Post by: Bullkllr on February 20, 2024, 04:25:06 PM
https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=2434&Year=2023&Initiative=false (https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=2434&Year=2023&Initiative=false)
Post by: hughjorgan on February 20, 2024, 04:38:46 PM
Post by: ghosthunter on February 20, 2024, 06:40:39 PM
It’s bad legislation IMO, it is exactly what the anti hunters want; the Claire Loebs Davis from Washington Wildlife First has stated this on a Podcast. It would give them a direct line to the Governor and there is nothing stopping who ever is in the governors mansion from firing the WDFW director and and putting what ever anti hunter in the place of our current pro hunting director. It doesn’t fix anything.
:yeah:
Way, way , back we had this it was a train wreck.
Post by: Tbar on February 20, 2024, 07:12:52 PM
Are you talking pre merger? Can you explain train wreck?It’s bad legislation IMO, it is exactly what the anti hunters want; the Claire Loebs Davis from Washington Wildlife First has stated this on a Podcast. It would give them a direct line to the Governor and there is nothing stopping who ever is in the governors mansion from firing the WDFW director and and putting what ever anti hunter in the place of our current pro hunting director. It doesn’t fix anything.
:yeah:
Way, way , back we had this it was a train wreck.
Post by: Tbar on February 20, 2024, 07:16:10 PM
Post by: Humptulips on February 20, 2024, 10:10:28 PM
Seems like the Director would have dictatorial powers.
Post by: ghosthunter on February 20, 2024, 10:36:52 PM
Are you talking pre merger? Can you explain train wreck?It’s bad legislation IMO, it is exactly what the anti hunters want; the Claire Loebs Davis from Washington Wildlife First has stated this on a Podcast. It would give them a direct line to the Governor and there is nothing stopping who ever is in the governors mansion from firing the WDFW director and and putting what ever anti hunter in the place of our current pro hunting director. It doesn’t fix anything.
:yeah:
Way, way , back we had this it was a train wreck.
Sorry Tbar don’t remember the year. I remember no one liked it. Back when it was Dept of Game I think.
1960 to 1970s ?
https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/administration/history-mission
Post by: Tbar on February 20, 2024, 11:06:24 PM
As bad as it is now, I think this would have made it much worse. It just about would end meaningful public input. Even now a showing by the public for or against an item makes the Commission notice. I'm not sure how that would be possible without Commission meetings and public testimony.It was symbolic.
Seems like the Director would have dictatorial powers.
Post by: Humptulips on February 21, 2024, 12:26:51 AM
I get that but Bills have a habit of getting recycled in the next session. I hope the Commission takes a hint from the Bill but I bet they won't.As bad as it is now, I think this would have made it much worse. It just about would end meaningful public input. Even now a showing by the public for or against an item makes the Commission notice. I'm not sure how that would be possible without Commission meetings and public testimony.It was symbolic.
Seems like the Director would have dictatorial powers.
Post by: nwwanderer on February 21, 2024, 04:45:51 AM
Post by: Bullkllr on February 21, 2024, 07:30:16 AM
This was a excellent piece of legislation. It was purely symbolic but sent a clear message. If the commission continues it needs balanced.
This was my impression.
Post by: Special T on February 21, 2024, 07:43:20 AM
This was a excellent piece of legislation. It was purely symbolic but sent a clear message. If the commission continues it needs balanced.
This was my impression.
I belive Walsh even stated it didn't have much of a chance this session but meant to send a message.
Post by: Tbar on February 21, 2024, 07:45:23 AM
A pending threat is not bad and if we could get a director that is separated like pre merger I don't see it as being worse. I think a balanced commission is the goal but refer anyone back to the confirmation hearings. Please tell me there's a shred of concern from across the aisle. Where is McIntyre on all of this? He has a blue collar district that is being squeezed out, we all miss Blake and Tako when it comes to legislators who care. There's public critiques of Wilcox? We are very likely in a worse place than I previously thought. :twocents:I get that but Bills have a habit of getting recycled in the next session. I hope the Commission takes a hint from the Bill but I bet they won't.As bad as it is now, I think this would have made it much worse. It just about would end meaningful public input. Even now a showing by the public for or against an item makes the Commission notice. I'm not sure how that would be possible without Commission meetings and public testimony.It was symbolic.
Seems like the Director would have dictatorial powers.
Post by: Bullkllr on February 21, 2024, 07:46:23 AM
This was a excellent piece of legislation. It was purely symbolic but sent a clear message. If the commission continues it needs balanced.
This was my impression.
I belive Walsh even stated it didn't have much of a chance this session but meant to send a message.
Wilcox addresses the bill here around 1:47
Post by: hughjorgan on February 21, 2024, 08:46:27 AM
A pending threat is not bad and if we could get a director that is separated like pre merger I don't see it as being worse. I think a balanced commission is the goal but refer anyone back to the confirmation hearings. Please tell me there's a shred of concern from across the aisle. Where is McIntyre on all of this? He has a blue collar district that is being squeezed out, we all miss Blake and Tako when it comes to legislators who care. There's public critiques of Wilcox? We are very likely in a worse place than I previously thought. :twocents:I get that but Bills have a habit of getting recycled in the next session. I hope the Commission takes a hint from the Bill but I bet they won't.As bad as it is now, I think this would have made it much worse. It just about would end meaningful public input. Even now a showing by the public for or against an item makes the Commission notice. I'm not sure how that would be possible without Commission meetings and public testimony.It was symbolic.
Seems like the Director would have dictatorial powers.
The antis lobbied inslee for the appointments, what do you think they’re going to do if they want a certain director that isn’t following their science? They have enough democrats to pass what ever they want, just look at a lot of the garbage we have because of it; gun control and the highest gas tax in the nation! The commission needs reformed not eliminated. Like I said originally this is bad legislation. Go look up what the antis want and it is exactly what you are advocating.
Post by: KNOPHISH on February 21, 2024, 08:52:11 AM
Post by: Tbar on February 21, 2024, 09:19:18 AM
Ironic comment during the butt kicking going on by the anti's at this moment. FYI they are adamantly opposed to this bill.A pending threat is not bad and if we could get a director that is separated like pre merger I don't see it as being worse. I think a balanced commission is the goal but refer anyone back to the confirmation hearings. Please tell me there's a shred of concern from across the aisle. Where is McIntyre on all of this? He has a blue collar district that is being squeezed out, we all miss Blake and Tako when it comes to legislators who care. There's public critiques of Wilcox? We are very likely in a worse place than I previously thought. :twocents:I get that but Bills have a habit of getting recycled in the next session. I hope the Commission takes a hint from the Bill but I bet they won't.As bad as it is now, I think this would have made it much worse. It just about would end meaningful public input. Even now a showing by the public for or against an item makes the Commission notice. I'm not sure how that would be possible without Commission meetings and public testimony.It was symbolic.
Seems like the Director would have dictatorial powers.
The antis lobbied inslee for the appointments, what do you think they’re going to do if they want a certain director that isn’t following their science? They have enough democrats to pass what ever they want, just look at a lot of the garbage we have because of it; gun control and the highest gas tax in the nation! The commission needs reformed not eliminated. Like I said originally this is bad legislation. Go look up what the antis want and it is exactly what you are advocating.
Post by: hughjorgan on February 21, 2024, 09:31:07 AM
Ironic comment during the butt kicking going on by the anti's at this moment. FYI they are adamantly opposed to this bill.A pending threat is not bad and if we could get a director that is separated like pre merger I don't see it as being worse. I think a balanced commission is the goal but refer anyone back to the confirmation hearings. Please tell me there's a shred of concern from across the aisle. Where is McIntyre on all of this? He has a blue collar district that is being squeezed out, we all miss Blake and Tako when it comes to legislators who care. There's public critiques of Wilcox? We are very likely in a worse place than I previously thought. :twocents:I get that but Bills have a habit of getting recycled in the next session. I hope the Commission takes a hint from the Bill but I bet they won't.As bad as it is now, I think this would have made it much worse. It just about would end meaningful public input. Even now a showing by the public for or against an item makes the Commission notice. I'm not sure how that would be possible without Commission meetings and public testimony.It was symbolic.
Seems like the Director would have dictatorial powers.
The antis lobbied inslee for the appointments, what do you think they’re going to do if they want a certain director that isn’t following their science? They have enough democrats to pass what ever they want, just look at a lot of the garbage we have because of it; gun control and the highest gas tax in the nation! The commission needs reformed not eliminated. Like I said originally this is bad legislation. Go look up what the antis want and it is exactly what you are advocating.
Are you referring to the democrats being against this or groups like Wa Wildlife First that we’re directly responsible for lobbying for the antis that we’re appointed to the commission? Because I can assure you that Wa Wildlife First would love to have a bill like this pass, the founder has stated it before.
The one thing that needs to be reformed is getting the governor and partisan politics out of commission appointments.
Post by: Tbar on February 21, 2024, 09:35:30 AM
Yes! They are in force today and very against but maybe you have the inside track on their agenda. The record completely conflicts what you're saying.
Post by: hughjorgan on February 21, 2024, 10:12:03 AM
@hughjorgan
Yes! They are in force today and very against but maybe you have the inside track on their agenda. The record completely conflicts what you're saying.
Interesting because I just listened to a podcast where the founder of Wa wildlife first talks about the commission as not being democratic and how she would like the governor to over see the director and their policy. That is exactly what this bill would do…
Have a listen for yourself she talks about it at around the 57:00 minute mark
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-wolf-connection/id1521180246?i=1000627227213
Post by: dwils233 on February 21, 2024, 10:24:12 AM
@hughjorgan
Yes! They are in force today and very against but maybe you have the inside track on their agenda. The record completely conflicts what you're saying.
Interesting because I just listened to a podcast where the founder of Wa wildlife first talks about the commission as not being democratic and how she would like the governor to over see the director and their policy. That is exactly what this bill would do…
Have a listen for yourself she talks about it at around the 57:00 minute mark
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-wolf-connection/id1521180246?i=1000627227213
I think they would like that in the long term if you look at the state political trends, but they aren't clamoring for it right now because they don't need it- why get rid of a commission that is friendly to your whims and demands?
I listened. The Tribal representation and Tom Nelson were damning testimony about how sideways the Commission is getting. WA Wildlife First still doesn't have a good counter argument to being called by Tribes and marginalized communities, its worth hammering.
I don't think the goal should be eliminating the Commission, but spotlighting how bad it is right now, broken appointment process, and lack of sideboards to make it better. Going to elected positions is bad, going straight to the governor is bad....I'm not convinced we need to dump the commission model, but we could stand to change some of the people for sure.
Post by: hughjorgan on February 21, 2024, 11:09:29 AM
https://tvw.org/video/house-agriculture-natural-resources-2024021327/?eventID=2024021327
Post by: nwwanderer on February 21, 2024, 11:52:56 AM
Post by: hunter399 on February 21, 2024, 01:26:34 PM
Testimony starts at 49 minutes
https://tvw.org/video/house-agriculture-natural-resources-2024021327/?eventID=2024021327
Man I shouldn't watch stuff like that.
Glad link was provided,but man that gets me worked up.
Social science vs wildlife science
Animal resource vs Yellowstone park
Just ridiculous.
Post by: Ghost Hunter on February 21, 2024, 01:49:14 PM
Post by: hughjorgan on February 22, 2024, 12:17:07 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on February 22, 2024, 05:16:45 AM
Post by: hunter399 on February 22, 2024, 07:20:17 AM
Its unfortunate that so many anti's spoke in this, it just goes to show how much of a coordinated effort they have and being tied to the WDFW commission.Yup,seen that.
Just the fact that the non-hunters want the commission so badly, should raise a red flag for everyone.
I know the situation without a commission could get worse.
I have to believe if the director was In charge,we would just default to the department recommendations. Basically giving the biologist the power to recommend,and set regulations.
Which pretty much puts science in charge, without all the debate.
Seeing department recommendations vs commission decisions lately,think we would be better off.
Yes non-hunters scream about science if it benefits there agenda,if it doesn't then let's pull the social science card. That has absolutely nothing to do with wildlife.
Post by: Ghost Hunter on February 22, 2024, 09:04:35 AM
Post by: GOcougsHunter on February 22, 2024, 09:04:47 AM
Post by: Wsucoug on February 22, 2024, 09:09:57 AM
Its unfortunate that so many anti's spoke in this, it just goes to show how much of a coordinated effort they have and being tied to the WDFW commission.
It just goes to show how unorganized hunters are. It's a multi billion dollar industry where hunters should have the upper hand when it comes to voicing their directive...but we don't.
Post by: Mtnwalker on February 22, 2024, 09:13:29 AM
Its unfortunate that so many anti's spoke in this, it just goes to show how much of a coordinated effort they have and being tied to the WDFW commission.
It just goes to show how unorganized hunters are. It's a multi billion dollar industry where hunters should have the upper hand when it comes to voicing their directive...but we don't.
Truly baffles me how much time and money hunters are willing to throw at tags, trips and gear yet the vast majority won't attend a meeting or throw 100 bucks at the orgs fighting to protect our heritage
Post by: idahohuntr on February 22, 2024, 09:24:34 AM
Completely agree.
I listened. The Tribal representation and Tom Nelson were damning testimony about how sideways the Commission is getting. WA Wildlife First still doesn't have a good counter argument to being called by Tribes and marginalized communities, its worth hammering.
Post by: SuperX on February 22, 2024, 09:27:58 AM
Being a stake holder means you have something to lose and none of those anti's really have anything to lose while hunters and fishers have everything to lose. Oh and we pay for all the management not the tax payers. Legally speaking most of them are funded from out of state and as such don't have any stake in state owned resources.
fed up
Post by: highcountry_hunter on February 22, 2024, 07:10:50 PM
Hunters are too busy posting grip and grins to their Instabook page, arguing about calibers and spot burning on forums to be bothered with such frivolous tasksIts unfortunate that so many anti's spoke in this, it just goes to show how much of a coordinated effort they have and being tied to the WDFW commission.
It just goes to show how unorganized hunters are. It's a multi billion dollar industry where hunters should have the upper hand when it comes to voicing their directive...but we don't.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk