Post by: pianoman9701 on January 07, 2014, 10:36:29 AM
What would an alternative be to gubernatorial appointees? Could candidates be chosen by the House Natural Resources Committee and then be confirmed by the House and then, the Senate? Any other ideas? Have at it.
Post by: huntnphool on January 07, 2014, 10:41:47 AM
Currently, the wildlife commission in WA state is made up of gubernatorial appointees. Because of the last 20+ years of liberal governors, the commission has become severely lopsided to the watchable wildlife crowd, as opposed to supporting the people who most pay the bills - the state's sportsmen and women.Great question, tag.
What would an alternative be to gubernatorial appointees? Could candidates be chosen by the House Natural Resources Committee and then be confirmed by the House and then, the Senate? Any other ideas? Have at it.
Post by: Gringo31 on January 07, 2014, 11:40:13 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 07, 2014, 11:55:36 AM
Perfect world would be a vote for everyone with a hunting/fishing license.
I'd love that. That would force the greenies to buy hunting and/or fishing licenses to have a say in the choices.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 07, 2014, 12:02:28 PM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 07, 2014, 12:05:07 PM
Perfect world would be a vote for everyone with a hunting/fishing license.
Since it is not that perfect world one must consider the many possibilities of trying to start with. Ballot wildlife management has done nothing but damage what we as hunters/trappers had years ago. (like that avatar over there) Kind of like 'be careful what we wish for. since the other side might just see a way to use the same method to further advance their agenda. If you were to try, make sure it doesn't end up on a ballot such as 2012's Gay marriage/ legalize MJ initiatives that guaranteed us Inslee over McKenna, if we could outnumber their voting block at all :twocents:
This was the avatar at the time.....
Post by: bearpaw on January 20, 2014, 11:27:22 AM
Interesting topic. I like Gringo's concept of letting hunters and anglers have much more say in the selection...another improvement IMO would be at minimum to make sure each region selects its own commissioner(s)...As opposed to having a Governor in Olympia decide who will represent E Washington.
:yeah: I agree with both thoughts. :tup:
Perfect world would be a vote for everyone with a hunting/fishing license.
Since it is not that perfect world one must consider the many possibilities of trying to start with. Ballot wildlife management has done nothing but damage what we as hunters/trappers had years ago. (like that avatar over there) Kind of like 'be careful what we wish for. since the other side might just see a way to use the same method to further advance their agenda. If you were to try, make sure it doesn't end up on a ballot such as 2012's Gay marriage/ legalize MJ initiatives that guaranteed us Inslee over McKenna, if we could outnumber their voting block at all :twocents:
I also agree that voting on wildlife commissioners may not be much better than the governor appointees. Perhaps it would be best if County Commissioners from each wildlife region chose an appointee for each region. That would give us 6 commissioners, let the governor appoint 1, then let the senate and house natural resources committees each appoint one. That would make 9 commissioners.
Post by: Special T on January 20, 2014, 11:45:34 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 20, 2014, 11:49:23 AM
Perfect world would be a vote for everyone with a hunting/fishing license.
Since it is not that perfect world one must consider the many possibilities of trying to start with. Ballot wildlife management has done nothing but damage what we as hunters/trappers had years ago. (like that avatar over there) Kind of like 'be careful what we wish for. since the other side might just see a way to use the same method to further advance their agenda. If you were to try, make sure it doesn't end up on a ballot such as 2012's Gay marriage/ legalize MJ initiatives that guaranteed us Inslee over McKenna, if we could outnumber their voting block at all :twocents:
That's specifically why I suggested legislative solutions as opposed to ballot initiatives.
Post by: snowpack on January 20, 2014, 11:59:01 AM
I LOVE gringo's idea but its not feasable... I think the key is finding a way to link landscape with representaiton. If you compared rural counties to urban, you would find there are many sympathitic people, but if you compare raw votes we are hosed...The state added about a million people in the last decade, the vast majority to urban areas.
Post by: buckfvr on January 20, 2014, 12:01:11 PM
Any and all decisions generated by the commision after that point would use a weighted system to better serve the region (s) affected.
The puget sound basin needs to be prevented from controlling the entire state. :twocents:
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 20, 2014, 12:04:10 PM
I support folks with wild ID or a verifiable means of showing they have participated in hunting and or fishing for 5 years, preceding a regional election of persons to represent us regionally.
Any and all decisions generated by the commision after that point would use a weighted system to better serve the region (s) affected.
The puget sound basin needs to be prevented from controlling the entire state. :twocents:
That's exactly what I would be trying to eliminate.
Post by: timberfaller on March 16, 2014, 10:49:03 PM
Something else I like, ONE commissioner from each county selected only by county residents who purchase license's.
Oh ya, Inslee got KICKED of of Okanogon Co. after only one term! He fled to the Wet side to get back in!!
:sry: We didn't kick him hard enough!
Post by: sakoshooter on March 16, 2014, 11:00:29 PM
Perfect world would be a vote for everyone with a hunting/fishing license.Half the folks in Oly don't even hunt or fish but they've all got college degrees. The average hunter/fisherman in WA has much more knowledge based on many hours afield. I'd sure like to see hunters/fishermen get to vote on these committee members.
Post by: ipkus on March 16, 2014, 11:24:01 PM
I also agree that voting on wildlife commissioners may not be much better than the governor appointees. Perhaps it would be best if County Commissioners from each wildlife region chose an appointee for each region. That would give us 6 commissioners, let the governor appoint 1, then let the senate and house natural resources committees each appoint one. That would make 9 commissioners.
This is about the most equitable way I can think of...maybe minus the two appointees from the senate and house.
Votes by the general public don't work do to demographics. Special votes by license holders aren't practical or affordable.
It's interesting that the current commission gets fish issues better than any commission in history, and yet they are so far off on the wildlife side.
There has got to be a better way.
Post by: timberfaller on March 17, 2014, 09:12:21 AM
Last time I checked the "Bios" of the Commissioners, there was only ONE who had any claim to be a "hunter" all the rest claimed their "fishing" expertise. :bdid:
Post by: buckfvr on March 17, 2014, 09:31:47 AM
The next obvious thing to do would be to eliminate from consideration any person of special interest through affilliation or employment. No presidents of this organization, or board of directors of that one.........just honest fair open minded persons of common sense with long standing regional back ground.
Post by: gvan on March 17, 2014, 09:35:37 AM
Diversity by region and needs by region should dictate regional appointments. This could be accomplished through county commissioners by way of local input.:yeah:
The next obvious thing to do would be to eliminate from consideration any person of special interest through affilliation or employment. No presidents of this organization, or board of directors of that one.........just honest fair open minded persons of common sense with long standing regional back ground.
Post by: bigtex on March 17, 2014, 10:03:09 AM
What would an alternative be to gubernatorial appointees? Could candidates be chosen by the House Natural Resources Committee and then be confirmed by the House and then, the Senate? Any other ideas? Have at it.So under the current situation a Democratic Governor chooses the candidates.
Under your proposal, the Democratic led House NR Committee would choose them, then be confirmed by the Democrat majority House. Now the 2013-14 legislative session is an odd one because 2 Democrats joined the Republicans to control the Senate, had they not, the Senate would be in control of the Democrats as well. So in this case, what have we gained?
What difference is it if a Democrat Governor appoints them or a Democrat controlled legislature appointed them?
We all need to remember there were many Republicans who voted to confirm Kehne's appointment to WDFW. It was truly a bipartisan vote....
Post by: snowpack on March 17, 2014, 10:36:05 AM
It kind of depends on the margin of which the Democrats control the legislature. If it is only by a couple of reps/sens then you could in theory have Dems like Blake and Hargrove that seem to be more sportsman concerned as opposed to ones like Kline or Ranker, might balance it out more in favor of statewide opinion. Else you just get Inslee and his constant pandering to King County.What would an alternative be to gubernatorial appointees? Could candidates be chosen by the House Natural Resources Committee and then be confirmed by the House and then, the Senate? Any other ideas? Have at it.So under the current situation a Democratic Governor chooses the candidates.
Under your proposal, the Democratic led House NR Committee would choose them, then be confirmed by the Democrat majority House. Now the 2013-14 legislative session is an odd one because 2 Democrats joined the Republicans to control the Senate, had they not, the Senate would be in control of the Democrats as well. So in this case, what have we gained?
What difference is it if a Democrat Governor appoints them or a Democrat controlled legislature appointed them?
We all need to remember there were many Republicans who voted to confirm Kehne's appointment to WDFW. It was truly a bipartisan vote....