Post by: CamoDup on January 10, 2025, 11:16:49 AM
https://www.howlforwildlife.org/holdwfwcommissionaccountable
To learn more on the Ruckelshaus Repost read this...
https://nwsportsmanmag.com/the-ruckelshaus-report-and-how-it-impacts-you/
Post by: MADMAX on January 10, 2025, 12:06:13 PM
Thank you
If we can’t hit 500 off this Hunting Board somethings wrong
Post by: hughjorgan on January 10, 2025, 12:14:25 PM
Post by: Sundance on January 10, 2025, 12:25:33 PM
Post by: CamoDup on January 10, 2025, 01:12:58 PM
Did the other day. There is another howl there to send to retain two of our pro hunting commissioners, do that one too!
:yeah:
https://www.howlforwildlife.org/wdfw2025commission
Post by: Bushcraft on January 10, 2025, 01:37:16 PM
Option #1 with modifications to appointee review/acceptance is the better approach.
Post by: James on January 10, 2025, 02:56:40 PM
This is the most important issue since the "conservation" policy.
Post by: hunt6226 on January 10, 2025, 03:13:45 PM
Post by: brokentrail on January 10, 2025, 04:07:14 PM
Option #3 is a terrible idea for what should be obvious reasons.
Option #1 with modifications to appointee review/acceptance is the better approach.
Option #1 is do nothing, leave it as-is. How is that the best approach here?
Both howls signed by me.
Post by: mburrows on January 10, 2025, 04:49:31 PM
Post by: storyteller on January 10, 2025, 05:00:00 PM
Just my opinion.
I will look up my legislation folks and do it that way.
Post by: walleyeater on January 10, 2025, 05:08:34 PM
Post by: hughjorgan on January 10, 2025, 05:24:11 PM
I think you would get more signatures if you did not have to join Howl, just to sign for support, every organization seems to want a signup and then you get pummeled with the sky is falling emails.
Just my opinion.
I will look up my legislation folks and do it that way.
You don’t have to join howl to use their automated messaging. Just click the take action button on the top left of their page; find what you want to send and fill out your information and if you don’t want to recieve emails from them make sure nothing is selected in the box. It couldn’t be any easier.
Post by: MADMAX on January 10, 2025, 05:27:36 PM
I think you would get more signatures if you did not have to join Howl, just to sign for support, every organization seems to want a signup and then you get pummeled with the sky is falling emails.
Just my opinion.
I will look up my legislation folks and do it that way.
You don’t have to join howl to use their automated messaging. Just click the take action button on the top left of their page; find what you want to send and fill out your information and if you don’t want to recieve emails from them make sure nothing is selected in the box. It couldn’t be any easier.
Perzactly :yeah:
Post by: Bushcraft on January 10, 2025, 07:06:15 PM
Option #3 is a terrible idea for what should be obvious reasons.
Option #1 with modifications to appointee review/acceptance is the better approach.
Option #1 is do nothing, leave it as-is. How is that the best approach here?
Both howls signed by me.
One has to take a step back and look at it from a political and legislative lens and do it with the long-play in mind AND what the “other” side ultimately wants.
Option #1 - (status quo) This is fine if we ever get majority control of the Commission again. In the meantime, the jackwagons that have sabotaged it over the last couple of years aren't doing themselves any favors by pissing of the hunting, angling, trapping, mining, timber, agriculture and tribal stakeholders. Heck, even some inside of WDFW are growing increasingly weary of some of the Commissioners’ nonsense. As a result, there is more of a grassroots interest in what WDFW and the Commission is doing than ever before. We benefit from this newfound interest and participation! People are finally getting off their butts and are willing to get involved and do something. The current concept of the Commission isn't the problem, per se. It's some of the anti-consumption pro-predator agenda-driven clowns that Inslee appointed that are the problem. Why not simply modify the current appointment process by requiring more of a rigorous background check and ratification process to pre-weed out the problems in advance?
Option #2 - (Governor's captive and unaccountable cabinet agency) The pro-predator anti-consumption groups are merely using this as negotiation leverage point that they know is an absolutely untenable non-starter for all consumptive stakeholders, including the tribes.
Option #3 - (so-called "reform") This is nothing more than a tricky trap of unintended consequences that was intentionally laid by the anti-hunting and non-consumptive entities that stealthily pushed to get the $300K “study” tucked into the budget at the last minute. Remember, change or reform is only good IF IT IS FOR THE BETTER. Unfortunately, the Democrats currently have a stranglehold in Olympia and they will absolutely have any final say-so when it comes down to the legislative verbiage of whatever the so-called "reform" might be...and guess which stakeholders those Democrat legislators are more likely to listen to when drafting any proposed legislation and/or budgets???
I'll give you one guess. ;) It will be convenient and easy for them if they can point to a bunch of data-mining e-mails from hunters and anglers that state they are in favor of “reform”.
Option three is a clever trap. Unfortunately, people that desperately want change in the status-quo of the Commission are walking right into it.
Post by: MADMAX on January 10, 2025, 07:48:46 PM
Sportsman and gun owners haven’t had much luck in this fine state
God help us
Post by: actionshooter on January 10, 2025, 09:03:47 PM
Post by: X-Force on January 10, 2025, 11:03:49 PM
Post by: fowl smacker on January 11, 2025, 06:30:01 AM
Post by: brokentrail on January 11, 2025, 08:26:20 AM
Option #3 is a terrible idea for what should be obvious reasons.
Option #1 with modifications to appointee review/acceptance is the better approach.
Option #1 is do nothing, leave it as-is. How is that the best approach here?
Both howls signed by me.
One has to take a step back and look at it from a political and legislative lens and do it with the long-play in mind AND what the “other” side ultimately wants.
Option #1 - (status quo) This is fine if we ever get majority control of the Commission again. In the meantime, the jackwagons that have sabotaged it over the last couple of years aren't doing themselves any favors by pissing of the hunting, angling, trapping, mining, timber, agriculture and tribal stakeholders. Heck, even some inside of WDFW are growing increasingly weary of some of the Commissioners’ nonsense. As a result, there is more of a grassroots interest in what WDFW and the Commission is doing than ever before. We benefit from this newfound interest and participation! People are finally getting off their butts and are willing to get involved and do something. The current concept of the Commission isn't the problem, per se. It's some of the anti-consumption pro-predator agenda-driven clowns that Inslee appointed that are the problem. Why not simply modify the current appointment process by requiring more of a rigorous background check and ratification process to pre-weed out the problems in advance?
Option #2 - (Governor's captive and unaccountable cabinet agency) The pro-predator anti-consumption groups are merely using this as negotiation leverage point that they know is an absolutely untenable non-starter for all consumptive stakeholders, including the tribes.
Option #3 - (so-called "reform") This is nothing more than a tricky trap of unintended consequences that was intentionally laid by the anti-hunting and non-consumptive entities that stealthily pushed to get the $300K “study” tucked into the budget at the last minute. Remember, change or reform is only good IF IT IS FOR THE BETTER. Unfortunately, the Democrats currently have a stranglehold in Olympia and they will absolutely have any final say-so when it comes down to the legislative verbiage of whatever the so-called "reform" might be...and guess which stakeholders those Democrat legislators are more likely to listen to when drafting any proposed legislation and/or budgets???
I'll give you one guess. ;) It will be convenient and easy for them if they can point to a bunch of data-mining e-mails from hunters and anglers that state they are in favor of “reform”.
Option three is a clever trap. Unfortunately, people that desperately want change in the status-quo of the Commission are walking right into it.
While I can see your point, ty for that viewpoint/feedback, I am concerned status quo is exactly that. No changes to current commission actions or appointments. Which makes me want to :puke:
Post by: Tbar on January 11, 2025, 09:38:23 AM
This is a great summary Bushcraft. Option 3 is an absolute trap and many are walking right into it. Remember status quo is in violation of the will of the people in regards to referendum 45 and the merger. Honoring the intent of the merger and getting balance could happen, I think inslee even fears this. Which is why he is getting rid of Linville. I would be interested in talking to HOWL about this because they do excellent work and are well intended.Option #3 is a terrible idea for what should be obvious reasons.
Option #1 with modifications to appointee review/acceptance is the better approach.
Option #1 is do nothing, leave it as-is. How is that the best approach here?
Both howls signed by me.
One has to take a step back and look at it from a political and legislative lens and do it with the long-play in mind AND what the “other” side ultimately wants.
Option #1 - (status quo) This is fine if we ever get majority control of the Commission again. In the meantime, the jackwagons that have sabotaged it over the last couple of years aren't doing themselves any favors by pissing of the hunting, angling, trapping, mining, timber, agriculture and tribal stakeholders. Heck, even some inside of WDFW are growing increasingly weary of some of the Commissioners’ nonsense. As a result, there is more of a grassroots interest in what WDFW and the Commission is doing than ever before. We benefit from this newfound interest and participation! People are finally getting off their butts and are willing to get involved and do something. The current concept of the Commission isn't the problem, per se. It's some of the anti-consumption pro-predator agenda-driven clowns that Inslee appointed that are the problem. Why not simply modify the current appointment process by requiring more of a rigorous background check and ratification process to pre-weed out the problems in advance?
Option #2 - (Governor's captive and unaccountable cabinet agency) The pro-predator anti-consumption groups are merely using this as negotiation leverage point that they know is an absolutely untenable non-starter for all consumptive stakeholders, including the tribes.
Option #3 - (so-called "reform") This is nothing more than a tricky trap of unintended consequences that was intentionally laid by the anti-hunting and non-consumptive entities that stealthily pushed to get the $300K “study” tucked into the budget at the last minute. Remember, change or reform is only good IF IT IS FOR THE BETTER. Unfortunately, the Democrats currently have a stranglehold in Olympia and they will absolutely have any final say-so when it comes down to the legislative verbiage of whatever the so-called "reform" might be...and guess which stakeholders those Democrat legislators are more likely to listen to when drafting any proposed legislation and/or budgets???
I'll give you one guess. ;) It will be convenient and easy for them if they can point to a bunch of data-mining e-mails from hunters and anglers that state they are in favor of “reform”.
Option three is a clever trap. Unfortunately, people that desperately want change in the status-quo of the Commission are walking right into it.
Post by: Tbar on January 11, 2025, 09:52:22 AM
My apologies if this has been posted here already. Please sign this if you haven't already to reach key decision makers about our wildlife commission. I personally don't think that dismantling the commission is the right answer. We need to have accountability. Option 3 would be best for everyone in my opinion. If you don't want to sign through Howl.org you can always contact the your state representatives. Which I have done anyways. Keep fighting!Option 3 will put you in direct alignment with Washington wildlife first. They were formed to reform the current structure. They highjacked the bd bill with a very strategic vision around reform. If you do not have a strong counter to their current playbook I would urge caution with potential reform requests. :twocents:
https://www.howlforwildlife.org/holdwfwcommissionaccountable
To learn more on the Ruckelshaus Repost read this...
https://nwsportsmanmag.com/the-ruckelshaus-report-and-how-it-impacts-you/
Post by: fishngamereaper on January 11, 2025, 10:03:25 AM
With Linville now gone option 1 is a no go IMO.....we will never have the majority...so option 1 is rinse and repeat of the last few years... >:(
Post by: ghosthunter on January 13, 2025, 04:04:36 PM
Thank you for contacting me regarding the Ruckelshaus Report on the Fish and Wildlife Commission and its recommendations to consider. I have reviewed the Ruckelshaus Report on the Commission as well. I agree that we cannot let the Department of Fish and Wildlife be back under control of the Governor’s Office, but also believe there are changes that need to be made for it to function better and be accountable to stakeholders and the active management of fish and wildlife in our state.
I have had many conversations on this issue. So far, folks request there be a way to hold the commission accountable when commissioners are acting outside of the mission. I’ve also heard ideas of structuring a different appointment process.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the findings of the Ruckelshaus Report show up during session at some point.
Any ideas you and others have would be appreciated as well! Thanks again for taking the time to share your comments!
Shelly Short
Senate Republican Floor Leader
State Senator
7th Legislative District
Legislative Building 409
P.O. Box 40407
Olympia, Washington 98504-0407
(360) 786-7612
Sign up for email updates
image001.png
Please be aware that any email or documents you provide to this office may be subject to disclosure under RCW 42.56. If you would prefer to communicate by phone, please contact our offi
Post by: fishngamereaper on January 13, 2025, 04:09:43 PM
Post by: James on January 13, 2025, 04:14:30 PM
1) Disaster, worse than what we have been dealing with because now the animal rights activists have a majority vote in the commission.
2) No public oversite and guys like Inslee and Fergy at the helm, could be worse than 1.
3) We have a fighting chance, might not be a good one, but it is better than none, which is what options 1 and 2 are.
Option 1 and 2 are complete losses, 3 gives us a fighting chance.
Post by: dwils233 on January 13, 2025, 04:36:44 PM
Option #3 is a terrible idea for what should be obvious reasons.
Option #1 with modifications to appointee review/acceptance is the better approach.
Option #1 is do nothing, leave it as-is. How is that the best approach here?
Both howls signed by me.
One has to take a step back and look at it from a political and legislative lens and do it with the long-play in mind AND what the “other” side ultimately wants.
Option #1 - (status quo) This is fine if we ever get majority control of the Commission again. In the meantime, the jackwagons that have sabotaged it over the last couple of years aren't doing themselves any favors by pissing of the hunting, angling, trapping, mining, timber, agriculture and tribal stakeholders. Heck, even some inside of WDFW are growing increasingly weary of some of the Commissioners’ nonsense. As a result, there is more of a grassroots interest in what WDFW and the Commission is doing than ever before. We benefit from this newfound interest and participation! People are finally getting off their butts and are willing to get involved and do something. The current concept of the Commission isn't the problem, per se. It's some of the anti-consumption pro-predator agenda-driven clowns that Inslee appointed that are the problem. Why not simply modify the current appointment process by requiring more of a rigorous background check and ratification process to pre-weed out the problems in advance?
Option #2 - (Governor's captive and unaccountable cabinet agency) The pro-predator anti-consumption groups are merely using this as negotiation leverage point that they know is an absolutely untenable non-starter for all consumptive stakeholders, including the tribes.
Option #3 - (so-called "reform") This is nothing more than a tricky trap of unintended consequences that was intentionally laid by the anti-hunting and non-consumptive entities that stealthily pushed to get the $300K “study” tucked into the budget at the last minute. Remember, change or reform is only good IF IT IS FOR THE BETTER. Unfortunately, the Democrats currently have a stranglehold in Olympia and they will absolutely have any final say-so when it comes down to the legislative verbiage of whatever the so-called "reform" might be...and guess which stakeholders those Democrat legislators are more likely to listen to when drafting any proposed legislation and/or budgets???
I'll give you one guess. ;) It will be convenient and easy for them if they can point to a bunch of data-mining e-mails from hunters and anglers that state they are in favor of “reform”.
Option three is a clever trap. Unfortunately, people that desperately want change in the status-quo of the Commission are walking right into it.
The "reform" laid out in the Ruckleshaus report is not the kind of reform you're thinking it is, but it's a fair trap to fall into.
The Ruckleshaus Report's reform recommendation was to create legislative changes around appointment, accountability, process, and governance- not to change the mission or the mandate, the way certain groups would like to see it go.
They report essentially said, the status quo is untenable so keep and continuing getting worse, build some siderails, or kick it to the governor.
Siderails is what you'd like to see based on your feedback here. Siderails is what we need to ensure make it through the legislature without screwing over hunters.
Post by: MADMAX on January 13, 2025, 05:55:29 PM
Better get used to bending over
Damm shame what’s happened here
Post by: Tbar on January 13, 2025, 06:44:16 PM
I have little faith in legislative siderails especially coming off this and the bd package as a whole. Wwf did an end around any moderate work that was put into it once. What would make you think this wouldn't happen again? They have several champions on the anti side and consumptive users have very few of any with the majority. I guess there is one but she's often sitting with the minority on these issues.Option #3 is a terrible idea for what should be obvious reasons.
Option #1 with modifications to appointee review/acceptance is the better approach.
Option #1 is do nothing, leave it as-is. How is that the best approach here?
Both howls signed by me.
One has to take a step back and look at it from a political and legislative lens and do it with the long-play in mind AND what the “other” side ultimately wants.
Option #1 - (status quo) This is fine if we ever get majority control of the Commission again. In the meantime, the jackwagons that have sabotaged it over the last couple of years aren't doing themselves any favors by pissing of the hunting, angling, trapping, mining, timber, agriculture and tribal stakeholders. Heck, even some inside of WDFW are growing increasingly weary of some of the Commissioners’ nonsense. As a result, there is more of a grassroots interest in what WDFW and the Commission is doing than ever before. We benefit from this newfound interest and participation! People are finally getting off their butts and are willing to get involved and do something. The current concept of the Commission isn't the problem, per se. It's some of the anti-consumption pro-predator agenda-driven clowns that Inslee appointed that are the problem. Why not simply modify the current appointment process by requiring more of a rigorous background check and ratification process to pre-weed out the problems in advance?
Option #2 - (Governor's captive and unaccountable cabinet agency) The pro-predator anti-consumption groups are merely using this as negotiation leverage point that they know is an absolutely untenable non-starter for all consumptive stakeholders, including the tribes.
Option #3 - (so-called "reform") This is nothing more than a tricky trap of unintended consequences that was intentionally laid by the anti-hunting and non-consumptive entities that stealthily pushed to get the $300K “study” tucked into the budget at the last minute. Remember, change or reform is only good IF IT IS FOR THE BETTER. Unfortunately, the Democrats currently have a stranglehold in Olympia and they will absolutely have any final say-so when it comes down to the legislative verbiage of whatever the so-called "reform" might be...and guess which stakeholders those Democrat legislators are more likely to listen to when drafting any proposed legislation and/or budgets???
I'll give you one guess. ;) It will be convenient and easy for them if they can point to a bunch of data-mining e-mails from hunters and anglers that state they are in favor of “reform”.
Option three is a clever trap. Unfortunately, people that desperately want change in the status-quo of the Commission are walking right into it.
The "reform" laid out in the Ruckleshaus report is not the kind of reform you're thinking it is, but it's a fair trap to fall into.
The Ruckleshaus Report's reform recommendation was to create legislative changes around appointment, accountability, process, and governance- not to change the mission or the mandate, the way certain groups would like to see it go.
They report essentially said, the status quo is untenable so keep and continuing getting worse, build some siderails, or kick it to the governor.
Siderails is what you'd like to see based on your feedback here. Siderails is what we need to ensure make it through the legislature without screwing over hunters.
Post by: Humptulips on January 27, 2025, 08:58:37 PM
Not a bad idea to send letters/e-mails as well as signing the petition plus you can pen a more nuanced response.
Governor Ferguson,
I am writing concerning recent appointments to the Fish & Wildlife Commission and what the Ruckelshaus Report has termed its disfunction.
The Fish & Wildlife Commission functioned just fine for decades. It is not until just the last few years that anyone complained about it. This same model seems to work fine in other States. The only reason our Fish & Wildlife Commission is drawing so much criticism is because of the poor choices made by the last administration. All you need do is watch a few of their meetings to see that some poor choices were made. The appointment of Lyn O’Conner and the reappointment of Tim Ragen are a continuation of these poor choices. O’Conner was appointed without even a notice that there were openings on the Commission. We need to keep the Commission model but incorporate a more open vetting process for Commissioners. The Ruckelshaus report mentioned three fixes, eliminating the Commission, leaving it alone or making changes. If you do away with the Commission and make the Director a cabinet position, you will end up with all the blame from anyone unhappy and believe me there will always be someone unhappy. It seems like no-win situation. Appoint some better Commissioners with a more transparent process and you get all the credit if things get better and not much blame if they don’t improve.
Please recall the Commission appointments and restart the process with enough transparency that the public will have a little more confidence in.
Post by: Special T on January 27, 2025, 11:38:04 PM
I sent this letter to the Governor. It is how I see it.
Not a bad idea to send letters/e-mails as well as signing the petition plus you can pen a more nuanced response.
Governor Ferguson,
I am writing concerning recent appointments to the Fish & Wildlife Commission and what the Ruckelshaus Report has termed its disfunction.
The Fish & Wildlife Commission functioned just fine for decades. It is not until just the last few years that anyone complained about it. This same model seems to work fine in other States. The only reason our Fish & Wildlife Commission is drawing so much criticism is because of the poor choices made by the last administration. All you need do is watch a few of their meetings to see that some poor choices were made. The appointment of Lyn O’Conner and the reappointment of Tim Ragen are a continuation of these poor choices. O’Conner was appointed without even a notice that there were openings on the Commission. We need to keep the Commission model but incorporate a more open vetting process for Commissioners. The Ruckelshaus report mentioned three fixes, eliminating the Commission, leaving it alone or making changes. If you do away with the Commission and make the Director a cabinet position, you will end up with all the blame from anyone unhappy and believe me there will always be someone unhappy. It seems like no-win situation. Appoint some better Commissioners with a more transparent process and you get all the credit if things get better and not much blame if they don’t improve.
Please recall the Commission appointments and restart the process with enough transparency that the public will have a little more confidence in.
Great letter and correct on all points!
Post by: Scruffy on January 28, 2025, 12:29:42 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on January 28, 2025, 03:59:11 AM
Post by: Humptulips on January 28, 2025, 09:29:38 AM
I hope you have a better reply to your email to Ferguson than I did. The e mail reply I received back only talked about Trump's agenda and then Fergusons. It had nothing to do with the topic I sent about.I think the key here is volume. I doubt the Governor, or any Legislators ever read any of the letters. If they get enough though their staff is going to bring it to his attention. One letter gets a canned reply and that's probably the end of it. A lot of people write with a similar theme maybe means something.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 31, 2025, 07:43:48 AM
My apologies if this has been posted here already. Please sign this if you haven't already to reach key decision makers about our wildlife commission. I personally don't think that dismantling the commission is the right answer. We need to have accountability. Option 3 would be best for everyone in my opinion. If you don't want to sign through Howl.org you can always contact the your state representatives. Which I have done anyways. Keep fighting!
https://www.howlforwildlife.org/holdwfwcommissionaccountable
To learn more on the Ruckelshaus Repost read this...
https://nwsportsmanmag.com/the-ruckelshaus-report-and-how-it-impacts-you/
Copy the Howl letter and paste it to your state senator that can be found here .......
https://src.wastateleg.org/senators/
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 31, 2025, 07:49:13 AM
I hope you have a better reply to your email to Ferguson than I did. The e mail reply I received back only talked about Trump's agenda and then Fergusons. It had nothing to do with the topic I sent about.
Would any of us expect anything :bash: different? :kneel: