Jerry Gutzwilers response to the HHC letter approving 5127

[Coldeadhands]

First of all, most of you dont know, but HHC-Pac Board that represents Washingtonians for Wildlife Conservation, took a unanimous vote to support the original SSB5127 on March 1,2009 Please do not contact those organizations. They have already been contacted and have begun to do their will.  I want to ADD that most of the groups on the list did not know about the HHC vote and letter.
Jerrys and a brother belong to one of those groups. There are other influential members of conservation groups who are members of other groups. They already know what Jerry knows.

(Feel free to Share)
TO HUNTERS HERITAGE COUNCIL COMMUNICATION FROM MARCH 2, 2009

This letter is being written in response to a communication put out to hunters across Washington State by, or at least signed by, the Executive Committee of the Hunters Heritage Council (HHC). I’m responding to this communication because it contains information and opinion that are not only false but potentially very damaging to Washington’s wildlife management and the management of habitats that support these animals. It has taken the current Fish and Wildlife Commission nearly four years to develop and implement policies, goals and objective that move the Department in a positive direction relative to the management of these resources.

Until January 2008, the Department never had meaningful measurable goals and objectives for managing the state’s game herds since the merger of Departments of Fish and Game. As an example, the current Commission set goals for the Department that focus on getting all 10 elk herds in the state to their respective target population objectives. Currently, six of 10 fall short of their objective. Likewise, there are measures for other wildlife species and fish. These goals and objectives are public information and can be accessed through the Commission secretary in Olympia. The Commission has consistently focused on improving the performance of the Department of Fish and Wildlife, especially in areas where we believed that the Department has not performed well.

During my years on the Commission, I and other Commissioners felt that the Department’s Wildlife Program had serious problems and needed strategic direction. In its role as policy setting body for the Department, the Commission reviews and approves the long term strategy for wildlife—the Wildlife Management Plan. That plan is updated every six years. We were asked to approve a Plan prepared for 2008. The Commission did not approve the first three drafts of this document because it lacked action steps, goals, and other critical details to assure accountability and wildlife herd improvements. The Commission’s Wildlife Committee spent long hours repeatedly making comments to see that the Plan would provide the substantive guidance needed by the Wildlife Biologists to improve wildlife conditions over the next six years. The Six year Wildlife Management Plan now insures that the Department is held accountable for positive trends in wildlife management.

Another area of emphasis by the current Fish and Wildlife Commission has been public education and communication. The Department has made some improvements in this area but there is still a long way to go. There are goals and objectives for these activities that the Commission is monitoring and pressing the interim Director to achieve. The Department’s record in developing working relationships with sports organizations, schools and universities and other stakeholder groups needs to be greatly improved. Again, this has been a continuing emphasis of the Commission on the Department's leadership. Publicly available goals and objectives and policy statements are available for those that would like to examine them and even input to them.

The accusation in the HHC communication that citizens testifying before the Commission are treated poorly and that their input is rarely reflected in decisions is simply not true. When I chaired the Commission, I asked people to cease their testimony only when their allotted time had ended. In rare instances, citizens testifying before the Commission were argumentative and asked to cease their testimony. These occasions occurred very infrequently. Generally, public comments are heard, appreciated and the speakers thanked by the Commission. Further, between Commission meetings, Commissioners spend a lot of time reading e-mails and letters and answering telephone calls from interested constituents. These communications are also weighed into discussions leading up to policy development. The access to decision makers now provided by the Commission process will be essentially eliminated if SSB 5127 passes.

The HHC document indicates that there were “several instances where members of the Commission have, or are, engaged in rule making-related activity that attacks one user group over another.” Frankly, who ever authored this statement needs to be held accountable for it. It's not true!

The inference that Fish and Wildlife Commissioners intimidate staff and manipulate regulations for their personal agendas is a strong charge and cannot be substantiated, to my knowledge. However, there have been times when individual Commissioners have known that the truth was not accurately provided by staff . Biased wildlife staff presentations including errors of omission and /or commission are a serious concern for the Commission. Staff presentations should always be accurate, unbiased and credible to provide solid foundation for policy development. Some Legislators have made it known to the Commission that they see this as an issue which threatens the integrity of the process. At times, Commissioners have expressed their frustration to staff and have discussed this problem with the Director. I don't consider that as intimidation or manipulation. Rather, the examples above high light some of the wildlife staff problems that need to be remedied.

Currently, the Commission has nine member positions, when fully staffed. Given the diversity and complexity of wildlife and fish issues in Washington and the population of the state (6.8mm), the workload is more than full for the members of this volunteer Commission. The incumbents are citizens of the state with diverse interests and experience. They work hard to understand the many diverse issues associated with wildlife and fish management and are committed to doing the best job possible in developing policies and guidance for the Department.

Actions of the current Commission have, in general, been very positive for the hunting community, although not always apparent and high profile. If SB 5127 is passed and the Commission responsibility and authority over the Director reduced, hunters will be extremely disappointed in the results. Since 1995, Referendum 45 has provided an opportunity for “the voice of the people” and it is misleading and irresponsible to insinuate otherwise. While not perfect, I believe that the current Commission system is a far more effective policy and guidance approach for the Department than placement of the agency in the Governor's Cabinet. It is, in fact, vastly more responsive to wildlife and fish issues and to the people of Washington than a Director appointed by and accountable only to the Governor ever could be. Think about it! That is why this People's Referendum passed by a sizable margin (For – 809,083, Against – 517,433) in November, 1995.

If SB 5127 passes and policy and Director reporting are placed with the Governor's office, subsequent policy development for fish and wildlife will be strongly influenced by tribal and commercial fishing interests and as hunters, you should understand those implications. Further, the Governor's staff currently is anti-hunting. Will any of these groups (tribal, commercial fishery, or Governor's staff ) advance the interests of the non-tribal hunting community in Washington?

Lastly, I'd like to discuss why the HHC communication supporting SB5127 was really brought to the hunting community for support. Senator Jacobsen, Chair of the Senate Ocean and Natural Resources Committee, has opposed the current Commission since it was appointed by Governor Gregoire in 2005. From the beginning of my term, the Senator viewed our Commission as a threat to the dominance of the commercial fishery in Washington The Senator has a number of constituents in the Ballard area that are commercial fishermen or otherwise vested in that industry. In 2008, the Commission worked to resolve Salmon fishing issues between recreational and commercial fishers on the Columbia River. The result of this work was a move in toward conservation of wild salmon that did not set well with commercial fishers. This inspired Senator Jacobsen to develop legislation in the form of SB 5127. By reducing the Commissions responsibility/authority through SB 5127, he is securing the interests of the commercial fishing industry. The Bill, as written, would restrict or eliminate public input on wildlife management and recreational fishing issues. Future policy would be directed out of the Governor's Office and influenced primary by input from the Governor's anti hunting staff, tribes and commercial fishing interests.

Unfortunately, whoever drafted this biased and untruthful communication that the HHC Executive Committee has signed and distributed has appealed to the hunting community to act against the very things that it wants to see from the Department and the Commission. I ask you to strongly consider distributing this message to set the record straight. The person/persons that provided input to the content of the HHC letter had an alternative purpose in mind and that was to protect the Senator’s special interest clients and advance the tribe’s agenda by stripping the Commission's authority. It was not intended to improve the agenda of the hunting community or wildlife. If SB 5127 passes the Director will be selected by the Governor and be directed by a governor's staff that is generally less informed about wildlife and fish issues) as well as pressured by strong tribal influence and the commercial fishery interests in Washington. Contact your senator and representatives today as well as Governor Gregoire. NO ON SB 5127!

I'd be happy to discuss any part of this or other issues relating to the Department or the Commission of Fish and Wildlife.

Respectfully,
Jerry Gutzwiler
Immediate past Chair, DFW Commission
Prior Commissioner
Ph.    Edited by poster
e-mail: jrgutzwiler@genext.net
 

[Machias]

Hmm the rest of the story?  He makes a good strong argument.

[chukarchaser]

A very strong and poignant argument.  While I have been extremely disappointed in the commission and JG's results as leader, I do not doubt for one moment his sincerity or points as outlined in this thread.  I for one plan to contact all my reps and let them no my displeasure with this bill

[elkangel]

This is right from the Horses Mouth, so to speak.  The Commission the way it is set up now is overloaded no one serving part time could be able to read, review and comment on the amount of stuff they are hit with.   We need a better way, Maybe we should set up a Fish Commission and a Wildlife Commission so we could accommodate more detail in both areas?

I also want to thank JG for sharing his knowledge regarding this matter.

[Coldeadhands]

This is the letter Jerry responded about. 

The Commission is full time.   You dont see the work going on in between meetings.  The problem of mission overload is due to the fact that 3 seats are open.  Of course, if you plan to dump the rest at the end of the year, why hire anyone.   I made a comment that more hunters should be on the commission, well, they have many already. 

From Hunters Heritage

PO Box 14245, Olympia, WA 98511-4245, Telephone 360-456-1334
E-mail: HuntersHeritageCouncil@comcast.net


March 2, 2009

RE:  Substitute SB 5127 – Fish & Wildlife Commission

To the members of the Washington State Legislature;

We write today on behalf of our fifty-nine member organizations and their approximate 57,000 individual members statewide.  The Hunters Heritage Council Board of Directors met on Sunday, March 1st in Ellensburg, to discuss and take a position on Substitute Senate Bill 5127.  This letter conveys the unanimous decision of the HHC Board to support Substitute SB 5127 and explains our reasons in support of this very difficult decision. 

Virtually all of our organizations and a significant majority of our individual members supported, and worked hard for, Referendum 45 which passed in 1995.  The hunting community supported R-45 because we strongly believed in the premise that enacting the measure would remove politics from the management of our state fish and wildlife resources and that the commission would be “the voice of the people” in the management of these resources.  It’s important for this discussion to recall that R-45 went before the voters because of political manipulation of the regulatory process and disregard for the citizens in its predecessor entity the Game Commission. 

We are deeply disappointed that what we worked so hard for has deteriorated into a situation where increasingly decisions of the Fish and Wildlife Commission are again political; a situation where citizens have three minutes to speak their opinions before the Commission; that rarely do Commission decisions reflect this restricted citizen input; that citizens have been treated poorly when stating their opinions before the Commission; and, we are very deeply disturbed that some Commissioners appear to believe that they can engage in staff intimidation and manipulation of regulations to their personal agendas, at will.  We are aware of several instances where members of the commission have, or are, engaged in rule making-related activity that attacks one user group over another.  The Commission statutory responsibility is fair and equal treatment of all user groups without bias or prejudice.  That this condition exists is absolutely unacceptable.

The above described situation is similar to the same set of conditions that led hunters to support and work hard for, R-45 in 1995.  R-45 was intended to eliminate these types of behavior and it’s increasingly evident that R-45 has failed to achieve its lofty goals.  Particularly upsetting to the statewide hunting community is that the Commission makeup does not reflect the stipulations detailed in R-45 and has not, to any reasonable degree, for at least the last five years.

It’s clear to the hunting community that there is a serious need for the Fish & Wildlife Commission to be dramatically restructured as doing so is in the best interest of fish and game management, habitat restoration, conservation and the many other important responsibilities of the department.  We are not in favor of eliminating the Fish and Wildlife Commission but conclude that compelling need exists for significant, immediate and major change in WDFW governance.  Our primary reasons for supporting SSB 5127 in its current form are:

1.The hunting community supported allowing the Commission to have the authority to hire and supervise the agency director for fear of political mismanagement but that has proved to be a false premise.  SSB 5127 requires that the director’s position move to the Governor’s cabinet.  We support that move as long as a commission is retained that is responsive to the citizens and is in a position to objectively recommend agency policy – and more importantly monitor and report agency progress on its recommendations to the Governor and legislature.  SSB 5127 accomplishes this very important consideration.

2.For the Governor to have the power to hire and supervise the WDFW director we strongly believe that any such appointment must be subject to Senate confirmation in a specified time period or the appointment must be withdrawn.  SSB 5127 stipulates this condition.

3.In order to make moving the director position into the Governor’s Cabinet effective the director will need to be fully responsible for making, enacting and enforcing agency rules.  SSB 5127 accomplishes this important function.

4.We are deeply concerned that the seated Fish & Wildlife commissioners, none of whom are accountable to the legislature or to the voters in any manner but themselves for their actions, are regularly making decisions impacting every aspect of fish and wildlife management for the state.  SSB 5127 strongly resolves this adverse situation.

5.Reducing the Commission from nine to seven members is both reasonable and fiscally responsible.  The geographical structure established in SSB 5127 is logical and better reflects the diverse nature of the various regions of the state compared to the current structure model.  SSB 5127 requires conformation of Commissioners within specified time periods and we consider this requirement to be particularly beneficial.

6.Conflicts of interest must be eliminated from the Commission for any and all appointees if the Commission is to be unbiased, neutral and trusted by the regulated communities including employment with any industry or allied industry that benefits from agency rules; employees or representatives of non-governmental organizations with a vested interest in natural resource management and/or employees of state and federal agencies.  SSB 5127 meets this objective.

7.A restructured Commission must have a meaningful purpose in a transparent manner open to public participation with a strong system of checks and balances.  SSB 5127 meets our concerns in this regard. 

8.It’s highly important that the regulated communities are confident that the commission and department are accountable for their decisions and recommendations.  We believe that requiring that the commission to report annually to the Governor and legislature with regards to its recommendations, and its assessment of progress made with regard to these recommendations, provides a reasonable level of accountability and transparency.

In closing, The HHC Board recommendation supporting SSB 5127 has not been reached lightly and has been very carefully considered.  Despite our sadness with a failed experiment we see no valid alternative but to dramatically alter the substance and form of the F&W Commission and ask that you support SSB 5127.  Our Legislative Director, Ed Owens, is available to discuss our concerns and recommendations should that be required.  He can be reached at 456-1134 in Olympia or by email at ed_owens@comcast.net.

Respectfully, the Hunters Heritage Council Executive Committee

Tom Perry
Dr. Tom Perry, President
Yakima, Washington
(Electronic signature authorized)
John ”Buzzi” Cook
John Cook III, Secretary,
North Bend, Washington
(Electronic signature authorized)
B.J. (Bobbie) Thorniley
Bobbie Thorniley, Treasurer
Republic, Washington
(Electronic signature authorized)

[elkangel]

Hunter Heritage Organization.,

While I share your frustration with the current Fish and Game (not Wildlife) Commission, and can agree with some of your concerns, I can not agree with all.

You state that the current members of the commission have no accountability to anyone.  But, they are appointed by the Governor and are required to be confirmed by the senate.  Even thought to date none appear to have been confirmed?  I feel the rules were in place on int. 45, just never enforced.  This is something that we need to address.   

As for reducing the members, the current 9 can not cover all the items brought before them.  It is apparent that we have way more fish issues than wildlife, may be we should look at forming two committee's,  one fish and one wildlife.  This would allow more specific input for both issues.   

Or,  Why don't we form a Wildlife Congress, (example below)

March 20, 2009
Washington Wildlife Congress Concept
Currently the Fish and Wildlife Committee, established in 1994 is a Governor appointed committee established to address Fish and Wildlife issues.    In addition the nine member committee has not been able to keep up with the growing demand on fish and wildlife issues.   In a State with great natural resources we need to make sure we are aware of and can address the concerns of every county, community and citizen of the State fair and equitably.  This is a proposal to establishment a Wildlife Congress to insure concerns are better addressed.

The Elected County Commissioners in each of the 39 counties would appoint a WildLife Congress Member to a 4 year term.  The 39 members would meet two times a year.  At the first meeting they would elect the nine member Fish and Wild life Commission from their membership.   The Fish and Wildlife Committee members would be as follows,  3 members for 1 year term, 3 members for 2 year term and 3 members for 4 year term.  The nine member Committee would then meeting monthly or as needed to conduct the Committees business.   The members would be the Counties liaison between the Citizens of the County, the Fish and Wildlife Commission and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.  Their responsibility would be to keep their community and elected officials informed and up to date on Fish and Wildlife issues.  They would also be responsible to bring up concerns from their local citizens, groups and organizations in their county regarding Fish and Wildlife Issues,  addressing them through the Fish and Wildlife Commission and or through the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 
 
Establishing the Wildlife Congress would change  the hiring of the Fish and Wildlife Director to become the responsibility of the Governor, and not the Fish and Wildlife Commission.  This would bring more accountability to the Director through the elected leadership of the State.

The establishment of the Wildlife Congress would have little to no financial burden on the State.  It would greatly increase the communication of Wildlife Issues to all communities of the State.   It would allow the people to have more of a local voice on issue that effect them and their community.  Finally, it will allow a better platform for the State to develop better use of our natural resources and create more green industries in wildlife recreations, while protecting them for our future generations.

Thank you for taking time to read this proposal, please send comment regarding this concept to:

We do need change, just not sure I would agree to SB5127, I don't think we have considered all the alternatives or that it will bring the real needed reform we all are seeking.

This would allow us to create more of a voice instead of reducing them,

Thanks again for considering this idea.

[Coldeadhands]

did you write that TO HHC?