Post by: bearpaw on February 19, 2024, 07:26:29 AM
RCW 77.04.012
Mandate of department and commission.
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.
The department shall conserve the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish resources in a manner that does not impair the resource. In a manner consistent with this goal, the department shall seek to maintain the economic well-being and stability of the fishing industry in the state.
The department shall promote orderly fisheries and shall enhance and improve recreational and commercial fishing in this state.
The commission may authorize the taking of wildlife, food fish, game fish, and shellfish only at times or places, or in manners or quantities, as in the judgment of the commission does not impair the supply of these resources.
The commission shall attempt to maximize the public recreational game fishing and hunting opportunities of all citizens, including juvenile, disabled, and senior citizens.
Recognizing that the management of our state wildlife, food fish, game fish, and shellfish resources depends heavily on the assistance of volunteers, the department shall work cooperatively with volunteer groups and individuals to achieve the goals of this title to the greatest extent possible.
Nothing in this title shall be construed to infringe on the right of a private property owner to control the owner's private property.
https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=77.04.012
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on February 19, 2024, 07:50:29 AM
Post by: jrebel on February 19, 2024, 08:00:19 AM
Please vote and then explain why you voted the way you did?
RCW 77.04.012
Mandate of department and commission.
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. They are doing not PRESERVING, PROTECTING, PERPUTUATING AND MANAGING the wildlife.....but rather introducing and bolstering the population of predators in an attempt to stop all hunting of wildlife.
The department shall conserve the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish resources in a manner that does not impair the resource. In a manner consistent with this goal, the department shall seek to maintain the economic well-being and stability of the fishing industry in the state.
The department shall promote orderly fisheries and shall enhance and improve recreational and commercial fishing in this state.
The commission may authorize the taking of wildlife, food fish, game fish, and shellfish only at times or places, or in manners or quantities, as in the judgment of the commission does not impair the supply of these resources.
The commission shall attempt to maximize the public recreational game fishing and hunting opportunities of all citizens, including juvenile, disabled, and senior citizens. This is the big one for me. Instead of MAXIMIZING the public fishing and hunting opportunity, they are minimizing it. They are doing so by eliminating predator hunting (against the biologist recommendations), thus allowing our ungulate population to dwindle. This ultimately limits hunting opportunity of both predators and ultimately ungulates.
Recognizing that the management of our state wildlife, food fish, game fish, and shellfish resources depends heavily on the assistance of volunteers, the department shall work cooperatively with volunteer groups and individuals to achieve the goals of this title to the greatest extent possible.
Nothing in this title shall be construed to infringe on the right of a private property owner to control the owner's private property.
https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=77.04.012
Post by: ASHQUACK on February 19, 2024, 08:12:45 AM
Post by: Loup Loup on February 19, 2024, 08:16:13 AM
The fourth paragraph down.
It says their decisions to manage game shall be based on their “judgement” .
Which opens the door for crap in /crap out.
Post by: hunter399 on February 19, 2024, 08:26:57 AM
I also want to say topics as this one,which will become a commission bashing is not constructive at all.
I'm also guilty of this in the past. This forum is watched by many non-hunters.
Going forward......
We as sportsmen need to reinforce that department recommendations are best available science.
These animals are a resource,nothing more,nothing less.
Conservation/sustainable is what the commission is tasked with.
Anything past sustainable is opportunity for hunters to harvest a resource.
Post by: harveymarv on February 19, 2024, 08:37:24 AM
(except i see lorna smith is on here and voted “yes”…)
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 19, 2024, 09:43:51 AM
Post by: GOcougsHunter on February 19, 2024, 10:19:09 AM
In its entirety, the commission is going through the motions of the RCW as written and is why lawsuits have not been brought forth. The execution of the RCW has been bent and manipulated to favor the anti hunting agenda bias currently on the commission. They have said in many meetings "We are not eliminating hunting" as they shed crocodile tears.
"shall preserve, protect, perpetuate, and manage the wildlife" is what they are hanging on. Wildlife are butterflies, frogs, introduced wolves, apex predators... I wonder why they never thought to protect the woodland caribou? Would have been nice to see even a little effort in that arena.
Post by: Meathunter06 on February 19, 2024, 10:24:00 AM
There is an escape clause written into this rcw for the commission.:yeah:
The fourth paragraph down.
It says their decisions to manage game shall be based on their “judgement” .
Which opens the door for crap in /crap out.
Post by: Special T on February 19, 2024, 12:10:52 PM
Post by: dreamingbig on February 19, 2024, 01:35:32 PM
I would vote NO. They are not following the mandate to maximize opportunity. The majority of the commission wants to reduce and limit hunter take.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20240219/6295dd327b2e9e06e0376ba8dfd3e2ff.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Jake Dogfish on February 19, 2024, 02:00:49 PM
I can’t vote on my phone.:yeah:
I would vote NO. They are not following the mandate to maximize opportunity. The majority of the commission wants to reduce and limit hunter take.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20240219/6295dd327b2e9e06e0376ba8dfd3e2ff.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I see it like that as well, and voted no.
That said, the only problem with the commission is the person picking the commissioners.
Post by: bearpaw on February 19, 2024, 02:01:36 PM
what is the purpose of conducting this vote on this site (the answer is obviously and unanimously “no!”)
(except i see lorna smith is on here and voted “yes”…)
The purpose of the poll is to show in a public space if hunters/fishers/trappers think the commission is following the legislative mandate!
Post by: ghosthunter on February 19, 2024, 02:35:59 PM
For me Lorna’s reason for cancelling Spring Bear and her meeting with Anti organization to push her Non Consumption agenda proved the corruption at work.
I have lost all trust that the Commission can serve in an unbiased manner. And when they will not listen to Department staff it’s obvious they don’t care about wildlife only there radical agendas.
It’s well documented that elk herds in the Blues need relief from predators but they ignore it.
Post by: hunter399 on February 19, 2024, 03:37:05 PM
I voted no for all the same reasons. I taught Hunter Ed for 27 years and gave it up in 2021.:yeah:
For me Lorna’s reason for cancelling Spring Bear and her meeting with Anti organization to push her Non Consumption agenda proved the corruption at work.
I have lost all trust that the Commission can serve in an unbiased manner. And when they will not listen to Department staff it’s obvious they don’t care about wildlife only there radical agendas.
It’s well documented that elk herds in the Blues need relief from predators but they ignore it.
I voted no as well for not listening to department staff/following department recommendations that fall in line with mandate.
Post by: FWilliams on February 19, 2024, 03:46:03 PM
Post by: JakeLand on February 19, 2024, 04:20:45 PM
Post by: HillHound on February 19, 2024, 04:22:35 PM
Post by: Wsucoug on February 19, 2024, 04:27:40 PM
what is the purpose of conducting this vote on this site (the answer is obviously and unanimously “no!”)
(except i see lorna smith is on here and voted “yes”…)
Hopefully to facilitate thoughtful debate. The devil is in the details, meaning even if something seems obvious to you there are often details that creates problems and they are often overlooked.
Post by: Dysfunctional Vet on February 19, 2024, 05:44:06 PM
Post by: bullcanyon on February 19, 2024, 05:59:33 PM
Post by: Griiz on February 19, 2024, 06:06:41 PM
Post by: jstone on February 19, 2024, 08:09:09 PM
I have hunted Washington for over 40years. It keeps getting worse. Miss management, lack of knowledge on the predators. I could go on and on.
It’s the management of the whole state. Period
Post by: actionshooter on February 19, 2024, 08:47:03 PM
They are completely opposite of the mandate... they are reducing opportunity through mismanagement of the resource.
Post by: NOCK NOCK on February 20, 2024, 06:39:30 AM
I marked other.
In its entirety, the commission is going through the motions of the RCW as written and is why lawsuits have not been brought forth. The execution of the RCW has been bent and manipulated to favor the anti hunting agenda bias currently on the commission. They have said in many meetings "We are not eliminating hunting" as they shed crocodile tears.
"shall preserve, protect, perpetuate, and manage the wildlife" is what they are hanging on. Wildlife are butterflies, frogs, introduced wolves, apex predators... I wonder why they never thought to protect the woodland caribou? Would have been nice to see even a little effort in that arena.
Very well put
Folks tend to forget that there is much more to "Wildlife" than deer,elk,bear, and other hunting species.
Although I voted No, "Other" may be more suitable if we are talking "legalities"
Post by: NOCK NOCK on February 20, 2024, 06:45:22 AM
Please vote and then explain why you voted the way you did?
RCW 77.04.012
Mandate of department and commission.
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.
The department shall conserve the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish resources in a manner that does not impair the resource. In a manner consistent with this goal, the department shall seek to maintain the economic well-being and stability of the fishing industry in the state.
The department shall promote orderly fisheries and shall enhance and improve recreational and commercial fishing in this state.
The commission may authorize the taking of wildlife, food fish, game fish, and shellfish only at times or places, or in manners or quantities, as in the judgment of the commission does not impair the supply of these resources.
The commission shall attempt to maximize the public recreational game fishing and hunting opportunities of all citizens, including juvenile, disabled, and senior citizens.
Recognizing that the management of our state wildlife, food fish, game fish, and shellfish resources depends heavily on the assistance of volunteers, the department shall work cooperatively with volunteer groups and individuals to achieve the goals of this title to the greatest extent possible.
Nothing in this title shall be construed to infringe on the right of a private property owner to control the owner's private property.
https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=77.04.012
Someone mentioned a escape/safety clause. In contract language you need to look at EVERY word, and analyze its intent/purpose.
The above bolded word (with a good attorney) will save the bacon of all commish members no matter how terrible of a job they do.
Only 2 paragraphs speak to the commish' duties.
Is the commish legally considered part of the "Dept"? or are they a seperate entity?
Post by: Tbar on February 20, 2024, 07:04:10 AM
@Wsucougwhat is the purpose of conducting this vote on this site (the answer is obviously and unanimously “no!”)
(except i see lorna smith is on here and voted “yes”…)
Hopefully to facilitate thoughtful debate. The devil is in the details, meaning even if something seems obvious to you there are often details that creates problems and they are often overlooked.
I completely agree. So much of what has transpired is loosely in line depending on the audience. Do they ignore biologist? Yes, but they have tremendous support from other biologists. As for opportunities, they have attacked harvest based management models and what supports them. It is imperative the people get out of echo chambers and attempt to paint a different picture. Hunting and fishing are relatively easy societal concessions if there isn't a better offense by those who harvest and cherish that action and opportunity.
Post by: harveymarv on February 20, 2024, 11:43:19 AM
what is the purpose of conducting this vote on this site (the answer is obviously and unanimously “no!”)
(except i see lorna smith is on here and voted “yes”…)
The purpose of the poll is to show in a public space if hunters/fishers/trappers think the commission is following the legislative mandate!
will you consider sending results snd comments to wdfw staff and commission? maybe to gauge opportunity/feasibility of a lawsuit?
Post by: Threewolves on February 20, 2024, 05:16:39 PM
Post by: KNOPHISH on February 20, 2024, 05:45:08 PM
Post by: jstone on February 20, 2024, 05:51:36 PM