Free: Contests & Raffles.
I sent a letter to the NE WA legislators and copied it to the commission.Dear Legislators,The Washington Wildlife Commission's disregard for the cougar management recommendations of the Dept of Fish and Wildlife are indicative of a body interested only in furthering their own agenda driven goals, with no interest in the recommendations from the very agency they oversee or for the hunting opportunities for the citizens of Washington. There is clearly no regard for scientific wildlife management, public safety, or for providing mandated recreational opportunities.Rather than having commissioners selected by a single person, the governor, I am urging the legislators of Washington to introduce legislation that reorganizes the Washington Wildlife Commission so that it is a body that better serves scientific wildlife management as well as all people of Washington.I propose that each Fish & Game region should have 1 wildlife commissioner voted on by the people who live in that region. Since there are 6 regions a seventh commissioner is needed and I propose the 7th commissioner be appointed by the WDFW Director. A body of this makeup would truly bring the interests of all regions of the state and the biological recommendations of the Dept. of Fish & Wildlife into the decision making process, such a commission would be a far more diverse and representative decision making body.Respectfully,
Quote from: bearpaw on August 21, 2024, 12:52:56 PMI sent a letter to the NE WA legislators and copied it to the commission.Dear Legislators,The Washington Wildlife Commission's disregard for the cougar management recommendations of the Dept of Fish and Wildlife are indicative of a body interested only in furthering their own agenda driven goals, with no interest in the recommendations from the very agency they oversee or for the hunting opportunities for the citizens of Washington. There is clearly no regard for scientific wildlife management, public safety, or for providing mandated recreational opportunities.Rather than having commissioners selected by a single person, the governor, I am urging the legislators of Washington to introduce legislation that reorganizes the Washington Wildlife Commission so that it is a body that better serves scientific wildlife management as well as all people of Washington.I propose that each Fish & Game region should have 1 wildlife commissioner voted on by the people who live in that region. Since there are 6 regions a seventh commissioner is needed and I propose the 7th commissioner be appointed by the WDFW Director. A body of this makeup would truly bring the interests of all regions of the state and the biological recommendations of the Dept. of Fish & Wildlife into the decision making process, such a commission would be a far more diverse and representative decision making body.Respectfully,
I like the idea that everyone is thinking outside the box on this and proposing solutions. This is how it should be done. The only downfall I see with elected commission members is that a popularly elected official from Spokane may have absolutely no idea or understanding of fish stocks in the san juan islands. We do not need another unqualified person making decisions about something they know nothing about. Conversely, do you want a popularly elected official from Port Angeles making decisions about wolves in NE Washington? Elected officials have an implicit bias that may make things much much worse. Elections are popularity contests, not about who is the most appropriate person for the job.In a perfect world, we have an appointer (ie Governor or Legislature) who is committed to the rule of the RCW and appoints agnostic scientists and policy wonks to the commission and removes any hint of other agendas. Like, codify it that one commission member must have an advanced degree in fisheries, one must have an advanced degree in wildlife biology, etc etc. Let the bios run the WDFW. And before we go down a rabbit hole, I have met many many WDFW biologists and truly believe they are in this field for the right reasons. I am sure there may be an activist or two... but, in my experience, it is not the majority.
Quote from: GOcougsHunter on August 21, 2024, 03:07:28 PMI like the idea that everyone is thinking outside the box on this and proposing solutions. This is how it should be done. The only downfall I see with elected commission members is that a popularly elected official from Spokane may have absolutely no idea or understanding of fish stocks in the san juan islands. We do not need another unqualified person making decisions about something they know nothing about. Conversely, do you want a popularly elected official from Port Angeles making decisions about wolves in NE Washington? Elected officials have an implicit bias that may make things much much worse. Elections are popularity contests, not about who is the most appropriate person for the job.In a perfect world, we have an appointer (ie Governor or Legislature) who is committed to the rule of the RCW and appoints agnostic scientists and policy wonks to the commission and removes any hint of other agendas. Like, codify it that one commission member must have an advanced degree in fisheries, one must have an advanced degree in wildlife biology, etc etc. Let the bios run the WDFW. And before we go down a rabbit hole, I have met many many WDFW biologists and truly believe they are in this field for the right reasons. I am sure there may be an activist or two... but, in my experience, it is not the majority.I agree with this. I’m not sure elected positions is the way to go on this type of a commission. The problem isn’t the commission itself, but the way the governor and legislature appointed and approved the commission. In this state, an elected commission likely wouldn’t be any better than this commission. I’d listen to arguments for it though.
