Initiative for banning initiatives

[Curly]

I believe that we need an initiative to ban initiatives regarding wildlife issues in the state.

What I'm getting at is that I believe that when/if wdfw ever delists wolves and if they ever wish to use hunters to help with population control of wolves it is almost a sure thing that there will be a voter initiative banning hunting of wolves.

So, what I think needs to happen is that there needs to be state law that dictates management needs to be done based on science and not emotional voters.  The only problem I can see with law like that though, is bad science.  For instance, most of us know that WDFW is using bad science from some professor at WSU regarding cougar quotas.  So, I don't know what to do about cases where bad science is dictating wildlife management policies, but I know for sure that voter initiatives scare the *bleep" out of me.  We can't afford to have any more initiatives like what happened in 1996.

Any thoughts?

[AspenBud]

I believe that we need an initiative to ban initiatives regarding wildlife issues in the state.

What I'm getting at is that I believe that when/if wdfw ever delists wolves and if they ever wish to use hunters to help with population control of wolves it is almost a sure thing that there will be a voter initiative banning hunting of wolves.

So, what I think needs to happen is that there needs to be state law that dictates management needs to be done based on science and not emotional voters.  The only problem I can see with law like that though, is bad science.  For instance, most of us know that WDFW is using bad science from some professor at WSU regarding cougar quotas.  So, I don't know what to do about cases where bad science is dictating wildlife management policies, but I know for sure that voter initiatives scare the *bleep" out of me.  We can't afford to have any more initiatives like what happened in 1996.

Any thoughts?

I think that's a great idea.     

The cougar issue is largely a result of what happened back in 1996. The state let everyone and his uncle carry a tag and after a while people thought they were having too much success. Had that initiative not passed the state would not have changed policies to compensate for the lack of dogs running cats. That one initiative set off a chain of events that has led things to where they are.

[timberfaller]

Here is the FIX for the initiative system!

Make whatever "initiative" put on the ballot, in order to "pass" has to be passed by a 2/3'd of the "County's".

Since we now know our SCJ's can't count  and you know WHO(3 county's) runs the state!

[westsidehntr]

"This is the coalition to ban coalitions!" Hank W

[Knocker of rocks]

Here is the FIX for the initiative system!

Make whatever "initiative" put on the ballot, in order to "pass" has to be passed by a 2/3'd of the "County's".

Since we now know our SCJ's can't count  and you know WHO(3 county's) runs the state!

Gives way too much power to counties with little population.  Garfield county has 2200 people in it, less than some buildings. 

Would never pass anyway, for the very reasons you cite.

The only method for proposing an amendment to the Washington State Constitution is through the legislature and can originate in either branch. The proposal must be approved by a two-third majority of the legislature. The proposed amendment is placed on the ballot at the next general election, and must be approved by a majority of the electors.

The smaller 2/3 of the counties have a cumulative population of only 14% of the entire state, so in your model a very junior group could have sway over the wishes of the entirety.  In the past, you've decried other such inequities in the political system, yet here you are in favor of the very thing which you have lobbied against.  Could it be that you pick and chose which suits you and your goals at that time?

Our political system has many safety gates to try to prevent the tyranny of the masses, but this idea smacks of the opposite.  How would this affect such movements like those of Tim Eyeman, who I would guess that you support in his attempts to lower taxes (and enrich himself).

Regardless, any such movement to require an initiative to carry 2/3's of the states counties is doomed for constitutional, political and demographic reasons.

http://data.spokesman.com/census/2010/washington/counties/

[AspenBud]

I've said this before...follow the Michigan model. The only way HSUS got wolf hunting stopped out there was via a federal judge. The initiative the voters passed there had no teeth because their ability to make wildlife management decisions via direct democracy was taken away, it was symbolic at best.

[idahohuntr]

I believe that we need an initiative to ban initiatives regarding wildlife issues in the state.

What I'm getting at is that I believe that when/if wdfw ever delists wolves and if they ever wish to use hunters to help with population control of wolves it is almost a sure thing that there will be a voter initiative banning hunting of wolves.

So, what I think needs to happen is that there needs to be state law that dictates management needs to be done based on science and not emotional voters.  The only problem I can see with law like that though, is bad science.  For instance, most of us know that WDFW is using bad science from some professor at WSU regarding cougar quotas.  So, I don't know what to do about cases where bad science is dictating wildlife management policies, but I know for sure that voter initiatives scare the *bleep" out of me.  We can't afford to have any more initiatives like what happened in 1996.

Any thoughts?

I agree.  Initiatives are a poor way to manage wildlife.  For the most part I don't think tools should be taken away (or mandated) when it comes to managing public resources.  However, it is also important to realize that a large part of wildlife management is achieving broad public desires.  Many folks (not necessarily your case curly) use the phrase "bad science" when they really mean that their personal desires/goals conflict with someone elses goals/desires for resource management.