Post by: Practical Approach on January 19, 2024, 11:06:10 AM
https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2023-24/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/2434.pdf?q=20240119084409
Post by: KNOPHISH on January 19, 2024, 11:42:20 AM
Post by: Mtnwalker on January 19, 2024, 11:45:35 AM
Post by: hunter399 on January 19, 2024, 11:51:43 AM
https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=2434&Year=2023&Initiative=false
Thank you,
I was in the process of googling trying to find it.
Post by: hunter399 on January 19, 2024, 11:55:30 AM
Had me right up until the part where the director is appointed by the governorI know that part sucks.
But.......
The director has a department to run.
That department runs better if you follow mandate.
Maximize hunting and fishing also maximize funding.
Which in turn, maximize management goals and needs.
Which benefits wildlife and stake holders for the entire state.
Where as the commission does not have any need to up hold mandate.
It also keeps the governor from packing the commission with anti-hunters.
Director is a one person job ,he can only choose one.
Plus commission has been riding that high horse mighty high these days.
Post by: Platensek-po on January 19, 2024, 12:50:32 PM
Who says a commissioner can’t become director? Imagine Lorna as directorHad me right up until the part where the director is appointed by the governorI know that part sucks.
But.......
The director has a department to run.
That department runs better if you follow mandate.
Maximize hunting and fishing also maximize funding.
Which in turn, maximize management goals and needs.
Which benefits wildlife and stake holders for the entire state.
Where as the commission does not have any need to up hold mandate.
It also keeps the governor from packing the commission with anti-hunters.
Director is a one person job ,he can only choose one.
Plus commission has been riding that high horse mighty high these days.
Post by: hunter399 on January 19, 2024, 01:02:20 PM
Nothing says they can't become director.Who says a commissioner can’t become director? Imagine Lorna as directorHad me right up until the part where the director is appointed by the governorI know that part sucks.
But.......
The director has a department to run.
That department runs better if you follow mandate.
Maximize hunting and fishing also maximize funding.
Which in turn, maximize management goals and needs.
Which benefits wildlife and stake holders for the entire state.
Where as the commission does not have any need to up hold mandate.
It also keeps the governor from packing the commission with anti-hunters.
Director is a one person job ,he can only choose one.
Plus commission has been riding that high horse mighty high these days.
Alot of responsibility with that job.
There might be a certain amount of interegety and accountability,that may not be the job for everyone.
Post by: hunter399 on January 19, 2024, 01:24:40 PM
For the most part I believe the department does the best they can with the cards they are dealt.
They also have the best available science at there finger tips.
Also I have to think hunters would be more accepting of regulation changes if it comes from the department. Instead of commission that is being political lobbied by anti-hunting groups.
Even though I don't always agree with department suggestions.
Just want to say they do a great job with the BS That there handed.
Director.....right down to my district bio.
Sometimes you gotta make do with what ya got.
They do a great job.
Post by: SuperX on January 19, 2024, 02:03:22 PM
Full disclosure, I voted democrat in the last few elections but I will no longer vote democrat for governor or any senators or representatives that don't support hunting and fishing rights. I hope I'm not the only one.
Post by: Pegasus on January 19, 2024, 02:14:06 PM
in this one-party state, the governor, house and senate are likely to be controlled by the same people who oppose hunting and fishing today. I can't see anything changing at the broader level.
Full disclosure, I voted democrat in the last few elections but I will no longer vote democrat for governor or any senators or representatives that don't support hunting and fishing rights. I hope I'm not the only one.
Good for you. Hopefully other people finally figure out that elections have lasting consequences.
Post by: SuperX on January 19, 2024, 02:31:40 PM
Thanks, I feel like my culture is being cancelled. Everyone in my family hunted, now I am the last of my clan who hunts and my family heirloom firearms have no one to be passed on to, and nobody to tell stories to of how they were used to feed our family.in this one-party state, the governor, house and senate are likely to be controlled by the same people who oppose hunting and fishing today. I can't see anything changing at the broader level.
Full disclosure, I voted democrat in the last few elections but I will no longer vote democrat for governor or any senators or representatives that don't support hunting and fishing rights. I hope I'm not the only one.
Good for you. Hopefully other people finally figure out that elections have lasting consequences.
Post by: KNOPHISH on January 19, 2024, 02:53:10 PM
Had me right up until the part where the director is appointed by the governorThis is kinda where I’m at also. This bill says director needs senate and house approval, where commission I think was only senate. The current commission is dragging the whole dept down the drain, and the rate is accelerating. So what do we have to lose that they’re already trying to take? I think if they followed the RCW on the selection process we might be in a little better position but they keep getting away with not.
Post by: Mtnwalker on January 19, 2024, 02:56:36 PM
in this one-party state, the governor, house and senate are likely to be controlled by the same people who oppose hunting and fishing today. I can't see anything changing at the broader level.
Full disclosure, I voted democrat in the last few elections but I will no longer vote democrat for governor or any senators or representatives that don't support hunting and fishing rights. I hope I'm not the only one.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, not all democrats are anti-hunting, but all almost anti-hunters are democrat. Votes have consequences and we as sportsmen are now feeling those consequences big time
Post by: MeepDog on January 19, 2024, 04:58:06 PM
Post by: SuperX on January 19, 2024, 06:14:46 PM
Depends on where you live, probably true for the left coast. In Minnesota it is a rare democrat who doesn't hunt or fish. One of the bluest spots in the state - the Iron Range - has the most avid hunters I've ever known! of course Hunting and Fishing and I think Trapping rights are all ensconced in the constitution.in this one-party state, the governor, house and senate are likely to be controlled by the same people who oppose hunting and fishing today. I can't see anything changing at the broader level.
Full disclosure, I voted democrat in the last few elections but I will no longer vote democrat for governor or any senators or representatives that don't support hunting and fishing rights. I hope I'm not the only one.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, not all democrats are anti-hunting, but all almost anti-hunters are democrat. Votes have consequences and we as sportsmen are now feeling those consequences big time
Post by: hunter399 on January 19, 2024, 07:15:20 PM
How about a bill where the commissioners aren't appointed by the governor and it's instead a body of the district head biologists. :twocents: let the scientists make some decisions.
I'd go along with that.
Sounds like a good idea.
Post by: HUNTIN4SIX on January 19, 2024, 08:21:36 PM
How about a bill where the commissioners aren't appointed by the governor and it's instead a body of the district head biologists. :twocents: let the scientists make some decisions.
I kinda agree....If the biologist are on the same page. WDFW has many bios that are very biased and don't reflect the majority of fish and wildlife users. Of course there are some good ones, but there is alot of bad ones too.
Post by: MeepDog on January 19, 2024, 08:47:18 PM
It's just weird to me why we would in a sense sub-contract out a job that should be an internal board within the department. Instead of some spicy stand in activist we'd just have normal boring government employees making normal decisions instead of jumping off the rails.How about a bill where the commissioners aren't appointed by the governor and it's instead a body of the district head biologists. :twocents: let the scientists make some decisions.
I kinda agree....If the biologist are on the same page. WDFW has many bios that are very biased and don't reflect the majority of fish and wildlife users. Of course there are some good ones, but there is alot of bad ones too.
Post by: HUNTIN4SIX on January 19, 2024, 08:53:10 PM
It's just weird to me why we would in a sense sub-contract out a job that should be an internal board within the department. Instead of some spicy stand in activist we'd just have normal boring government employees making normal decisions instead of jumping off the rails.How about a bill where the commissioners aren't appointed by the governor and it's instead a body of the district head biologists. :twocents: let the scientists make some decisions.:yeah: Might even give employees a little more passion their career.
I kinda agree....If the biologist are on the same page. WDFW has many bios that are very biased and don't reflect the majority of fish and wildlife users. Of course there are some good ones, but there is alot of bad ones too.
Post by: huntnphool on January 19, 2024, 11:24:48 PM
Had me right up until the part where the director is appointed by the governor
Bingo!
This is exactly where B. Hussein began taking over, realizing that “commissions” had to answer to only one person, the governor, and couldn’t be touched regardless how pissed of “the people” got. There is no avenue to get rid of commission members, other than to vote out the person that appointed them!
No thanks!!!!
Post by: Tbar on January 20, 2024, 08:01:25 AM
So you like the status quo? :dunno:Had me right up until the part where the director is appointed by the governor
Bingo!
This is exactly where B. Hussein began taking over, realizing that “commissions” had to answer to only one person, the governor, and couldn’t be touched regardless how pissed of “the people” got. There is no avenue to get rid of commission members, other than to vote out the person that appointed them!
No thanks!!!!
Post by: nwwanderer on January 20, 2024, 08:36:50 AM
Post by: time2hunt on January 20, 2024, 08:49:29 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: hunter399 on January 20, 2024, 09:39:55 AM
:yeah:So you like the status quo? :dunno:Had me right up until the part where the director is appointed by the governor
Bingo!
This is exactly where B. Hussein began taking over, realizing that “commissions” had to answer to only one person, the governor, and couldn’t be touched regardless how pissed of “the people” got. There is no avenue to get rid of commission members, other than to vote out the person that appointed them!
No thanks!!!!
I was thinking same,I don't really see a resolution besides this
Governor is lost cause in Washington.
Commission is currently chipping at our seasons, without proof of unsustainable population.
They do not like to compromise with hunters at all,or even recognize us as stake holders.
Because of that , trust is gone.
Example of this would be bear season.
They could of very easily taken the second tag,and left the season August 1 opening.
Let the cards fall,see if harvest rates level out.
That would be a compromise.
They are power drunk ,all this BS will just get worse.
Post by: Special T on January 20, 2024, 09:51:05 AM
https://www.capitalpress.com/ag_sectors/rurallife/washington-lawmaker-proposes-disbanding-fish-and-wildlife-commission/article_02584ff8-b71a-11ee-8e71-d384fba1cf1f.html
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Wilcox states the he is doubtful this will pass and hopes it forces a discussion.
I don't think this is the answer. I don't like the status quo. I feel like if the intent of the RCWs were enforced we wouldn't be in this situation. The checks and balances are broken.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 20, 2024, 10:05:53 AM
Had me right up until the part where the director is appointed by the governor
I don't see how it's possible to be any worse than it is now with animal rights advocates controlling every vote 5-4. :dunno:
Post by: hunter399 on January 20, 2024, 10:27:14 AM
I'm a roll the dice kinda guy. It's not working now. So I'll take my chances.
Can't follow the mandate,then go home,your not needed.
Post by: huntnphool on January 20, 2024, 10:44:39 AM
So you like the status quo? :dunno:Had me right up until the part where the director is appointed by the governor
Bingo!
This is exactly where B. Hussein began taking over, realizing that “commissions” had to answer to only one person, the governor, and couldn’t be touched regardless how pissed of “the people” got. There is no avenue to get rid of commission members, other than to vote out the person that appointed them!
No thanks!!!!
No, it would simply be the other side of the same ass!
Post by: Tbar on January 20, 2024, 10:48:59 AM
I think it's much easier to move and remove one vs a committee. The committee shields each other from accountability, even the pro hunting commissioners.So you like the status quo? :dunno:Had me right up until the part where the director is appointed by the governor
Bingo!
This is exactly where B. Hussein began taking over, realizing that “commissions” had to answer to only one person, the governor, and couldn’t be touched regardless how pissed of “the people” got. There is no avenue to get rid of commission members, other than to vote out the person that appointed them!
No thanks!!!!
No, it would simply be the other side of the same ass!
Post by: dwils233 on January 20, 2024, 11:14:37 AM
It needs refinement, better oversight for governance, stricter appointment procedures, and disciplinary tools to keep it from going off the rails. The current commission issues aren't because of bad structure, as much as insufficient structure and abuse