Sunday, January 13, 2013

Rawson's Response To Our Recent MRC Posting

A couple of days ago, we put up a post regarding the MRC, including an email from a constituent to the Council asking some questions about the activities of the MRC. Kit Rawson of the MRC felt the post was inaccurate, so we said we'd let him post a response to set the record straight from his perspective.

Below is Rawson's response.

Thanks for the opportunity to correct/amplify on a few statements made in the January 10 posting regarding the MRC.  My interest right here is to correct the facts, not debate the issues.  There certainly are issues to debate, but I think that debate is most constructively carried out on a factual basis.  By way of background, I have been a member of the San Juan MRC since 2001 and have been employed by the Tulalip Tribes since 1986.  I am stepping down from the MRC when my current term ends at the end of February of this year, and I am retiring from my job at Tulalip in early March.  My wife and I have owned property on San Juan Island since 1982, and we built a cabin there between 1987 and 1990, which we use throughout the year.  Our principal residence is in Mount Vernon. 

I was chair of the MRC from 2005-2010, but I am only a member now.  I offer these comments on my own behalf and am not speaking for the MRC or anyone else on the MRC.

The original posting stated “.. the MRC has been corresponding with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) about closures on the west side …”.  This was corrected to state the correct topic of the correspondence after I let the Trojan Heron know of the error, and the posting has been edited.  Thank you. I provide a little more information on this below:

The recent communication with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife was regarding new information on the timing of juvenile salmon presence in the San Juan Islands.  Currently they base decisions on regulating the timing of in-water work to protect salmon on information from mainland areas near river mouths that does not apply to the San Juan Islands.  So we sent the new information from the San Juan Islands to WDFW.  This was a follow up to discussions with WDFW over the past several years.  The original salmon recovery chapter for the San Juan Islands pointed out that protection of juvenile salmon in this area could be greatly improved by the application of local data to the problem.   The letter we sent was merely communicating the latest local data to them and asking them to meet with the MRC in a public meeting to discuss the information.  Our data also includes detailed information on the location of juvenile salmon as well as their timing.  Work windows do not have to be “one size fits all” but rather could be based on location, timing, and even year-to-year variability in fish presence.  They are also based on a consideration of the safety of workers and the protection of materials and other factors. Our goal was to convene a discussion of local data and local concerns with this state agency. 

A San Juan County council member who graciously volunteered to serve as pro tem liaison to the MRC was present during the MRC’s discussions of this letter.  This member did not express agreement or disagreement with the letter, nor of our sending it, but the member was aware of the letter and of the discussion we had on it.  The MRC was following up on a longer term discussion with WDFW and acting in good faith.  The MRC’s intent was not to presume to speak for San Juan County or anyone else in a matter of policy but rather to be sure that WDFW had the most recent local data on this topic, which they had asked for previously and been expecting.   In fact, I and others asked for the letter to be edited so that it was clear that is wasn’t asking for a specific policy but rather only for a discussion.  It was the edited version that was adopted by the MRC.

An email quoted in the posting states “…is it true that one of the tribes paid for the MRC coordinator’s salary for 6 months … .”  No, it is not true.    The Tulalip Tribes provided $15,000 in 2011 or 2012 (I can’t remember which) to help seed the fund for projects to implement the San Juan Islands action agenda, which is part of the Puget Sound Partnership’s action agenda.  The local agenda was developed locally and represents local needs and concerns.  The $15,000 went into a fund that was divvyed up into three or four small projects, carried out by locally-based project proponents, to implement the local action agenda.  All of this information is publically available, and I and others can help find more information if requested to do so.  The funds came from funds that the tribal casino designates for community projects and was awarded based on a request to the committee that awards these funds to community groups following normal procedures for such requests.  This was a one-time donation to help get the local program going under the Puget Sound Partnership.

It is important for people to have correct information about the background of issues they are concerned with.  It is a matter of common courtesy to first ask the subject of the discussion about a factual matter.  So it would have been appropriate here to ask someone in the MRC office, or the MRC chair, or an MRC member, or the council member who is attending MRC meetings about recent correspondence of the MRC.  Or MRC minutes could be consulted, either online or as requested from the MRC office.  In this case, the TH did correct the posting after getting a correction from me, after checking up on it, I would guess.  That is great, but it would have been better if the facts were correct from the beginning, which I don’t think would have been very hard to do.  Similarly, it would be courteous and respectful to ask the someone in the county, or the local integrating organization coordinator, or someone from one of the tribes, about a supposed source of funds for work that is being coordinated through the county.  Of course it is always appropriate, and sometimes wise, to check these facts.  But good relationships are fostered by observation of the rules of common courtesy in my opinion and in my experience.

In my opinion, the points I read in the TH about whether or not it is wise for San Juan County to accept grants, what the rules of operation for the MRC and other advisory bodies should be, whether or not the county should participate in the Puget Sound Partnership, and others are all worthy of discussion.  But, if the discussion starts with distortions and attacks, the response will most likely be to defend against the distortions and attacks rather than to debate the issues. 


  1. Serial Public Records RequesterJanuary 13, 2013 at 2:38 AM

    It's nice to get Rawson's perspective. But I find the following statement particularly ironic and telling:

    "That is great, but it would have been better if the facts were correct from the beginning, which I don’t think would have been very hard to do. Similarly, it would be courteous and respectful to ask the someone in the county, or the local integrating organization coordinator, or someone from one of the tribes, about a supposed source of funds for work that is being coordinated through the county. Of course it is always appropriate, and sometimes wise, to check these facts. But good relationships are fostered by observation of the rules of common courtesy in my opinion and in my experience."

    Does Rawson have ANY idea how difficult it is to get straight information from the hairball of government that we have created? Even his sentence gives away the complexity ("ask someone from the county, or the local integrating organization coordinator, or someone from one of the tribes, about a supposed source of funds for work that is being coordinated through the county"). Does he have ANY idea how ridiculous that sounds to anyone who isn't part of the government hairball? How many government "someones" does our little county require?

    Maybe we should ask someone associated with the lead coordinator of the agency that coordinates the agenda for supposed work for acting on the integration of the of scientific tribal agency coordination?!? Wouldn't that be the polite thing to do.

    Government here is just plain out of control and incomprehensible, even to the people supposedly involved in it. There is no hope of transparency with this uber-bureaucracy that we have.

    The misconception that Rawson is laboring under is his supposition that there is equal access to government here. There is not. There are the well connected, and then there are the rest of us. And the "newspapers" here just carry feel-good nonsense without any real content.

    There is simply nowhere for average people to get information anymore, and when we show up at county meetings, we get our three minutes of being ignored, whereas piles of the Friends and their cohorts sit on the MRC and other committees (and get paid for attending) while they rake in the grants and make designs on the rest of us.

    Has anyone ever attended an MRC meeting? They are unbearable. "This committee spoke to that executive and membership subcommittee about empowering a grant to fund an initiative ..."

    I hope the Trojan Heron can post some excerpts from the MRC's minutes sometime. They read like Dibert's torture chamber, and it is all the worse because county employees are paid to prepare the minutes.

  2. I do want to thank Mr. Rawson for his remarkable insight into inner workings of the inner sanctum. I am very sorry he has seen it necessary to take mild offense of legitimate local concerns.

    What is ironic to me is the patronizing tone of someone comfortable with long time access to the innermost reaches of our local government who has been actively influencing decisions that directly affect the lives of islanders and our rural character.

    And yet Mr. Rawson does not live here. He does not vote here. He does not work here. He works in the interest of another government entity that wants direct influence over local decisions. I am bloody sure the Tulalip Nation does not want islanders monkeying about in their politics.

    This raises the real issue of respect and courtesy Mr. Rawson fails to recognize. Mr. Rawson: Don't you understand? Please, just leave us alone.

    To have been working as long as he has for tribal interests as an employee, who has no real community ties here other than a small cabin, an odd collection of local grant funded apparatchiks, some east coast wealthy retirees and a most peculiar Un-Democratic Party machine he seems to have more direct influence than Paul Allen's Vulcan Inc. over on Lopez.

    How'd that happen? It's time for change.

  3. I agree w/both of the above comments.

    I'm a multi-generational lifetime islander from San Juan and I haven't a clue what Mr. Rawson looks like. In fact I had never heard of him before becoming informed about the issues he's defending.

    This is my home and a place where, not too many years before Rawson began coming here, we knew literally every person who lived here. So frustrating that he is trying to ingratiate himself as a local of any kind. It rubs me wrong in a way that feels angry and sad all at once.

  4. Yes, I think I understand the problem(s) much better now.

  5. Distortions and attacks? The facts? I am assuming that, as a resident of Mt. Vernon, Kit has never tried to get the county to correct information related to, for instance, the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report about their own property?

    All we have to do is talk to "someone" at the county. Sure sure. That's the ticket. That'll work.

    Here is the attitude - Facts here flow only one way. The People never have the facts. It's the MRC/Friends/county/consultants that always have the facts. If you want to get your mind right, you need to check with the someones involved with them. Otherwise, you are both wrong and rude. The MRC/Friends/county/consultants can never be wrong or rude because, by definition, they are right. They are victimized by The People.

  6. If am understanding correctly.

    (1) The MRC did, in fact, correspond with the WDFW. Kit Rawson says it only communicated data, but the letter itself clearly has a request that the WDFW work with the MRC (not the Council or staff) "Today, we are writing to ask that WDFW and the San Juan MRC work together again to revise the work window closure period ..."
    (2) Who was the San Juan County council member involved in the discussions about the WDFW letter? Whoever that is, that person has some answering to do. By the way, not a single MRC meeting minute is available from August 2012 onward. All the links on the MRC website from August 15 onward are broken.
    (2) The tribes gave money to the AAOG/LIO or some other local flavor of the PSP here, and the money was "divvyed up into three or four small projects, carried out by locally-based project proponents, to implement the local action agenda." Isn't that the agenda that has an agenda?
    (3) Rawson doesn't live here but has been on one of our most powerful committees for 10 years, including a period as Chair. How is that possible?

  7. I like the term "government hairball". It's perfect. We're being screwed by busy bodies with too much free time on their hands, thinking they're doing some great service for society or the planet. I guess their own business isn't worth minding. All suffering from acute affluenza.


  9. xD

    Yes, fill out this form and attend the Community Conversation coming to an island near you. That way, you can find out what we've already decided about you.

  10. I have a copy of this:

    Wednesday, December 2, 2009, 8:30-10:30 a.m.
    Members Present: Kit Rawson (Chair), Laura Arnold, Lynn Danaher, Barbara Marrett,
    Steve Revella, Ken Sebens, Jim Slocomb, Richard Strathmann, Jonathan White, Tina Whitman
    Members Absent: Michael Durland, Johannes Krieger, David Loyd, Pete Rose
    Staff: Jeff Hanson, Mary Knackstedt, Barbara Rosenkotter, Helen Venada
    Ed Bailey, Veterans Conservation Corps
    Ginny Broadhurst, Northwest Straits Commission
    Terry Carten,WA Depart of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW)
    Karrie Cooper, Kayakers Education & Leadership Program
    Mike Kaill
    Lisa Kaufmann, WA Department of Natural Resources (WDNR)
    ON PAGE 3

    EPA Puget Sound Watershed Management Assistance Grant: Mary said that San Juan County projects could be funded up to $650,000 for three years and the MRC could apply on behalf of the county. Potential partners might include SJC Public Works, the Canadian Green Shores Program, UW Sea Grant Program with overall grant administration by the MRC. Mary discussed ideas for the major elements of the grant application, including piloting a Green Shores-like program here, providing technical assistance to existing property owners (site visits) to help solve polluted runoff problems. She said that Public Works has proposed adding funding to their existing constructed wetland project to address runoff in Eastsound; $250,000 more is needed and Public Works would provide match money. Mary added that Brian Rader’s grant which includes an element for smaller scale Low Impact Development (LID) demonstration projects could be leveraged and there is a need to fund public process to get LID elements added to County code (there is no staff time available at SJC Community Development and Planning to do this now).

  11. The MRC could apply on behalf of the county? Who the heck is Mary and why does she make that decision?

  12. The more "good stuff for Gaia" that these people think they are doing, or get grant money for, the less accountable they feel to citizens in the county. The citizens are "low information" or evil (have some antiquated concept called private property), and must be saved in spite of themselves. Only by forming opaque committees nested N deep in Eco-acronyms can they carry out their task without the destructive interference of the "ordinary folks".

    Some day we will rise up and dismantle these committees.

  13. I think I recall another looonnnggg old-timer on the MRC referring to the public as "street noise" a few months ago.

    C'mon. Who are these powdered wigs?

    Does the MRC imagine itself to be the Admiralty?

    There is some concept in the field of behavioral economics, can't remember what its called ("incoherent preferences"?). Toyota markets the Prius as a green, sustainable car. So the Lovel Pratts of the planet shell out big bucks for something that spontaneously accelerates into a tree. But she can feel she has done her part to heal the planet (and therefore you have not done yours, so shame on you). She now has credits built up with God which enables her to pay less attention in other ethical dealings of note.

    Carbon credits sort of do the same thing. Letters of indulgence gone back to the middle ages.

    And so, if you keep raising the grant money then you must be doing the right thing by Planet Earth.

  14. We're up to the gunnels and still taking on water!

    I'm sick to death of the green hammer of Eco-Authoritarianism. To save Gaia, we're gonna take away your cars. You can't live in the suburbs because they are not sustainable. And, we need you to all move back into the city and bring your tax dollars with you so we can build more public transit because we alread took away your cars. And, when we allow you to have a rural travel permit to go back to where you used to live, you 'll thank us because it is so much nicer for the salmon now that you don't live there anymore! And you would be amazed how much better the eel grass is doing now that no one lives on the shoreline!

  15. Its really just an east coast mentality. I basically never owned a car when I lived back there. If I wanted to leave the city for a weekend and go to the country I'd rent one. A lot of the folks I knew who lived in Manhattan never got driver's licenses and never learned to drive, oh maybe they did when they turned thirty.

    It's an east coast mentality, east coast land use zoning mentality, Manhattan aristo mentality.

    Where is Lovel from? Where is Lisa from? Where are half the Planning Commission from? Think about it.

    Real west coast islanders? Not so much.

  16. Whoever it was that said we now need strong council leadership is right on. Though doubtless at least four members of the prior county council and two current holdovers have had little problem with (and funded and staffed) a rogue committee making county policy, it does seem a perverse situation. By what right does our elected counsel effectively delegate important policy matters to this coommittee, lead by a tribal representative, the DOE and various other special interests? To respond by simply delegating a council member to attend future MRC meetings seems timid, tepid and wrong. I expect more, much more, from the recently elected members of the council. Enough already with shadow government not accountable to the electorate.

  17. Yeah, and I understand that the air above ground level is owned by the Feds. In order to reduce the level of CO2 above San Juan County, the FOSJ, under orders from its wealthy East Coast supporters, will soon launch a campaign to require birthing permits. Exceptions would be given to former residents of the East Coast, members of citizen committees, FOSJ's board members and donors, and owners of hybrid vehicles, windmills, and solar power and heating systems. CDP will apply for a UN grant to buy a black helicopter to monitor and enforce compliance.

  18. The helicopter has already been seen at Friday Harbor airport. It is a big black CH-65 twin rotor Chinook. There are no markings except a small logo below the pilot's side window.
    It says "352nd Wetlands Reconnaisance Wing", with the motto in Latin, "Semper Spectator Umida"

  19. I think it is true that at some point various State agencies, particularly the DOE and WDFW, stopped talking to our elected officials and got heavily involved with committees and the staff of those committees to the point that the elected County Council became superfluous to them.

    Further, it seems FOSJ somehow became the touchstone for San Juan County. It is not worth the time and effort to check out, but rest assured State officials check in more often with them than any elected person in SJC government.

    So who's fault is it?

    I completely agree with the comment that having a Council Member sit through MRC meetings is a complete milk toast response to a long festering problem.

    The guilty party is and has always been the County Council. We just don't seem to get anyone who is tough enough to hold onto the little power we have and fight back.

    My uncle, who once made a living boxing in logging camps, once said: "If you think someone is going to hit you, hit em first."

    Give me someone like that.

  20. Gee, how about publishing the LIO minutes, for a start?

  21. Please post pictures of these people ,so we can give them the proper respect when we see them out and about .

  22. Interesting, isn't it, that Rawson is the only one to get all up in Trojan's face? He is STILL the driving force on the MRC. One of the reasons that TH was probably confused about the unsupervised letter writing/position taking of the MRC is that the MRC is sending all sorts of helpful letters to all sorts of agencies without Council approval. Pardon us for thinking that perhaps you could talk to your employers about their impermeable surfaces? Then get back to us about our urban decay.

  23. Strange, isn't it, that we do not know what these folks look like? Well, they are always giving awards to one another so their pictures are often in the paper. Their big accomplishment in 2011 was the Friday Harbor Rain Garden and Vomitarium.

  24. Ah, Kit Rawson, you betray yourself, once again.

    I know you and your tactics from a time before, when you were chairman of the MRC and proposed an 80 year moratorium on all water-related development throughout San Juan County. Forget that SJC, as the only island county in the state, is irretrievably connected to the water and that its citizens need access to the water in order to live. Yes, we need docks, buoys, bulkheads, marinas, launching ramps, and other facilities in order to continue to inhabit the county and pay the taxes that support your fatuous environmental fantasies.

    I am surprised that no-one in this thread has yet referred to the last MRC boondoggle proposal involving creation of a “Marine Reserve” whereby SJC would cede complete control of its marine resources to the DNR in a “lock-up deal” whereby no additional shoreline improvement would be permitted for a very long time – like 80 years, which for most people is basically forever. Vashon Island foolishly agreed to a similar deal a couple of years ago.

    Sensing opposition from the privileged residents of Lopez Island and Friday Harbor, MRC revised its Marine Reserve proposal to exempt all of the county east of a longitudinal meridian around Blind Bay or so, plus a little donut-hole including Deer Harbor, from the complete prohibition on marine construction applicable in the Marine Reserve. I attended a “public meeting” on Orcas Island about the Marine Reserve. In front of all of the attendees, I asked Jim Slocumb (longtime MRC member) why Deer Harbor had been exempted from the draconian prohibitions of the Reserve. He replied, and this been burned into my memory, “I could tell you, but it’s complicated and you would not understand.” I am not making this up. The absurdity of the boundaries of the MRC’s proposed boundaries can only be explained by the membership of the MRC.

  25. Back now to Kit Rawson.

    Kit states “The MRC’s intent was not to presume to speak for San Juan County or anyone else in a matter of policy…”

    Say what dude?

    I quote from the MRC letter itself: “Today, we are writing to ask that WDFW and the San Juan MRC work together again to revise (emphasis added) the work window closure period under the Hydraulic Code Rules to better reflect the time that juvenile salmon are actually in our waters.”

    Sounds like policymaking to me! Not only that but an explicit admission that MRC has been working with WDFW, DNR and other state and federal agencies without any accountability to or oversight by the Council, public transparency, or actual authority whatsoever. Welcome to San Juan County, operated by outside agencies and tribal authorities!

  26. So why are temporal limitations on in-water construction activities important?

    The thrust of the MRC proposal is to limit the number of days during which ‘hydraulic” (in water) projects can be conducted. Currently, such work can only be done before March 15 and after June 14. This is to prevent harm to juvenile salmon. The MRC has proposed that all in-water work be banned from March 15 to October 31. That is a huge change, basically equivalent to banning all waterfront construction in the county. Why? Because of tides and weather!

    In-water work cannot be safely accomplished during our winter months. The weather is too windy, the days are too short and the tides are not conducive to beach work during daylight hours. Working in the dark in stormy conditions will risk the lives of workers for no discernible benefit to the environment whatsoever.

    There are many “environmentally-positive” projects that would be adversely affected by a prohibition on in-water projects during the season in which they are feasible. For example, some shoreline property owners are replacing creosote piles with galvanized steel piles in order to remove the creosote toxins from our waters. (I think UW/Friday Harbor Laboratories has the largest collection of creosote piles and bulkheads that I have seen in the county.) If WDFW makes it impossible to work safely then what will happen to our waterfront infrastructure?

  27. We should be grateful that Kit Rawson and the rest of the MRC have finally dropped their masks and admitted to being complete tools of their tribal benefactors.

    It is not only ironic but revealing that Kit Rawson refers to the “good faith” of the MRC in communicating the “Beamer study” to the WDFW absent consent of the council. If the data is so wonderful, why has it not been published? The primary author of the study is a full-time employee of the Skagit River System Cooperative, which apparently is a joint project of the Swinomish and Suiattle tribal groups. So where is the data? Is the public privileged to review and comment or is this another crappy kwiaht-like anecdotal study without any adult (peer) review whatsoever?

    Let’s face it, the tribes are incredibly sophisticated in their influence-peddling in Olympia and Washington, DC. The tribes pay no taxes, operate casinos without any tribute to the state (unlike every other state), sell dangerous and illegal fireworks and conduct usurious money-lending operations that would be strictly illegal elsewhere.

    The tribal lobbyists could have dressed up the Beamer study in all kinds of maudlin environmental double-speak without the help of Kit Rawson and his fellow-travelers on the MRC. They could have sent the report to WDFW and the multiplicity of the WDFW cc recipients (see MRC letter) on their own behalf. So why didn’t they?

    The only plausible reason is that they thought their message would be more happily received in the halls of Olympia if it appeared to have somehow originated with the deluded taxpayers of San Juan County.

  28. As an aside, I would observe that the tribal fishing fleets, particularly the Swinomish fleet, are a greater environmental threat to San Juan County than any waterfront construction activities permitted under current law.

    The record of the Swinomish fishing fleet is worrisome.

    In August 2009, the Swinomish seiner “Anna J.” capsized off of South Beach. The vessel contained 400-500 gallons od diesel, plus an unknown quantity of lubicants, paint, other toxics and crap. The accident occurred during daylight hours in calm conditions. The capsize occurred when the crew tried to winch aboard a net full of chum salmon. Apparently, too many chum salmon. The boat flipped and sank. Greed? Maybe. Operator error? For sure. Chum salmon are basically used to make dog food.

    In July 2011, a tribal crabbing boat hit a well-known reef in Wasp Passage shortly after midnight. Alcohol was involved, according to local media.

    In August 2011, the Swinomish fishing vessel “TW Legacy” hit a rock off of Decatur Island shortly after midnight. The crew had been busy all day scooping up salmon in their favorite fishing grounds here in the San Juan Islands. They were tired after catching all those fish, dammit, and the helmsman fell asleep! The boat sank, with all the fish, and an unknown quantity of fuel aboard, in Thatcher Pass.

    So, Kit, that’s what I think of you and your tribal keepers.

    I hope you have a wonderful retirement far from where I live.

  29. I attended the MRC Marine Reserve public meeting some years back. It was held at the old Grange Hall in Friday Harbor. The ongoing saga of the San Juan Island Grange, the Brickworks and the Mean Green Machine is another story for another time.

    But, I digress. The Grange Hall feels like a warm and comfy community security blanket so its a good place for these creepy committees to pedal their propaganda, as the MRC did that night.

    The hall was packed. Nearly 100 from the public wondering what on earth was the MRC proposing. Kit Rawson's presentation came across not so much as a proposal as a fait accompli, here is what the Marine Reserve is, and shall be for evermore, blessings be.

    This did not sit well. Before the end of the evening Kit Rawson was yelling at the top of his lungs while irate citizens, learning of this boondoggle for the first time invited Kit to step outside for a little chat. It was a pleasure to watch.

    There is more than one side to Kit Rawson. I do not know why he is so obsessed with the Trojan Heron. What is he afraid of? What you have here in the Trojan Heron is a much better informed and articulate expression of true islander outrage than anything I witnessed at the Grange Hall that night.

    But that meeting at the Grange Hall pretty helped lead to the shelving of Kit Rawson and the Tulalip Tribes play to shut down our shorelines and working water front.

    Did that eliminate the larger strategy at play? Of course not.

    Because here comes the update of our Shoreline Master Program.

  30. Yeah, he just went into stealth mode. Like sending "information" to the state about "science" that the state would probably have had it ever been published by a peer-reviewed journal.

    You don't happen to have a video of his meltdown do you? Funny that he want to play here so much when we are so rude and uncivil.

  31. Rawson and everyone else are always welcome here ... just have to be able to put up with different points of view.

    Personally, I like Rawson, even though we are on different sides of most issues. Although I may disagree, he's forthright and willing to speak his mind. I have to admire him for that.

  32. Metaphor alert!

    Yah, I say Kit is brave like the kid in the movie "Christmas Story" who sticks his tongue to a frozen pole.

    Just sayin' -- compare Kit's rendition of his role in the 12/5 MRC meeting as described in his TH submission to the actual (first draft) minutes of the 12/5 MRC meeting at

    Sometimes Sharon nails it and she did this time!

  33. we told you that these folks are always awarding each other--"Kit Rawson, a member of the San Juan MRC, received a Champion Award [from Puget Sound Partnership] in recognition of his individual achievement toward protecting and restoring salmon runs and Puget Sound. Since 1998 Kit has been developing the technical basis for the Chinook recovery plan for Puget Sound . . . ."

    Since 1998, they have been planning to recover salmon. 15 years of planning. Why stop now?

    Coming soon: The MRC awards the PSP an Order of Planetary Merit.

  34. WAIT!!! THE MRC HAS "AN OFFICE"?? Are you kidding me?

  35. After reading the San Juan Islander article about the MRC and the CC I checked out Triana's horoscope....

    "...One thing I’ve found very amusing is how lost some folks feel now that the “end of the world” hysteria is over. Once again, it didn’t happen so what do they do? They blame the Mayans! Never mind that the Mayans were the last people on the planet to say that the world was going to end anyway. This is a good reminder of how flawed interpretations can be, and how fear mongering can be very lucrative."

    Couldn't agree more

  36. This article iѕ gеnuіnеly a nice one it helps new net visitorѕ, whο aгe wіshіng
    in favοr of blogging.

    my ωebsitе ... Cam 4 Cam