Outdoor life - What Happens When Anti-Hunters Join game commission

[bmc02]

https://www.outdoorlife.com/conservation/washington-wildlife-commissioner-podcast/

[actionshooter]

Thanks for posting!

[Britt-dog]

Saw this on MSN. Good or bad the situation here in WA is getting more national attention.

[wolfbait]

Lawsuit headed for WDFW

[ctwiggs1]

I'm just wrapping up the Newberg podcast now.  I think she did a great job outlining what's happened in WA.

[Wad-Cutter]

Hey Guys,

I don't post much, but this whole business of anti-hunters grabbing the wheel in our State has me spooked.  Has there been any talk of a ballot initiative, to put commissioner appointments into the hands of voters, by region, rather than by Governor fiat?  From what I understand, the Governor's power to appoint WDFW commissioners isn't necessarily enshrined in the constitution, and is a matter of statutory law, which (if true) suggests to me that maybe we can solve this through a ballot initiative - if we could get one on the ballot & if it were to pass in our favor...  Any thoughts on that, or experts out there who can weigh in?

[Mtnwalker]

Hey Guys,

I don't post much, but this whole business of anti-hunters grabbing the wheel in our State has me spooked.  Has there been any talk of a ballot initiative, to put commissioner appointments into the hands of voters, by region, rather than by Governor fiat?  From what I understand, the Governor's power to appoint WDFW commissioners isn't necessarily enshrined in the constitution, and is a matter of statutory law, which (if true) suggests to me that maybe we can solve this through a ballot initiative - if we could get one on the ballot & if it were to pass in our favor...  Any thoughts on that, or experts out there who can weigh in?

I think it's going to take something along these lines if we hope to reverse course at all moving forward. The way things are set up now we will continue to be on our heels playing defense, just trying to slow the bleeding vs actually fixing anything or recovering any of what has been lost

[Wad-Cutter]

You are correct.  I figure there are a lot of other elected positions, like port commissioners, fire commissioners, etc, why not WDFW commissioners, who are each elected by their specific region?  It seems like maintaining a majority on the commission would be easier that way, and of course, there'd be a much higher likelihood that hunter's rights would remain in focus, and that the science would be followed.  If Washington gets noticed as the canary in the coal mine, maybe some out of State money / national associations would get behind it & do battle against the anti-hunting special interests & actually win for once.

[Firstgenhunter]

Hey Guys,

I don't post much, but this whole business of anti-hunters grabbing the wheel in our State has me spooked.  Has there been any talk of a ballot initiative, to put commissioner appointments into the hands of voters, by region, rather than by Governor fiat?  From what I understand, the Governor's power to appoint WDFW commissioners isn't necessarily enshrined in the constitution, and is a matter of statutory law, which (if true) suggests to me that maybe we can solve this through a ballot initiative - if we could get one on the ballot & if it were to pass in our favor...  Any thoughts on that, or experts out there who can weigh in?

We would lose a ballot initiative badly. We need to avoid that at all costs. So many people are too stupid to vote for the right people.A ballot initiative would give the antis of King, Snohomish and Pierce a ton of power.

[Firstgenhunter]

You are correct.  I figure there are a lot of other elected positions, like port commissioners, fire commissioners, etc, why not WDFW commissioners, who are each elected by their specific region?  It seems like maintaining a majority on the commission would be easier that way, and of course, there'd be a much higher likelihood that hunter's rights would remain in focus, and that the science would be followed.  If Washington gets noticed as the canary in the coal mine, maybe some out of State money / national associations would get behind it & do battle against the anti-hunting special interests & actually win for once.

While I would say national coverage is pretty high. Been involved in that coverage and discussions on this subject. The legislature is where we can win, voters in my opinion should not decide wildlife management. it's how we lost hound hunting.

If we did a vote for commissioners, this is the scenario. Regions 1,2, and 3 cover the east of the Cascades we would win most likely. Region 4 is the north sound, region 6 includes Pierce, Thruston and the coast which we would lose. Region 5 is the southwest, but does not include Pacific county. This area has become a lot more liberal in recent years, especially because of Vancouver. We would never have a majority this way, and voters aren't educated in wildlife management or a lot don't care. It's possible candidates could be snakes, putting on a show. And, most commissioner elections we do vote for are meant to be nonpartisan. A lot of people vote by party, so without an R on the ballot they wouldn't know who to vote for. This is something we would lose, we need to get more involved with the legislature, county commissioners and write to the governor and his advisors. I have email addresses if anyone is interested.

[ghosthunter]

You are correct.  I figure there are a lot of other elected positions, like port commissioners, fire commissioners, etc, why not WDFW commissioners, who are each elected by their specific region?  It seems like maintaining a majority on the commission would be easier that way, and of course, there'd be a much higher likelihood that hunter's rights would remain in focus, and that the science would be followed.  If Washington gets noticed as the canary in the coal mine, maybe some out of State money / national associations would get behind it & do battle against the anti-hunting special interests & actually win for once.

We got rid of the Game Commission years ago and if my memory serves me right it was a train wreck also.  Electing them is a terrible idea. I doubt you could get what you wanted in most of the state. That is why we are where are now because the current commission feels empowered.

The only way out of this mess I see is to  make them worry at every level that votes will be lost. The Commission’s poor choices needs to be highlighted in every race.
And if some group can find a legal avenue to punish them all the better.

But if you elect them it’s over. No way that will work for us.

[Mtnwalker]

As long as the commissioners are governor appointed they are already being elected de facto by King and Pierce county. Saying "we would lose" is irrelevant, we already have lost with the current system.

[Wad-Cutter]

Yeah, I suppose you're not wrong firstgenhunter.  I didn't specify, that I didn't picture the "regions" in my scenario being part & parcel with the existing WDFW regions.  But, more evenly dispersed about the State's geography.  With nine commission seats, there'd have to be 9 regions, unless the commission was diminished in size.  And, with the Eastside having more land mass, and all things being equal, you'd end up with better Eastside representation.  But, now that I think more about it, the opposition would probably end up with a clever way to jerrymander the region maps to their benefit anyway.  And, you're definitely right too, that voters are easily mislead.  Without a doubt, such a move would have to be much more thought out than I've personally outlined here, before even concluding it's a good direction.

One thing's for sure though, with this particular Governor in place, and with the Governor empowered to appoint these positions, we're getting steamrolled.  Mtnwalker's not wrong either.  A failed ballot initiative would just mean it's the status quo, which is a net nothing either way.  Except, maybe it puts the Governor's office on notice, that too much fooling around leads toward people pushing to diminish the Governor's power.

I'm all for being active with the legislature.  And, I write alot of letters.  I hope everyone else does too.  And, I'm all for raising the issue every time there's a vote to be cast.  My concern, is that if we rely strictly on their fear of losing votes, when all indications are that the State is turning more & more blue, that they'll just feel more emboldened over time, with less & less fear about losing votes, and just push on with their agenda to the detriment of the whole system.  My gut reaction is to try & think of a way to hamstring them, so that even if they gain more power, which seems the likely outcome in the long run as hunters flee the State, that they're hands remain tied when it comes to how the department sets rules.  Knowing voters don't have the stomach to get into the weeds on individual issues, somehow having more control over who occupies commission seats is key.

...enjoying the discussion - good points all around.

[GOcougsHunter]

We should not have elected game commissioners.  Populism and the governance of the WDFW will spell doom for hunting and fishing.  The Hound Hunting and Bear Baiting initiative many years ago showed that the vast majority of the electorate have no clue on how wildlife need to be managed.  Appointments to the commission are loaded with pitfalls.  But, I think elections would create a mess the likes we probably would never recover from.

[dwils233]

We should not have elected game commissioners.  Populism and the governance of the WDFW will spell doom for hunting and fishing.  The Hound Hunting and Bear Baiting initiative many years ago showed that the vast majority of the electorate have no clue on how wildlife need to be managed.  Appointments to the commission are loaded with pitfalls.  But, I think elections would create a mess the likes we probably would never recover from.

 

I would strongly oppose any conversation that would go in this direction. We would lose too many of those elections and probably end up with an even worse commission. You know who would probably love this idea is WWF and other groups because it would speed up the demise of the agency and any spot at the table hunting and fishing currently have