HB1685 - WDFW Commission Bill

[Practical Approach]

I am not sure what to make of this one.  Initially I am suspicious and skeptical.


https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary/?BillNumber=1685&Year=2025&Initiative=false

[Mtnwalker]

I'm not the sharpest bulb in the drawer so maybe I'm reading this wrong, but basically they want the current commission and the governor (Ferguson) to appoint the new director who is now in charge of a bunch of stuff that the commission was previously in charge of... am I close here?

[Karl Blanchard]

I'm not the sharpest bulb in the drawer so maybe I'm reading this wrong, but basically they want the current commission and the governor (Ferguson) to appoint the new director who is now in charge of a bunch of stuff that the commission was previously in charge of... am I close here?

That's how I read it as well.  What could go wrong there

[Rainier10]

I’m concerned this part is struck from section 2

((Persons eligible for appointment as director shall have
practical knowledge of the habits and distribution of fish and
wildlife. The director shall supervise the administration and
operation of the department and perform the duties prescribed by law
and delegated by the commission. The director shall carry out the
basic goals and objectives prescribed under RCW 77.04.055.))

[Mtnwalker]

I'm not the sharpest bulb in the drawer so maybe I'm reading this wrong, but basically they want the current commission and the governor (Ferguson) to appoint the new director who is now in charge of a bunch of stuff that the commission was previously in charge of... am I close here?

That's how I read it as well.  What could go wrong there

A single source of more power appointed directly by the Governor's office. Color me skeptical

[fishngamereaper]

That's like deciding to cut off your right arm or your left arm...

I really don't see a good outcome...

[Rainier10]

I see the word preserve a lot and I’m concerned at all the stuff struck in section five about maximizing opportunity to hunt and fish.

[full choke]

I’m concerned this part is struck from section 2

((Persons eligible for appointment as director shall have
practical knowledge of the habits and distribution of fish and
wildlife. The director shall supervise the administration and
operation of the department and perform the duties prescribed by law
and delegated by the commission. The director shall carry out the
basic goals and objectives prescribed under RCW 77.04.055.))

Pretty odd thing to strike out, unless you plan to destroy the way things have historically been run...

[MeepDog]

Also this part where the newly appointed person wouldnt have to abide by the same rules the commission currently feels theyre hamstrung by.

Wildlife, fish, and shellfish are the property of the state. The
((commission, director, and the)) department shall preserve, protect,
perpetuate, and manage the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and
shellfish in state waters and offshore waters.

[fishngamereaper]

Press release Gov fergtard.
I'd like to congratulate Lorna Smith on her newly appointed position of Director of the wdfw...

[bigtex]

I'm not the sharpest bulb in the drawer so maybe I'm reading this wrong, but basically they want the current commission and the governor (Ferguson) to appoint the new director who is now in charge of a bunch of stuff that the commission was previously in charge of... am I close here?

No.

What the bill does is make the WDFW Director a position appointed by the governor. The commissions authority will be gutted and essentially turned into an advisory commission for the Director.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[Bushcraft]

Springer and Fitzgibbon. Reps from the 45th and 34th.  What could possibly be their motive? 

[TriggerMike]

I'm not the sharpest bulb in the drawer so maybe I'm reading this wrong, but basically they want the current commission and the governor (Ferguson) to appoint the new director who is now in charge of a bunch of stuff that the commission was previously in charge of... am I close here?

No.

What the bill does is make the WDFW Director a position appointed by the governor. The commissions authority will be gutted and essentially turned into an advisory commission for the Director.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

So this is what option #2 in Ruckelshaus report was then?

[Mtnwalker]

I'm not the sharpest bulb in the drawer so maybe I'm reading this wrong, but basically they want the current commission and the governor (Ferguson) to appoint the new director who is now in charge of a bunch of stuff that the commission was previously in charge of... am I close here?

No.

What the bill does is make the WDFW Director a position appointed by the governor. The commissions authority will be gutted and essentially turned into an advisory commission for the Director.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Got it. So the governor (Bob Ferguson) appoints a director who is bestowed with much of the authority that was previously held by the runaway commission. Said runaway commission then serves as an advisory role to the Ferguson-appointed Director. And here I was concerned 

[Special T]

Ferguson  seems more agnostic on wildlife issues than inslee. I his wife isn't an anti. I see this a little differently.  Not sure it's a good thing but Lorna as director isn't gonna happen.

[Humptulips]

Under this plan they should change the name of the position to Dictator of F&W. Great if your guy is in the position, not so great if WWF has a say.

[fishngamereaper]

One has to wonder if this is driven by the realization that the commission is fubar both from sportsman's view points and legal standing...
I was just reading the sportsman's alliance lawsuit reference their records request and the States obvious unwillingness to corporate....
Does the State know the commission is going to be revealed as crooked... trying to get plan B in motion...

[bearpaw]

At least with the current system some commission members may choose to support hunting at times. Under the new system if the governor didn't like the director's policy he could hire a new director and control the whole system. The governor could have complete influence over that one person with absolutely no other checks and balances.

Hunting is already dyeing a slow death in Washington, this just gets the democrats where they want to be faster!

[Elkaholic daWg]

 


 BOTH Sponsors are of the majority party. To me that says it all! 

[ghosthunter]

One has to wonder if this is driven by the realization that the commission is fubar both from sportsman's view points and legal standing...
I was just reading the sportsman's alliance lawsuit reference their records request and the States obvious unwillingness to corporate....
Does the State know the commission is going to be revealed as crooked... trying to get plan B in motion...

I believe hunting is just a small piece. I think the Democrats want every gun out of the state and eliminating hunting is just one step. Passing more and more gun laws ,restricting ranges, restricting ammo restricting ffl, restricting where you can shoot or carry. Making gun owners responsible for what a criminal might do.

All of it is an effort for your guns to go away. The 2 nd says you can bear. Not that you can shoot. The last of us that hold out will be regulated to dark rooms where we can handle our guns and tell stories.

[baldopepper]

I think you need to be careful painting everyone with the same brush.  I have friends who are basically Ds who have been actively writing and working against restrictive gun laws and complaining about the commission.  They chose not to vote in the govoner election. On the other hand my neighbors on both sides of my home are very strong, quite conservative republicans.  They are very much in favor of strong gun control thinking it will curb the violent crime they continually see in the news. Seems around me that the gun issue crosses party lines with a lot of misunderstanding and misinformation out there.
 
 

[bearpaw]

I think you need to be careful painting everyone with the same brush.  I have friends who are basically Ds who have been actively writing and working against restrictive gun laws and complaining about the commission.  They chose not to vote in the govoner election. On the other hand my neighbors on both sides of my home are very strong, quite conservative republicans.  They are very much in favor of strong gun control thinking it will curb the violent crime they continually see in the news. Seems around me that the gun issue crosses party lines with a lot of misunderstanding and misinformation out there.

No doubt there are a few exceptions to anything, but by and large its democrats who are writing these laws and passing them, it's not Republicans! 

[baldopepper]

No doubt about that.  Have to remember that for the vast majority of voters gun control laws are way down the list of priorities in determining how they vote.  For most on this forum those possible laws are high on our list and, in fact, probably the number one issue.  My republican neighbors don't come from a hunting or sports shooting background. Like many they've never been  around guns and, to them, guns bring up an image of drive by shootings and mass school.shootings. Unfortunately that's not an uncommon trend these days. I'm not sure how we change that image.  On the one hand they trust me and think it's OK that I own guns, but on the other side they want tighter restrictions.  Doesn't seem to click that law abiding gun owners would obey the law, but the criminals they're afraid of wouldn't. No easy solutions for me.

 

[Jake Dogfish]

This bill would work out poorly for hunters and fishers. 

[Rainier10]

This bill would work out poorly for hunters and fishers. 

That’s what I think as well.

[Mtnwalker]

I think you need to be careful painting everyone with the same brush.  I have friends who are basically Ds who have been actively writing and working against restrictive gun laws and complaining about the commission.  They chose not to vote in the govoner election. On the other hand my neighbors on both sides of my home are very strong, quite conservative republicans.  They are very much in favor of strong gun control thinking it will curb the violent crime they continually see in the news. Seems around me that the gun issue crosses party lines with a lot of misunderstanding and misinformation out there.

No doubt there are a few exceptions to anything, but by and large its democrats who are writing these laws and passing them, it's not Republicans! 

Not all democrats are anti-hunting, but the overwhelming majority of anti-hunters are democrat. This is not an opinion

[Tbar]

I think you need to be careful painting everyone with the same brush.  I have friends who are basically Ds who have been actively writing and working against restrictive gun laws and complaining about the commission.  They chose not to vote in the govoner election. On the other hand my neighbors on both sides of my home are very strong, quite conservative republicans.  They are very much in favor of strong gun control thinking it will curb the violent crime they continually see in the news. Seems around me that the gun issue crosses party lines with a lot of misunderstanding and misinformation out there.

No doubt there are a few exceptions to anything, but by and large its democrats who are writing these laws and passing them, it's not Republicans! 

Not all democrats are anti-hunting, but the overwhelming majority of anti-hunters are democrat. This is not an opinion

I'm not the sharpest bulb in the drawer so maybe I'm reading this wrong, but basically they want the current commission and the governor (Ferguson) to appoint the new director who is now in charge of a bunch of stuff that the commission was previously in charge of... am I close here?

No.

What the bill does is make the WDFW Director a position appointed by the governor. The commissions authority will be gutted and essentially turned into an advisory commission for the Director.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

@bigtex is this good bill? I personally do not think so and am very skeptical. I do not support.

[bigtex]

I think you need to be careful painting everyone with the same brush.  I have friends who are basically Ds who have been actively writing and working against restrictive gun laws and complaining about the commission.  They chose not to vote in the govoner election. On the other hand my neighbors on both sides of my home are very strong, quite conservative republicans.  They are very much in favor of strong gun control thinking it will curb the violent crime they continually see in the news. Seems around me that the gun issue crosses party lines with a lot of misunderstanding and misinformation out there.

No doubt there are a few exceptions to anything, but by and large its democrats who are writing these laws and passing them, it's not Republicans! 

Not all democrats are anti-hunting, but the overwhelming majority of anti-hunters are democrat. This is not an opinion

I'm not the sharpest bulb in the drawer so maybe I'm reading this wrong, but basically they want the current commission and the governor (Ferguson) to appoint the new director who is now in charge of a bunch of stuff that the commission was previously in charge of... am I close here?

No.

What the bill does is make the WDFW Director a position appointed by the governor. The commissions authority will be gutted and essentially turned into an advisory commission for the Director.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

@bigtex is this good bill? I personally do not think so and am very skeptical. I do not support.

Not a good bill in my opinion. I, like others, still think the commission is the best route. However, the commisison needs to be revamped. This could be hunting/fishing license requirements, individuals supported by certain industries, etc.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[bearhunter99]

There is nothing good about this bill.  I really need to get my crap together and get the property ready to sell.  I might be moving to Idaho before the next election cycle with the amount of crap bills that are being proposed this year.  Year and a half until the youngest is out of high school - guess I have a timeline for getting everything done....

[blackdog]

99 percent chance that this bill doesn’t pass.

[Tbar]

99 percent chance that this bill doesn’t pass.

99% chance there's another about to drop.

[Practical Approach]

99 percent chance that this bill doesn’t pass.

99% chance there's another about to drop.

So, you are saying there is a chance one won't.   

[CJ1962]

I'm not the sharpest bulb in the drawer so maybe I'm reading this wrong, but basically they want the current commission and the governor (Ferguson) to appoint the new director who is now in charge of a bunch of stuff that the commission was previously in charge of... am I close here?

No.

What the bill does is make the WDFW Director a position appointed by the governor. The commissions authority will be gutted and essentially turned into an advisory commission for the Director.


Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

So this is what option #2 in Ruckelshaus report was then?

Yes this is Option 2.

Option 1: Maintain the Status Quo - AKA do nothing
Option 2: Establish WDFW as a Cabinet Agency
Option 3: Maintain the Commission, but Address the Following Issues with Comprehensive, Simultaneous Reforms

Anti hunters want option 2 and this Bill.  As hunters we should want option 3.  IMO

https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2024-12/wdfw-organizational-review-final-report.pdf
More detail on options are on page 46.

[Rutnbuxnbulls]

https://app.leg.wa.gov/pbc/bill/1685

Copy and paste into your browser.  We can directly influence or at least give them our two cents. 

You can click on the "Send a Comment..." tab and send comments directly to your district officials.

Keep it professional of course and state that we want option 3 of the Ruckleshous Report.

Thanks!