Post by: bearpaw on August 21, 2024, 09:25:46 AM
Please read this:
https://www.themeateater.com/conservation/wildlife-management/washington-wildlife-commission-descends-into-open-infighting-over-new-cougar
Please comment here:
https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/commission/contact
Post by: brew on August 21, 2024, 09:30:31 AM
Post by: HillHound on August 21, 2024, 09:36:30 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 21, 2024, 10:19:31 AM
Post by: hughjorgan on August 21, 2024, 10:37:25 AM
The Wildlife Commission obviously has it's own agenda, in a 5-4 vote, they voted against recommendations from the Dept. of Fish & Wildlife, and Director Susewind accused the commission of blatantly ignoring the opinions of state biologists.
Please read this:
https://www.themeateater.com/conservation/wildlife-management/washington-wildlife-commission-descends-into-open-infighting-over-new-cougar
Please comment here:
https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/commission/contact
Dale this article is from clear back in April of this year. Our commission has already adopted and changed rules to cougar hunting this fall.
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 21, 2024, 10:41:28 AM
Post by: Harleysboss on August 21, 2024, 10:44:19 AM
Post by: hughjorgan on August 21, 2024, 10:45:45 AM
Post by: bearpaw on August 21, 2024, 10:55:58 AM
The Wildlife Commission obviously has it's own agenda, in a 5-4 vote, they voted against recommendations from the Dept. of Fish & Wildlife, and Director Susewind accused the commission of blatantly ignoring the opinions of state biologists.
Please read this:
https://www.themeateater.com/conservation/wildlife-management/washington-wildlife-commission-descends-into-open-infighting-over-new-cougar
Please comment here:
https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/commission/contact
Dale this article is from clear back in April of this year. Our commission has already adopted and changed rules to cougar hunting this fall.
I am aware, but the only way to encourage change is to keep hammering away at the commission and legislators. Forget the governors office, he appointed these clowns.
Post by: hughjorgan on August 21, 2024, 11:02:07 AM
The Wildlife Commission obviously has it's own agenda, in a 5-4 vote, they voted against recommendations from the Dept. of Fish & Wildlife, and Director Susewind accused the commission of blatantly ignoring the opinions of state biologists.
Please read this:
https://www.themeateater.com/conservation/wildlife-management/washington-wildlife-commission-descends-into-open-infighting-over-new-cougar
Please comment here:
https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/commission/contact
Dale this article is from clear back in April of this year. Our commission has already adopted and changed rules to cougar hunting this fall.
I am aware, but the only way to encourage change is to keep hammering away at the commission and legislators. Forget the governors office, he appointed these clowns.
:tup: Agreed keep the pressure on and vote for the republican come November for governor!
Post by: lewy on August 21, 2024, 11:16:40 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on August 21, 2024, 11:27:20 AM
I even wrote both of the candidates for governor asking for their stand on the imbalance on the commission. Of coarse their was no reply that specifically addressed my question.
When you have an over abundance of cougars in this state and they agreed to go with a petition that doesn't reduce the cougar numbers but essentially enhances it you know its not on the up and up. I also told them not if but when a cougar attack happens they will be getting an email from me as it falls on their conscience. This topic get's me fired up every time.
Post by: HillHound on August 21, 2024, 12:48:12 PM
Post by: bearpaw on August 21, 2024, 12:52:56 PM
Dear Legislators,
The Washington Wildlife Commission's disregard for the cougar management recommendations of the Dept of Fish and Wildlife are indicative of a body interested only in furthering their own agenda driven goals, with no interest in the recommendations from the very agency they oversee or for the hunting opportunities for the citizens of Washington. There is clearly no regard for scientific wildlife management, public safety, or for providing mandated recreational opportunities.
Rather than having commissioners selected by a single person, the governor, I am urging the legislators of Washington to introduce legislation that reorganizes the Washington Wildlife Commission so that it is a body that better serves scientific wildlife management as well as all people of Washington.
I propose that each Fish & Game region should have 1 wildlife commissioner voted on by the people who live in that region. Since there are 6 regions a seventh commissioner is needed and I propose the 7th commissioner be appointed by the WDFW Director. A body of this makeup would truly bring the interests of all regions of the state and the biological recommendations of the Dept. of Fish & Wildlife into the decision making process, such a commission would be a far more diverse and representative decision making body.
Respectfully,
Post by: greenhead_killer on August 21, 2024, 01:58:05 PM
Post by: goldenhtr on August 21, 2024, 02:14:44 PM
I sent a letter to the NE WA legislators and copied it to the commission.
Dear Legislators,
The Washington Wildlife Commission's disregard for the cougar management recommendations of the Dept of Fish and Wildlife are indicative of a body interested only in furthering their own agenda driven goals, with no interest in the recommendations from the very agency they oversee or for the hunting opportunities for the citizens of Washington. There is clearly no regard for scientific wildlife management, public safety, or for providing mandated recreational opportunities.
Rather than having commissioners selected by a single person, the governor, I am urging the legislators of Washington to introduce legislation that reorganizes the Washington Wildlife Commission so that it is a body that better serves scientific wildlife management as well as all people of Washington.
I propose that each Fish & Game region should have 1 wildlife commissioner voted on by the people who live in that region. Since there are 6 regions a seventh commissioner is needed and I propose the 7th commissioner be appointed by the WDFW Director. A body of this makeup would truly bring the interests of all regions of the state and the biological recommendations of the Dept. of Fish & Wildlife into the decision making process, such a commission would be a far more diverse and representative decision making body.
Respectfully,
:yeah:
Post by: GOcougsHunter on August 21, 2024, 03:07:28 PM
The only downfall I see with elected commission members is that a popularly elected official from Spokane may have absolutely no idea or understanding of fish stocks in the san juan islands. We do not need another unqualified person making decisions about something they know nothing about. Conversely, do you want a popularly elected official from Port Angeles making decisions about wolves in NE Washington? Elected officials have an implicit bias that may make things much much worse. Elections are popularity contests, not about who is the most appropriate person for the job.
In a perfect world, we have an appointer (ie Governor or Legislature) who is committed to the rule of the RCW and appoints agnostic scientists and policy wonks to the commission and removes any hint of other agendas. Like, codify it that one commission member must have an advanced degree in fisheries, one must have an advanced degree in wildlife biology, etc etc. Let the bios run the WDFW. And before we go down a rabbit hole, I have met many many WDFW biologists and truly believe they are in this field for the right reasons. I am sure there may be an activist or two... but, in my experience, it is not the majority.
Post by: MADMAX on August 21, 2024, 03:14:16 PM
Thanks
Post by: Cougartail on August 21, 2024, 03:25:19 PM
I sent a letter to the NE WA legislators and copied it to the commission.
Dear Legislators,
The Washington Wildlife Commission's disregard for the cougar management recommendations of the Dept of Fish and Wildlife are indicative of a body interested only in furthering their own agenda driven goals, with no interest in the recommendations from the very agency they oversee or for the hunting opportunities for the citizens of Washington. There is clearly no regard for scientific wildlife management, public safety, or for providing mandated recreational opportunities.
Rather than having commissioners selected by a single person, the governor, I am urging the legislators of Washington to introduce legislation that reorganizes the Washington Wildlife Commission so that it is a body that better serves scientific wildlife management as well as all people of Washington.
I propose that each Fish & Game region should have 1 wildlife commissioner voted on by the people who live in that region. Since there are 6 regions a seventh commissioner is needed and I propose the 7th commissioner be appointed by the WDFW Director. A body of this makeup would truly bring the interests of all regions of the state and the biological recommendations of the Dept. of Fish & Wildlife into the decision making process, such a commission would be a far more diverse and representative decision making body.
Respectfully,
:yeah:
100% on the money!
Post by: westsidehntr on August 21, 2024, 04:23:02 PM
I like the idea that everyone is thinking outside the box on this and proposing solutions. This is how it should be done.
The only downfall I see with elected commission members is that a popularly elected official from Spokane may have absolutely no idea or understanding of fish stocks in the san juan islands. We do not need another unqualified person making decisions about something they know nothing about. Conversely, do you want a popularly elected official from Port Angeles making decisions about wolves in NE Washington? Elected officials have an implicit bias that may make things much much worse. Elections are popularity contests, not about who is the most appropriate person for the job.
In a perfect world, we have an appointer (ie Governor or Legislature) who is committed to the rule of the RCW and appoints agnostic scientists and policy wonks to the commission and removes any hint of other agendas. Like, codify it that one commission member must have an advanced degree in fisheries, one must have an advanced degree in wildlife biology, etc etc. Let the bios run the WDFW. And before we go down a rabbit hole, I have met many many WDFW biologists and truly believe they are in this field for the right reasons. I am sure there may be an activist or two... but, in my experience, it is not the majority.
I agree with this. I’m not sure elected positions is the way to go on this type of a commission. The problem isn’t the commission itself, but the way the governor and legislature appointed and approved the commission.
In this state, an elected commission likely wouldn’t be any better than this commission. I’d listen to arguments for it though.
Post by: bearpaw on August 21, 2024, 06:13:35 PM
I like the idea that everyone is thinking outside the box on this and proposing solutions. This is how it should be done.
The only downfall I see with elected commission members is that a popularly elected official from Spokane may have absolutely no idea or understanding of fish stocks in the san juan islands. We do not need another unqualified person making decisions about something they know nothing about. Conversely, do you want a popularly elected official from Port Angeles making decisions about wolves in NE Washington? Elected officials have an implicit bias that may make things much much worse. Elections are popularity contests, not about who is the most appropriate person for the job.
In a perfect world, we have an appointer (ie Governor or Legislature) who is committed to the rule of the RCW and appoints agnostic scientists and policy wonks to the commission and removes any hint of other agendas. Like, codify it that one commission member must have an advanced degree in fisheries, one must have an advanced degree in wildlife biology, etc etc. Let the bios run the WDFW. And before we go down a rabbit hole, I have met many many WDFW biologists and truly believe they are in this field for the right reasons. I am sure there may be an activist or two... but, in my experience, it is not the majority.
I'm open to supporting a better idea, I do know the current situation is not working and I don't see future governor appointments getting any better given the primary results? :dunno:
Post by: ducks4days on August 21, 2024, 06:38:16 PM
I like the idea that everyone is thinking outside the box on this and proposing solutions. This is how it should be done.
The only downfall I see with elected commission members is that a popularly elected official from Spokane may have absolutely no idea or understanding of fish stocks in the san juan islands. We do not need another unqualified person making decisions about something they know nothing about. Conversely, do you want a popularly elected official from Port Angeles making decisions about wolves in NE Washington? Elected officials have an implicit bias that may make things much much worse. Elections are popularity contests, not about who is the most appropriate person for the job.
In a perfect world, we have an appointer (ie Governor or Legislature) who is committed to the rule of the RCW and appoints agnostic scientists and policy wonks to the commission and removes any hint of other agendas. Like, codify it that one commission member must have an advanced degree in fisheries, one must have an advanced degree in wildlife biology, etc etc. Let the bios run the WDFW. And before we go down a rabbit hole, I have met many many WDFW biologists and truly believe they are in this field for the right reasons. I am sure there may be an activist or two... but, in my experience, it is not the majority.
I agree with this. I’m not sure elected positions is the way to go on this type of a commission. The problem isn’t the commission itself, but the way the governor and legislature appointed and approved the commission.
In this state, an elected commission likely wouldn’t be any better than this commission. I’d listen to arguments for it though.
Appointments could come from the national resources committee instead of the governor. At least then if they make bad appointments the remedy is a local election 2 years away at most instead of the statewide popularity contest with a known outcome every 4.
Post by: ghosthunter on August 21, 2024, 07:01:29 PM
Elections at any level in this state are not going our way. Allowing the general public to vote in Commission members will not give you what you want in my opinion.
The current governor could care less. He is out of here. We need to hold future governor s and legislators feet to the fire somehow in a way to insure this crap ends.
Post by: Mtnwalker on August 21, 2024, 07:10:11 PM
Post by: jstone on August 21, 2024, 08:04:44 PM
Post by: bearpaw on August 21, 2024, 08:05:58 PM
Post by: bearpaw on August 21, 2024, 08:08:14 PM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on August 22, 2024, 05:23:25 AM
Post by: harveymarv on August 22, 2024, 11:06:17 AM
vote for Dave Reichert.
get everyone you know to register to vote, and vote Republican.
if sideshow Bob is our next governor, hunting will continue to be eroded by anti-commmissioners.
Post by: hunter399 on August 22, 2024, 11:59:19 AM
Spring bear should tell us this is no surprise.
Nobody really should be shocked,they did it then,they just did it with cougar. "Best available Science" is a sham wow that is only used when it fits there agenda. It's feels like credit card fraud or something.
Post by: MADMAX on August 26, 2024, 02:24:43 PM
Not sure If I’ll call Lorna
But I’m thinking it over
As follows
Barbara Baker
“ Although I disagree with your opinions of the WDFW commission, I thought your proposal for reorganization was sincere and thoughtful. For that reason, it seems important to let you know that the legislature has a similar interest with respect to our commission and its governance. For that reason, they commissioned the Ruckelshaus center to study the issue and make recommendations back to them . Their report is due to the legislature in December.
The Center’s contact information is easy to find online. Once you get to the their homepage, you can scroll down through their projects and will eventually find the one related to the fish and wildlife agency and commission. The person in charge of the project is Chris Smith. Seems to me that your comments might be more appropriate going to him.”
Please feel free to contact me if you have questions or further comments.
Barbara Baker
………………………………………
Lorna Smith
“ I would like to discuss your recent communication regarding the cougar rule-making decision. If you are interested, please call me at 360-316-6897.”
Lorna Smith
WA F&W Commissioner
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 26, 2024, 02:43:54 PM
Post by: MADMAX on August 26, 2024, 02:52:32 PM
I called Lorna and left a message. She didn’t pick up. I also sent an email.
“Cougars are elusive but again we have only minimal harvest already without use of dogs
Cats prey heavily along with wolves on our dwindling ungulate species
Id think you would concentrate your efforts on the Mountain Caribou recovery zone, since there seems to no longer be any caribou there from depredation
I hope it doesn't take more citizens and children being attacked and or killed to help you understand the need for predator control by licensed legal hunting
Post by: GWP on August 26, 2024, 04:05:36 PM
Post by: Tbar on August 26, 2024, 04:44:57 PM
I sent a letter to the NE WA legislators and copied it to the commission.This is a very slippery slope. Scientific review board could load the commission with Ragen types. Analysis paralysis. The other worry is the how language is crafted, WFC, CBD and others exist on policy framework and their ability to attack any lack of clarity.
Dear Legislators,
The Washington Wildlife Commission's disregard for the cougar management recommendations of the Dept of Fish and Wildlife are indicative of a body interested only in furthering their own agenda driven goals, with no interest in the recommendations from the very agency they oversee or for the hunting opportunities for the citizens of Washington. There is clearly no regard for scientific wildlife management, public safety, or for providing mandated recreational opportunities.
Rather than having commissioners selected by a single person, the governor, I am urging the legislators of Washington to introduce legislation that reorganizes the Washington Wildlife Commission so that it is a body that better serves scientific wildlife management as well as all people of Washington.
I propose that each Fish & Game region should have 1 wildlife commissioner voted on by the people who live in that region. Since there are 6 regions a seventh commissioner is needed and I propose the 7th commissioner be appointed by the WDFW Director. A body of this makeup would truly bring the interests of all regions of the state and the biological recommendations of the Dept. of Fish & Wildlife into the decision making process, such a commission would be a far more diverse and representative decision making body.
Respectfully,
Post by: bearpaw on August 26, 2024, 05:26:31 PM
I sent a letter to the NE WA legislators and copied it to the commission.This is a very slippery slope. Scientific review board could load the commission with Ragen types. Analysis paralysis. The other worry is the how language is crafted, WFC, CBD and others exist on policy framework and their ability to attack any lack of clarity.
Dear Legislators,
The Washington Wildlife Commission's disregard for the cougar management recommendations of the Dept of Fish and Wildlife are indicative of a body interested only in furthering their own agenda driven goals, with no interest in the recommendations from the very agency they oversee or for the hunting opportunities for the citizens of Washington. There is clearly no regard for scientific wildlife management, public safety, or for providing mandated recreational opportunities.
Rather than having commissioners selected by a single person, the governor, I am urging the legislators of Washington to introduce legislation that reorganizes the Washington Wildlife Commission so that it is a body that better serves scientific wildlife management as well as all people of Washington.
I propose that each Fish & Game region should have 1 wildlife commissioner voted on by the people who live in that region. Since there are 6 regions a seventh commissioner is needed and I propose the 7th commissioner be appointed by the WDFW Director. A body of this makeup would truly bring the interests of all regions of the state and the biological recommendations of the Dept. of Fish & Wildlife into the decision making process, such a commission would be a far more diverse and representative decision making body.
Respectfully,
Yeah, I would have never suggested such a thing 20 years ago, but the WA Commission is beyond the point of return and the governor polls look even grimmer. I do believe the legislature might be more fair than and at least have more discussion on the matter than the current governor or the leading candidate to be the next governor!