A referendum Changing the Way the Wildlife Commission is Selected

[pianoman9701]

Currently, the wildlife commission in WA state is made up of gubernatorial appointees. Because of the last 20+ years of liberal governors, the commission has become severely lopsided to the watchable wildlife crowd, as opposed to supporting the people who most pay the bills - the state's sportsmen and women.

What would an alternative be to gubernatorial appointees? Could candidates be chosen by the House Natural Resources Committee and then be confirmed by the House and then, the Senate? Any other ideas? Have at it.

[huntnphool]

Currently, the wildlife commission in WA state is made up of gubernatorial appointees. Because of the last 20+ years of liberal governors, the commission has become severely lopsided to the watchable wildlife crowd, as opposed to supporting the people who most pay the bills - the state's sportsmen and women.

What would an alternative be to gubernatorial appointees? Could candidates be chosen by the House Natural Resources Committee and then be confirmed by the House and then, the Senate? Any other ideas? Have at it.

Great question, tag.

[Gringo31]

Perfect world would be a vote for everyone with a hunting/fishing license.

[pianoman9701]

Perfect world would be a vote for everyone with a hunting/fishing license.

I'd love that. That would force the greenies to buy hunting and/or fishing licenses to have a say in the choices.

[idahohuntr]

Interesting topic.  I like Gringo's concept of letting hunters and anglers have much more say in the selection...another improvement IMO would be at minimum to make sure each region selects its own commissioner(s)...As opposed to having a Governor in Olympia decide who will represent E Washington.

[Elkaholic daWg]

Perfect world would be a vote for everyone with a hunting/fishing license.

 Since it is not that perfect world one must consider  the many possibilities of trying to start with. Ballot wildlife management has done nothing but damage what we as hunters/trappers  had years ago. (like that avatar over there) Kind of like  'be careful what we wish for. since the other side might just see a way to use the same method to further advance their agenda.  If you were to try, make sure it doesn't end up on a ballot such as 2012's Gay marriage/ legalize MJ  initiatives that guaranteed us Inslee over McKenna, if we could outnumber their voting block at all 



This was the avatar at the time.....

[bearpaw]

Interesting topic.  I like Gringo's concept of letting hunters and anglers have much more say in the selection...another improvement IMO would be at minimum to make sure each region selects its own commissioner(s)...As opposed to having a Governor in Olympia decide who will represent E Washington.

   I agree with both thoughts. 

Perfect world would be a vote for everyone with a hunting/fishing license.

 Since it is not that perfect world one must consider  the many possibilities of trying to start with. Ballot wildlife management has done nothing but damage what we as hunters/trappers  had years ago. (like that avatar over there) Kind of like  'be careful what we wish for. since the other side might just see a way to use the same method to further advance their agenda.  If you were to try, make sure it doesn't end up on a ballot such as 2012's Gay marriage/ legalize MJ  initiatives that guaranteed us Inslee over McKenna, if we could outnumber their voting block at all 

I also agree that voting on wildlife commissioners may not be much better than the governor appointees. Perhaps it would be best if County Commissioners from each wildlife region chose an appointee for each region. That would give us 6 commissioners, let the governor appoint 1, then let the senate and house natural resources committees each appoint one. That would make 9 commissioners.

[Special T]

I LOVE gringo's idea but its not feasable... I think the key is finding a way to link landscape with representaiton. If you compared rural counties to urban, you would find there are many sympathitic people, but if you compare raw votes we are hosed...

[pianoman9701]

Perfect world would be a vote for everyone with a hunting/fishing license.

 Since it is not that perfect world one must consider  the many possibilities of trying to start with. Ballot wildlife management has done nothing but damage what we as hunters/trappers  had years ago. (like that avatar over there) Kind of like  'be careful what we wish for. since the other side might just see a way to use the same method to further advance their agenda.  If you were to try, make sure it doesn't end up on a ballot such as 2012's Gay marriage/ legalize MJ  initiatives that guaranteed us Inslee over McKenna, if we could outnumber their voting block at all 

That's specifically why I suggested legislative solutions as opposed to ballot initiatives.

[snowpack]

I LOVE gringo's idea but its not feasable... I think the key is finding a way to link landscape with representaiton. If you compared rural counties to urban, you would find there are many sympathitic people, but if you compare raw votes we are hosed...

The state added about a million people in the last decade, the vast majority to urban areas.

[buckfvr]

I support folks with wild ID or a verifiable means of showing they have participated in hunting and or fishing for 5 years, preceding a regional election of persons to represent us regionally. 

Any and all decisions generated by the commision after that point would use a weighted system to better serve the region (s) affected. 

The puget sound basin needs to be prevented from controlling the entire state.   

[pianoman9701]

I support folks with wild ID or a verifiable means of showing they have participated in hunting and or fishing for 5 years, preceding a regional election of persons to represent us regionally. 

Any and all decisions generated by the commision after that point would use a weighted system to better serve the region (s) affected. 

The puget sound basin needs to be prevented from controlling the entire state.   

That's exactly what I would be trying to eliminate.

[timberfaller]

I like the idea of "buyers only" of license's choose who is on the Commission.

Something else I like, ONE commissioner from each county selected only by county residents who purchase license's.

Oh ya, Inslee got KICKED of of Okanogon Co. after only one term!  He fled to the Wet side to get back in!!

  We didn't kick him hard enough! 

[sakoshooter]

Perfect world would be a vote for everyone with a hunting/fishing license.

Half the folks in Oly don't even hunt or fish but they've all got college degrees. The average hunter/fisherman in WA has much more knowledge based on many hours afield. I'd sure like to see hunters/fishermen get to vote on these committee members. 

[ipkus]

I also agree that voting on wildlife commissioners may not be much better than the governor appointees. Perhaps it would be best if County Commissioners from each wildlife region chose an appointee for each region. That would give us 6 commissioners, let the governor appoint 1, then let the senate and house natural resources committees each appoint one. That would make 9 commissioners.

This is about the most equitable way I can think of...maybe minus the two appointees from the senate and house.

Votes by the general public don't work do to demographics.  Special votes by license holders aren't practical or affordable.

It's interesting that the current commission gets fish issues better than any commission in history, and yet they are so far off on the wildlife side.

There has got to be a better way.

[timberfaller]

"It's interesting that the current commission gets fish issues better than any commission in history, and yet they are so far off on the wildlife side."

Last time I checked the "Bios" of the Commissioners, there was only ONE who had any claim to be a "hunter" all the rest claimed their "fishing" expertise.    

[buckfvr]

Diversity by region and needs by region should dictate regional appointments.  This could be accomplished through county commissioners by way of local input. 

The next obvious thing to do would be to eliminate from consideration any person of special interest through affilliation or employment.  No presidents of this organization, or board of directors of that one.........just honest fair open minded persons of common sense with long standing regional back ground.

[gvan]

 :

Diversity by region and needs by region should dictate regional appointments.  This could be accomplished through county commissioners by way of local input. 

The next obvious thing to do would be to eliminate from consideration any person of special interest through affilliation or employment.  No presidents of this organization, or board of directors of that one.........just honest fair open minded persons of common sense with long standing regional back ground.

[bigtex]

What would an alternative be to gubernatorial appointees? Could candidates be chosen by the House Natural Resources Committee and then be confirmed by the House and then, the Senate? Any other ideas? Have at it.

So under the current situation a Democratic Governor chooses the candidates.

Under your proposal, the Democratic led House NR Committee would choose them, then be confirmed by the Democrat majority House. Now the 2013-14 legislative session is an odd one because 2 Democrats joined the Republicans to control the Senate, had they not, the Senate would be in control of the Democrats as well. So in this case, what have we gained?

What difference is it if a Democrat Governor appoints them or a Democrat controlled legislature appointed them?

We all need to remember there were many Republicans who voted to confirm Kehne's appointment to WDFW. It was truly a bipartisan vote....

[snowpack]

What would an alternative be to gubernatorial appointees? Could candidates be chosen by the House Natural Resources Committee and then be confirmed by the House and then, the Senate? Any other ideas? Have at it.

So under the current situation a Democratic Governor chooses the candidates.

Under your proposal, the Democratic led House NR Committee would choose them, then be confirmed by the Democrat majority House. Now the 2013-14 legislative session is an odd one because 2 Democrats joined the Republicans to control the Senate, had they not, the Senate would be in control of the Democrats as well. So in this case, what have we gained?

What difference is it if a Democrat Governor appoints them or a Democrat controlled legislature appointed them?

We all need to remember there were many Republicans who voted to confirm Kehne's appointment to WDFW. It was truly a bipartisan vote....

It kind of depends on the margin of which the Democrats control the legislature.  If it is only by a couple of reps/sens then you could in theory have Dems like Blake and Hargrove that seem to be more sportsman concerned as opposed to ones like Kline or Ranker, might balance it out more in favor of statewide opinion.  Else you just get Inslee and his constant pandering to King County.