Quote:
This was just brought to my attention. This is exactly why I have NO use for this thread. Maybe I should've just ignored it. Having my integrity questioned and my character impugned is one thing but when efforts to try and help folks are derailed by pure ignorance, I feel a need to speak up.
I have NO idea what Sandhill would have to do with the proposed changes to WAC 16-92. In my post I clearly stated the Point of Contact with the DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON! Once again, the ladies name is Ms. Jodi Jones and she can be reached at (360) 902-1889.
If this were simply an "old trick", I doubt the Dept. of Ag would be taking the time or money to send letters out. If ANYONE would like to see the letter I have in my possession regarding this issue, they can email me and let me know and I'll either email it or fax it to them.
I also don't think the State would be having two different public hearings on the matter if this were just an "old trick". The first is the 23rd of this month in Ellensburg and the second is the 26th in Olympia.
Moreover, if this were just an "old trick", I wouldn't have received an email today from Teresa Norman, who is the WSDA Rules Coordinator, thanking me for my email and stating, "Thank you for taking the time to offer your public comments. They will become part of the hearing record." And Jodi Jones would not have spent a half hour or more with me on the phone explaining why the proposed changes are being made.
Let's be clear here, there may not be (and probably isn't) an intent to target every person transporting livestock within this State BUT with regard to the proposed changes to WAC 16-92, there is some ambiguity in the language which could lead one to allow for citations when any transporting is done in the State. This is one of the reasons why the proposed changes are being made. One is to clearly put language in WAC 16-92 stipulatating that the transporting livestock applies ONLY under the guidelines of 16-54. WAC 16-54 clearly states that it applies only to livestock being transported into WA. The other reason is to reduce the fines from "up to $1000" to what I think I already put in my previous post but in case not it would run from $100-250.
If one wants to talk about "old tricks", I would submit that the only "old trick" being done is to use this Forum to take a totally uncalled for cheap shot at someone simply trying to be helpful and inform others about something that is germaine to their lives. At least I would think I'm safe to assume that's why you're on a "chicken forum". So much for the apology and "I was only joking." bit before.
Now, I am truly done with this. I've given the name and number to the true source if anyone wants to take the initiative to see if I'm up to my "old tricks". Truth be told, these changes whether or not adopted may not even become a big deal. (Although, why have public hearings on the matter then??????) Maybe they would never try to enforce having a health certificate for transporting within the State. The question is, why leave it to chance? If you trust your Government that much - good for you. I don't. I've personally seen numerous times when the State's General Fund gets a little low that the citation rate goes up. Anybody recall seeing the State Troopers out in force a year or two ago when the State needed some money? I can only say I've let my voice be heard so I can't be called one of those who do nothing until something is done that affects them (like a new law being passed) and then they sit around and whine afterwards because they don't like it.
The contact info is there. So is the email addy to send an email. All it takes is a few seconds to say that the language needs to be clear that ONLY livestock being transported into the State is subject to being fined.
But keri still is. she said to tell your sister to put her dogs in a kennel where they will be safe and get your Butt to the party 
