Commissioner Jennings

[Chase 1]

Interesting article from the Wild Fish Conservancy. I especially found this quote of interest:

David has been the voice of Washington's many citizens who value passive recreation and wildlife protection.  He is a strong proponent of watchable wildlife, fish and wildlife conservation, increasing the relevancy of the Department of Fish and Wildlife to more than just the hunters and fishers, and protecting the privilege of future generations to enjoy Washington's diverse fish and wildlife

I would urge you to take a moment and respond to the WFC request by using the link below to vote .."HELL NO"!  to Jenning's confirmation!

From the: Wild Fish Conservancy
Jennings to the Washington Fish & Wildlife Commission
April 18, 2013

David Jennings was appointed to the WA Fish & Wildlife Commission by Governor Gregoire in 2009. The nine-member Commission’s role is to establish policy and direction for fish and wildlife management in the state, and to monitor WA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife’s implementation of those policies. During that time, David has been the voice of Washington's many citizens who value passive recreation and wildlife protection.  He is a strong proponent of watchable wildlife, fish and wildlife conservation, increasing the relevancy of the Department of Fish and Wildlife to more than just the hunters and fishers, and protecting the privilege of future generations to enjoy Washington’s diverse fish and wildlife 
David has been a longtime supporter of Wild Fish Conservancy and our efforts here in the Northwest. He has been especially influential as an advocate for bringing the science of conservation ecology to the Fish & Wildlife Commission.
 
The Problem ...(or solution)
David's presence on the Commission is coming to a vote at the Senate Natural Resources and Parks Committee.  It appears that a small but vocal group of sportsfishers believe that Commissioner Jennings is too conservation-oriented and has thus mounted a campaign to encourage the Senate Committee to deny his confirmation.

How You Can Help (NOPE!)
 It is urgent that you contact your Washington State Senator to express your support for David. David brings a crucial perspective to the F&W Commission ... a perspective that has historically been under-represented.

HOW CAN YOU ACTUALLY HELP??

Take a moment and respond to the WFC request by using the link at the bottom of the post with a vote of.."NO"! to Jenning's confirmation! 

There will be no public testimony taken on Senate Gubernatorial Appointments. However, you may submit written comments to staff for distribution to the committee members at Katharine.Grimes@leg.wa.gov.

or directly to...

http://app.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/

Full story:
http://wildfishconservancy.org/about/press-room/press-clips/action-required-support-the-confirmation-of-david-jennings-to-the-washington-fish-wildlife-commission

[dreamingbig]

Omg.  Wolves are his best friend too!

[Chase 1]

I must admit that I am a bit surprised that the hunting community has not jumped on this issue. Anglers have been campaigning for weeks and even months to see that Jennings is not only not confirmed... but asking he be removed. Yet, hunters seem to be idol on the issue.

For all the... "let's make sure that the Commission is balanced and science based", I don't see much volume from the hunting community at all. Not only should we be asking that Jennings be removed, we should be telling Inslee who should replace him.

Please take a minute and tell you reps that Jennings should be politely thanked for his "service", and then he should be asked to turn in his pocket protector and his "let us pet fish" and "hear the howl" lapel pins on his way out the door! 

[dreamingbig]

Email sent!

[snowpack]

Meanwhile, Inslee got rid of Douvia and Perry is on the way out.  Thinking Inslee will appoint two more huggers. 

[Chase 1]

Meanwhile, Inslee got rid of Douvia and Perry is on the way out.  Thinking Inslee will appoint two more huggers. 

Source for Douvia and Perry info?

[snowpack]

http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2013/apr/25/gov-inslee-begins-shake-fish-wildlife-commission/
  See how bad this turns out....might be moving to Montana or Alaska sooner rather than later.

[Chase 1]

Found it, but thanks for your follow up. Disturbing!

[dreamingbig]

Uh oh...  Not a good trend!

[whacker1]

tag

[33 Winchester]

America is predominantly an urban nation, as is the state of Washington.  The primary problem facing fish and wildlife is habitat loss and degradation.  For most folks, the issue is not on the daily radar.  With the exception of some groups on the outer edge of the animal rights movement; environmentalists, bird watchers, wildlife watchers, campers, hikers and so on at least share concern with our major issue.  When you are a minority of the population that bond is important.  We need to find common ground for our collective good.

I do not know Mr. Jennings, but I do know Mr. Douvia and he was a poor supporter of fish and wildlife conservation.  County Commissioners in Stevens County are attempting to scuttle efforts by the Department of Fish and Wildlife to double the NE elk herd.  They even attempted to employ the state growth management act to foil growth of the elk population.  I don't care whether someone is a bunny hugger or not, as long as they have the courage to support wildlife instead of local politicians.  We sportsmen couldn't depend on that support from Mr. Douvia.

Yes, wolves are eating machines.  However, the management plan only calls for fifteen breeding pairs, maybe a few hundred animals.  So the species has functioned largely as a red herring issue driving a destructive wedge between hunters and other wildlife advocates. 

[denali]

Winchester,  the wolf plan calls for 15 BP before delisting, the actual number of BP/ population will be substantially higher.  IMHO

[33 Winchester]

Interesting point denali.  The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is a "management by objectives" agency though, and I haven't seen anything in the plan that states or implies the management objective will be different than fifteen breeding pairs.  The peer reviewers and critics of the plan assume fifteen breeding pairs is the objective.  Just exactly what do you see in the plan, or any other document, that justifies your concern? 

The wolf management plan is a modest effort to meet the minimum objectives of endangered species legislation.  Soon, we will have another game animal to hunt. 

In the management plan, the WDFW makes a pretty strong commitment to maintain game herds, suggesting wolves would have little to no impact.  It will, however, require some money and due diligence.  Seems to me hunters would be wise to reinforce that commitment and help insure the Department gets the resources needed to meet game management objectives, rather than facilitating a self fulfilling prophesy just so we can say "we told you so" if game numbers fall.  It wouldn't kill us to work with groups like Defenders of Wildlife to minimize the adverse impacts of wolves on game herds.

Additionally, hunting isn't a growth sport and wildlife watching is.  We need help to move fish and wildlife habitat legislation.  By continuously vilifying "bunny huggers" we make ourselves enemies of a rapidly growing social group that is educated and organized.

[whacker1]

Interesting point denali.  The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is a "management by objectives" agency though, and I haven't seen anything in the plan that states or implies the management objective will be different than fifteen breeding pairs.  The peer reviewers and critics of the plan assume fifteen breeding pairs is the objective.  Just exactly what do you see in the plan, or any other document, that justifies your concern? 

The wolf management plan is a modest effort to meet the minimum objectives of endangered species legislation.  Soon, we will have another game animal to hunt. 

In the management plan, the WDFW makes a pretty strong commitment to maintain game herds, suggesting wolves would have little to no impact.  It will, however, require some money and due diligence.  Seems to me hunters would be wise to reinforce that commitment and help insure the Department gets the resources needed to meet game management objectives, rather than facilitating a self fulfilling prophesy just so we can say "we told you so" if game numbers fall.  It wouldn't kill us to work with groups like Defenders of Wildlife to minimize the adverse impacts of wolves on game herds.

Additionally, hunting isn't a growth sport and wildlife watching is.  We need help to move fish and wildlife habitat legislation.  By continuously vilifying "bunny huggers" we make ourselves enemies of a rapidly growing social group that is educated and organized.

33 - I don't feel that you have done a very good job educating yourself on the wolf plan.  First, 15 breeding pairs is correct, but requires that number for 3 years continuously and spread of wolves in all 3 wolf regions.  Currently there are 12 packs that have been identified and none in the SW region.  So that means that the populations will continue to grow in the Eastern Wasghington and the Northern Cascades, and we will not see any delisting efforts until the SW region gets their 4 breeding pairs.   So this is a greater number of breeding pairs than was used for Montana's original management plan, and we have roughly 10 times the human population and half the geography. 

Douvia is a poor supporter of fish and wildlife conservation, really?....I believe on the particular wolf issue as we were discussing he is the member of the commission that included a cap of 18 breeding pairs as a set amount of breeding pairs to initiate delisting process for the other 2 regions of the state.  I believe he knew that government beauracracy would sit on their proverbial hands once the 15 bp was met in the first year.  and he knew that the population would grow faster than planned and 3 years would be too long to wait.

I do not know much about the County Commissioners trying to scuttle the WDFW efforts on NE elk heard growth other than the elk heard has been growing, is poorly docummented on actual size and the commissioners were frustrated by reduction in opportunities as they know that hurts tourism.  Other efforts to scuttle the WDFW I know nothing about...., so please enlighten us as that would most definitiely would be news worthy.

[pianoman9701]

In addition, the DFW has been slow to count new packs when the evidence and witnessing has been overwhelming to their existence. Once the DFW admits to 15 packs, it's quite possible that means there are 20+. Then, we have 3 years before management starts. Considering that8 packs have been identified within the last 1.5 years, that tells me that by the time the 3 year moratorium is up, there could be well over 30 packs in this state. The plan is ridiculous. The 3-year waiting period is beyond belief. We're only a couple of years into this and the cost of the plan has tripled from one year to the next. These idiots have devised a system which will put them out of business unless they modify it fast.