Post by: bearpaw on March 26, 2013, 09:58:49 AM
So if the Senate does vote out some of the current non-confirmed Wildlife Commissioners and the Governor does not reappoint the other three commissioners who's terms are ending, who do you think would make a good wildlife commissioner for hunters, fishers, ranchers, and the outdoor community?
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 26, 2013, 10:03:23 AM
Post by: huntnphool on March 26, 2013, 10:28:45 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 26, 2013, 10:31:32 AM
Gary Douvia
Or Gary :tup:
Post by: huntnphool on March 26, 2013, 10:33:57 AM
Id vote for you too. :tup:Gary Douvia
Or Gary :tup:
Post by: bobcat on March 26, 2013, 10:40:11 AM
It would be nice to have a requirement that they have a minimum number of years of hunting in this state, so we know they really have an understanding of the issues we face. (20 years would be a good minimum)
Post by: bearpaw on March 26, 2013, 10:42:19 AM
Post by: huntnphool on March 26, 2013, 10:43:06 AM
Anyone who is a hunter and somewhat intelligent.Good luck with that
It would be nice to have a requirement that they have a minimum number of years of hunting in this state, so we know they really have an understanding of the issues we face. (20 years would be a good minimum)
Post by: buckfvr on March 26, 2013, 10:43:59 AM
If its left up to the new gov, we will be worse off, Im affraid.
Post by: Huntboy on March 26, 2013, 10:44:41 AM
Dale Denny. Douglas Kendall. Me. :tup:
:yeah: :twocents:
Post by: bobcat on March 26, 2013, 10:45:37 AM
Anyone who is a hunter and somewhat intelligent.Good luck with that
It would be nice to have a requirement that they have a minimum number of years of hunting in this state, so we know they really have an understanding of the issues we face. (20 years would be a good minimum)
I know. But the question is "who would I want."
Post by: huntnphool on March 26, 2013, 10:50:07 AM
I am honored that anyone would suggest my name, but I'm unable to do it at this point in my life. Maybe 10 years from now I might have the time, being a good wildlife commissioner will require significant year around dedication.There are other ways you could serve Dale, being a clear voice to the newly appointed with sound ideas, backed by a large contingent of like minded voters could go a long way, as long as a environmentalist with a history of liberal ideals and education is not appointed. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on March 26, 2013, 11:18:13 AM
It would be nice if we were able to contact local reps with input so they could select a person to be our regional appointment.
If its left up to the new gov, we will be worse off, Im affraid.
If we are going to get any new commissioners we certainly want to have a huge amount of input. Appointments will go through the Senate Natural Resources Committee and I have been told several of the members of that committee are supportive of hunters. From what I understand the Governor has someone in charge of vetting appointments. I will try to find out who does this, the correct process, and get contact info so that we can send letters. We have a few members on the forum who probably know this process, perhaps they can advise. :tup:
I am honored that anyone would suggest my name, but I'm unable to do it at this point in my life. Maybe 10 years from now I might have the time, being a good wildlife commissioner will require significant year around dedication.There are other ways you could serve Dale, being a clear voice to the newly appointed with sound ideas, backed by a large contingent of like minded voters could go a long way, as long as a environmentalist with a history of liberal ideals and education is not appointed. :twocents:
agreed... :tup:
Post by: Curly on March 26, 2013, 11:25:00 AM
Post by: bobcat on March 26, 2013, 11:28:22 AM
Dave Workman, Dori Monson, David Boze
:yike: I'd like people who have an understanding of game management and conservation.
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 26, 2013, 11:30:37 AM
Dave Workman, Dori Monson, David Boze
:yike: I'd like people who have an understanding of game management and conservation.
Yeah, well if our recent history is any indication, that's not going to happen anytime soon.
Post by: Curly on March 26, 2013, 11:33:25 AM
Dave Workman, Dori Monson, David Boze
:yike: I'd like people who have an understanding of game management and conservation.
Yeah, that is why I listed those people.
Post by: Curly on March 26, 2013, 11:42:41 AM
Post by: Curly on March 26, 2013, 11:54:49 AM
Post by: uplandhunter870 on March 26, 2013, 12:22:38 PM
so vote Uplander for Commissioner 2013 :tup:
Hi, I'm Uplandhuntrer870 and I approve this message. :chuckle:
on a serious note id really like to have a person with an education in wildlife science in that position preferably a MS or higher that will actually manage our wildlife resource from a ecological approach with the best intentions for wildlife and sportspeople as their top priorities and not manage for $$$$ and special interest groups as it seems the DFW is doing now
Post by: bearpaw on March 26, 2013, 12:41:07 PM
Me! why not, i think that would be awesome job and just over a month from now ill have a BS in environmental science and with no "real" job opprotunities lined up why not? go from ground level grunt to boss hoss in one fell swoop. ive been a sportsman my whole life i understand the struggles of the average sportsman in WA and how things actually work in WA as far as hunting goes and to top it all off i love making decisions based on science, hard facts and numbers not emotion and hold a respectable amount of disstain for organizations like PETA, Sierra Club and wolf lovers united
so vote Uplander for Commissioner 2013 :tup:
Hi, I'm Uplandhuntrer870 and I approve this message. :chuckle:
on a serious note id really like to have a person with an education in wildlife science in that position preferably a MS or higher that will actually manage our wildlife resource from a ecological approach with the best intentions for wildlife and sportspeople as their top priorities and not manage for $$$$ and special interest groups as it seems the DFW is doing now
I don't think it's a job. Please anyone correct me if I am wrong, but aren't these volunteer positions where citizens serve?
Post by: Curly on March 26, 2013, 12:48:16 PM
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/serving.html (http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/serving.html)
Quote
Commissioners are paid $100 per workday, and are reimbursed for travel expenses (meals, mileage, and lodging) in the same manner as state employees on work assignment. The Commission elects a new Chair and Vice Chair every other year.
If you are interested in serving on the Commission, visit the Governor’s Office website for more information and access to the on-line application tool at: http://www.governor.wa.gov/boards/application/default.aspx (http://www.governor.wa.gov/boards/application/default.aspx) or contact the Governor’s Boards and Commissions Office by telephone at (360) 902-4110.
They don't get paid much........
Post by: huntnphool on March 26, 2013, 12:54:30 PM
Someone that is financially satisfied in life and can not be swayed by lobbiest money. A person with the strength to make tough decisions for the long run, even though there will be some short term pain.
Someone that can articulate the facts to the low information voter and unite the general public in a long term plan for the state.
While I'm dreaming I'd like a sheep tag this year too, but that too is beyond the realm of possibility.
Post by: buckfvr on March 26, 2013, 12:58:50 PM
Post by: uplandhunter870 on March 26, 2013, 01:07:27 PM
Me! why not, i think that would be awesome job and just over a month from now ill have a BS in environmental science and with no "real" job opprotunities lined up why not? go from ground level grunt to boss hoss in one fell swoop. ive been a sportsman my whole life i understand the struggles of the average sportsman in WA and how things actually work in WA as far as hunting goes and to top it all off i love making decisions based on science, hard facts and numbers not emotion and hold a respectable amount of disstain for organizations like PETA, Sierra Club and wolf lovers united
so vote Uplander for Commissioner 2013 :tup:
Hi, I'm Uplandhuntrer870 and I approve this message. :chuckle:
on a serious note id really like to have a person with an education in wildlife science in that position preferably a MS or higher that will actually manage our wildlife resource from a ecological approach with the best intentions for wildlife and sportspeople as their top priorities and not manage for $$$$ and special interest groups as it seems the DFW is doing now
I don't think it's a job. Please anyone correct me if I am wrong, but aren't these volunteer positions where citizens serve?
i was just joking around BearPaw only serious part of that post is the last few lines. i dont think i have the political savvy or the nerve for that position thats a 100% suit and tie office jockey gig, not what im looking for in
Post by: snowpack on March 26, 2013, 01:15:00 PM
Post by: huntrights on March 26, 2013, 03:59:20 PM
We must have responsible wildlife management based on sound and unbiased science, not decisions made to satisfy political agendas or responding to emotional outbursts from a misled public.
Post by: bigtex on March 26, 2013, 04:11:00 PM
I don’t think there should be a minimum years of hunting requirement. Quite honestly I know people who have hunted 30 years and know absolutely nothing about wildlife management/biology and on the flipside I know people who have hunted 5 years and know more then most 20 year “vets.”
Just because you don’t hunt doesn’t mean you are anti-hunter/know nothing about wildlife management. One of the greatest WDFW Officers in history Jon Jeschke died on-duty in 2008 in Lewis County. He came from a hunting and fishing background, but as his years went on he just could not pull the trigger on deer and elk anymore, for him he said he spent his whole life protecting deer and elk and he thought it was strange he then goes out and kills one. He continued to bird hunt dill the day he died and he wasn’t anti-hunter, he just emotionally/morally couldn’t pull the trigger on a big game animal anymore. I often see people who complain that some biologists don’t hunt/fish, for me that’s not a problem as long as they understand that hunting/fishing are part of fish/wildlife management, if they are anti-sportsmen then I have a problem. For some of these folks they spend their entire lives working with wildlife and for some they just can’t go out and kill wildlife that they help protect/manage, not a anti-hunting thing.
I have always though that there should be a requirement for WDFW commission members to serve on a lower WDFW committee first before being “promoted” to the commission. By doing this it allows the individual to get to know the inner-workings of the department. I don’t care if it’s the big game advisory council, enforcement advisory group, or the ADA group, it at least gets them to know the department.
Post by: huntnphool on March 26, 2013, 04:15:21 PM
I think people need to understand that there aren’t “wildlife commissioners” but rather “fish AND wildlife commissioners”. You need to be able to do/represent the fish AND wildlife side. If all you care about are fur and feathers then you shouldn’t be on the commission. Now are there commissioners who may care/represent one side more then the other, definitely but they need to at least show some type of understanding of both fish AND wildlife management.So with all that said who would you recommend?
I don’t think there should be a minimum years of hunting requirement. Quite honestly I know people who have hunted 30 years and know absolutely nothing about wildlife management/biology and on the flipside I know people who have hunted 5 years and know more then most 20 year “vets.”
Just because you don’t hunt doesn’t mean you are anti-hunter/know nothing about wildlife management. One of the greatest WDFW Officers in history Jon Jeschke died on-duty in 2008 in Lewis County. He came from a hunting and fishing background, but as his years went on he just could not pull the trigger on deer and elk anymore, for him he said he spent his whole life protecting deer and elk and he thought it was strange he then goes out and kills one. He continued to bird hunt dill the day he died and he wasn’t anti-hunter, he just emotionally/morally couldn’t pull the trigger on a big game animal anymore. I often see people who complain that some biologists don’t hunt/fish, for me that’s not a problem as long as they understand that hunting/fishing are part of fish/wildlife management, if they are anti-sportsmen then I have a problem. For some of these folks they spend their entire lives working with wildlife and for some they just can’t go out and kill wildlife that they help protect/manage, not a anti-hunting thing.
I have always though that there should be a requirement for WDFW commission members to serve on a lower WDFW committee first before being “promoted” to the commission. By doing this it allows the individual to get to know the inner-workings of the department. I don’t care if it’s the big game advisory council, enforcement advisory group, or the ADA group, it at least gets them to know the department.
Post by: bearpaw on March 26, 2013, 04:37:14 PM
Post by: bearpaw on March 26, 2013, 04:39:38 PM
Gary Douvia
:yeah: I hope he gets reappointed.
Post by: CementFinisher on March 26, 2013, 06:52:40 PM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on March 26, 2013, 06:59:10 PM
Gary Douvia
:yeah: I hope he gets reappointed.
:yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah:
Post by: snowpack on March 26, 2013, 07:05:50 PM
Post by: Killmore on March 26, 2013, 08:30:10 PM
Post by: Hunter4Life on March 27, 2013, 01:31:35 AM
This is a good opportunity to be serious about considering who might be best placed in those positions. Since Inslee is definitely anti-gun, I suspect he is also anti-hunting. We cannot count on him to make any responsible choices regarding WDFW Commissioner appointments. Political pressure from constituents can be a powerful tool if we stick together.
We must have responsible wildlife management based on sound and unbiased science, not decisions made to satisfy political agendas or responding to emotional outbursts from a misled public.
Jshunt, you hit the nail on the head:
Quote
wildlife management based on sound and unbiased science, not decisions made to satisfy political agendas or responding to emotional outbursts from a misled public.
You are also correct on this:
Quote
Since Inslee is definitely anti-gun, I suspect he is also anti-hunting.
Inslee was HSUS "Legislator of the Year" twice and out of 435 members of the US House, he was rated dead last on sportsmen's issues. Inslee is also very highly politically intelligent. He realizes he has a losing hand and is willing to work with us. He will give us some pro-hunting Commission members because the senate Republicans can block his other appointees if he doesn't. For the first time in 30 years WE have the upper hand.
It is easy to be against something. It is easy to say Dave Jennings is horrible or Jay Kehne loves wolves, but now we need to provide solutions. I am very impressed with the quality of posts that we receive here. It is obvious that the people here understand wildlife issues and the posts are well thought out. Disagreements are civil. There is no name-calling or bullying here. A real pleasure to post here. Who do we replace Jennings with? The same for Kehne.
If all goes as planned and we get what we want, it is also time to remember our friends at election time. The Republicans and Democrats who stuck their necks out for us need to be remembered. House Democrat Brian Blake is our best friend in the state house and he goes against his own caucus to help us. Guys like this need to be remembered when they are running for re-election, or if they decide to run for higher office. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. The liberals are are great at this keeping welfare people on the dole. The liberals keep them on the public dole and they get these guys to support them. FDR's campaign manager, the brilliant James A Farley, said, "Spend, spend, spend. Elect, elect, elect." We also can't chastise our friends. If a guy is with us 95% of the time, we usually focus on the 5% that he is bad on. We have to remember who is good to our community. Farley also said,
Quote
"Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good."
This is a chance for us to be a part of the solution. Keep those names coming!
Post by: Chase 1 on March 27, 2013, 02:57:34 AM
I gave it quite a bit of thought before I responded because the question deserves a well thought out answer. We all have our own personal interests in the outdoor pursuits and with that comes differing opinions and views. But, for the most part, we are all just sportsman; we hunt, we fish, and we enjoy all of the pursuits that the great outdoors (and our pocket book) affords us.
That being said, I think that the WDFW Commission should consist of people that represent those who have the highest stake in our resources… those that support the resource… those who do the most to protect and bolster the resources… those who demand that our resources are managed and protected… and those that demand that are our resources are managed to maximize the utilization of those resources by the recreational community. We need science based decision making that ignores the pleas of special interest and big business. We need management for the people, by the people.
No one person can know everything about all our states vast resources, it’s impossible. We need well rounded sportsman and women that have a working knowledge of as wide of a variety of our states resources as we can get. We need people who have a desire to see that the people’s resources are protected and conserved for the long term sustainable pursuit and consumption by our recreational stake holders. We need people who are will to listen and challenge misinformation. We need people who get it! And they are out there…
Although I can’t say that any of these people would accept an appointment, the three people that I think would make excellent Commissioner candidates are (Dale I took you off my list… although I reserve the right to nominate you in ten years):
Ron Gardner – PSA President (Puget Sound Anglers)
Shawn McCully – WSB President (Washington State Bowhunters)
John Martinez – John’s Sporting Goods Owner (Everett, WA)
:twocents:
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on March 27, 2013, 07:35:41 AM
There were topics on the fishing sites drumming up letters regarding the hearings too. I didn't see much about Kehne, but sounded like the fisherman were asking for total removal of Jennings.
In my inbox today,and I have to say I'm with them
We need your help! Please support the WDFW commissioners reappointment. Chair Miranda Wecker, Vice Chair Gary Douvia, and Chuck Perry’s terms have expired and need your help in being reappointed. They have been key in helping us to change our crab policy, shrimp policy, the Columbia River Gillnet ban, as well as working on hatchery reform and much more. These are unpaid commissioners that have our resources and social equity at heart. These leads are the only commissioners that have listened to us in changing our fisheries for the better. They have helped in gaining us expanded access to our resources. This is a first in Washington State in over 100 years! They do not have a paid interest to misguide our resources. These champion commissioners have changed the way our resources have been managed for the better. They have redirected a large portion of them back to the people of Washington state that own them and pay for them in taxes and license fees.
It is important that we insist that they are reinstated to continue down the path of conservation, socio equity, and economics, while making sure the best available science is used to manage them. This current commission has vast knowledge in managing our resources and does not take the easy road of decision making. They have had to make the tough, uncomfortable choices that are required. This is a key component in proper decision making. Please tell Governor Inslee we want the three commissioners reappointed so they may continue doing great accomplishments.
The commercials are pushing to replace these three with commercial intersts on the commission. We have already been there and are not willing to go back as in the past. It is time to let the Governor know we need these commissioners reappointed!
Please act now.
Click the link below to log in and send your message:
https://www.votervoice.net/PSA/Campaigns/31478/Respond (https://www.votervoice.net/PSA/Campaigns/31478/Respond)
http://www.votervoice.net/link/target/psa/G4ftJ3PB.aspx (http://www.votervoice.net/link/target/psa/G4ftJ3PB.aspx)
You have received this message because you have subscribed to a mailing list of Puget Sound Anglers. If you do not wish to receive periodic emails from this source, please
Post by: Odell on March 27, 2013, 07:46:39 AM
Jennings has to go, that much i do know.
Post by: bearpaw on March 27, 2013, 08:52:01 AM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on March 27, 2013, 09:09:58 AM
Post by: Hunter4Life on March 27, 2013, 09:32:13 AM
The fishing community has a very strong lobby. The hunting community is very weak in lobbying, our focus must be on getting hunters appointed to the commission. :tup:
Dale, I have to respectually disagree with you on the hunting lobby being weak. One thing that helps the fisheries side is that you can get a degree in Fisheries Studies. There is no Hunting Studies done at any university. Schmitten, Wecker, and Mahnken all have fisheries degrees. A governor can point to this say his appointees can make science based decisions, even though a degree doesn't automatically make you a good commissioner.
The hunting lobby has been good in stopping serious anti-hunting legislation from going through the legislature. The main problem is that the hunting community has never had in the past 30 years a Senate Natural Resources Committee Chair that gave a darn about hunting. All our governors for the past 30+ years have been hostile to hunting. Gardner, Lowry, Locke, Gregoire, and Inslee are all anti-hunting. Most of the time we have had chairs like Kevin Ranker who are totally hostile to hunting. If Ranker was still the Natural Resources Chair, we would not even have a prayer of removing Jennings or Kehne. Before Ranker, the chair was a 206er from Seattle that had the same view of hunting that Ranker did. These anti-hunting commissioners did not get voted on. That is why seven of the nine commissioners were sitting unconfirmed. That is why I am stressing so much that we have to remember who are friends are and make sure that their back gets scratched too. I guess the biggest points to support this is Senator Smith's three wolf-related bills. Two passed the state senate and are in the state house, the other got out of committee and died in Rules. Ranker would not and in past session has not even heard bills that might harm his precious wolves. Ranker was dead opposed to removing the Wedge Pack. That his why Representative Kretz introduced his wolf translocation bill and specified moving them to the San Juans specifically (Ranker's district) as a political shot at Ranker. Legislatively, the hunting community has done good the last 15 years considering how bad that the political make-up of the state house or state senate has been. All these years liberal 206ers controlled both chambers. We have the current governor in a bad spot and we need to take advantage of this by getting good people in while we can.
Post by: bigtex on March 27, 2013, 04:35:27 PM
The fishing community has a very strong lobby. The hunting community is very weak in lobbying
I agree. The Coastal Conservation Association has done many great things to protect WDFW and the commission in the past couple years, even though some legislators wanted to eliminate or merge with other agencies. The recreational and commercial fishing industries have a lot of pull, not so much on the hunting side.
Post by: Bob33 on March 27, 2013, 04:53:17 PM
Dear Mr. C,
Thanks for your note. The Natural Resources and Parks Committee just heard all four appointees. They appeared in person, and we asked questions that reflected our own preferences. Some committee members seemed to insist that the candidates act in the way that their own constituents would like. I prefer to see them as individuals who have the elected Governor’s confidence (though some preceded him by 18 months or more) because they are capable of negotiating to a statewide solution, rather than because they follow slavishly the desires of one or another stakeholder group, or the ideology of “urban” or “rural” residents—as if those were monolithic blocs. The answers of all four gentlemen convinced me that they are willing to balance the conflicting needs of urban and rural Washington, whether in regard to wolf-management, fisheries management, or hunting. I intend to vote to confirm all four, including the one who took a different position on wolf-management than I do.
If we legislators want to draft and pass our own wildlife management plans, I suppose we could do that. We could legislate hunting seasons, even vote on where to assign staff. But we delegate that to an agency because so much of these acts are decided on a case-by-case basis, and we don’t have the time or expertise on which to base good judgment. So we have to respect the individuals who are willing to step forward to do it, and whom an elected Governor has appointed. That means treating them with respect and giving them a degree of discretion. We get to see them again in another four years, but in the meantime we need to trust them. That’s not naïve; that’s pragmatic.
Thanks again for your advocacy.
Yours truly,
Post by: huntrights on March 28, 2013, 09:38:23 AM
I just received the same message.