Post by: Snapshot on March 17, 2009, 08:34:35 AM
My Fellow Outdoors Enthusiast,
It has become evident over the course of the past ten days that a potentially devastating attack on our ability to participate in the hunting season-setting processes comes from Senate Bill 5127. It was passed by the Senate on March 12 and is now in the House Natural Resources Committee.
This bill would wipe out the safeguards that Referendum 45, which was passed by an overwhelming majority of the voters in 1995, put into place. If SB 5127 becomes law it would reconstruct the Fish & Wildlife Commission into a mere advisory board, and give the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) the total authority to set our hunting seasons without the public input process we currently have.
For the record the commissioners aren’t raking in big bucks by serving. They are paid a hundred bucks a day for the meetings and get their room, board and gas money covered. The reason good people are attracted to serving is that the position is one of great responsibility and importance because the Director of the WDFW is hired by, fired by and answers to the commission.
The scuttlebutt is that the House Natural Resources Committee will either kill the bill, or amend it in an attempt to retain the Commission’s current regulatory authority over the WDFW; but this would keep everything else in the bill, including changing the position of Director of the WDFW into a cabinet appointment (by the Governor) rather than an appointment controlled by the Fish & Wildlife Commission. It was the current Governor who stripped the commission of four members, and replaced them with four of her own choosing, thereby igniting a scuffle that started a downward spiral that the commission has suffered from ever since. Would it be a good idea for a Governor, any Governor, to be given authority to appoint some friend as the Director of WDFW? In my opinion, no, it wouldn’t.
It is speculated that, if this bill dies in the House Natural Resources Committee, the Senate is prepared to then call each current commissioner up for confirmation as it should have done long ago (but, for some political reasons unbeknownst to me, hasn’t). George Orr is the only seated commissioner who has been confirmed. The only one! I think this is more evidence of political ballyhoo. I hope that SB 5127 does die in the committee so that the Governor will be obligated to compel the Senate to move forward with the confirmation processes; the current commissioners who are unworthy will be canned and others will be appointed to take their places. That is how it was designed to work and when allowed to work, it works well. It is further conjectured that the Senate likely will not confirm anyone except Chuck Perry. From the little bit I’ve spoken to Mr. Perry I think he is a good man and an asset to the hunting community.
A couple of days ago I was sent a link to a video recording of a February 2, 2009 Senate Natural Resources Committee hearing in which Mr. Ed Owens, representing both the Coalition of Coastal Fisheries and the Hunters Heritage Council, spoke in support of the bill. This confuses me because as a longtime supporter of Mr. Owens and the HHC I don't understand why 'my' lobbyist would support a bill that would take the public input process away from hunters. That is… unless he knows full well that it won't make it out of the House committee. I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt and presume that this is the case.
Mr. Owens was among the people who helped write Referendum 45. It was Referendum 45 that gave us equity of harvest. For the past fourteen years the commission has protected us from the department. Archery hunters have been satisfied with the allocation formula used to allocate the bull tags on the east side; the commission gave us that against the department’s requests. The commission has been very fair to hunters over the years. Many times the department recommended that archery seasons be shortened and many times the commission listened to reasonable arguments against the department’s proposals and voted in favor of maintaining our season lengths. If the process that we have now is abolished archery hunting will suffer.
Commercial fishing interests are supporting the bill. Nothing against them, but I don’t believe they have hunters' best interests at heart on this one. And I don’t think it is right to rub out the only safeguard hunters have just to appease the commercial fishing industry. So, I believe we are courting disaster if we don’t fight against this attempt to change the current commission structure.
We have approximately one week to make it known to our Representatives in the House how we feel about significance of Referendum 45. To do so go to: http://www.leg.wa.gov/legislature then click the "Find your District" tab; fill in your address and it will give you the links and addresses of your Representatives. The most important contacts right now are the eight members of the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee: Chairman Brian Blake, Vice-Chairman Jim Jacks, Bruce Chandler, Norma Smith, Laura Grant-Herriot, Joel Kretz, Marko Liias and John McCoy. Everyone in the state can write to a Committeeperson, but if any of them are from your district tell them so, and then your letter will be of particularly strong influence!
Please take the time to send them a letter (or at least an email; but a letter carries more weight) expressing what it means to you as a hunter to have a Fish & Wildlife Commission with the authority to regulate the actions of the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife. The importance of this should be especially obvious now, in light of the tremendous turnout by the archery hunters at the commission meeting two weeks ago; of the approximately one hundred people who attended on Saturday it is estimated that as many as three-quarters of them were archery hunters. Significant gains were made at that meeting. It was Referendum 45 that made the public’s involvement possible. This public process will be lost if SB 5127 becomes law.
For Archery Hunting,
Dale Sharp
PS. You can read the Commission’s Position Statement on SB5127 by clicking this link or by cutting and pasting it into your browser’s address line: http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2009/03/mar1309_5127sb_fwc_position.pdf
They explained it better than I can.
Post by: pacyew on March 17, 2009, 10:02:40 AM
Everyone here - please do what you can to help kill this Bill - Now!!
Post by: Ray on March 17, 2009, 06:37:09 PM
I find this part strange and look forward to seeing the video too. Isn't the Hunter's Heritage Council supposed to represent and support hunters and fishermen?
Quote
A couple of days ago I was sent a link to a video recording of a February 2, 2009 Senate Natural Resources Committee hearing in which Mr. Ed Owens, representing both the Coalition of Coastal Fisheries and the Hunters Heritage Council, spoke in support of the bill. This confuses me because as a longtime supporter of Mr. Owens and the HHC I don't understand why 'my' lobbyist would support a bill that would take the public input process away from hunters. That is… unless he knows full well that it won't make it out of the House committee. I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt and presume that this is the case.
Mr. Owens was among the people who helped write Referendum 45. It was Referendum 45 that gave us equity of harvest. For the past fourteen years the commission has protected us from the department. Archery hunters have been satisfied with the allocation formula used to allocate the bull tags on the east side; the commission gave us that against the department’s requests. The commission has been very fair to hunters over the years. Many times the department recommended that archery seasons be shortened and many times the commission listened to reasonable arguments against the department’s proposals and voted in favor of maintaining our season lengths. If the process that we have now is abolished archery hunting will suffer.
Post by: Snapshot on March 17, 2009, 07:39:33 PM
I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused and especially to Mr. Owens. I will attempt to do a better job researching facts.
That being said, the bill as it is written is still no good.
Dale
From the Senate website: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/Senate/5127%20SBR%20APS%2009.pdf
Staff Summary of Public Testimony: PRO: DFW needs a professional, full-time, cabinet level director that is appointed by the Governor. The current Commission is not trained in fisheries management and is inconsistently involved in the fisheries management process. If it is to remain, the Commission should serve a merely advisory role.
CON: The Commission was created by a vote of the people, so only a vote of the people
should change its structure. The Commission is composed of citizens who work very hard to understand complex fish and wildlife issues. They also oversee public processes that allow broad public and stakeholder participation.
OTHER: There are larger questions out there than just the number of Commission members. A stakeholder group should be commissioned to review the Commission and come back with recommendations to the Legislature. Many stakeholders have concerns about the current makeup of the Commission, even if they support the Commission model itself. Although it may not be the right vehicle, this bill provides a good start to conversations about the issue.
Persons Testifying: PRO: Steve Robinson, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.
CON: Carl Burke, Northwest Sports Fishing Association; John Douglas, Washington
Wildlife Federation.
OTHER: Bill Robinson, The Nature Conservancy; Ed Owens, Coalition of Coastal
Fisheries, Hunters Heritage Council.
Senate Bill
Post by: Coldeadhands on March 17, 2009, 11:44:57 PM
Well, not exactly. Some terms were up and at least one, Soloman, did not want to renew, if memory serves. Will Roehl was moved to another commission. What you dont know, it that Gregoire promised sportsman during the first campaign, she would give them more representation. Those commissioner are more concerned about conservation, than allocation. The reason its become so contentious is that the gillnetters, were use to getting their way. I havent talked to Gutzweiler, but he was dumped just recently. It was easier for a lot of people when they only had one TOKEN sportfisher on the commission.
CDH
Quote-
I hope that SB 5127 does die in the committee so that the Governor will be obligated to compel the Senate to move forward with the confirmation processes; the current commissioners who are unworthy will be canned and others will be appointed to take their places. That is how it was designed to work and when allowed to work, it works well. It is further conjectured that the Senate likely will not confirm anyone except Chuck Perry. From the little bit I’ve spoken to Mr. Perry I think he is a good man and an asset to the hunting community. Quote
The Gov is not forced to compel the senate to confirm. There is probably a secret reason Jacobsen doesnt have a no confidence vote of the commission members. Perhaps, he doesnt want to tick off the Gov.
If you want it to die in committee, you need to write to representatives on the committee, if they also represent you. Ask them to put a HOLD on the bill. Each Rep gets a number of pulls, so unless the chair, which could happen pulls the bill, it will be stuck in committee. It has to go thru Nat Res and Ag. then goes to rules. They choose the order the bills are pulled to go to the floor.
As far as canning any of these commissioners, I dont know which one you would like to see canned. We need to all be aware of the highly qualified members on the current commission. Wecker is an attorney, who has life long dedication to conservation issues. Mahnken is a PHD in fisheries, with a career as a NOAA/NMFS fisheries scientist, and has unassailable credentials in fisheries and aquaculture. Chew is a UW professor in shellfish and fisheries and Douvia is a professional financial manager and a lifelong Washington hunter.
These people are perhaps the best to ever serve on the commission and you would be hard pressed to find anyone, so qualified to serve on a commission, if it had no authority. Under 5127, you only need "yes, men". People with high credentials deserve to be taken seriously. You could not find a better selection of commissioners to protect Washington waters and wildlife habitat from overharvest, ecological imbalance, pollution and economical destruction.
Post by: Coldeadhands on March 18, 2009, 12:20:13 AM
legislative website. follow bills, contact members, find districts
http://www.leg.wa.gov/House/Committees/AGNR/membersstaff.htm
Ag and Natural Resources Committee. If these reps are in your district, via the map, then write and ask them to kill it or hold it.
Post by: Coldeadhands on March 18, 2009, 12:44:23 AM
A couple of days ago I was sent a link to a video recording of a February 2, 2009 Senate Natural Resources Committee hearing in which Mr. Ed Owens, representing both the Coalition of Coastal Fisheries and the Hunters Heritage Council, spoke in support of the bill. This confuses me because as a longtime supporter of Mr. Owens and the HHC I don't understand why 'my' lobbyist would support a bill that would take the public input process away from hunters. That is… unless he knows full well that it won't make it out of the House committee. I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt and presume that this is the case. End quote.
Two paragraphs down you almost had your own answer. The reason Mr Owen is confusing you, is because his clients include Commercial fisherman and Charter boats.
He did help on Ref 45, but he didnt count on losing the grip on the commission. I have intimate knowledge of a recent meeting in Ellensburg on March 1st. If you contact other members of the CCW, you will be met with some hostility, since they too have become aware of how, a letter was sent to the legislature and another to the senate, and both of them fully supported SSB5127.
http://columbian.com/article/20090219/SPORTS04/702199929
"Ed Owens of the Coalition of Coastal Fisheries said the commercial fishing industry and counties such as Wahkiakum and Pacific have concerns with how the commission operates."
"Owens also added that hunting groups are unhappy with the commission."
Sent to me 2/10/09
Last week, the Senate Natural Resources, Ocean & Recreation Committee held a hearing on several bills, including Senator Jacobsen's SB 5127. CCA Washington's lobbyist, Mike Ryherd, attended the hearing and signed up to testify on CCA's behalf in strong opposition to the bill. Unfortunately, Senator (and Chairman) Jacobsen did not call on Mr. Ryherd to testify, which prevented CCA's position from being heard by the committee. As you may know, over the past several legislative sessions Senator Jacobsen has shown open hostility toward the more conservation-focused Commissioners appointed by Governor Gregoire in recent years. It is essential that you contact your elected officials, including Governor Gregoire, to voice your opposition to this effort to dismantle the Commission.
Post by: Snapshot on March 19, 2009, 07:50:09 AM
I have learned that the HHC bylaws don't require a polling of the memberships unless the Board of Directors doesn't support or oppose a piece of legislation by a super-majority of 60%. I have no problem with that; if the Directors/Officers on a Board isn't voting like its' membership wants then they won't remain Directors/Officers for very long. That is the way the system is designed to work and I'm okay with it.
[And I still hope that the bill in its current form will fail to see the light of day. If they'll amend it to give the Commission regulatory authority over the WDFW it would be a step in the proper direction and worthy of some support.]
Dale
Post by: Snapshot on March 19, 2009, 09:04:17 AM
Mr Gutzliler's term expired December 31, 2008. How do we know he was 'dumped' as opposed to being 'fed up with the politics'? I'm just saying 'maybe'...
I don't have a list of who I'd "like to see canned"; I wasn't thinking of any one person in particular. My point was that it is up to the senate to either confirm them or call on the governor to make another selection; and they've fallen down on the job.
As to the comfimation process; I could be mistaken but I think the senate has a limited number of days to confirm them and if they haven't done so by then, then the Governor has to select someone else.
D
Post by: Coldeadhands on March 19, 2009, 10:47:41 AM
Cold,
Mr Gutzliler's term expired December 31, 2008. How do we know he was 'dumped' as opposed to being 'fed up with the politics'? I'm just saying 'maybe'...
Cause I know someone in the dept and he told me it was coming. I dont have his start date in front of me, but the terms are six years. Id have to look back at the announcment, but I think it was into January. That would indicate otherwise.
I don't have a list of who I'd "like to see canned"; I wasn't thinking of any one person in particular. My point was that it is up to the senate to either confirm them or call on the governor to make another selection; and they've fallen down on the job.
They dont care about the job, its all about their control or whether they want to exercise it. Frankly the senate should not be involved. Politicians are about politics, not science.
As to the comfimation process; I could be mistaken but I think the senate has a limited number of days to confirm them and if they haven't done so by then, then the Governor has to select someone else.
That was in SSB5127 which failed.
D
Im glad you are fairly informed about this stuff. But, you seem to respect the policy wonk side of these issues. That isnt going to win the arguement over the legislation. It shows there is still TOO MUCH political control over the commission. If politicians like Jacobsen had put the resource first, we wouldnt be fight over a commission. Those that fail to protect the public domain, should not be in charge of those who are trying to. Thats a promotion they dont deserve.
You know the first law, passed on commercial fishing was in regards to limiting the harvest, by how much the processing plant could can, before the fish rotted on the dock.
On the flip side, Ive been doing this less than two years.
Post by: Snapshot on March 19, 2009, 08:03:41 PM
You, Coldeadhands (nice handle, by the way), are apparently more versed in fishing matters than I would ever care to be. Although weened with a pole in my hand, these days I am focused on close encounters of the mammalian kind.
D
Post by: alfbennett on March 20, 2009, 10:06:48 AM
Maybe the site admins could make the thread easier to find? (I bookmark directly to the forum, and the link to this is in itty bitty type on the main page).
I did email my rep, and he has gotten responses from his constituents that are 9-1 against this bill, so he will be voting no.
I am sure Olypia politicians were really hoping this would go by un-noticed.
Post by: andytoshif on March 20, 2009, 07:00:04 PM
Post by: alfbennett on March 21, 2009, 09:22:47 PM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on March 22, 2009, 12:51:56 PM
it already passed the senate >:( Email your representative.
The latest alert and link I recieved
By now I’m sure you have received multiple messages from CCA and are fully aware of the dangerous Senate Bill 5127, which would gut the Fish and Wildlife Commission. This bill passed out of the Senate last week and is now assigned to the House Natural Resources Committee. CCA is leading the opposition to this dangerous legislation and we need your help.
Unlike our prior Action Alerts, this message is only going to select CCA members and supporters that live in the districts with representatives who serve on this committee. You are receiving this message because your state representative is part of the 13-member Natural Resource committee.
For more background information on this issue, please visit our website and review the Briefing Document on SB5127 posted on the homepage.
To quickly send a pre-drafted message to your state Representative, please click on the link below. As always, please consider adding some personal comments to the text to increase its effectiveness with your representative.
Remember, government (and our fish and wildlife resources) goes to those who show up.
Click the link below to take action on this issue.:
http://www.votervoice.net/link/forward/ccapnw161837.aspx
Post by: elkangel on March 23, 2009, 10:52:14 AM
Washington Wildlife Congress Concept
Currently the Fish and Wildlife Committee, established in 1994 is a Governor appointed committee established to address Fish and Wildlife issues. In addition the nine member committee has not been able to keep up with the growing demand on fish and wildlife issues. In a State with great natural resources we need to make sure we are aware of and can address the concerns of every county, community and citizen of the State fair and equitably. This is a proposal to establishment a Wildlife Congress to insure concerns are better addressed.
The Elected County Commissioners in each of the 39 counties would appoint a WildLife Congress Member to a 4 year term. The 39 members would meet two times a year. At the first meeting they would elect the nine member Fish and Wild life Commission from their membership. The Fish and Wildlife Committee members would be as follows, 3 members for 1 year term, 3 members for 2 year term and 3 members for 4 year term. The nine member Committee would then meeting monthly or as needed to conduct the Committees business. The members would be the Counties liaison between the Citizens of the County, the Fish and Wildlife Commission and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Their responsibility would be to keep their community and elected officials informed and up to date on Fish and Wildlife issues. They would also be responsible to bring up concerns from their local citizens, groups and organizations in their county regarding Fish and Wildlife Issues, addressing them through the Fish and Wildlife Commission and or through the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Establishing the Wildlife Congress would change the hiring of the Fish and Wildlife Director to become the responsibility of the Governor, and not the Fish and Wildlife Commission. This would bring more accountability to the Director through the elected leadership of the State.
The establishment of the Wildlife Congress would have little to no financial burden on the State. It would greatly increase the communication of Wildlife Issues to all communities of the State. It would allow the people to have more of a local voice on issue that effect them and their community. Finally, it will allow a better platform for the State to develop better use of our natural resources and create more green industries in wildlife recreations, while protecting them for our future generations.
Thank you for taking time to read this proposal, please send comment regarding this concept to:
It is not perfect but offers all the States citizens a more equal say in our fish and wildlife concerns.
Post by: Coldeadhands on March 24, 2009, 03:05:07 PM
The turnover set up in that plan would be disasterous for fish and wildlife. The fish and wildlife commissioners should be about science not politics. Being appointed by the commissioners of the county has nothing to do with science and everything to do with climbing the ladder and paying for representation. We cant seem to find enough Senators in this state, who believe in Science and Conservation versus Allocation. I dont see an improvement. The public at large is disinterested and only pays attention when budget matter or seasons change for the worse. I dont want Boss Hog appointing anyone. Fisherman and Sport groups and NOT their lobbyists, should find and determine whether and individual has the credentials to serve as a commissioner. Most of the people serving on the commission are giving back to the resource, by not demanding high wages. If these people are not taken seriously, they wont bother. Then ask yourself how much the state will pay these same types of individuals to do the research and watch it be rejected by a pro allocation director.
Post by: NWPanhandler on March 26, 2009, 04:15:17 PM
The committee will consider the Striker tomorrow.
Authored by Ed
Please feel free to forward this to anyone who may be interested.
:bdid: