharing public information with a conservation organization. End of discussion. Furthermore, you don't even know that he (legally and ethically) shared information with CNW in the first place.
Gosh, I wonder if one of the commissioners has shared any other wildlife related public information with other wildlife organizations...those outlaws!!! Go get 'em KF...go file FOIA's demanding to know when WDFW commissioners are communicating public information to the public and then report back to us...run along now...we need our best and brightest to solve this crime of the century. :chuckle:
The deflection is yours and yours alone.
I clearly stated I had no knowledge of ethics violations and that the points were merely an illustration or (scenario if you will) of how someone in this position could violate ethics laws. The WASHINGTON FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION RULES OF PROCEDURE clearly states that commission members are required to take ethics training and are accountable to Chapter 42.52 RCW ethics in public service.
Quote
WASHINGTON FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION RULES OF PROCEDURE, OPERATING PRINCIPLES 1) I. Represent all citizens of the state (who own the resource), not constituents from a particular area or special interest.
Are you saying CNW is not a special interest group?
Post by: KFhunter on February 27, 2014, 10:03:39 PM
click page two and read, already been addressed.
That's what I thought..........
And idahohuntr, JLS, AspenBud, and I, aren't really hunters. We're spies for the "other side", right?
Boy it must be fun chasing shadows.
exactly, and I think Aspens comments on this thread really cement this in. If this were my site I'd axe you for being a fake hunter.
His animosity towards H-W was really showing through.
Here's another good one, look for all ammo sales of the caliber used in the last six months within a certain range of the incident, see if a match can be made to a credit card, and then do something crazy like get a list of IP addresses hitting H-W (again, just because H-W doesn't collect that info doesn't mean the ISP's don't) and then see if any names match on the wolf forum. If you think that's not doable you got another thing coming.
Again, I think it's highly unlikely. But...
It sounds like a thinly veiled threat and implying perhaps I had something to do with this.
Post by: JLS on February 27, 2014, 10:10:02 PM
click page two and read, already been addressed.
That's what I thought..........
And idahohuntr, JLS, AspenBud, and I, aren't really hunters. We're spies for the "other side", right?
Boy it must be fun chasing shadows.
exactly, and I think Aspens comments on this thread really cement this in. If this were my site I'd axe you for being a fake hunter.
His animosity towards H-W was really showing through.
Not engage in any activity which gives rise to a conflict of interest or
appearance of conflict of interest as a Commission member
Book 'em Dano :rolleyes:
Post by: KFhunter on February 27, 2014, 10:11:31 PM
He is violating the operating principles of the commission that is clear.
What specific operating principle of the commission are you saying he is violating?
So far all I'm seeing is what ifs and innuendo.
I could make up a scenario that could make you look like a possible suspect in this wolf poaching incident but it would be intellectually dishonest, just like your case against Mr. Kehne.
bring it, I'd love to hear it. book me dano :rolleyes:
Post by: KFhunter on February 27, 2014, 10:13:30 PM
I fixed it
Post by: KFhunter on February 27, 2014, 10:16:24 PM
Post by: JLS on February 27, 2014, 10:18:35 PM
So you three going to come on out and label me a wolf poacher? You're dancing around it a lot.
Unlike you, I feel no need to attach labels and I'm not dancing around anything. If I have something to say I will say it.
My comment was directed towards your desire to axe Sitka Blacktail because of your accusations of him being a fake hunter.
Post by: KFhunter on February 27, 2014, 10:19:55 PM
So you three going to come on out and label me a wolf poacher? You're dancing around it a lot.
Unlike you, I feel no need to attach labels and I'm not dancing around anything. If I have something to say I will say it.
My comment was directed towards your desire to axe Sitka Blacktail because of your accusations of him being a fake hunter.
You're the 4th, Aspen, Sitka and Idahohntr are 1,2 and 3.
Wasn't talking to you JLS
Also I don't think you're a fake, greatly mislead yes - fake no.
Post by: idahohuntr on February 27, 2014, 10:20:59 PM
Sharing public information with a conservation group is not an ethics violation. Whatever scenario that you made up in your mind is not an example of an ethics violation. He can share public information with whoever he wants to. So can any other commissioner. Its not even debatable whether they can do something like that...they can and should share public information with the public! :bash: :bash:Already been addressed...right... :chuckle: :chuckle: Just keep deflecting and changing the subject.
Fact is, there is nothing unethical or illegal about a commissioner sharing public information with a conservation organization. End of discussion. Furthermore, you don't even know that he (legally and ethically) shared information with CNW in the first place.
Gosh, I wonder if one of the commissioners has shared any other wildlife related public information with other wildlife organizations...those outlaws!!! Go get 'em KF...go file FOIA's demanding to know when WDFW commissioners are communicating public information to the public and then report back to us...run along now...we need our best and brightest to solve this crime of the century. :chuckle:
The deflection is yours and yours alone.
I clearly stated I had no knowledge of ethics violations and that the points were merely an illustration or (scenario if you will) of how someone in this position could violate ethics laws. The WASHINGTON FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION RULES OF PROCEDURE clearly states that commission members are required to take ethics training and are accountable to Chapter 42.52 RCW ethics in public service.QuoteWASHINGTON FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION RULES OF PROCEDURE, OPERATING PRINCIPLES 1) I. Represent all citizens of the state (who own the resource), not constituents from a particular area or special interest.
Are you saying CNW is not a special interest group?
I'm going to a GMAC meeting this weekend and I am going to hear lots of information about wildlife issues in Washington from WDFW staff...I believe the agenda includes Wolf Population updates, 14-15 hunting rules, a meet and greet with the new LE Chief for WDFW, a review of the 4pt restriction in NE Wa, and a bonus point system review...after that meeting I'm going to come on here and write up my notes about what was discussed so all the H-W members who are interested can hear what is going on...I hope I don't get arrested for sharing this public information. :rolleyes:
Post by: idahohuntr on February 27, 2014, 10:24:53 PM
Nobody has called you a wolf poacher. :rolleyes:So you three going to come on out and label me a wolf poacher? You're dancing around it a lot.
Unlike you, I feel no need to attach labels and I'm not dancing around anything. If I have something to say I will say it.
My comment was directed towards your desire to axe Sitka Blacktail because of your accusations of him being a fake hunter.
You're the 4th, Aspen, Sitka and Idahohntr are 1,2 and 3.
Wasn't talking to you JLS
Also I don't think you're a fake, greatly mislead yes - fake no.
Post by: KFhunter on February 27, 2014, 10:25:37 PM
Sharing public information with a conservation group is not an ethics violation. Whatever scenario that you made up in your mind is not an example of an ethics violation. He can share public information with whoever he wants to. So can any other commissioner. Its not even debatable whether they can do something like that...they can and should share public information with the public! :bash: :bash:
I'm going to a GMAC meeting this weekend and I am going to hear lots of information about wildlife issues in Washington from WDFW staff...I believe the agenda includes Wolf Population updates, 14-15 hunting rules, a meet and greet with the new LE Chief for WDFW, a review of the 4pt restriction in NE Wa, and a bonus point system review...after that meeting I'm going to come on here and write up my notes about what was discussed so all the H-W members who are interested can hear what is going on...I hope I don't get arrested for sharing this public information. :rolleyes:
That wasn't what I was talking about Idahohntr
I'm saying if he uses his position with CNW to get certain commission members removed that would be an ethics violation.
CNW gets a lot of dollars and support from Microsoft, you won't convince me that they don't have tremendous political channels and pull. If Jay say's "axe that guy" then he gets axed. Simple, but unethical.
tracking now?
Post by: idahohuntr on February 27, 2014, 10:38:36 PM
BTW - while your on here, any thoughts on the 4pt wt rule up in your neck of the woods...some folks on GMAC have been emailing me info opposing the 4pt/antler point restriction rule. My recollection is the Stevens County guys were in favor of it...do you think its been a good thing? Seeing better/more bucks etc.? PM me if you have any thoughts...so I don't derail this thread any further.
Post by: KFhunter on February 27, 2014, 10:55:48 PM
With any buck we see mostly the smaller bucks being taken in years past and the large bucks get huge if they make it maturity. If the restriction was made so it had to be 4pt then there'd be a drastic reduction in overall take, and I think that's the purpose isn't it.
Keep's the wolves fed.
Post by: KFhunter on February 27, 2014, 11:13:30 PM
Deer:
WT Deer, make all GMU's east of the PCT 4pt min, cancel all antlerless hunts (except youth) limit (1) deer per two year cycle
Mule deer, 4pt min statewide, cancel all antlerless - limit (1) deer per five year cycle.
Elk:
cancel all antlerless hunts east of PCT
emergency rules, spike only (archery -muzzle loader) east of PCT
special draw permit only (modern) 100 series GMU's CLOSED to modern firearms.
eliminate all quality hunts
Moose:
closed state wide
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 28, 2014, 07:03:47 AM
QuoteWASHINGTON FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION RULES OF PROCEDURE, OPERATING PRINCIPLES 1) I. Represent all citizens of the state (who own the resource), not constituents from a particular area or special interest.
Those rules don't say you can't work for any particular organization. They just say that if you're on the board, you have to represent everybody, not one particular group.
Notice the part where it says "not constituents from a particular area? That means if you live in say Chewelah, you have to also consider the people from Tacoma or Yakima. And if you're from Bellingham, you have to also consider the people from Walla Walla and Vancouver. Would you say that Jay Kehne only represents Omak since that is where he lives? Does he only represent elk and mule deer hunters because he belongs to the Rocky Mt Elk Foundation and the Mule Deer foundation?
Everybody has a special interest. You couldn't fill one seat on a board if being connected to a special interest group disqualified you. All the rules state is you have to consider everyone when you're part of the board, you can't play favorites. Just as if Bearpaw was on the board, he couldn't legally push an agenda that favored guides. And I'd trust him not to, unless there was clear evidence to the contrary.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on February 28, 2014, 08:42:31 AM
Post by: KFhunter on February 28, 2014, 09:09:37 AM
Other board members have a background in Big Gov, Universities, commercial fishing and the sport fishing industry. Could any of them survive cherry picking scrutiny?
I don't know of any other damaging things they've tried to spearhead through respective to those other members' backgrounds :dunno:
Did the fisheries lawyer try to push through a damaging commercial fishery plan? One that would leave hook and line sportsmen/women out to dry?
If so, then axe em too.
Jay Khene rammed through a wolf plan that is so far out of line with what's reasonable for WA, there can be no doubt of his purpose on the commission.
Not only that but "they" (WDFW and the CNW partnership) fail to document packs we all know that are out there, they continue to drag their feet.
Please show me any reference where WDFW is coming up with strategies to get ahead of the wolves?
They're not even in protecting our woodland caribou, what makes you think they give :twocents: about Elk/Moose?
Post by: AspenBud on February 28, 2014, 12:00:49 PM
click page two and read, already been addressed.
That's what I thought..........
And idahohuntr, JLS, AspenBud, and I, aren't really hunters. We're spies for the "other side", right?
Boy it must be fun chasing shadows.
exactly, and I think Aspens comments on this thread really cement this in. If this were my site I'd axe you for being a fake hunter.
His animosity towards H-W was really showing through.Here's another good one, look for all ammo sales of the caliber used in the last six months within a certain range of the incident, see if a match can be made to a credit card, and then do something crazy like get a list of IP addresses hitting H-W (again, just because H-W doesn't collect that info doesn't mean the ISP's don't) and then see if any names match on the wolf forum. If you think that's not doable you got another thing coming.
Again, I think it's highly unlikely. But...
It sounds like a thinly veiled threat and implying perhaps I had something to do with this.
I'm sorry, I was under the impression you hadn't thought of what I mentioned. Next time I'll keep it to myself smart guy.
I'm not condoning the act, but the third S in Shoot Shovel and Shut up doesn't just apply after the act. If I were Conservation NW and the state I would be looking at this forum, if I were the cops I would know what data I want to mine to try and find potential suspects, that is elementary crime solving bub and I actually tried to warn you despite your attitude.
I'd find it pretty sad if someone from this forum got busted for poaching. Mostly because it would put hunters in a bad light at a time when we already have an image problem with the non-hunting public. But it's pretty evident you've given up on maintaining a good image for hunting and have opted for scorched earth instead.
Good luck with that.
Post by: KFhunter on February 28, 2014, 12:12:08 PM
You must have missed this, I took heat from anti-wolf people for this comment:
seriously! I just puked in my mouth, WOLVES kill a ton of elk and deer! U like wolves more than deer and elk?If he talks, he will be turned in, That's usually how it goes down for them. Don't even tell your hunting friends. :bdid:
Yep. That's what happens. The third S is very important. Save it to tell your kids on your deathbed.
Here's my stance.
How about just not shoot the dammed thing in the first place?
Now before you all freak out let's think about this for half a second.....
What good do you think you'd be doing if you shot a wolf?
1) The risk you'll get caught, and with $7,500 on the table that risk goes up...Was there a guy with bino's checking out the wolf? Are you sure no one got your plate #?
You aren't going to sleep well afraid an officer is going to knock on your door.
2) How many Elk/Deer are you really saving? For a couple of years probably quite a few, but eventually none.
3) Shooting wolves delays legal management down the road, especially collared wolves! We need WDFW to confirm packs, a pack has a legal definition - kill the wrong wolf and the pack is not "legally" a pack any longer.
I was worried when I found out this was a collared wolf, but thankfully it was a young dispersing female. The smackout pack still retains it's "pack" status. It's all BS I know, but that's their game and if we go shooting them we loose in the end.
So get it through your thick skull - I do not condone illegal wolf activities.
Post by: KFhunter on February 28, 2014, 12:18:47 PM
If I were Conservation NW and the state I would be looking at this forum, if I were the cops I would know what data I want to mine to try and find potential suspects, that is elementary crime solving bub and I actually tried to warn you despite your attitude.
It's evident you are no friend to H-W members and I take offence that you keep trying to label me a wolf poacher when I've been so vocal against it.
Also, I think it really highlights you're wolf zealotry when you'd ask tax payers to fund 1000's of police man hours to start a man hunt for a single wolf. Would you be OK with reduced patrols and greatly increased response times to citizens in need so they can work on pulling gigantic amounts of data and comb through it all? Stevens CO has its share of domestic violence calls, which response times are very important. Yet you'd hang all those battered women out in the wind so officers can work on a wolf case huh.
Post by: idahohuntr on February 28, 2014, 12:33:30 PM
If I were Conservation NW and the state I would be looking at this forum, if I were the cops I would know what data I want to mine to try and find potential suspects, that is elementary crime solving bub and I actually tried to warn you despite your attitude.
It's evident you are no friend to H-W members and I take offence that you keep trying to label me a wolf poacher when I've been so vocal against it.
Also, I think it really highlights you're wolf zealotry when you'd ask tax payers to fund 1000's of police man hours to start a man hunt for a single wolf. Would you be OK with reduced patrols and greatly increased response times to citizens in need so they can work on pulling gigantic amounts of data and comb through it all? Stevens CO has its share of domestic violence calls, which response times are very important. Yet you'd hang all those battered women out in the wind so officers can work on a wolf case huh.
I don't recall anyone calling you a wolf poacher...I also recall Aspen describing hypothetically how one might go about solving this wolf death...and also how the cost of getting that info. is prohibitive. It seems to fall right in line with the direction you've taken this thread in regards to drawing up hypothetical scenarios about various people. :rolleyes:
Your insinuation that Aspen supports women being battered so a wolf crime can be solved is as ridiculous as it is disgusting. You've hit a new low. :bash:
Post by: AspenBud on February 28, 2014, 12:36:21 PM
I'm sorry, I was under the impression you hadn't thought of what I mentioned. Next time I'll keep it to myself smart guy.
If I were Conservation NW and the state I would be looking at this forum, if I were the cops I would know what data I want to mine to try and find potential suspects, that is elementary crime solving bub and I actually tried to warn you despite your attitude.
It's evident you are no friend to H-W members and I take offence that you keep trying to label me a wolf poacher when I've been so vocal against it.
Also, I think it really highlights you're wolf zealotry when you'd ask tax payers to fund 1000's of police man hours to start a man hunt for a single wolf. Would you be OK with reduced patrols and greatly increased response times to citizens in need so they can work on pulling gigantic amounts of data and comb through it all? Stevens CO has a lot of domestic violence calls, which response times are very important. Yet you'd hang all those battered women out in the wind so officers can work on a wolf case huh.
I haven't called you a poacher, but given your rather vociferous reaction to what I was trying to tell you I got the impression you were condoning it. My bad.
Actually I used the example of this forum originally to explain what could be done as people tend to post and say things thinking they are anonymous when they are in fact not. You decided to read some meaning into that.
Post by: KFhunter on February 28, 2014, 12:45:16 PM
If I were Conservation NW and the state I would be looking at this forum, if I were the cops I would know what data I want to mine to try and find potential suspects, that is elementary crime solving bub and I actually tried to warn you despite your attitude.
It's evident you are no friend to H-W members and I take offence that you keep trying to label me a wolf poacher when I've been so vocal against it.
Also, I think it really highlights you're wolf zealotry when you'd ask tax payers to fund 1000's of police man hours to start a man hunt for a single wolf. Would you be OK with reduced patrols and greatly increased response times to citizens in need so they can work on pulling gigantic amounts of data and comb through it all? Stevens CO has its share of domestic violence calls, which response times are very important. Yet you'd hang all those battered women out in the wind so officers can work on a wolf case huh.
I don't recall anyone calling you a wolf poacher...I also recall Aspen describing hypothetically how one might go about solving this wolf death...and also how the cost of getting that info. is prohibitive. It seems to fall right in line with the direction you've taken this thread in regards to drawing up hypothetical scenarios about various people. :rolleyes:
Your insinuation that Aspen supports women being battered so a wolf crime can be solved is as ridiculous as it is disgusting. You've hit a new low. :bash:
Nice effort to turn this around so I'm the bad guy :rolleyes:
Aspen is the one criticizing local police for not doing enough and nicely spelled out what it would take for his ideal investigation, don't demonize me because I realistically stated what it meant for the people of Stevens CO if the officers were tasked with this. You think police can just drop everything and launch into an investigation like this? Not in a rural county hoss, any investigation like this pulls officer resources from the streets. Our detectives will have to push aside ongoing cases to work a wolf? are you kidding?! no I guess you aren't, and that is sad.
If you don't believe me then do some research on Stevens CO and see for yourself what they respond too for the bulk of their calls then come back and we'll talk further if you still have the will or desire.
Post by: KFhunter on February 28, 2014, 12:47:34 PM
I'm sorry, I was under the impression you hadn't thought of what I mentioned. Next time I'll keep it to myself smart guy.
If I were Conservation NW and the state I would be looking at this forum, if I were the cops I would know what data I want to mine to try and find potential suspects, that is elementary crime solving bub and I actually tried to warn you despite your attitude.
It's evident you are no friend to H-W members and I take offence that you keep trying to label me a wolf poacher when I've been so vocal against it.
Also, I think it really highlights you're wolf zealotry when you'd ask tax payers to fund 1000's of police man hours to start a man hunt for a single wolf. Would you be OK with reduced patrols and greatly increased response times to citizens in need so they can work on pulling gigantic amounts of data and comb through it all? Stevens CO has a lot of domestic violence calls, which response times are very important. Yet you'd hang all those battered women out in the wind so officers can work on a wolf case huh.
I haven't called you a poacher, but given your rather vociferous reaction to what I was trying to tell you I got the impression you were condoning it. My bad.
Actually I used the example of this forum originally to explain what could be done as people tend to post and say things thinking they are anonymous when they are in fact not. You decided to read some meaning into that.
uh huh nice back pedal. How else can I take it when you personally warned me?
Post by: trophyhunt on February 28, 2014, 01:05:53 PM
Post by: KFhunter on February 28, 2014, 01:34:55 PM
Ooh let me throw my hat in the ring..... I have no problem with people killing wolves, legal or NOT. So hate away, don't mean chit to me.
heh
I love it that the pro-wolfers are bashing their heads against me - helps me keep wolf threads up near the top on the recent topics columns.
It helps me spread my message to all the guests on HW or people who haven't thought a lot about wolves.
It also helps folks see the propaganda in action when I refute and disprove every single talking point they bring forward.
They they have no further recourse but resort to personal attacks
see my sig - I love it :tup:
I earned those personal attacks and wear them with pride.
When I get a humble public apology from Idahohntr I'll change the sig, an apology at least as good as the one I gave PlateuNDN and Native Americans for an unfortunate, but innocent blunder on my part.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on February 28, 2014, 01:41:17 PM
Post by: JLS on February 28, 2014, 01:53:36 PM
Would you be OK with reduced patrols and greatly increased response times to citizens in need so they can work on pulling gigantic amounts of data and comb through it all? Stevens CO has its share of domestic violence calls, which response times are very important. Yet you'd hang all those battered women out in the wind so officers can work on a wolf case huh.
don't demonize me because I realistically stated what it meant for the people of Stevens CO if the officers were tasked with this. You think police can just drop everything and launch into an investigation like this? Not in a rural county hoss, any investigation like this pulls officer resources from the streets. Our detectives will have to push aside ongoing cases to work a wolf? are you kidding?! no I guess you aren't, and that is sad.
If you don't believe me then do some research on Stevens CO and see for yourself what they respond too for the bulk of their calls then come back and we'll talk further if you still have the will or desire.
Well, since it would be WDFW that would investigate it I really doubt it would take any detectives away from their work.
Post by: KFhunter on February 28, 2014, 02:02:04 PM
you find a wounded deer on the road do you wait for wdfw or do you end it's misery?
besides if WDFW does this investigation to Aspen's satisfaction who'd patrol for the geoducks?
Post by: JLS on February 28, 2014, 02:04:51 PM
stevens co does a ton of wildlife calls and assists wdfw all the time
you find a wounded deer on the road do you wait for wdfw or do you end it's misery?
So are their detectives putting deer down?
Doubt it.
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 28, 2014, 02:07:16 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 15, 2014, 09:38:53 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on March 16, 2014, 09:03:49 PM
Post by: KFhunter on March 17, 2014, 10:44:14 AM
I'm shocked :yike: I really thought you were going to break this crime of the century wide open. :chuckle: :chuckle: How will we all sleep at night knowing public officials are sharing public information with the public and getting away with it? :dunno:
Your gloating is unseemly
Post by: KFhunter on March 17, 2014, 10:47:30 AM
Well, I got my FOIA response - not one email sent from Jay Kehne's state email to CNW. I bet.
thanks for your efforts Pman :tup:
I don't think it was wasted, if nothing else it sends a message.
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 17, 2014, 11:01:36 AM
I'm shocked :yike: I really thought you were going to break this crime of the century wide open. :chuckle: :chuckle: How will we all sleep at night knowing public officials are sharing public information with the public and getting away with it? :dunno:
Your gloating is unseemly
What did you expect, KF?
Post by: idahohuntr on March 17, 2014, 12:49:45 PM
No, I think it was a huge waste of time and I sincerely hope not one penny of my license dollars was wasted on this absurd FOIA that would prove nothing to begin with. :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:Well, I got my FOIA response - not one email sent from Jay Kehne's state email to CNW. I bet.
thanks for your efforts Pman :tup:
I don't think it was wasted, if nothing else it sends a message.
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 17, 2014, 01:08:50 PM
Post by: Jonathan_S on March 17, 2014, 01:10:21 PM
I'm sure not one penny of your license fees was used. Just mine :chuckle:
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 17, 2014, 01:13:26 PM
Post by: AspenBud on March 17, 2014, 01:22:02 PM
Have you ever seen what a FOIA request looks like? It's not like they have to fly in the FBI to do it :dunno:
That depends on the request. Some are more of a labor intensive process to retrieve than others. Some aren't even possible to fulfill.
Post by: stevemiller on March 17, 2014, 01:28:02 PM
Post by: stevemiller on March 17, 2014, 01:38:01 PM
Post by: Jonathan_S on March 17, 2014, 01:44:40 PM
Have you ever seen what a FOIA request looks like? It's not like they have to fly in the FBI to do it :dunno:
That depends on the request. Some are more of a labor intensive process to retrieve than others. Some aren't even possible to fulfill.
Yeah I know but this wouldn't be one of those, not even close.