Post by: bearpaw on February 12, 2010, 09:49:54 AM
SB 6813 Transferring various natural resources management duties to the department of natural resources is scheduled for public hearing in the Senate Natural Resources committee next Wednesday morning (Feb 17) at 8 AM.
The general reaction to this measure from among the regulated communities when it was first introduced was universally negative. The fiscal note for the bill shows that there are no immediate financial benefits to the bill and only marginal (maybe) benefits in future years. The bill does not deal with the types of problems created by the merger years ago of the department of fish and department of game - with some unresolved problems today even after more then 10 years since the merger.
DNR is not a general authorities agency (an enforcement issue) hence the bill would create numerous wildlife enforcement issues across all elements of the regulated communities. Many of the comments forwarded when the bill focused on the measure being nothing but political "reform smoke and mirrors;" a bill "designed to eliminate citizen participation in wildlife management" and numerous, similar examples.
Members of the Senate Natural Resources Committee need to hear from groups and individuals ASAP with their opposition to the bill. The members of the Senate Natural Resources Committee are:
Senator Ken Jacobsen
237 John A. Cherberg Building
PO Box 40446
Olympia, WA 98504-0446
(360) 786-7690
Fax: (360) 786-1999
Web Email link at http://www.leg.wa.gov/senate/senators/pages/jacobsen.aspx (http://www.leg.wa.gov/senate/senators/pages/jacobsen.aspx)
Senator Kevin Ranker
402 Legislative Building
PO Box 40440
Olympia, WA 98504-0440
(360) 786-7678
Web Email link at http://www.leg.wa.gov/senate/senators/pages/ranker.aspx (http://www.leg.wa.gov/senate/senators/pages/ranker.aspx)
Senator Bob Morton
115D Irv Newhouse Building
PO Box 40407
Olympia, WA 98504-0407
(360) 786-7612
Fax: (360) 786-1999
Web Email link at http://www.leg.wa.gov/senate/senators/pages/morton.aspx (http://www.leg.wa.gov/senate/senators/pages/morton.aspx)
Senator Karen Fraser
404 Legislative Building
PO Box 40422
Olympia, WA 98504-0422
(360) 786-7642
Fax: (360) 786-1999
Web Email link at http://www.leg.wa.gov/senate/senators/pages/fraser.aspx (http://www.leg.wa.gov/senate/senators/pages/fraser.aspx)
Senator Jim Hargrove
411 Legislative Building
PO Box 40424
Olympia, WA 98504-0424
(360) 786-7646
Fax: (360) 786-1323
Web Email link at http://www.leg.wa.gov/senate/senators/pages/hargrove.aspx (http://www.leg.wa.gov/senate/senators/pages/hargrove.aspx)
Senator Brian Hatfield
239 John A. Cherberg Building
PO Box 40419
Olympia, WA 98504-0419
(360) 786-7636
Web Email link at http://www.leg.wa.gov/senate/senators/pages/hatfield.aspx (http://www.leg.wa.gov/senate/senators/pages/hatfield.aspx)
Senator Val Stevens
105 Irv Newhouse Building
PO Box 40439
Olympia, WA 98504-0439
(360) 786-7676
Fax: (360) 786-7819
Web Email link at http://www.leg.wa.gov/senate/senators/pages/stevens.aspx (http://www.leg.wa.gov/senate/senators/pages/stevens.aspx)
Senator Dan Swecker
103 Irv Newhouse Building
PO Box 40420
Olympia, WA 98504-0420
(360) 786-7638
Fax: (360) 786-1999
Web Email link at http://www.leg.wa.gov/senate/senators/pages/swecker.aspx (http://www.leg.wa.gov/senate/senators/pages/swecker.aspx)
Post by: Kain on February 12, 2010, 02:51:27 PM
Hound hunting cats and bears
Baiting bears
eliminating dogs for coyotes
Trapping
Choosing predators over hunters for management
And of course the whole wolf plan
I dont think I support this bill but I am gonna make them sweat a bit with the letter Im going to write.
Quote
WASHINGTON FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov (http://wdfw.wa.gov)
Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission Statement on Senate Bill 6813
(A bill transferring various natural resources management duties to the Department of Natural Resources.)
February 12, 2010
The Fish and Wildlife Commission hereby expresses its strong opposition to Senate Bill 6813 . This proposed legislation would abolish the Department of Fish and Wildlife and the State Parks and Recreation Commission and transfer their powers, duties, and functions to the Department of Natural Resources. While the Legislature states that it intends no transfer of powers and duties away from the Fish and Wildlife Commission, it in fact would eliminate the central authority of the Fish and Wildlife Commission — the power to hire and fire the Director. It would also remove the Commission’s authority over the Department budget.
The three agencies that are affected by this bill have very different mandates and missions — each important to the quality of life of our citizenry. It would be improper to intentionally or unintentionally make the vital resource conservation mission of the Department of Fish and Wildlife subordinate to the resource extraction mission of the Department of Natural Resources.
After a thoughtful and deliberative process considering the costs and benefits of various natural resource agencies re-organization options, the Governor proposed ways to enhance efficiency and reduce redundancy. The Governor’s government reform process involved resource professionals, the affected stakeholders, and the public. SB 6813 proposes to enact a merger option that was thoroughly reviewed but ultimately eliminated because it lacked benefits sufficient to justify the costs and risks to the state’s natural resources.
The merger proposed in this bill will diminish the ability of each component agency to successfully focus and consolidate the needed resources on the core elements of its own unique mission. Because of the important differences in their purposes, the component parts of the agencies would not be integrated, but would remain distinct parts of the resulting combined agency. The transition is likely to give rise to a host of procedural issues which will distract staff from strategic priorities.
The impact on the governance of WDFW is our preeminent concern. In passing Referendum 45 in 1995, the voters of Washington empowered the Fish and Wildlife Commission with supervisory authority over the Department director for a purpose: to guarantee that fish and wildlife management would be both directly responsive to the public and insulated from political pressures. As is the case in states around the country, the Commission process was designed to assure that the interests of long-term conservation would not be compromised for short-term political ends.
By eliminating the Commission’s source of authority — the authority to hire and fire the director — this bill will reverse Referendum 45. If enacted, this bill will remove the power of the Commission. It will remove the Commission’s ability to demand conservation of fish and wildlife. The Commission will no longer be able to provide the public a direct avenue to exert control over the agency that sets important hunting and fishing rules. The Commission will no longer have the clout to insulate uniquely important conservation decisions from the politics of the day.
The people made their intent absolutely clear. The people voted to provide a citizen commission with the authority to govern the agency that makes decisions on the fish and wildlife resources of this state.
Susan Yeager, Executive Assistant
Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission
Phone: (360) 902-2267
Email: Susan.Yeager@dfw.wa.gov
Mail: 600 Capitol Way North
Olympia, Washington 98501-1091
Web: http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission (http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission)
Post by: bearpaw on February 12, 2010, 02:54:23 PM
I definitely am opposed to the bill, however, as I am sure most of you know, the WDFW upsets me considerably on several issues too.... :twocents:
Post by: Kain on February 12, 2010, 03:02:14 PM
Continually raise the cost of fishing and hunting and provide less and less opportunity an now they want our help. >:( >:(
Post by: bearpaw on February 12, 2010, 03:09:28 PM
Post by: Kain on February 12, 2010, 03:15:13 PM
Post by: bearpaw on February 12, 2010, 03:17:27 PM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on February 12, 2010, 03:21:48 PM
Post by: mulehunter on February 12, 2010, 03:23:05 PM
Mulehunter
Post by: WDFW-SUX on February 12, 2010, 03:25:18 PM
Post by: Pathfinder101 on February 12, 2010, 03:32:52 PM
Im not opposed to this bill. It can't be worse than it currently is now.
wanna bet...? :chuckle: :chuckle:
Actually, I like the way Kain thinks too...
Probably won't support the bill either, but I'm not going out of my way to save an agency that does what these clowns have been doing...
Post by: WDFW-SUX on February 12, 2010, 03:39:36 PM
Post by: Kain on February 12, 2010, 03:48:42 PM
Dear WDFW and the Commission,
I think it is a bit ironic that that you are now asking for help from the fishing and hunting community to help defeat this bill. I guess I just need to remind you of all of the times the WDFW was either neutral or proactive in eliminating hunters rights. Continually raising the cost while providing less and less opportunity to us hunters and fishers. Where were you when they wanted to eliminate hound hunting for cats and bears? Where were you when they eliminated bear baiting? The commission eliminated dogs for coyote hunting all on its own because it had become "socially unacceptable". Where was the WDFW when our most effective tools were eliminated for trapping. You continually choose predators over hunters for wildlife management. The wolf plan is prime example of this. Creating a lop sided wolf commission to choose wolves over hunters not considering hunting as way of wolf management. And it is only thanks to State law and the U.S. Constitution that you allow us to carry weapon for protection while archery hunting. Not making enforcement officers the number one priority has led to rampant poaching, trespassing, and other outdoors abuses. Which has closed most of the roads and timber lands to driving. I cant take my young daughter and my dad hunting anymore because they cant walk miles into gated areas. And you ask us to help with this as well. Now that your jobs and control are on the line you have the nerve to ask for our help....unbelievable. I just read your email and no where in it did it even mention hunters and fishers as any kind of concern to you. Maybe its time you experience how it feels to be hung out to dry.
Happy hunting....(job hunting.)
--
Naithan Kain
Post by: Pathfinder101 on February 12, 2010, 03:51:48 PM
They have *censored*ed us every chance they have gotten why save them now?
I said that in 2003 when we were getting rid of our old commander. Then we got a new one, and he was worse. 3 years later, we thought we were so glad to get rid of him... and guess what...?
I cringe now when we get a new commander... :chuckle:
Post by: WDFW-SUX on February 12, 2010, 03:55:03 PM
Post by: Pathfinder101 on February 12, 2010, 03:56:09 PM
My email.
Dear WDFW and the Commission,
I think it is a bit ironic that that you are now asking for help from the fishing and hunting community to help defeat this bill. I guess I just need to remind you of all of the times the WDFW was either neutral or proactive in eliminating hunters rights. Continually raising the cost while providing less and less opportunity to us hunters and fishers. Where were you when they wanted to eliminate hound hunting for cats and bears? Where were you when they eliminated bear baiting? The commission eliminated dogs for coyote hunting all on its own because it had become "socially unacceptable". Where was the WDFW when our most effective tools were eliminated for trapping. You continually choose predators over hunters for wildlife management. The wolf plan is prime example of this. Creating a lop sided wolf commission to choose wolves over hunters not considering hunting as way of wolf management. And it is only thanks to State law and the U.S. Constitution that you allow us to carry weapon for protection while archery hunting. Not making enforcement officers the number one priority has led to rampant poaching, trespassing, and other outdoors abuses. Which has closed most of the roads and timber lands to driving. I cant take my young daughter and my dad hunting anymore because they cant walk miles into gated areas. And you ask us to help with this as well. Now that your jobs and control are on the line you have the nerve to ask for our help....unbelievable. I just read your email and no where in it did it even mention hunters and fishers as any kind of concern to you. Maybe its time you experience how it feels to be hung out to dry.
Happy hunting....(job hunting.)
--
Naithan Kain
This is priceless!! :rockin: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :rockin:
Post by: mulehunter on February 12, 2010, 03:58:19 PM
My email.
Dear WDFW and the Commission,
I think it is a bit ironic that that you are now asking for help from the fishing and hunting community to help defeat this bill. I guess I just need to remind you of all of the times the WDFW was either neutral or proactive in eliminating hunters rights. Continually raising the cost while providing less and less opportunity to us hunters and fishers. Where were you when they wanted to eliminate hound hunting for cats and bears? Where were you when they eliminated bear baiting? The commission eliminated dogs for coyote hunting all on its own because it had become "socially unacceptable". Where was the WDFW when our most effective tools were eliminated for trapping. You continually choose predators over hunters for wildlife management. The wolf plan is prime example of this. Creating a lop sided wolf commission to choose wolves over hunters not considering hunting as way of wolf management. And it is only thanks to State law and the U.S. Constitution that you allow us to carry weapon for protection while archery hunting. Not making enforcement officers the number one priority has led to rampant poaching, trespassing, and other outdoors abuses. Which has closed most of the roads and timber lands to driving. I cant take my young daughter and my dad hunting anymore because they cant walk miles into gated areas. And you ask us to help with this as well. Now that your jobs and control are on the line you have the nerve to ask for our help....unbelievable. I just read your email and no where in it did it even mention hunters and fishers as any kind of concern to you. Maybe its time you experience how it feels to be hung out to dry.
Happy hunting....(job hunting.)
--
Naithan Kain
This is priceless!! :rockin: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :rockin:
:yeah: WDFW :pee:
Mulehunter :)
Post by: WDFW-SUX on February 12, 2010, 04:00:58 PM
Post by: bearpaw on February 12, 2010, 04:04:17 PM
What's sad, in 30 days after the leg votes it's probably all water under the bridge and forgotten. :(
Post by: WDFW-SUX on February 12, 2010, 04:05:59 PM
Post by: Kain on February 12, 2010, 04:09:58 PM
Yes, a thousand of that type of letter would get some notice, even 50 would have to get some attention. :chuckle:
What's sad, in 30 days after the leg votes it's probably all water under the bridge and forgotten. :(
I fear you are right about that. Plenty of other examples people could give. I didnt even get to fishing changes.
Post by: bigtex on February 12, 2010, 05:52:15 PM
DNR is not a general authorities agency (an enforcement issue) hence the bill would create numerous wildlife enforcement issues across all elements of the regulated communities. Many of the comments forwarded when the bill focused on the measure being nothing but political "reform smoke and mirrors;" a bill "designed to eliminate citizen participation in wildlife management" and numerous, similar examples.
I am writing this to provide more info on the enforcement issue. Right now WDFW is known as a general authority law enforcement agency which basically allows them to enforce all laws of the state from traffic to drugs to wildlife. The only other state agency that is general authority is the state patrol. DNR has 9 law enforcement officers however DNR is a limited authority law enforcement agency, they have the authority to enforce hunting/fishing laws, DNR laws (mainly timber issues), and traffic violations that occur ON DNR lands. Other examples of limited authority agencies are the Liquor Control Board (which has authority to enforce only alcohol and tobacco laws) and State Parks (which has full police powers but only in state parks).
Under this legislation the WDFW would disappear and basically fall under the DNR. However as it is currently written there is no transfer of law enforcement powers to give DNR officers general authority. Which would mean the day this bill becomes law, all former WDFW officers would become DNR officers and basically lose all of the authority they had and would only be able to enforce the laws I wrote above. Now some people have said that WDFW officers should only enforce hunting/fishing laws and not deal with things such as traffic and drugs. However, let’s say you have someone trespassing on your property; a DNR officer/former WDFW officer has no authority over trespass laws because trespassing is not a fish/wildlife statute and thus would be powerless in arresting/citing the trespasser. Let’s say there is people smoking dope or underage drinkers at your favorite WDFW boat launch, a WDFW/DNR officer would not have authority to do anything, they would have to call the local state patrol, city police, or sheriff to come deal with it. What I basically mean is it ties officer’s hands behind their back.
Now what DNR law enforcement currently does is try to gain full authority law enforcement powers by asking each individual county sheriff to commission (commonly known as deputizing) their officers, which basically gives the DNR officer full police authority but only in that county. And the DNR has to do this for each 39 counties in the state. Now some sheriffs are very good about this (Kittitas County for example is great) however other sheriffs (such as King County) have policies that no outside agency can be commissioned. This creates obvious problems with what the public needs and expects of their officers. Another issue is that these commissions are only valid while the sheriff who commissioned the dept is in office. For example the current Sheriff in Kittitas County is Gene Dauna, he does have an agreement with DNR to give their officers full authority in Kittitas County, but let’s say Dauna is fired/retires/or leaves and the next sheriff comes in, that new sheriff can then either continue the agreement or decommission the officers basically taking their powers away. I think right now DNR has agreements with only about half of the states sheriffs to give their officers full police powers in their county. Federal agencies such as BLM and the Forest Service also do this same type of commissioning if they want to enforce state laws, if they aren’t commissioned then they can only enforce federal laws.
If anybody has any other enforcement related ?’s send them my way.
Post by: WDFW-SUX on February 12, 2010, 05:55:09 PM
Post by: Kain on February 12, 2010, 07:05:03 PM
Post by: Ray on February 12, 2010, 10:07:49 PM
Post by: bearpaw on February 12, 2010, 10:17:07 PM
Post by: Hangfire on February 13, 2010, 07:04:17 AM
If you think DFW deserves closed and it can't get any worse, WAKE UP. It can get a lot worse. It is a long way's from perfect now, but nothing like it could be.
Post by: wolfbait on February 13, 2010, 09:06:13 AM
Illegal wood cutters are destroying habitat on our state owned property. DNR people are unable to do anything about it, according to a acquaintance with DNR, not enough enforcement people. The Pend Oreille county prosecuter told him, he is not going to get concerned about a little wood cutting. DFW may have a little more clout.
If you think DFW deserves closed and it can't get any worse, WAKE UP. It can get a lot worse. It is a long way's from perfect now, but nothing like it could be.
Most wood cutters cut wood along the roads, (illegal wood cutters are destroying habitat) I don't really see your point. The WDFW put the wolves as endangered in Washington, the planting of wolves started in Washington before the YNP. I believe with WDFW running the show your hunting will soon be replaced with wildlife viewing. Maybe its time to try something new.
Post by: Shootmoore on February 13, 2010, 09:30:10 AM
Illegal wood cutters are destroying habitat on our state owned property. DNR people are unable to do anything about it, according to a acquaintance with DNR, not enough enforcement people. The Pend Oreille county prosecuter told him, he is not going to get concerned about a little wood cutting. DFW may have a little more clout.
If you think DFW deserves closed and it can't get any worse, WAKE UP. It can get a lot worse. It is a long way's from perfect now, but nothing like it could be.
Unfortunately your correct in that the Prosecuter's do not take wood theft seriously, unfortunately they do not take wildlife violations very serious either. Our SO handles a lot of woodtheft cases as there is only one DNR enforcement guy in the area for 3 counties. They do not take the cases any more serious from us than they do from DNR. WDFW is in the same boat now with game violations. I take both seriously but I can somewhat understand the ideology from the Prosecutor at least here. We swamp them with 1000's of cases a year and in the end it comes down to man hours and court space available and a triage of cases where the most serious take importance.
I don't think shutting down WDFW is the answer what I would like to see is it get back to the business of management of abundance and while its important to protect other species get back to supporting game management as in days of old.
Shootmoore
Post by: bigtex on February 13, 2010, 10:14:40 AM
Bigtex that certainly brings another piece of wood to the fire. Some officers are spending a lot of time with speeders and woodcutters. That doesn't seem quite right to me, I think wildlife dollars should be spent stopping poachers rather than worrying about wood permits and people breaking the speed limit in a speed zone, that's what other law enforcement agencies are for. :twocents:
Well actually one of DFW officers main duties are to enforce laws that are known as special forest products which are things like salaal, mushroom, fern pickers and wood cutters. This is mainly because it is a natural resource law. Last year after the Natural Resource Reform ideas went thru one of the final outcome regarding enforcement was that WDFW officers assist DNR officers in more wood cutting cases because DNR officers are spread so thin.
Right now WDFW officers are actually limited by agency policy as to how much traffic enforcement they do. No WDFW officer has a radar gun for speed enforcement however there are some that pull over for other traffic violations. I know some WDFW officers who say they will only do a traffic stop if it is a dangerous situation such as DUI or agressive driving, but there are other WDFW officers who say they are police officer with a Fish/Wildlife emphasis however they will do a traffic stop if there is a law violation
Post by: bigtex on February 13, 2010, 10:18:33 AM
Thanks bigtex that was interesting. To me it seems like a problem that has some options to make it work either way. So many times we are referred to State Police when dealing with wildlife issues anyways. :dunno: Deputizing DNR officers or giving the funding to State police to hire specialized officers seems reasonable to me.
The reason why you are referred to the state patrol for fish/wildlife issues is because they (WA State Patrol) dispatch WDFW officers. The state patrol dispatches WDFW, DNR, USFS, State Parks, and Liquor Control Board officers, so if you ever need to report a violation you call the state patrol.
No hunter/fisher, county sheriff wants to see the state patrol become a natural resource agency like it is in oregon. This causes many problems and pisses a lot of people off, not a good idea
Post by: Kain on February 13, 2010, 11:35:06 AM
Bigtex that certainly brings another piece of wood to the fire. Some officers are spending a lot of time with speeders and woodcutters. That doesn't seem quite right to me, I think wildlife dollars should be spent stopping poachers rather than worrying about wood permits and people breaking the speed limit in a speed zone, that's what other law enforcement agencies are for. :twocents:
Well actually one of DFW officers main duties are to enforce laws that are known as special forest products which are things like salaal, mushroom, fern pickers and wood cutters. This is mainly because it is a natural resource law. Last year after the Natural Resource Reform ideas went thru one of the final outcome regarding enforcement was that WDFW officers assist DNR officers in more wood cutting cases because DNR officers are spread so thin.
Right now WDFW officers are actually limited by agency policy as to how much traffic enforcement they do. No WDFW officer has a radar gun for speed enforcement however there are some that pull over for other traffic violations. I know some WDFW officers who say they will only do a traffic stop if it is a dangerous situation such as DUI or agressive driving, but there are other WDFW officers who say they are police officer with a Fish/Wildlife emphasis however they will do a traffic stop if there is a law violation
I have no problem with WDFW officers enforcing all wildlife laws including plant life. I dont even have a problem with the enforcing all law while out on patrol. At least they will be out in the woods where they can be seen, which will cause lawbreakers to think twice. The problem is there are not enough game officers. I ran into an officer this year, it was the first one I had seen in over ten years. I have been out hunting with my dad since I was two years old and have only been stopped by a game warden three times ever. The criminals know they wont get caught.
I dont want to see the WDFW eliminated I just want it to be run far differently than it is now. I hope they see that their lefty hippy animal rights buddies have no problem sacrificing them in order to further the agenda. We hunters and fishers should be partners with the WDFW but as my email states they have always turned their back on us.
Post by: Hangfire on February 13, 2010, 06:28:57 PM
DFW has a lot of problems. You talk to employees and many are very upset by where they have to put there priorities, they don't get to do what they would like, in many cases. If we loose the commission, it is really going to take a down turn.
Post by: wolfbait on February 13, 2010, 08:20:01 PM
The wood cutters I am referring to are not people taking a little wood along the road. They are cutting roads in and clear cutting areas that are acres in size. They are responsible for getting a lot of the timber company lands roads closed by cutting logs decked up, prime trees for fire wood and stealing equipment. The new land purchased in southern Pend Orielle county by DFW has a history of complete disrespect by these people.
DFW has a lot of problems. You talk to employees and many are very upset by where they have to put there priorities, they don't get to do what they would like, in many cases. If we loose the commission, it is really going to take a down turn.
Thanks for clarifying, I did not know that was happening. Over in the Methow it's seems to be a big deal if the USFS cops can bust someone cutting fire wood along the road. I guess the USFS think they run a business.
Post by: Wacenturion on February 13, 2010, 09:13:55 PM
Not necessarily..............they're just another bureaucratic appendage of WDFW. I use to think they and the process were valuable...............no longer so, as I really don't see what benefit they have served for Washington's sportsman. They just go with whatever WDFW purposes, and we all know where they roll.
You know, if they would just occasionally hold the Director or his staff accountable and call them on the carpet once in a while, I might feel different. However they do not, therefore it's just a group of folks that really do nothing more than attend meaningless meetings. All we need is a Director with a pair, willing to stand up for us and take on the nonexistent tree hugger bogey man that WDFW thinks is out there. Enough already!
Post by: Wacenturion on February 13, 2010, 09:25:56 PM
However on the other side, if WDFW decides they want something...i.e.....the new permit application process, they just ram it forward with little public input except for some questions that were designed to get the answers WDFW wants, and then submit it to the Commission. Do you honestly think the Commission will even give a second thought to the three year process that WDFW and they themselves set..............hell no!! So what good are they................what do they actually do for us? Wake up folks.............
Post by: wolfbait on February 13, 2010, 10:00:40 PM
I'll give you an example. Major changes in regulations according to WDFW staff who are responsible for them, are put forth and approved every three years. They conveniently use this as an excuse when something could happen, but must wait...OK...fine.
However on the other side, if WDFW decides they want something...i.e.....the new permit application process, they just ram it forward with little public input except for some questions that were designed to get the answers WDFW wants, and then submit it to the Commission. Do you honestly think the Commission will even give a second thought to the three year process that WDFW and they themselves set..............hell no!! So what good are they................what do they actually do for us? Wake up folks.............
:yeah: Or maybe everyone is enjoying how Defenders of Wildlife is running WDFW? :dunno: Those of you who were at the wolf meetings, how do you think that went? WDFW list the wolves as endangered in Washington, not the fed. WDFW had six confirmed wolf packs in 1992, not 70 years ago, who do you think is really running WDFW? Now they want you to write letters to back them up on how great they are! WDFW managing game went out the door along time ago in the Washington.
Post by: Shootmoore on February 14, 2010, 10:15:46 AM
I will probably send letters in support of the WDFW for 2 reasons.
#1 I want them to go back to there roots and start mananaging for abundance of GAME species both wild game and fish. A super agency will be harder to change than an individual agency.
#2 The grass is not always greener (or in this case it may become greener as in econuts) on the other side. I don't know but the unkown is not always better than the known.
Shootmoore
Post by: Wacenturion on February 14, 2010, 11:03:29 AM
Post by: robb92 on February 15, 2010, 01:26:30 PM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on February 15, 2010, 01:28:49 PM
Post by: Dmanmastertracker on February 15, 2010, 02:53:28 PM
:Recreation On DNR-Managed Lands
DNR manages more than 5 million acres of state-owned forest, aquatic, agricultural, conservation and urban lands. Most recreation on these lands takes place in the 2.2 million acres of forests that DNR manages as state trust lands. By law, state trust lands are managed to produce income for schools, universities, prisons, state mental hospitals, community colleges, local services in many counties, and the state’s general fund. State trust lands are also managed to provide fish and wildlife habitat and educational and recreational opportunities.
DNR-managed lands provide 1,100 miles of trails, 143 recreation sites, and a variety of landscapes throughout Washington State. Recreational opportunities include hiking, hunting, fishing, horseback riding, camping, motorized vehicle riding, mountain biking, and boating.
DNR’s main recreation focus is to provide trails, trailhead facilities, and a primitive experience in a natural setting."
I notice two thing's, A) they are primarily in business to make money off their land's and B) fishing and hunting are far down the list of priorities and are listed only as an "opportunity". The DFW conversely also has historically relied on volunteer's to help form the State's wildlife management plans. I don't see the DNR as relying on that type of structure to operate in the future.
Post by: Jerbear on February 15, 2010, 03:12:55 PM
The down side is that the WDF&L commission would be transferred to the Dept of Natural Resources and retain their power, duties, and functions. The only thing eliminated is their right to hire and the director, being as that job is eliminated. So now what are your thoughts.
Post by: WDFW-SUX on February 15, 2010, 03:27:41 PM
They are so desperate for an atta boy from the Governor they have alloud them selves to become the bitch of the Defenders of Wildlife crowd and thats terrible for anyone who hunts or fishes.
Honestly its a coin flip and Im ready for something different.
Post by: Jerbear on February 15, 2010, 03:52:42 PM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on February 15, 2010, 03:53:25 PM
http://www.pdc.wa.gov/QuerySystem/candidates/candidatedata.aspx (http://www.pdc.wa.gov/QuerySystem/candidates/candidatedata.aspx)
Were screwed either way.
Post by: SkookumHntr on February 15, 2010, 03:54:01 PM
The public voting on anything hunting related in this state is a total disaster...Im not sure how much worse it is having Gregoire appointing commissioners and the director though. The bottom line with all of this is the WDFW has become a bloated political pig and will do anything it can to continue its lame existence.:yeah: And if this hunt permit proposal gets pushed through im really going to support anything to *censored*can wdfw.
They are so desperate for an atta boy from the Governor they have alloud them selves to become the bitch of the Defenders of Wildlife crowd and thats terrible for anyone who hunts or fishes.
Honestly its a coin flip and Im ready for something different.
Post by: Hangfire on February 15, 2010, 04:10:57 PM
I agree Fish and Wildlife can be better, but it also can be a lot worse.
Post by: Jerbear on February 15, 2010, 09:42:31 PM
At the time she stole the governor seat from Rossi, a good guy named Bob Tuck from Selah was on the commission. He was on our side. He and another commissioner had not been confirmed by the state senate, so she let them go. did not even contact them to let them know. Tuck had to call Olympia to find out why he was no longer receiving anything from the department. The poor desk clerk had to tell him he was no longer part of the program. She appointed two of her people, who have served her well.
I don't buy the so called hands off by the gov, senators and Representatives. When they operated on the money generated by the sales of licenses, permits and so on, they were untouchable. As soon as they accepted money from the general fund, it was all over. The commission then became obligated.
Post by: bearpaw on February 16, 2010, 06:03:14 AM
I wish we could go back to the agency being called Fish & Game, and take away the general fund funding. Since those things happened the agency has definitely gone down hill.
Even though I am sure we do not want them to merge with DNR, I still agree with Kain, it is a good time to let them know what we are all unhappy about, and make them sweat.
I just found out Saturday at the Spokane Banquet, that SCI is meeting with WDFW and they intend to discuss this wolf issue. If anyone has the power to influence, it is SCI. They are to hunting, what NRA is to the 2nd Amendment.
Post by: Pathfinder101 on February 16, 2010, 06:41:27 AM
Well out of morbid curiosity I looked up who Peter Goldmark (commissioner of public lands) political contributions are from and as expected its the Indian tribes, sierra club, and the rest of the neerdowell anti hunting groups....You guys remember him... he ran for Congress a few years ago as a Democrat (against Cathy McMorris, I think it was 2004(?).
http://www.pdc.wa.gov/QuerySystem/candidates/candidatedata.aspx (http://www.pdc.wa.gov/QuerySystem/candidates/candidatedata.aspx)
Were screwed either way.
Post by: whacker1 on February 16, 2010, 08:45:02 AM
Post by: whacker1 on February 16, 2010, 08:47:25 AM
Feb 17 Scheduled for public hearing in the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Ocean & Recreation at 8:00 AM. (Subject to change) (Committee Materials)
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=6813&year=2009 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=6813&year=2009)
Post by: Pathfinder101 on February 16, 2010, 10:18:18 AM
pathfinder is correct about Peter Goldmark running against Cathy McMorris. He is a liberal higher education professor by training, and not good for DNR.
Bills himself as a "rancher" from Okanogan though...
Post by: bearpaw on February 16, 2010, 10:27:37 AM
pathfinder is correct about Peter Goldmark running against Cathy McMorris. He is a liberal higher education professor by training, and not good for DNR.
Bills himself as a "rancher" from Okanogan though...
Obama billed himself as a lot of things too. :chuckle:
Post by: Shootmoore on February 16, 2010, 10:32:02 AM
pathfinder is correct about Peter Goldmark running against Cathy McMorris. He is a liberal higher education professor by training, and not good for DNR.
Bills himself as a "rancher" from Okanogan though...
He does have a 8000 acre ranch up on Timentwa Rd if I remember correctly. I think he inherited it from his folks who bought it in the 40's. Its up by Omak lake on the Rez.
Shootmoore
Post by: Pathfinder101 on February 16, 2010, 10:53:48 AM
pathfinder is correct about Peter Goldmark running against Cathy McMorris. He is a liberal higher education professor by training, and not good for DNR.
Bills himself as a "rancher" from Okanogan though...
He does have a 8000 acre ranch up on Timentwa Rd if I remember correctly. I think he inherited it from his folks who bought it in the 40's. Its up by Omak lake on the Rez.
Shootmoore
Well, I guess that make him a rancher then... he has a cowboy hat and everything... :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: bearpaw on February 18, 2010, 09:28:06 AM
pathfinder is correct about Peter Goldmark running against Cathy McMorris. He is a liberal higher education professor by training, and not good for DNR.
Bills himself as a "rancher" from Okanogan though...
He does have a 8000 acre ranch up on Timentwa Rd if I remember correctly. I think he inherited it from his folks who bought it in the 40's. Its up by Omak lake on the Rez.
Shootmoore
Well, I guess that make him a rancher then... he has a cowboy hat and everything... :chuckle: :chuckle:
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: roadhuntking on February 18, 2010, 11:46:10 AM
Post by: whacker1 on February 18, 2010, 11:57:06 AM
Post by: roadhuntking on February 18, 2010, 06:17:51 PM
Post by: washelkhntr on February 18, 2010, 06:23:27 PM
Post by: whacker1 on February 19, 2010, 08:19:21 AM
Post by: whacker1 on February 19, 2010, 08:30:37 AM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on February 19, 2010, 08:32:10 AM
Post by: Pathfinder101 on February 19, 2010, 08:49:21 AM
Post by: whacker1 on February 19, 2010, 08:50:58 AM
Post by: Pathfinder101 on February 19, 2010, 08:57:50 AM
Post by: whacker1 on February 19, 2010, 08:59:08 AM
The current situation, even though flawed, is far better than what we would recieve for service under a much larger agency with a reputation for not performing.
Post by: Kain on February 19, 2010, 09:28:50 AM
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/Default.aspx (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/Default.aspx)
I sent a completely different email to mine than I did to the WDFW.
"The Commission will no longer be able to provide the public a direct avenue to exert control over the agency that sets important hunting and fishing rules."
We dont need politics involved in setting hunting and fishing rules anymore than they already are. Especially in this state.
Post by: Kain on February 19, 2010, 10:54:58 AM
Quote
Just writing to let you know that I oppose this bill. Our wildlife management is far to critical and intricate a resource to be lumped together with another department. If there are redundancies between the departments then I ask you to fix the problems not just mash together department.
This statement is from the WDFW http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/sb6813_statement.html (http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/sb6813_statement.html) I completely agree with this and ask that you read their statement and respect the consequences of this to our fish and wildlife.
The impact on the governance of WDFW is our preeminent concern. In passing Referendum 45 in 1995, the voters of Washington empowered the Fish and Wildlife Commission with supervisory authority over the Department director for a purpose: to guarantee that fish and wildlife management would be both directly responsive to the public and insulated from political pressures. As is the case in states around the country, the Commission process was designed to assure that the interests of long-term conservation would not be compromised for short-term political ends.
Thank you for listening,
Naithan Kain
One Response so far:
Quote
Hi Nathan, thanks for contacting me about this bill. Should it come to a vote before the House I will certainly keep your comments in mind when making my decision.
Jim
Rep. Jim Moeller
So far no response from the WDFW for my other letter. :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: Wacenturion on February 19, 2010, 11:23:09 AM
Sadly they do very little exerting............they are just part of the problem, and as responsible. :twocents:
Post by: WDFW-SUX on February 19, 2010, 11:32:01 AM
Post by: Kain on February 19, 2010, 11:37:46 AM
Post by: bearpaw on February 19, 2010, 01:21:53 PM
I've never seen them not accept exactly what the game dept wants.
I have seen them direct the Dept to check into other avenues and I have seen them go against the Dept, but it is not often.
no, but I have been watching the wa.gov web-site and they haven't put any updated information on it. It was weird, because the hearing was actually scheduled for 2/17, which was one day after the cut-off deadline. This is the only bill that I know of that was this way, so I am hoping the bill is dead, but we won't know for sure until we see what came out of yesterday's meeting.
Unfortunately from what I understand, a bill is never completely dead, they can be brought back to life, even in following years.
Post by: whacker1 on February 19, 2010, 01:26:28 PM
Quote
Unfortunately from what I understand, a bill is never completely dead, they can be brought back to life, even in following years.
totally correct, but I only meant dead for the remainder of this short 60 day session.
Bob Morton responded to see that he was testiying on a bill he sponsored elsewhere on campus and was not able to attend this committee meeting. However, he did instruct his staff to respond with the outcome of this meeting, so I will share when I get more info.
Post by: bearpaw on February 19, 2010, 02:18:27 PM
Post by: whacker1 on February 19, 2010, 04:29:13 PM
http://www.tvw.org/media/mediaplayer.cfm?evid=2010020125&TYPE=V&CFID=5349421&CFTOKEN=79982902&bhcp=1 (http://www.tvw.org/media/mediaplayer.cfm?evid=2010020125&TYPE=V&CFID=5349421&CFTOKEN=79982902&bhcp=1)
The goal is to consolidate resources in land management, because parks, dnr, and wdfw manage land. Reduction in Duplicity in government is the goal to this bill. I listened to the 1 and 40 minute hearing, and the end result was -
Senator Rodney Tom - Prime sponsor of the bill explained that they are looking for ways to conolidate government
Miranda wecker, wdfw commissioner, spoke in opposition to the bill -
park commissioner Joe Pollard (spelling?) - spoke in opposition to the bill, short time, bad timing, park
Director of Parks, Rex ______? - spoke in opposition, - no plan, no actual fiscal note, short time line, bad timing, already cohabitating offices
senator Bob Morton - was in attendance for part of the meeting - and asked questions of director of parks regarding maintaining parks with convicts.
Lenny Young - DNR employee - supported the bill, but asked for extension on the implementation and planning protion of the bill.
Presiding senator - Ken Jacobsen identified to Lenny Young that it has been roughly 15 years since they merged fish & wildlife, and it is just now starting to take hold. Lenny Young responded with if it is handled well then that won't happen, but if it is not approached in the right way then it could "haunt us for decades"
Mark Quinn - president of the washington wildlife federation, retired fish & wildlife employee - opposed the bill and gave history, and importance of department
Howard Briggs - snowmobile association, testified in opposition to dnr, because of dnr's operating procedure, He also stated that DNR's mission & operating procedure contradicts that of parks. Senator Ken Jacobsen commented that these departments don't currently work well
Tim Young - washington federation of state employees - wdfw employee - concerned over the consolidation and reduction in workforce, and cost of consolidation
Senator Kevin Ranker - is looking for reduction in GIS & mapping resources across DOE, WDFW, DNR, Parks, etc. Tim Young answered some of the questions in using the other departments resources for their own research on specific tasks
Another employee of Washington Federation of State Employees - technical changes about the barganing units to better protect the employees during transfer
Bill Robinson - The Nature Conservancy - supported
phil rigdin - yakima nation - concerned about combination of roles, and losing existing working relationships, short timeline, etc.
Doug Levy - Washington Recreation & parks association - opposed
- mission conflicts, recreation being put as a lower priority, resource management vs. protection of resources, urban outdoor recreation, timeline, compared department of commerce, cted, dted, and the various mergers involved in that department taking on too much.
Senator Kevin Ranker is asking question - rhetorical in nature, can't cut anything, so what can be consolidated, specifically administration, what can be said yes too. It was directed at the department heads parks, wdfw, and dnr giving feedback on consolidation. Response - trying to consolidate office space across the state
Senator James Hargrove - asked questions on permitting - suggests consolidation of the duplicity of permitting between the three departments. Response was that they are looking at how they put people on the ground.
Senator Kevin Ranker asked a question about timelines and deadlines and the governor's executive order on review. Response was timelines on 20 aspects come due in July through the 10 -15 months following July.
Meeting sucked - no outcome,which is good and means that there will be more debate on the subject.
Post by: bearpaw on February 20, 2010, 09:01:36 PM
Post by: whacker1 on February 21, 2010, 05:34:19 PM
Post by: bearpaw on February 23, 2010, 04:21:14 PM
Bills are never completely dead, they can even be brought back up in subsequent sessions.
Post by: whacker1 on February 23, 2010, 08:43:57 PM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on February 24, 2010, 09:51:05 AM
Reply
Reply all
Forward
|
Full view
Oppose merger of WDFW with the DNR
From: CCA Washington (info@ccapnw.org)
Sent: Wed 2/24/10 9:13 AM
Dear James,
In the morning of February 23rd, the Senate released a version of the 2010 Supplemental Budget that merges the State Parks Department and the State Fish and Wildlife Department with the Department of Natural Resources, creating one large catch-all Natural Resources agency. The budget transfers all WDFW employees and all of its revenue ($334 million), regardless of fund source, to DNR. This would allow the new DNR agency to use your license fees for other purposes.
The Senate Ways and Means Committee will hold a hearing on this proposed budget at 3:30 this afternoon (Feb. 24) and it will likely go to the floor for a vote this Saturday. We have not identified any savings that will result from the proposed merger. In fact, the merger may result in additional costs. The budget allocates $10 million to accomplish the merger but the source of those funds is not disclosed. We believe our members should have direct access to fish and wildlife management. Under this merger, stakeholders will not have the kind of access to the DNR that they have with Fish & Wildlife Commissioners under the current process.
CCA strongly opposes this proposal. The merger will not save money and could have a negative impact on the conservation and protection of our marine resources. We urge you to contact your three legislators and the governor now and ask them to OPPOSE the merger of these Departments.
Please click on the link below to send a message to your legislator, or call 1-800-562-6000 to voice your concern.
Sincerely,
Your CCA Washington Government Relations Committee
Post by: Special T on February 24, 2010, 10:04:12 AM
Post by: whacker1 on February 24, 2010, 10:18:32 AM
I hate budgets, because it takes a ton of research to determine what is buried in the budget. That is why I love the dedicated fund accounts, because they are easy for everyone to understand and limit either parties ability to move funds without lots of public visibility on the issue. Both parties like general fund budgets where they can shift funds, re-allocate, and the general public (media) never puts the effort into figuring out what was cut, added, limited, maximized, etc. Prior budget writer for the house hated dedicated funds, because it took her control away.
Post by: Special T on February 24, 2010, 10:22:18 AM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on February 24, 2010, 10:23:57 AM
Post by: whacker1 on February 24, 2010, 10:35:41 AM
Further bureacracy scares the crap out of me. They don't actually know whether this will cost more money or save money. They haven't done the feasibility study. Just impulsive decision making to make it appear that they have made big changes and let some other legislative session years from now clean it up.
If they wanted to save money they would actually split fish from wildlife and get rid of a layer of management and bureacracy. Usually combinging governement entities makes them less efficient with labor and management and priorities all wrapped up in a pretty little package.
:bash:
Post by: Shootmoore on February 24, 2010, 10:42:00 AM
Consolidating would require a shift in the priorities of DNR to both focus on wildlife, fish, parks, and state land timber, and others I am sure that I missed, but the shift in priorities will likely be dictated by which has the largest budget within dnr.
Further bureacracy scares the crap out of me. They don't actually know whether this will cost more money or save money. They haven't done the feasibility study. Just impulsive decision making to make it appear that they have made big changes and let some other legislative session years from now clean it up.
If they wanted to save money they would actually split fish from wildlife and get rid of a layer of management and bureacracy. Usually combinging governement entities makes them less efficient with labor and management and priorities all wrapped up in a pretty little package.
:bash:
:iamwithstupid:
The grass is not always greener on the other side. I am guessing that this merger will make it #1 more expensive #2 listen to the sportsman and fishermen less. #3 less priority towards fish and game management. #4 Less power by the commission.
Back in the day when it was Department of Game, and Department of Fisheries, it was smaller, with better management. The merger between the two has been the slow demise of quality with the growth of the management end and shrinking of the actual boots on the ground. I would imagine looking at history of the mergers that we could expect more of the same.
Shootmoore
Post by: whacker1 on February 24, 2010, 10:48:02 AM
If you want to look at Mergers in state government - look no further than the department of Commerce. The legislature has changed their name, duties, etc at least 5 times in the last 20 years, and is considering it again this legislative session.
Post by: bearpaw on February 24, 2010, 10:54:19 AM
The Senate bill calling for the merger of WDFW & Parks into DNR remains bottled up in the Senate Natural Resources Committee. Multiple title only bills dealing with "natural resources" have been introduced - any one of them could be used as the policy vehicle to merge WDFW & Parks into DNR and that's now the likely event to occur. The Senate budget released yesterday zero's out the WDFW budget, reduces the agency operating budget by $10.5 million and transfers all WDFW functions to DNR. No proof has been presented that the state "saves" $10.5 million in operating costs by these actions. Making these budget provisions will require passage of a policy bill - you can bet one will come down the road quickly - we just don't know what vehicle (bill) will be used.
This is deadly and serious business - EVERY FISHING, HUNTING AND RELATED PROGRAM AND EVERY DEDICATED FUND IS AT RISK FOR TERMINATION OR REDUCTION. The majority of hunters and fishers in Washington State agreed to surcharges on their licenses to keep these important functions in place last year. Your support of the department will be wiped out if the Senate Budget is allowed to advance with the merger language in it - the House version of the budget does not (yet) contain this language.
You, your organizations and all of the members or your organizations (and their friends and family) ABSOLUTELY need to get involved NOW. The only "target" at the moment is the merger language in the Senate budget. A simple "I oppose merger of the natural resource agencies" will suffice. It's been about 15 years since the old department of fish and department of game were merged to create WDFW. We're still dealing with the ugly consequences of that merger. We don't need another super agency ... that's not government reform. Creating another super agency while doing harm to the already existing programs willingly funded by hunters and fishers is not responsible wildlife management.
The first order of priority is for everybody to contact EVERY member of the Senate Ways & Means Committee with the message LOUD AND CLEAR STATED that the hunters and fishers of the state are adamantly opposed to merging WDFW into DNR. The second order of priority is then for all the rest of the members of the Senate to "hear" that message as well as your legislators in the House.
Individual direct web-based emails can be sent through http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rosters/CommitteeMembersByCommittee.aspx?Chamber=S (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rosters/CommitteeMembersByCommittee.aspx?Chamber=S)
A list of Senators and their non-web email address is at https://dlr.leg.wa.gov/MemberEmail/Default.aspx?Chamber=S (https://dlr.leg.wa.gov/MemberEmail/Default.aspx?Chamber=S)
The in-state toll-free Hotline number for those wanting to call their legislators is 800.562.6000.
The 22 members of the Senate Ways & Means Committee are:
Senator Margarita Prentice (Chair)
Senator Karen Fraser (Vice-Chair, Capital Budget)
Senator Rodney Tom (Vice Chair, Operating Budget - author of the merger effort)
Senator Joseph Zarelli (Ranking Minority)
Senator Dale Brandland
Senator Mike Carrell
Senator Darlene Fairley
Senator Mike Hewitt
Senator Steve Hobbs
Senator Jim Honeyford
Senator Karen Keiser
Senator Adam Kline
Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles
Senator Joe McDermott
Senator Ed Murray
Senator Eric Oemig
Senator Linda Evans Parlette
Senator Cheryl Pflug
Senator Craig Pridemore
Senator Debbie Regala
Senator Phil Rockefeller
Senator Mark Schoesler
Post by: whacker1 on February 24, 2010, 10:57:24 AM
Post by: huntnphool on February 24, 2010, 02:08:08 PM
In the morning of February 23rd, the Senate released a version of the 2010?Supplemental Budget that merges the State Parks Department and the State Fish and Wildlife Department with the Department of Natural Resources, creating one large catch-all Natural Resources agency.? The budget transfers all WDFW employees and all of its revenue ($334 million), regardless of fund source, to DNR.? This would allow the new DNR agency to use your license fees for other purposes.
The Senate Ways and Means Committee will hold a hearing on this proposed budget at 3:30 this afternoon (Feb. 24) and it will likely go to the floor for a vote this Saturday.?We have not identified any savings that will result from the proposed merger. In fact, the merger may result in additional costs. The budget allocates $10 million to accomplish the merger but the source of those funds is not disclosed.? We believe our members should have direct access to fish and wildlife management. Under this merger, stakeholders will not have the kind of access to the DNR that they have with Fish & Wildlife Commissioners under the current process.
CCA strongly opposes this proposal. The merger will not save money and could have a negative impact on?the conservation and protection of our?marine?resources.? We urge you to contact your three legislators and the governor now and ask them to OPPOSE the merger of these Departments.
Click the link below to take action on this issue:
http://www.votervoice.net/link/forward/ccapnw/b68qRr.aspx (http://www.votervoice.net/link/forward/ccapnw/b68qRr.aspx)
Post by: Shootmoore on February 24, 2010, 02:54:53 PM
"In closing I would suggest instead of combining into a super agency that has the opportunity to become an even larger clumsy and more costly agency. That instead we look at taking the Department of Fish and Wildlife back to its roots. Dividing it back into its individual components, who's focus is on the original intent of production and sustainability of GAME fish and GAME wildlife. Remove the non-game species and land management and give them to the DNR to manage as you wish, while protecting and promoting The Department of Game and The Department of Fisheries original intent. I think with this path of reform you could do more with less with greater results.
Thank you for your consideration of this issue."
Shootmoore
Post by: huntnphool on February 24, 2010, 02:59:35 PM
Post by: TWG2A on February 24, 2010, 04:05:40 PM
Evergreen State hunters and fishermen have historically been treated with a mix of indifference, disdain and outright contempt by the State Legislature and the governor’s office over the past quarter-century.
When thousands of sportsmen rallied on the Capitol steps in the 1980s – brought there by the now-inactive Sportsmen’s Rights Coalition – they were essentially given lip service. The old Department of Game was merged with the Department of Fisheries to create the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, an indication that the agency would – and many complain has – gradually drifted away from the primary mission for which it was created, to serve hunters and anglers and to conserve, protect and enhance fish and game populations. Many sportsmen so hate this agency and the direction that it has taken that they refer to it as the Department of NO Fish and NO Wildlife; an agency that is less interested in enhancing deer and elk herds than it is in bringing back wolves and giving them a big hug.
"Abolishes the department of fish and wildlife and transfers its powers, duties, and functions to the department of natural resources."
The advent of a divisive and many believe disastrous hunting management structure called “Resource Allocation” has been blamed for reducing the number of Washington hunters by some 100,000 over the past quarter-century. Under this scenario, hunters must choose whether they will hunt big game with a bow, modern firearm (including handgun), or muzzleloader. Washington’s “strategy” limits hunters, and essentially keeps user groups at each other’s throats, vying against one another for more time afield for their particular interest group.
The once-thriving pheasant release program is a shadow of its former self, and non-existent in eastern Washington where, a generation ago, pheasant hunting rivaled that found in some Midwest states. The only “new” program that has benefited Washington hunters in the past 25 years has been the wild turkey project spearheaded by now-retired game biologist Dan Blatt. This was a roaring success thanks to Blatt’s savvy about putting different turkey sub-species into the proper habitats similar to their native habitats in the states from whence brood stock was brought years ago.
So why not change the agency? This state’s hunters are not of one mind; many enjoy the reduced numbers of people in the field during fall hunting seasons. They don’t see the “big picture,” however and neither do younger hunters (and anglers), who lack the historical perspective and never experienced “the good old days” of hunting and fishing here. Their shrinking numbers translates to shrinking political clout, and ultimately, that’s going to mean reduced to non-existent management of this state’s game populations.
Right now, there is legislation (Senate Bill 6813) lurking in the Senate Natural Resources Committee that, if adopted and signed by Gov. Christine Gregoire – as she most lilely would with the excuse of trimming the state budget (it won’t, but the public doesn’t understand that) – it would merge the WDFW with the State Parks Department under the Department of Natural Resources.
Want to talk about a disaster? This is the kind of scenario that the late Irwin Allen would have put on film as The Towering Bureaucracy. If hunters think they have little influence now, wait until that mega-agency becomes a reality.
An e-mail alert now being circulated by pro-gun and hunting communities warns, “Every fishing, hunting and related program and every dedicated fund is at risk for termination or reduction.” This alert, originating with the Hunters Heritage Council, notes that “The Senate budget released (Monday) zeroes out the WDFW budget, reduces the agency operating budget by $10.5 million and transfers all WDFW functions to DNR. No proof has been presented that the state ‘saves’ $10.5 million in operating costs by these actions.”
"Transfers, administratively, the duties of the governor appointed state parks and recreation commission and the fish and wildlife commission to the department of natural resources."
The e-mail alert also warns, “Creating another super agency while doing harm to the already existing programs willingly funded by hunters and fishers is not responsible wildlife management.”
There are 22 members of the Senate Ways & Means Committee, and they need to hear from hunters and anglers concerned about the future of the resources.
Perhaps instead of merging the WDFW, it ought to be broken up and restored to two separate agencies: Fisheries, which would be tasked solely with managing for commercial and tribal fisheries, and the Department of Fish and Game, whose job it should be to put ten million more trout into our lakes and streams, produce two to five million more steelhead, increase the deer herds by 50,000 and add 10,000 more elk, and that’s just for starters.
Hunters and anglers are being encouraged to contact each member of the Senate Committee and tell them “Do NOT merge WDFW and DNR.”
Senator Margarita Prentice (Chair) - prentice.margarita@leg.wa.gov
Senator Karen Fraser (Vice-Chair, Capital Budget) - fraser.karen@leg.wa.gov
Senator Rodney Tom (Vice Chair, Operating Budget - author of the merger effort) - tom.rodney@leg.wa.gov
Senator Joseph Zarelli (Ranking Minority) - zarelli.joseph@leg.wa.gov
Senator Dale Brandland - brandland.dale@leg.wa.gov
Senator Mike Carrell - carrell.michael@leg.wa.gov
Senator Darlene Fairley - fairley.darlene@leg.wa.gov
Senator Mike Hewitt - hewitt.mike@leg.wa.gov
Senator Steve Hobbs - hobbs.steve@leg.wa.gov
Senator Jim Honeyford - honeyford.jim@leg.wa.gov
Senator Karen Keiser - keiser.karen@leg.wa.gov
Senator Adam Kline - kline.adam@leg.wa.gov
Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles - kohl-welles.jeanne@leg.wa.gov
Senator Joe McDermott - mcdermott.joe@leg.wa.gov
Senator Ed Murray - murray.edward@leg.wa.gov
Senator Eric Oemig - oemig.eric@leg.wa.gov
Senator Linda Evans Parlette - parlette.linda@leg.wa.gov
Senator Cheryl Pflug - pflug.cheryl@leg.wa.gov
Senator Craig Pridemore - pridemore.craig@leg.wa.gov
Senator Debbie Regala - regala.debbie@leg.wa.gov
Senator Phil Rockefeller - rockefeller.phil@leg.wa.gov
Senator Mark Schoesler - schoesler.mark@leg.wa.gov
Outdoorsmen and women can also contact their own senator.
Please Contact Your Legislator by Telephone: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/Default.aspx (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/Default.aspx)
SB 6813 Legislative Info: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=6813&year=2009 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=6813&year=2009)
Original Article Can Be Found Here: http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m2d24-WA-Senate-bill-would-merge-WDFW-Parks-under-Natural-Resources?cid=examiner-email# (http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m2d24-WA-Senate-bill-would-merge-WDFW-Parks-under-Natural-Resources?cid=examiner-email#)
Post by: TWG2A on February 24, 2010, 07:02:45 PM
I hope it is helpful to you.
*****************************
Senator Margarita Prentice (D-)
prentice.margarita@leg.wa.gov
Committees
Ways & Means (Chair)
Olympia Office
303 Cherberg Building
Olympia, WA 98504-0411
(360) 786-7616
1-800-562-6000
Senator Karen Fraser (D-)
fraser.karen@leg.wa.gov
Committees
Ways & Means (Vice-Chair Capital Budget)
Olympia Office
404 Legislative Building
Olympia, WA 98504-0422
(360) 786-7642
1-800-562-6000
Senator Rodney Tom (D-)
(Author of the SB 6813 merger effort)
tom.rodney@leg.wa.gov
Committees
Ways & Means (Vice Chair Operating Budget)
Olympia Office
220 Cherberg Building
Olympia, WA 98504-0448
(360) 786-7694
1-800-562-6000
Senator Joseph Zarelli (R-)
zarelli.joseph@leg.wa.gov
Olympia Office
204 Newhouse Building
P.O. Box 40418
Olympia WA 98504-0418
Phone: (360) 786-7634
Toll-Free: 1 (800) 562-6000
Fax: (360) 786-7524
Senator Dale Brandland (R-)
brandland.dale@leg.wa.gov
Olympia Office
203 Newhouse Building
P.O. Box 40442
Olympia WA 98504-0442
Phone: (360) 786-7682
Toll-Free: (800) 562-6000
Fax: (360) 786-7524
Senator Mike Carrell (R-)
carrell.michael@leg.wa.gov
Olympia Office
102 Newhouse Building
P.O. Box 40428
Olympia WA 98504-0428
Office Phone: (360) 786-7654
Home Phone: (253) 581-2859
Toll-Free: (800) 562-6000
Fax: (360) 786-7819
Senator Darlene Fairley (D-)
fairley.darlene@leg.wa.gov
Olympia Office
227 Cherberg Building
Olympia, WA 98504-0432
(360) 786-7662
1-800-562-6000
Senator Mike Hewitt (R-)
hewitt.mike@leg.wa.gov
Olympia Office
314 Legislative Building
P.O. Box 40416
Olympia WA 98504-0416
Phone: (360) 786-7630
Toll-Free: 1 (800) 562-6000
Fax: (360) 786-1266
Senator Steve Hobbs (D-)
hobbs.steve@leg.wa.gov
Olympia Office
213 Cherberg Building
Olympia, WA 98504-0444
(360) 786-7686
1-800-562-6000
Senator Jim Honey ford (R-)
honeyford.jim@leg.wa.gov
Olympia Office
107 Newhouse Building
P.O. Box 40415
Olympia WA 98504-0415
Phone: (360) 786-7684
Toll-Free: 1 (800) 562-6000
Fax: (360) 786-7173
Senator Karen Keiser (D-)
keiser.karen@leg.wa.gov
Olympia Office
224 Cherberg Building
Olympia, WA 98504-0433
(360) 786-7664
1-800-562-6000
Senator Adam Kline (D-)
kline.adam@leg.wa.gov
Olympia Office:
223 Cherberg Building
Olympia, WA 98504-0437
(360) 786-7688
1-800-562-6000
Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles (D-)
kohl-welles.jeanne@leg.wa.gov
Olympia Office
219 Cherberg Building
Olympia, WA 98504-0436
(360) 786-7670
1-800-562-6000
Senator Joe McDermott (D-)
mcdermott.joe@leg.wa.gov
Olympia Office
230 Cherberg Building
Olympia, WA 98504-0434
(360) 786-7667
1-800-562-6000
Senator Ed Murray (D-)
murray.edward@leg.wa.gov
Olympia Office
215 Cherberg Building
Olympia, WA 98504-0443
(360) 786-7628
1-800-562-6000
Senator Eric Oemig (D-)
oemig.eric@leg.wa.gov
Olympia Office
416 Legislative Building
Olympia, WA 98504-0445
(360) 786-7672
1-800-562-6000
Senator Linda Evans Parlette (R-)
parlette.linda@leg.wa.gov
Olympia Office
316 Legislative Building
P.O. Box 40412
Olympia WA 98504-0412
Phone: (360) 786-7622
Toll-Free: 1 (800) 562-6000
Fax: (360) 786-1266
Senator Cheryl Pflug (R-)
pflug.cheryl@leg.wa.gov
Olympia Office
415 Legislative Building
P.O. Box 40405
Olympia WA 98504-0405
Phone: (360) 786-7608
Toll-Free: 1 (800) 562-6000
Fax: (360) 786-1266
Senator Craig Pride more (D-)
pridemore.craig@leg.wa.gov
Olympia Office
212 Cherberg Building
Olympia, WA 98504-0449
(360) 786-7696
1-800-562-6000
Senator Debbie Regala (D-)
regala.debbie@leg.wa.gov
Olympia Office
233 Cherberg Building
Olympia, WA 98504-0427
(360) 786-7652
1-800-562-6000
Senator Phil Rockefeller (D-)
rockefeller.phil@leg.wa.gov
Olympia Office
218 John A. Cherberg Building
Olympia, WA 98504-0430
(360) 786-7644
Fax: (360) 786-1999
1-800-562-6000
Senator Mark Schoesler (R-)
schoesler.mark@leg.wa.gov
Olympia Office
Phone: (360) 786-7620
Toll-Free: 1 (800) 562-6000
Fax: (360) 786-7819
Post by: Thenewguy on February 24, 2010, 07:40:51 PM
Post by: bearpaw on February 25, 2010, 11:41:30 AM
One of the worst things I see is that all dedicated funds we sportsfolkjs have paid for with license purchases, will be lost in the merger. :twocents:
If any of you have not sent a message yet, do it now, lets try to get this stopped.
Post by: Kain on February 25, 2010, 12:33:15 PM
http://www.nraila.org/Hunting/Read/HuntingIssues.aspx?ID=5478&type=L (http://www.nraila.org/Hunting/Read/HuntingIssues.aspx?ID=5478&type=L)
Quote
Olympia Considering End to Department of Fish & Wildlife!
Hunters and Sportsmen MUST Contact their Legislators Immediately!
The Senate budget released this week would zero out the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) budget and transfer all WDFW functions to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) in a merger of the two agencies. Further, it would reduce by $10.5 million the amount spent on the functions that have been handled by WDFW.
To those involved in the shooting sports, the net result of such a transfer of authority would likely be devastating. Gun owners and sportsmen have been fighting DNR for years with regard to shooting and hunting on DNR land. Leadership in DNR is, at best, indifferent to the interests of sportsmen and, more likely, hostile and antagonistic.
The majority of hunters and sportsmen in Washington State agreed last year to surcharges on their licenses to keep important WDFW functions in place. Every hunting (and fishing) program and every dedicated fund is at risk for reduction or termination. Sportsmen’s support of the department could be wiped out if the Senate Budget is allowed to advance with the merger language in it.
It is critical that hunters and sportsmen contact the members of the Senate Ways & Means Committee immediately! Tell them to OPPOSE THE MERGER OF WDFW INTO DNR! Please leave messages for your Senator and Representatives, as well.
Following are the email addresses for the 22 members of the Senate Ways & Means Committee, including Senator Rodney Tom who is the author of the merger effort:
State Senator Margarita Prentice (Chair) - prentice.margarita@leg.wa.gov
State Senator Karen Fraser (Vice-Chair, Capital Budget) - fraser.karen@leg.wa.gov
State Senator Rodney Tom (Vice Chair, Operating Budget) - tom.rodney@leg.wa.gov
State Senator Joseph Zarelli (Ranking Minority) - zarelli.joseph@leg.wa.gov
State Senator Dale Brandland - brandland.dale@leg.wa.gov
State Senator Mike Carrell - carrell.michael@leg.wa.gov
State Senator Darlene Fairley - fairley.darlene@leg.wa.gov
State Senator Mike Hewitt - hewitt.mike@leg.wa.gov
State Senator Steve Hobbs - hobbs.steve@leg.wa.gov
State Senator Jim Honeyford - honeyford.jim@leg.wa.gov
State Senator Karen Keiser - keiser.karen@leg.wa.gov
State Senator Adam Kline - kline.adam@leg.wa.gov
State Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles - kohl-welles.jeanne@leg.wa.gov
State Senator Joe McDermott - mcdermott.joe@leg.wa.gov
State Senator Ed Murray - murray.edward@leg.wa.gov
State Senator Eric Oemig - oemig.eric@leg.wa.gov
State Senator Linda Evans Parlette - parlette.linda@leg.wa.gov
State Senator Cheryl Pflug - pflug.cheryl@leg.wa.gov
State Senator Craig Pridemore - pridemore.craig@leg.wa.gov
State Senator Debbie Regala - regala.debbie@leg.wa.gov
State Senator Phil Rockefeller - rockefeller.phil@leg.wa.gov
State Senator Mark Schoesler - schoesler.mark@leg.wa.gov
Your Senator and his or her email address can be found here:
https://dlr.leg.wa.gov/MemberEmail/Default.aspx?Chamber=S (https://dlr.leg.wa.gov/MemberEmail/Default.aspx?Chamber=S)
The toll-free Legislative Hotline number for those wanting to leave a phone message for their legislators is (800)562-6000.
Please call and email these legislators immediately! A Ways & Means vote on the Senate Budget with the merger language could occur as early as tomorrow morning.
Post by: Kain on February 25, 2010, 02:32:19 PM
Quote
Mike,
While I am supportive of finding efficiencies in government, I do have some concerns about putting WDFW under DNR due to the initiative that created the F&W Commission and the powers that the F&W Commission has to choose their own director. It might be possible to put some of the duties of WDFW under DNR -- such as the regulatory arm (permitting) but I would be concerned about putting hunting and fishing under DNR. I have offered another way to get some efficiencies in natural resource agencies without doing this (HB 3090) by eliminating the duplication and triplication of effort in permitting. And, I am very concerned about putting state parks under a regulatory agency such as DNR.
I expect there will need to be a lot of work done before this bill can move to approval. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.
Ed Orcutt
Representative Ed Orcutt
18th Legislative District
Olympia Office:
415 John L. O'Brien Building
PO Box 40600
Olympia, WA 98504
* orcutt.ed@leg.wa.gov
( 360.673.4978
Post by: whacker1 on February 25, 2010, 02:51:55 PM
sadly though he is in the house and won't get to see the budget bill until it passes the Senate. The House is releasing their proposed budget today I believe. it will be interesting to see what is buried in that mess.
Keep up the good work all.
Post by: bearpaw on February 25, 2010, 03:59:37 PM
______________________________
Other members and I are hearing from many, many people in opposition to the legislation. I personally do not see how it could work so at this point am in opposition to the bill.
Jeanne
Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles
Chair - Senate Labor, Commerce & Consumer Protection Committee
36th Legislative District
Washington State Senate
Post by: Snapshot on February 25, 2010, 05:37:05 PM
(Thanks for the hyperlinks TWG2A)
Post by: bearpaw on February 25, 2010, 05:46:57 PM
Committe Chair: prentice.margarita@leg.wa.gov
fraser.karen@leg.wa.gov; tom.rodney@leg.wa.gov; zarelli.joseph@leg.wa.gov; brandland.dale@leg.wa.gov; carrell.michael@leg.wa.gov; fairley.darlene@leg.wa.gov; hewitt.mike@leg.wa.gov; hobbs.steve@leg.wa.gov; honeyford.jim@leg.wa.gov; keiser.karen@leg.wa.gov; kline.adam@leg.wa.gov; kohl-welles.jeanne@leg.wa.gov; mcdermott.joe@leg.wa.gov; murray.edward@leg.wa.gov; oemig.eric@leg.wa.gov; parlette.linda@leg.wa.gov; pflug.cheryl@leg.wa.gov; pridemore.craig@leg.wa.gov; regala.debbie@leg.wa.gov; rockefeller.phil@leg.wa.gov; schoesler.mark@leg.wa.gov
Post by: TWG2A on February 25, 2010, 08:48:46 PM
I've been sending this out to all of my groups, which include several thousand members here in WA and they're sending letters to express their objection to this piece of..... "legislation".
Life will be a *little* better when this session has closed, but as you all know....... These things will keep rearing their ugly heads. No matter how many times we beat them. The gun-grabbers are just waiting for that one opportunity and they'll keep trying. Net session it'll be called something different or it'll be hidden in some "crisis" related bill.
Post by: sisu on February 25, 2010, 09:05:44 PM
Once a septic gets filled with too many big chunks it does not function as intended, so we either pump it or dig it up and replace it with something that works. Maybe it's time to replace a system that quit doing what it is supposed to.
I have to discuss this with some friends some more but right now how bad could it get? Think about this, the guy that says he is a lobby for sportsmen is actually a PAID lobby for Washington State commercial fishermen.
Post by: Special T on February 26, 2010, 07:06:39 AM
Post by: whacker1 on February 26, 2010, 08:18:59 AM
If one septic gets filled with too many big chunks and quits functioning, you either pump it or dig it up and replace it with something that works - but in this scenario, we would be taking a septict tank that is full of big chunks, and quit working some time ago. But we have continued ramming the big chunks in, and now we are going to dig next to it a larger hole and cram our septic tank that is not working into an even larger septic tank that is also not working. But to make it better, we aren't going to cut any new exit ports in the septic tank, no new drainfield. Same big chunks stuck in an already full, but larger septic tank.
I hope that illustrated my point and messed up some of your lunches at the same time. I know many of you are visual, so you are trying to visualize the big chunks stacked on top of each other trying to get out. :chuckle:
Post by: luvtohnt on February 26, 2010, 08:24:00 AM
Brandon
Post by: whacker1 on February 26, 2010, 08:41:43 AM
Although, we don't all like WDFW, I don't feel like they are the least effective department in the State of WA government. And they have a very large challenge in front of them. And at times they do actually act on input from sportsmen (which is sometimes good and bad), but the point is that we actually do have some input in the process. That input would be far less than it is in our current system.
Last point, because I am critical of government. I have seen very few government bodies that have ever gained efficiencies by combining departments, without first cleaning house on the duplication. There only intention in this merger is to -combine real estate offices, which is a very small percentage of their direct overhead. Their direct overhead is heavily weighted in people. There is no elimination of duplicated positions, no elmination of excess layers of management, no empowering of the staff to make decisions outside the meeting environment, reducing the need for management. This is a polical shell game or game of three card monty. Very similar to the national health care. They haven't addressed the actual core of the problems by fixing health care, tort reform, pharma problems, etc. The majority just wants to give more people health care - talking about the 30 million that don't have health care instead of fixing the root of the problem. This is much the same. They aren't going to actually talk about why DNR or WDFW or Parks are inefficient, but going to combine them, because one department surely must be more efficient than 3.
Could it work? Yes. Is it remotely likely to work? No. The legislature (more importantly the governor) needs to address staff in State Government to gain efficiencies. The legislature & governors keep adding requirements on their departments, which require more bodies and meetings, and very little gets accomplished. No one is empowered to make decisions, so anything that changes requires 25 people to meet over the course of the year. It is a self perpetuating problem.
The last is a graph from wa depart of employment security. Tell me how this make you feel about efficiency and ability to operate an efficient business. see attached graph
Post by: sisu on February 26, 2010, 09:19:55 AM
1. Head guy for DNR is elected. If that person does a poor job with F&W that person has to be re-elected.
2. Putting two dept. together (especially government) gets overly inflated egos all inflamed & paranoid. This leads to a turf war which leads to dept. heads leaving where duplication occures.
3. During the re-structuring process the public can start demanding a greater part in the input side, because we all know this transition is not going to be smooth. There will be lots of bumps, and Goldmark has a huge ego that does not welcome critism well. I see him wanting the public board the to be his "SSR air bag".
Post by: whacker1 on February 26, 2010, 09:44:14 AM
2. turf war will happen for sure - which doesn't help efficiency, typically makes things less efficient during the transition, and they usually replace department heads with folks that think the same way the winner of the turf war does.
3. I hadn't thought about the fact that he might want the sound board to be in place to take the brunt of the public pressure. That might be, but the bill in the senate actually calls for the removal of the wildlife commission.
Post by: Shootmoore on February 26, 2010, 09:46:39 AM
The plus from my stand point:
1. Head guy for DNR is elected. If that person does a poor job with F&W that person has to be re-elected.
2. Putting two dept. together (especially government) gets overly inflated egos all inflamed & paranoid. This leads to a turf war which leads to dept. heads leaving where duplication occures.
3. During the re-structuring process the public can start demanding a greater part in the input side, because we all know this transition is not going to be smooth. There will be lots of bumps, and Goldmark has a huge ego that does not welcome critism well. I see him wanting the public board the to be his "SSR air bag".
Here is the issues I look at to this. #1 the Head of the DNR is elected, are you happy with the government leaders that have been elected by the voters of Washington State? Do you think we will get a hunter or fisherman elected or an environmentalist?
Secondly when the WDFW used to be the Department of Fisheries and Department of Game, I would say there management for each was much more focused and efficient. How has the merger of those two agencies in the the WDFW worked out for us? Do you think that merging them, with Sate Parks and DNR who have 3 totally different focuses create better focus on game fish and game animals or less?
Personally I would say split them back in to the Department of Fisheries and Game cut alto of the fluff out of the top levels and let them individually focus back on what they were orig ionally designed for. When an agency gets to big and tries to do to much they loose focus on what the original intent was in my opinion.
I can almost guarantee that Fish production would be more efficient if all they did was fish.
I can almost guarantee that if all they focused on was game animals they would be more efficient.
Bigger is not always better when you loose focus of the goals (IE where WDFW is today).
Shootmoore
Post by: Kain on February 26, 2010, 10:00:41 AM
Post by: Shootmoore on February 26, 2010, 10:06:55 AM
My concern with a "Game department" is that non game animals would be managed by DNR. While this might be a good thing for most wildlife can you imagine DNR in charge of wolves and other threatened and endangered species? How could Department of game manage anything if they had no control over an animal like the wolf? And would DNR use these animals to control the other department anyways? I just dont want the same agency that runs the "Parks" to run Fish and Game. Better to fix what is wrong with the current system. IMO
non game animals that fall under the preditor class ie coyotes, racoons, wolves etc should fall under the wdfw. DNR could have the 2 toed yakima powder hog, greenbacked seattlelite tree rubber and the west side fur toothed sloth. What is happening now is sections of the WDFW are using these animals to control other parts of the WDFW.
Shootmoore
Post by: woodswalker on February 26, 2010, 10:08:14 AM
Do NOT merge WDFW, Parks and DNR
As a Lifelong hunter and angler in Washington I have watched with dismay as the WDFW has consistently drifted from the original mission. I am VERY dedicated, I teach NRA certificated firearms classes, WDFW Hunter Education courses, hold a Master Hunter Permit certification from WDFW and make it my business to introduce someone new to hunting, fishing and the great outdoors EVERY YEAR.
A bit of history; The old Department of Game was merged with the Department of Fisheries to create the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, an indication that the agency would – and many complain has – gradually drifted away from the primary mission for which it was created, to serve hunters and anglers and to conserve, protect and enhance fish and game populations. Perhaps instead of merging the WDFW, it ought to be broken up and restored to two separate agencies: Fisheries, which would be tasked solely with managing for commercial and tribal fisheries, and the Department of Fish and Game, whose job it should be to put ten million more trout into our lakes and streams, produce two to five million more steelhead, produce and allow to spread 10-15 million more salmon, increase the deer herds by 50,000 and add 10,000 more elk, and that’s just for starters. Our once great Pheasant hunting, that rivaled the hunting in the Midwest, is scarely worth buying the ever more expensive stamp for.
I dont want to see WDFW eliminated, I just want it to be run far differently than it is now. We hunters and fishers should be partners with the WDFW but as below states, they have consistanly turned their back on us. Need I remind you of all of the times the WDFW was either neutral or proactive in eliminating hunters rights?
Continually raising the cost while providing less and less opportunity to us hunters and fishers. Eliminate hound hunting for cats and bears, with the now attendant problems. Eliminated bear baiting. The commission eliminated dogs for coyote hunting all on its own because it had become "socially unacceptable". Where was the WDFW when our most effective tools were eliminated for trapping? WDFW continually and consistantly chooses predators over hunters for wildlife management. The wolf plan is prime example of this. Creating a lop sided wolf commission to choose wolves over hunters, not considering hunting as way of wolf management. And it is only thanks to State law and the U.S. Constitution that we are allowed to carry a weapon for protection while archery hunting. Not making enforcement officers the number one priority has led to rampant poaching, trespassing, and other outdoors abuses. These abuses have closed most of the roads and timber lands to driving. I can't take my young nephew and my dad hunting anymore because they cant walk miles into gated areas.
Please vote against this ill-considered bill which would create a Mega-agency which would be even LESS responsive to the needs of the hunters and anglers than WDFW has proven to be. It would also eliminate the Fish and Wildlife Commission which was created by a vote of the people to provide a citizen commission with the authority to govern the agency that makes decisions on the fish and wildlife resources of this state. Elimination of the commission and its authority to hire and fire the director to guarantee that fish and wildlife management would be both directly responsive to the public and insulated from political pressures. As is the case in states around the country, the Commission process was designed to assure that the interests of long-term conservation would not be compromised for short-term political ends.
This bill would reverse referendum 45, passed in 1995 by A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE, a common theme right now in Olympia and would further damage the future of the state's wildlife and environment. In addition the bill does not SHOW any real savings garnered out of the $10.5 million in operating budget of the WDFW.
Thank you,
Post by: Kain on February 26, 2010, 10:19:05 AM
I also added this line to my letter.
Quote
I also see that all the funds dedicated to fish and wildlife programs are in danger of being absorbed by this colossal new bureaucracy. We sportsman gave this money and agree to these increases in good faith that they would be used for conservation of our fish and game animals. Using this money in any other way would be theft against the citizens of this state.
Post by: woodswalker on February 26, 2010, 11:09:45 AM
:tup:
I also added this line to my letter.QuoteI also see that all the funds dedicated to fish and wildlife programs are in danger of being absorbed by this colossal new bureaucracy. We sportsman gave this money and agree to these increases in good faith that they would be used for conservation of our fish and game animals. Using this money in any other way would be theft against the citizens of this state.
and I sent another poke with this:
Another concern that I have, I also see that all the funds dedicated to fish and wildlife programs are in danger of being absorbed by this colossal new bureaucracy. We sportsman gave this money and agree to these increases in good faith that they would be used for conservation of our fish and game animals. Using this money in any other way would be theft committed against the citizens of this state.
I say this in light of the monies taken from the ORV dedicated funds, the monies taken from the Wildlife License plate fund and other dedicated funds that have been raided already in an attempt to prop up the budget shortfall that our governor insisted that we did not have when she was elected.
The number of baldfaced grabs for funds astounds and truly dismays me.
Thank you,
Post by: Kain on February 26, 2010, 11:15:42 AM
Post by: woodswalker on February 26, 2010, 11:29:21 AM
Post by: bearpaw on February 26, 2010, 11:44:01 AM
I agrre with sisu that the system is a cesspool, but I think whacker pointed out that things would likely be worse in DNR with an even larger bearacracy for game animal management to be forgotten about.
Remember the wildlife commissioners who currently guide WDFW policy come from various geographical areas of the state. An elected commissioner only needs to bow to 3 counties to stay in control, and those counties are not very pro-hunting.
Keep the letters going in.
Post by: woodswalker on February 26, 2010, 01:09:49 PM
"Other members and I are hearing from many, many people in opposition to the legislation. I personally do not see how it could work so at this point am in opposition to the bill.
Jeanne
Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles
Chair - Senate Labor, Commerce & Consumer Protection Committee
36th Legislative District
Washington State Senate"
KEEP THOSE CARDS AND LETTERS COMING GUYS...WE ARE BEING HEARD!!!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: Bob33 on February 26, 2010, 01:51:34 PM
1. Navigate to this website: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/Default.aspx (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/Default.aspx)
2. Enter your address.
3. Select "Legislative" for District Type.
4. Click "Find My District".
5. Your representatives will display. You can select any of them if there is more than one.
6. Compose your email. " I am a hunter and I oppose SB6813".
7. There is an option box to email all your representatives, so you only need to do this once.
Post by: hirshey on February 26, 2010, 08:09:30 PM
While symbolic, here is a little test for you. Go to the WDFW main page and then hit refresh 20 times. How many of the banner pictures at the top of the screen are of game animals? I went 0 for 20, I clicked 24 times before I got a game animal (If you want to count a merganzer).
I will probably send letters in support of the WDFW for 2 reasons.
#1 I want them to go back to there roots and start mananaging for abundance of GAME species both wild game and fish. A super agency will be harder to change than an individual agency.
#2 The grass is not always greener (or in this case it may become greener as in econuts) on the other side. I don't know but the unkown is not always better than the known.
Shootmoore
:yeah:
I agree, shootmore. As an employee of the government, it is terribly difficult to make any changes... let alone positive ones. The smaller the agency, the better chance for change. Here's hoping this is a wake-up call for the WDFW, and remind them who ends up keeping them on the payroll: the sportsmen.
Post by: WDFW-SUX on February 26, 2010, 08:16:46 PM
(Sigh) I have my own dreams about how Id like it to go....
Sublime - April 29, 1992 (Rodney King riots) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-LB94Kwlws#)
Post by: carpsniperg2 on February 26, 2010, 08:31:50 PM
While symbolic, here is a little test for you. Go to the WDFW main page and then hit refresh 20 times. How many of the banner pictures at the top of the screen are of game animals? I went 0 for 20, I clicked 24 times before I got a game animal (If you want to count a merganzer).
I will probably send letters in support of the WDFW for 2 reasons.
#1 I want them to go back to there roots and start mananaging for abundance of GAME species both wild game and fish. A super agency will be harder to change than an individual agency.
#2 The grass is not always greener (or in this case it may become greener as in econuts) on the other side. I don't know but the unkown is not always better than the known.
Shootmoore
:yeah:
I agree, shootmore. As an employee of the government, it is terribly difficult to make any changes... let alone positive ones. The smaller the agency, the better chance for change. Here's hoping this is a wake-up call for the WDFW, and remind them who ends up keeping them on the payroll: the sportsmen.
x3
Post by: sisu on February 26, 2010, 09:42:57 PM
Post by: bearpaw on February 27, 2010, 11:04:33 AM
I did just hear Senator Morton address the merger on our local radio station, he is opposed to creating a larger agency. :)
Post by: denali on February 27, 2010, 11:57:32 AM
your out of control ;) :chuckle:
Post by: bearpaw on February 27, 2010, 12:07:10 PM
WDFW-SUX
your out of control ;) :chuckle:
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on February 28, 2010, 09:41:23 AM
Late yesterday evening the Senate Ways and Means Committee adopted an amendment to the 2010 Supplemental Budget that maintains the Department of Fish and Wildlife as a separate entity from the Department of Natural Resources. You will recall CCA Washington issued an action alert to our members a few days ago informing that the earlier version of this budget proposed merging WDFW into DNR.
In response to thousands of e-mails and phone calls from CCA members, supporters and friends, legislators modified this budget to keep WDFW in place. Budget cuts for WDFW and DNR are part of this new amendment. We will be communicating more about these cuts and the amendment in the near future. For now we wanted you to know this is a significant win for CCA and for the citizens of Washington. You are to be congratulated for this success and no further e-mails to your legislators on this topic are necessary at this time.
Sincerely,
CCA Washington
You have received this message because you have subscribed to a mailing list of CCA Pacific Northwest. If you do not wish to receive periodic emails from this source, please click below to unsubscribe.
Post by: Kain on February 28, 2010, 10:05:22 AM
Post by: rougheye on February 28, 2010, 12:10:00 PM
Post by: sako223 on February 28, 2010, 12:43:45 PM
This just gives them an opportunity to reinforce the armor and continue to adjust from the merge of fish & wildlife.
Hunters and wildlife will be the last thing on the agenda now. Job security just took top priority.
Even though the merge looked bleak I consider this a loss.
We need to make our presence and position known in a physical and educated manner.
Post by: bearpaw on March 01, 2010, 03:18:09 PM
Dear Dale and Tara, March 1, 2010
Thank you for contacting Senator Schoesler’s office with your concerns about Senate Bill 6813: the proposal to merge the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Washington State Department of Parks and Recreation Commission into the Department of Natural Resources. The Senator read your e-mail and asked me to respond on his behalf. The Senator agrees that the merger of these two agencies would be disastrous for the future of wildlife and outdoor recreation in our state.
One of his main problems with this merger is based on the fact that the goals of these three departments are conflicting. The DNR has the job of managing public lands and natural resources to provide economic gain for the state. The WDFW has the responsibility of protecting and enhancing fish, wildlife and their habitats and well as providing sustainable, fish- and wildlife-related recreational and commercial opportunities. The Parks and Recreation Commission oversees the management of state parks. These agencies are diverse and have different vested interests in State resources.
After the 1994 merger of the Departments of Fisheries and Game into the Department of Fish and Wildlife, it has only just begun to function cohesively. This proposed merger would create another “superagency,” which will only lead to further delays and issues for the public.. In this time of economic hardship we should be streamlining government, not expanding the bureaucracy to unbearable levels.
This merger has been offered as a cost-saving mechanism. The Department of Fish and Wildlife receives less than 30% of its funding from the general fund. The WFDW is largely self-funded from licenses and fees. In fact, hunters and fishermen agreed to pay a surcharge on licenses last year to preserve vital WDFW functions.
Washington State receives federal money for wildlife habitat development. In order to continue to receive this money Washington must comply with the Pittman Robertson Act of 1937, which requires the state to have a “law prohibiting the diversion of license fees paid by hunters for any purpose other than the administration of the state’s fish and game department.” This prohibits money from permits and fees being sent into the general fund, and keeps them for use for conservation
The timeline that Senate Bill 6813 mandates is poorly thought out and will be nearly impossible to achieve. The proposed legislation requires that the three agencies must submit a report detailing how the merge will be accomplished by July 1, 2010. The merger itself must be completely by September 1, 2010. This is an impossibly short amount of time to make a readjustment of this size, and will only lead to further mistakes and unnecessary costs.
Senator Schoesler does support interagency cooperation between the Department of Fish and Wildlife, State Parks and Recreation and the Department of Natural Resources. However, I do not feel that the merging of these agencies will do anything but create problems for our children and grandchildren to solve.
Thank you for contacting Senator Schoesler’s office with your concerns. If you have any further questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact the office.
Sincerely,
Amanda
Amanda Livesay
Legislative Intern
Senator Mark Schoesler
9th District
Post by: Kain on March 01, 2010, 03:22:21 PM
Post by: bearpaw on March 01, 2010, 04:06:07 PM
Dear Dale and Tara,
Thank you so much for contacting me regarding the merge of the Department of Wildlife and the DNR. I am not in support of this merge and we were able to defeat it in a budget amendment passed on Friday.
Thanks again for contacting me. Please let me know if you have any other questions.
Senator Joseph Zarelli
18th legislative district
(360) 786-7634
Post by: Kain on March 01, 2010, 04:13:49 PM
Another message that just came in. Seems that numerous legislators were looking at this intelligently.
They could be but the timing seems a little odd that you are just now hearing from them now that it looks like its not going to happen. :dunno: Maybe Im just being cynical.
Post by: whacker1 on March 01, 2010, 04:19:48 PM
Post by: Kain on March 01, 2010, 04:22:41 PM
Post by: bearpaw on March 01, 2010, 04:25:15 PM
Post by: Kain on March 01, 2010, 04:57:55 PM
Quote
Pridemore, Sen. Craig to me
show details 4:41 PM (13 minutes ago)
Totally with you, Naithan. I think we can kill this.
Craig
Post by: woodswalker on March 01, 2010, 05:03:36 PM
Thanks for the note. I've always been against the proposed merger of these two agencies. We managed to kill this legislation Saturday, at least for this session. Fish and Wildlife is not a "trim the fat" type item - rather it is one of the best allocations of our funds. We can cut elsewhere, Fish and Wildlife stays.
Thanks,
- Steve
And from Schoelsler"s office:
Dear Aaron, March 1, 2010
Thank you for contacting Senator Schoesler’s office with your concerns about Senate Bill 6813: the proposal to merge the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Washington State Department of Parks and Recreation Commission into the Department of Natural Resources. The Senator read your e-mail and asked me to respond on his behalf. The Senator agrees that the merger of these two agencies would be disastrous for the future of wildlife and outdoor recreation in our state.
One of his main problems with this merger is based on the fact that the goals of these three departments are conflicting. The DNR has the job of managing public lands and natural resources to provide economic gain for the state. The WDFW has the responsibility of protecting and enhancing fish, wildlife and their habitats and well as providing sustainable, fish- and wildlife-related recreational and commercial opportunities. The Parks and Recreation Commission oversees the management of state parks. These agencies are diverse and have different vested interests in State resources.
After the 1994 merger of the Departments of Fisheries and Game into the Department of Fish and Wildlife, it has only just begun to function cohesively. This proposed merger would create another “superagency,” which will only lead to further delays and issues for the public.. In this time of economic hardship we should be streamlining government, not expanding the bureaucracy to unbearable levels.
This merger has been offered as a cost-saving mechanism. The Department of Fish and Wildlife receives less than 30% of its funding from the general fund. The WFDW is largely self-funded from licenses and fees. In fact, hunters and fishermen agreed to pay a surcharge on licenses last year to preserve vital WDFW functions.
Washington State receives federal money for wildlife habitat development. In order to continue to receive this money Washington must comply with the Pittman Robertson Act of 1937, which requires the state to have a “law prohibiting the diversion of license fees paid by hunters for any purpose other than the administration of the state’s fish and game department.” This prohibits money from permits and fees being sent into the general fund, and keeps them for use for conservation
The timeline that Senate Bill 6813 mandates is poorly thought out and will be nearly impossible to achieve. The proposed legislation requires that the three agencies must submit a report detailing how the merge will be accomplished by July 1, 2010. The merger itself must be completely by September 1, 2010. This is an impossibly short amount of time to make a readjustment of this size, and will only lead to further mistakes and unnecessary costs.
Senator Schoesler does support interagency cooperation between the Department of Fish and Wildlife, State Parks and Recreation and the Department of Natural Resources. However, I do not feel that the merging of these agencies will do anything but create problems for our children and grandchildren to solve.
Thank you for contacting Senator Schoesler’s office with your concerns. If you have any further questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact the office.
Sincerely,
Amanda
Amanda Livesay
Legislative Intern
Senator Mark Schoesler
9th District
360.786.7620
livesay.amanda@leg.wa.gov
Post by: jackelope on March 03, 2010, 09:21:56 AM
Quote
Late yesterday evening the Senate Ways and Means Committee adopted an amendment to the 2010 Supplemental Budget that maintains the Department of Fish and Wildlife as a separate entity from the Department of Natural Resources. You will recall CCA Washington issued an action alert to our members a few days ago informing that the earlier version of this budget proposed merging WDFW into DNR.
In response to thousands of e-mails and phone calls from CCA members, supporters and friends, legislators modified this budget to keep WDFW in place. Budget cuts for WDFW and DNR are part of this new amendment. We will be communicating more about these cuts and the amendment in the near future. For now we wanted you to know this is a significant win for CCA and for the citizens of Washington. You are to be congratulated for this success and no further e-mails to your legislators on this topic are necessary at this time.
Sincerely,
CCA Washington
Post by: jackelope on March 03, 2010, 09:25:00 AM
Post by: billythekidrock on April 06, 2010, 05:56:13 AM
I am still of the opinion that some well thought out ideas need to be presented to certain legislators to try and improve the WDFW. :twocents:
I agree, and if that doesn't work then I say merge them. It can't be much worse than it all ready is. Maybe a new direction with new leadership will right some of the wrongs. :dunno:
Post by: Hangfire on April 06, 2010, 06:33:52 AM
Post by: bearpaw on April 06, 2010, 10:44:25 AM
I have a grandchild that is less than 1 year old. I want her to have the choice to hunt and own guns if she wishes when she is old enough. It is sad that I even have to be concerned, but at this point it appears questionable if there will be hunting or a 2nd Amendment 18 years from today. :twocents:
Just think about how that would affect you and your family, I know these thoughts give me the drive to put up with the politics when I would much rather be talking hunting. :twocents:
:hello: