SB 5718 Would Gut WDFW Commission & Politicize WDFW Director

[bigtex]

SB 5718 sponsored by Senator Chase would essentially gut the Fish & Wildlife Commission and make the WDFW Director the true boss of the agency. Currently the Commission is appointed by the Governor, the Commission then selects a Director. It is the commission that approves/disapproves of regulation changes, seasons, etc.

Under this bill the Governor would appoint the Director. The Fish & Wildlife Commission would become the Fish & Wildlife Advisory Commission and the roles that the commission currently have (setting seasons, regs, etc.) would be at the sole discretion of the WDFW Director. The commission will essentially go from the regulation setters to the regulation advisors to the WDFW Director.

http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2017-18/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5718.pdf

[JimmyHoffa]

Doesn't seem good.  Highest donor to the governor picks the Director.  I wonder which group could be behind this.

[dreamunelk]

One can only imagine who our current Governor would put in charge!

[Antlershed]

Doesn't seem good.  Highest donor to the governor picks the Director.  I wonder which group could be behind this.

I could think of a couple.

[Antlershed]

I'd like to hear who voted yes, and why...

[Man Tracker]

When the Dept. of Game was created by initiative in the 1930's, part of the reason was to keep political pressure down.  It worked for quite a while. Seems like DFW has become as political as any other agency?  Iin recent years, some commissioners do not represent more than a "niche" group.  They are supposed to have wide ranging knowledge of fish, wildlife, and their habitat.  How many actually do? 

The "old" Fisheries Department always had a director chosen by the Governor.  Post merger, the new agency kept the commission system.  Sounds good but has flaws.  It is political as all get out.  The DFW director is not a cabinet member, so like other agencies with a commission system, they do not sit at the weekly briefing with the governor's staff.  Maybe there is some good at that, but it often leads to DFW issues taking a back seat to other agencies. And it can create budget issues.

Finally, I believe that the issues UCWarden has pointed out over the past year plus would have been treated differently under a governor appointed director.  Maybe I am wrong, I see hunters and fishers getting less opportunities. 

My real question is; Would it be any worse if the Director was appointed by the Governor?  Give it some thought...

[Antlershed]

But with the commission system there is at least some balance (Columbia River Gillnet reform for instance). Now there are groups trying to block the confirmation of a couple of the members that voted in favor. You trust the governor that much to put someone in place that is pro-sportsman/woman?

[Man Tracker]

Nope,not this gov.  But maybe the next one?

[dreamunelk]

It would change with each Governor. 

[Curly]

Will we ever get anything but lefty liberal governors?  Sure doesn't seem like it. I don't like the current commission but they have to be better than the alternative.

[Antlershed]

Section 5 tells me all I need to know about who is behind this. 

[JimmyHoffa]

Yeah, plus the bill sponsor is from an area with a ton of commies.
Ensuring food for consumers....what do they think happens with the tribal catch?  None of those are sold around Puget Sound commercially?   

[justyhntr]

Section 5 tells me all I need to know about who is behind this. 

Exactly what I thought when I read it .

[pd]

I voted yes.  Hear me out, if you will.

Sen. Chase is a very decent woman, and really does represent the interests of her constituents (mind you, I don't agree with many of them, but I don't live in that district).  In spite of the fact that she is a solid Democrat, she gets stonewalled by the department, just like many other legislators.  Remember, we have part-time lawmakers, so the agencies can play for time; if they can delay or obstruct the legislature for 3 months each year, then they can spend much of the remaining 9 months doing what they want.  I suspect that Sen. Chase drafted this bill as a warning shot across the bow of the department, and that she is not that serious.

For this reason, I would encourage you all to think about the much bigger picture, and don't be so reflexive in your responses.  Sen. Chase (and other legislators) are also pushing for changes in the department, but the current commission structure isolates the director from legislative oversight; in effect, the director and his senior staff can hide behind the commission.  Direct appointment by the governor (with confirmation from the Senate) would put the director firmly in the limelight.  That is a very good thing.

Our state's governor is weak by design (I don't mean the current guy in the chair, although he is weak as well).  Directly appointed department heads make for much more accountability, and for this reason alone I would support this bill.  Personally, I think the commission should be abolished.

[Stein]

PD, the reality is that the same people responsible for I594 would be writing the hunting laws.

I would counter with the view that I hope the WDFW is nonresponsive to the billionaires in their ivory towers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk