Who do you want for WDFW Wildlife Commissioner?

[bearpaw]

Gary Douvia

   I hope he gets reappointed.

[CementFinisher]

Get Dan Richards to move up here from california and be one! Experience, is a hunter, and a chance to poo poo at california

[Elkaholic daWg]

Gary Douvia

   I hope he gets reappointed.

 

[snowpack]

There were topics on the fishing sites drumming up letters regarding the hearings too.  I didn't see much about Kehne, but sounded like the fisherman were asking for total removal of Jennings.

[Killmore]

Mr McIrvin

[Hunter4Life]

This is a good opportunity to be serious about considering who might be best placed in those positions.  Since Inslee is definitely anti-gun, I suspect he is also anti-hunting.  We cannot count on him to make any responsible choices regarding WDFW Commissioner appointments.  Political pressure from constituents can be a powerful tool if we stick together.

We must have responsible wildlife management based on sound and unbiased science, not decisions made to satisfy political agendas or responding to emotional outbursts from a misled public.

Jshunt, you hit the nail on the head:

wildlife management based on sound and unbiased science, not decisions made to satisfy political agendas or responding to emotional outbursts from a misled public.

You are also correct on this:

Since Inslee is definitely anti-gun, I suspect he is also anti-hunting.

Inslee was HSUS "Legislator of the Year" twice and out of 435 members of the US House, he was rated dead last on sportsmen's issues.  Inslee is also very highly politically intelligent.  He realizes he has a losing hand and is willing to work with us.  He will give us some pro-hunting Commission members because the senate Republicans can block his other appointees if he doesn't.  For the first time in 30 years WE have the upper hand. 

It is easy to be against something.  It is easy to say Dave Jennings is horrible or Jay Kehne loves wolves, but now we need to provide solutions.  I am very impressed with the quality of posts that we receive here.  It is obvious that the people here understand wildlife issues and the posts are well thought out.   Disagreements are civil.  There is no name-calling or bullying here.  A real pleasure to post here.  Who do we replace Jennings with?  The same for Kehne. 

If all goes as planned and we get what we want, it is also time to remember our friends at election time.  The Republicans and Democrats who stuck their necks out for us need to be remembered.  House Democrat Brian Blake is our best friend in the state house and he goes against his own caucus to help us.  Guys like this need to be remembered when they are running for re-election, or if they decide to run for higher office.  You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.  The liberals are are great at this keeping welfare people on the dole.  The liberals keep them on the public dole and they get these guys to support them.  FDR's campaign manager, the brilliant James A Farley,  said, "Spend, spend, spend.  Elect, elect, elect."  We also can't chastise our friends.  If a guy is with us 95% of the time, we usually focus on the 5% that he is bad on.  We have to remember who is good to our community.  Farley also said,

"Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good."

This is a chance for us to be a part of the solution.  Keep those names coming!

[Chase 1]

This is a great question Dale. No matter how the current appointments pan out, this will be a continuous process of appointment that should be of utmost priority to all sportsmen and women. The Commission represents the bottom line in how our resources are managed. At the end of the day, the direction of the Commission is what dictates our resource management and priorities. Our hunting and fishing community should have a list of potential, willing, and qualified candidates to fill Commission positions that come open and we should lobby to get the next on our list appointed for every opening.
 
I gave it quite a bit of thought before I responded because the question deserves a well thought out answer.  We all have our own personal interests in the outdoor pursuits and with that comes differing opinions and views.  But, for the most part, we are all just sportsman; we hunt, we fish, and we enjoy all of the pursuits that the great outdoors (and our pocket book) affords us.
 
That being said, I think that the WDFW Commission should consist of people that represent those who have the highest stake in our resources… those that support the resource… those who do the most to protect and bolster the resources… those who demand that our resources are managed and protected… and those that demand that are our resources are managed to maximize the utilization of those resources by the recreational community. We need science based decision making that ignores the pleas of special interest and big business. We need management for the people, by the people.

No one person can know everything about all our states vast resources, it’s impossible. We need well rounded sportsman and women that have a working knowledge of as wide of a variety of our states resources as we can get. We need people who have a desire to see that the people’s resources are protected and conserved for the long term sustainable pursuit and consumption by our recreational stake holders. We need people who are will to listen and challenge misinformation. We need people who get it! And they are out there… 
 
Although I can’t say that any of these people would accept an appointment, the three people that I think would make excellent Commissioner candidates are (Dale I took you off my list… although I reserve the right to nominate you in ten years):

Ron Gardner – PSA President (Puget Sound Anglers)

Shawn McCully – WSB President (Washington State Bowhunters)

John Martinez – John’s Sporting Goods Owner (Everett, WA)

 

[Elkaholic daWg]

There were topics on the fishing sites drumming up letters regarding the hearings too.  I didn't see much about Kehne, but sounded like the fisherman were asking for total removal of Jennings.

In my inbox today,and I have to say I'm with them



 
We need your help! Please support the WDFW commissioners reappointment. Chair Miranda Wecker, Vice Chair Gary Douvia, and Chuck Perry’s terms have expired and need your help in being reappointed. They have been key in helping us to change our crab policy, shrimp policy, the Columbia River Gillnet ban, as well as working on hatchery reform and much more. These are unpaid commissioners that have our resources and social equity at heart.  These leads are the only commissioners that have listened to us in changing our fisheries for the better. They have helped in gaining us expanded access to our resources. This is a first in Washington State in over 100 years! They do not have a paid  interest to misguide our resources. These champion commissioners have changed the way our resources have been managed for the better. They have redirected a large portion of them back to the people of Washington state that own them and pay for them in taxes and license fees.
 
It is important that we insist that they are reinstated to continue down the path of conservation, socio equity, and economics, while making sure the best available science is used to manage them. This current commission has vast knowledge in managing our resources and does not take the easy road of decision making. They have had to make the tough, uncomfortable choices that are required. This is a key component in proper decision making.  Please tell Governor Inslee we want the three commissioners reappointed so they may continue doing great accomplishments. 

The commercials are pushing to replace these three with commercial intersts on the commission. We have already been there and are not willing to go back as in the past. It is time to let the Governor know we need these commissioners reappointed!

Please act now.
Click the link below to log in and send your message:

https://www.votervoice.net/PSA/Campaigns/31478/Respond


http://www.votervoice.net/link/target/psa/G4ftJ3PB.aspx
You have received this message because you have subscribed to a mailing list of Puget Sound Anglers. If you do not wish to receive periodic emails from this source, please

[Odell]

I don't know enough people to know who to suggest, but from looking at the bios of the commission in the past, it does seem like having an environmental degree of some type is highly valued? So we have to find sportsmen with the right pedigree, a professional degree in environmental sciences of some sort? Or will any knowledgable sportsman/woman be eligible.

Jennings has to go, that much i do know.

[bearpaw]

The fishing community has a very strong lobby. The hunting community is very weak in lobbying, our focus must be on getting hunters appointed to the commission. 

[Elkaholic daWg]

 At least they are for  Vice Chair Gary Douvia, not so sure about Wecker although she seemed okay at meetings I've attended, and I don't remember Perry.

[Hunter4Life]

The fishing community has a very strong lobby. The hunting community is very weak in lobbying, our focus must be on getting hunters appointed to the commission. 

Dale, I have to respectually disagree with you on the hunting lobby being weak.  One thing that helps the fisheries side is that you can get a degree in Fisheries Studies.  There is no Hunting Studies done at any university.  Schmitten, Wecker, and Mahnken all have fisheries degrees.  A governor can point to this say his appointees can make science based decisions, even though a degree doesn't automatically make you a good commissioner. 

The hunting lobby has been good in stopping serious anti-hunting legislation from going through the legislature.  The main problem is that the hunting community has never had in the past 30 years a Senate Natural Resources Committee Chair that gave a darn about hunting.  All our governors for the past 30+ years have been hostile to hunting.  Gardner, Lowry, Locke, Gregoire, and Inslee are all anti-hunting.  Most of the time we have had chairs like Kevin Ranker who are totally hostile to hunting.  If Ranker was still the Natural Resources Chair, we would not even have a prayer of removing Jennings or Kehne.  Before Ranker, the chair was a 206er from Seattle that had the same view of hunting that Ranker did.   These anti-hunting commissioners did not get voted on.  That is why seven of the nine commissioners were sitting unconfirmed.   That is why I am stressing so much that we have to remember who are friends are and make sure that their back gets scratched too.  I guess the biggest points to support this is Senator Smith's three wolf-related bills.  Two passed the state senate and are in the state house, the other got out of committee and died in Rules.  Ranker would not and in past session has not even heard bills that might harm his precious wolves.  Ranker was dead opposed to removing the Wedge Pack.   That his why Representative Kretz introduced his wolf translocation bill and specified moving them to the San Juans specifically (Ranker's district) as a political shot at Ranker.  Legislatively, the hunting community has done good the last 15 years considering how bad that the political make-up of the state house or state senate has been.  All these years liberal 206ers controlled both chambers.  We have the current governor in a bad spot and we need to take advantage of this by getting good people in while we can.

[bigtex]

The fishing community has a very strong lobby. The hunting community is very weak in lobbying

I agree. The Coastal Conservation Association has done many great things to protect WDFW and the commission in the past couple years, even though some legislators wanted to eliminate or merge with other agencies. The recreational and commercial fishing industries have a lot of pull, not so much on the hunting side.

[Bob33]

A bit off topic but I just received the following reply from Senator Kline regarding appointments

Dear Mr. C,

Thanks for your note. The Natural Resources and Parks Committee just heard all four appointees. They appeared in person, and we asked questions that reflected our own preferences. Some committee members seemed to insist that the candidates act in the way that their own constituents would like. I prefer to see them as individuals who have the elected Governor’s confidence (though some preceded him by 18 months or more) because they are capable of negotiating to a statewide solution, rather than because they follow slavishly the desires of one or another stakeholder group, or the ideology of “urban” or “rural” residents—as if those were monolithic blocs. The answers of all four gentlemen convinced me that they are willing to balance the conflicting needs of urban and rural Washington, whether in regard to wolf-management, fisheries management, or hunting. I intend to vote to confirm all four, including the one who took a different position on wolf-management than I do.

If we legislators want to draft and pass our own wildlife management plans, I suppose we could do that. We could legislate hunting seasons, even vote on where to assign staff. But we delegate that to an agency because so much of these acts are decided on a case-by-case basis, and we don’t have the time or expertise on which to base good judgment. So we have to respect the individuals who are willing to step forward to do it, and whom an elected Governor has appointed. That means treating them with respect and giving them a degree of discretion. We get to see them again in another four years, but in the meantime we need to trust them. That’s not naďve; that’s pragmatic.

Thanks again for your advocacy.

Yours truly,

[huntrights]

I just received the same message.