The opinion
Stafford, J.
(concurring in the result only)—Notwithstanding the import of any dissenting or concurring opinions to the contrary, the current decisional law of this state is reflected in Puget Sound Gillnetters Ass'n v. Moos, 88 Wn.2d 677 , 565 P.2d 1151 (1977); Purse Seine Vessel Owners Ass'n v. Moos, 88 Wn.2d 799 , 567 P.2d 205 (1977). As indicated therein, and as pointed out in this case, the Department of Fisheries' authority to regulate the salmon fishery is limited to "conservation" purposes.
Inasmuch as the regulations adopted in 1974 have been superseded, the issue before us is moot. Ordinarily we will not resort to mootness as a means of dismissing cases involving issues of great public importance. However, the rule is not applicable here.
The instant record makes it abundantly clear the challenged regulations were not adopted for the purpose of "conservation" but were formulated solely in response to an order of the Federal District Court. That being the case, the Director of Fisheries clearly exceeded the authority granted him by the legislature. To that extent Puget Sound Gillnetters Ass'n and Purse Seine Vessel Owners Ass'n are fully dispositive of the only real issue before us. Thus, the matter not only is moot but it no longer involves a subject of great public importance, having been previously resolved in the above cited cases.
When an appeal no longer presents the question that originally warranted our retention of a moot case, we should not continue to consider it merely to discuss, by way of dicta, other matters only tangentially related thereto. Despite the temptation to consider matters beyond the *287 Director's power to regulate the salmon fishery, the discussion is not necessary to the decision and should be eliminated as dicta.
Accordingly, I would dismiss the appeal of the Director of Fisheries as moot.
Wright, C.J., concurs with Stafford, J.