Post by: Bob33 on December 14, 2010, 03:34:26 PM
The Department of Fish and Wildlife, the State Parks and Recreation Commission, the Recreation and Conservation Office and the law enforcement unit of the Department of Natural Resources would be consolidated into a new Department of Conservation and Recreation.
Post by: billythekidrock on December 14, 2010, 07:39:21 PM
Charts are on page 3-6.
http://www.governor.wa.gov/priorities/budget/consolidate_services.pdf (http://www.governor.wa.gov/priorities/budget/consolidate_services.pdf)
Post by: Ridgerunner on December 14, 2010, 09:53:25 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 14, 2010, 10:18:36 PM
Post by: Cougeyes on December 15, 2010, 06:06:20 AM
Post by: Sumpnneedskillin on December 15, 2010, 06:43:42 AM
Montana is run similar to what i believe is being proposed here, their fish and game is lumped in with the parks department. Not quite sure how this would work for WA though. It'll be intresting to see what comes of this.Texas is set up that way.
Post by: DBZona on December 15, 2010, 07:08:39 AM
Post by: LRP on December 15, 2010, 07:31:06 AM
Post by: Dave Workman on December 15, 2010, 03:01:15 PM
" A proposal unveiled yesterday by Gov. Christine Gregoire that would merge the Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) with the Parks and Recreation Commission, Recreation and Conservation office and law enforcement branch of the Department of Natural Resources may convince hunters and anglers that they will be the big losers under such a merger...
"...Today’s publication of a story about how the state’s wolf management plan “will likely shift into high gear after the 2011 legislative session” has tossed gasoline onto a fire among hunters who are already concerned about the impact of wolf packs on this state’s deer and elk herds. This announcement only reinforces what many hunters already believe: The state doesn’t give a rip about them beyond getting their license fees and providing marginal opportunities in return..."
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/will-gov-gregoire-s-plan-finally-destroy-game-management-for-hunters (http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/will-gov-gregoire-s-plan-finally-destroy-game-management-for-hunters)
Or try this:
http://tinyurl.com/26tcvzp (http://tinyurl.com/26tcvzp)
Post by: denali on December 15, 2010, 05:24:41 PM
Post by: wolfbait on December 16, 2010, 09:09:54 AM
I hope you will read this and understand that Gregoire's agenda isn't about saving money. There isn't a whacked out environmental proposal that Gregoire doesn't just salivate over. Remember the executive order that Gregoire issued last May that put in place an even more harmful version of the cap and trade bill that didn't pass the Washington Legislature? Evergreen Freedom Foundation recently filed a lawsuit concerning that executive order, at issue the enumerated powers of the executive branch of the Washington government, ie, that Gregoire exceeded her constitutional authority in issuing this executive order.
Like Idaho and Montana, Washington has a growing wolf problem. Wolves in Washington State will be managed by Fish and Game. Placing Fish and Game under Gregoire's direct purview not only violates the separation of powers under the State Constitution but would be a very bad idea given her rabid environmental views.
Lynn
Subject: ECON{WA}: Plan would cut number of state agencies by 12, fortify Gregoire's power
This is all to give the BAT GIRL and her successors MORE POWER - MORE CONTROL - and does NOTHING to reduce the size and scope of government. It is just more theatrics - more marketing to accomplish the END GOAL which is One World Government. It is one step or two at a time.
I doubt many have even read the Washington State Constitution so here is a link to it:http://www.leg.wa.gov/LAWSANDAGENCYRULES/Pages/constitution.aspx
SECTION 5 GENERAL DUTIES OF GOVERNOR. The governor may require information in writing from the officers of the state upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and shall see that the laws are faithfully executed.
When people are not aware of their real RIGHTS they become SUBJECTS of those who simply bulldoze thru and ignore the LAW - as most in government are doing daily now. There are LIMITS as to what Government can do, lawfully, but if the people aren't aware of those limits and if the courts are corrupted then there is little chance of any JUSTICE in government or the courts.
Instead of merging agencies - ELIMINATE most of them other than those that are directly named in the State Constitution. Force those that remain to enforce and uphold the duties they are supposed to do - like investigating and prosecuting cases of fraud in L&I and Employment Security.
READ the Constitution and then make those calls 1-800-562-6000 (in state only)
Understand that the Bat Girl demands that OTHERS *FEEL THE PAIN* and she protects her comfy position and keeps it off limits to any opposition. Time to close the Bat Cave and focus a very BRIGHT light on her HIGHnAZZ. She will cut deep everywhere EXCEPT what she is sucking from. No mention in any of her statements about her participating in the pain that her actions have helped create. And just WHERE is LISA (Can't tax 'em enough" Brown?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/12/14/1465381/plan-would-cut-number-of-state.html (http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/12/14/1465381/plan-would-cut-number-of-state.html)
Plan would cut number of state agencies by 12, fortify Gregoire's power
Gov. Chris Gregoire would take on more authority over recreation and environmental preservation under a proposal she laid out today to consolidate state agencies.
Similar stories:
Gregoire plan merges agencies
Gregoire plan merges agencies
Gov. Chris Gregoire would take on more authority over recreation and environmental preservation under a proposal she laid out Tuesday to consolidate state agencies.
Two agencies run by independent commissions, the Fish and Wildlife Commission and the Parks and Recreation Commission, would merge and move under the governor’s direct control if the Legislature signs off.
It’s part of a plan that would reduce the state bureaucracy by 12 agencies.
WA governor proposes consolidating state agencies
WA governor proposes consolidating state agencies
Gov. Chris Gregoire on Tuesday announced a plan that would consolidate several state agencies and eliminate three dozen boards and commissions, a move she says will save the state nearly $30 million over the next two years.
Gregoire said her proposal would reduce the number of state agencies from 21 to nine, saving the state $22 million.
The announcement is part of a multi-day rollout of her two-year budget, set to be formally announced Wednesday. On Monday, Gregoire announced proposals to the state pension system and health care costs as part of her effort to address projected $5 billion deficit for the next two-year budget.
Gregoire proposes consolidating state agencies
Gregoire proposes consolidating state agencies
There soon could be fewer state workers managing the state's property, computer networks, printing, budgeting and personnel.
Gov. Chris Gregoire wants those "enterprise" functions combined in a single agency, the "Department of Enterprise Services."
That's one proposal Gregoire laid out today as part of a broader consolidation for state government. The enterprise agency would consolidate the departments of General Administration, Personnel and Information Services, along with the State Printer and the governor's budget office, as well as some of the back-office work being done by each agency.
State to cut 725 more jobs, boost furloughs
State to cut 725 more jobs, boost furloughs
Gov. Chris Gregoire’s budget office said Tuesday that state agencies plan 725 more job cuts to answer her call for 6.3 percent across-the-board spending reductions in the coming months.
The Democratic leader ordered the cuts last month, and they began taking effect Friday. But agencies still were sending their spending-reduction plans to Gregoire all last week, and some non-Cabinet agencies have until midmonth to finish their plans.
In addition to cutting jobs outright or eliminating vacant positions, five agencies plan additional furloughs, or temporary layoffs. Those furloughs are in addition to the 10 unpaid furlough days that roughly one-third of general government employees already are scheduled for over the year ending in June.
State to cut 725 jobs
State to cut 725 jobs
Gov. Chris Gregoire's budget office said Tuesday that state agencies plan 725 more job cuts to answer her call for 6.3 percent across-the-board spending reductions in the coming months.
The Democratic leader ordered the cuts last month, and they began taking effect Friday. But agencies still were sending their spending-reduction plans to Gregoire all last week, and some non-Cabinet agencies have until midmonth to finish their plans.
In addition to cutting jobs outright or eliminating vacant positions, five agencies plan additional furloughs, or temporary layoffs. Those furloughs are in addition to the 10 unpaid furlough days that roughly one-third of general government employees already are scheduled for over the year ending in June.
JORDAN SCHRADER; Staff writer
Published: 12/14/10 8:14 pm | Updated: 12/14/10 8:22 pm
10 Comments
Gov. Chris Gregoire would take on more authority over recreation and environmental preservation under a proposal she laid out today to consolidate state agencies.
Two agencies run by independent commissions, the Fish and Wildlife Commission and the Parks and Recreation Commission, will merge and move under the governor’s direct control if the Legislature signs off.
It’s part of a plan that would reduce the state bureaucracy by 12 agencies.
Gregoire said the consolidation would streamline government while making a modest, $30 million dent in a two-year budget shortfall of more than $4 billion.
“It simply can’t be about cutting,” Gregoire told reporters. “It’s got to be about changing; just like the private sector is changing, personal families are changing to come out of this recession.”
Recreation is the target of the most significant changes, and more could come today when Gregoire unveils her 2009-2011 budget proposal to the Legislature. Parks officials and advocates are waiting to see if and how Gregoire proposes moving parks away from general taxpayer funding toward user fees on recreationalists.
The governor now wields only indirect authority over the parks and wildlife agencies by appointing their boards, which hire and fire the agencies’ directors.
Under the reorganization Gregoire outlined Tuesday, the governor would appoint the directors. The commissions would survive but would be stripped of their regulatory authority, becoming citizen advisory boards that would continue to provide a voice for academics, fishermen, hunters, hikers and the like.
Any reorganization of the state’s organizational chart is bound to be contentious, and mergers of natural resource agencies have been tried before without success.
But this one has new allies, starting with Gregoire, who opposed some previous ideas for mergers. It was developed with input from the interest groups and policymakers represented on her Transforming Washington’s Budget committee. One member, Republican Rep. Gary Alexander, called the consolidation plan “a positive step in the right direction.”
Her budget process has been inclusive, said Mo McBroom, policy director for the Washington Environmental Council.
“I think she has gone about this in a very smart way that is probably defusing some of the concern that might otherwise arise from some quarters,” McBroom said.
Parks Commission Chairman Fred Olson, who also served on the budget panel, spoke favorably of the recreation-agencies merger, saying it deserved a serious look.
“I think there’s a lot to be said for the current structure, but you know what? It’s not the only way to do business,” said Olson, of Olympia. “Having more direct control over these agencies by a governor also makes a lot of sense.”
Olson noted he was speaking only for himself, not the commission, and indeed, at least one other member had a cooler initial reception.
Pat Lantz said she’s not taking any position yet, and she likes Gregoire’s pitch better than legislation proposed unsuccessfully last winter to merge natural resource agencies under the commissioner of public lands. But she said the commission form of governance works.
“Parks has a very long and proud history of being an independent agency,” said Lantz, a former Democratic state lawmaker from Gig Harbor. It’s “100 percent geared to provide a service to the public. It isn’t a mixed-up message at all: It’s parks and recreation.”
Under Gregoire’s plan, a new Department of Conservation and Recreation would merge Fish and Wildlife, Parks and the small Recreation and Conservation Office, along with the even smaller law enforcement unit in the Department of Natural Resources.
DNR’s elected head, Public Lands Commissioner Peter Goldmark, hasn’t taken a position on the proposed reorganization, which would also move the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation into his agency. Other agencies would move under the departments of Ecology or Agriculture.
“He’d applaud the governor for putting a big, bold proposal on the table,” said Aaron Toso, Goldmark’s spokesman.
BACK-OFFICE MERGER
The proposed consolidation would cut 125 state jobs, most of them from the agencies that manage the state’s property, computer networks, printing, budgeting and personnel.
Gregoire wants many of those back-office, or “enterprise,” functions combined in a Department of Enterprise Services. The new agency would consolidate the departments of General Administration and Personnel and the State Printer, along with portions of the Department of Information Services and the governor’s budget office.
The idea is for the new agency to take over some of the back-office work being done by agencies around state government. Some lawmakers see services such as printing as better off privatized. Gregoire promised the new enterprise agency would operate on a “private sector model.”
The agency would be told: “You’ve got to compete. You’ve got to deliver the services. You can’t just bill us,” she said. The enterprise merger would provide the most savings, followed by proposed elimination of 36 boards and commissions.
CIVIL RIGHTS
Some of the smallest agencies, the ones that deal with civil rights of minorities, would be among those to disappear.
Gregoire said the agencies can’t handle more cuts and that to survive, they must be combined into one Office of Civil Rights. The Human Rights Commission, Commission on African American Affairs, Commission on Hispanic Affairs, Commission on Asian Pacific American Affairs and Office of Minority and Women’s Business Enterprise would be eliminated.
Jordan Schrader: 360-786-1826 jordan.schrader@thenewstribune.com
Post by: Dave Workman on December 16, 2010, 06:57:58 PM
Well said Dave W.
Thx!
This has all the makings of a world class disaster.
I think what is most distressing about this is the fact that some "sportsmen" — including probably some people here — actually may believe this is a good idea. They are so full of :crap: their eyes are brown.
It comes down to this:
The peanut gallery is going to get the kind of "wildlife" management they've asked for, and it will not take too long for them to realize just how insane they've been, though they will never have the balls to admit it.
Back in 2004 we had a real opportunity to change the course of government in this state and way too many "hunters" who are simply delusional about voting for anybody with a "D" behind their name blindly helped "continue the Blue tradition" in Olympia.
Ditto in 2008.
Post by: BlackRidge on December 18, 2010, 09:19:48 AM
...Its only 9am and I feel like I need a drink
Post by: Annette on December 19, 2010, 09:38:29 AM
Post by: Hunterman on December 19, 2010, 10:16:02 AM
Hunterman(Tony)
Post by: Wacenturion on December 19, 2010, 10:43:37 AM
Post by: Dave Workman on December 22, 2010, 01:44:05 PM
Just look at all the states that are in deep doo doo.......New York, California, Illinois, and to a lesser degree others like Washington..............all very Democrap for years. Last Republican Governor we had was Spellman...a long time ago.
Hey WA...
read my screed here:
http://www.examiner.com/node/27445196 (http://www.examiner.com/node/27445196)
Or try this:
http://tinyurl.com/28qndp6 (http://tinyurl.com/28qndp6)
You, of all people, ought to "relate"....
Post by: haus on December 22, 2010, 11:09:47 PM
Post by: Special T on December 23, 2010, 04:24:33 PM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on December 23, 2010, 05:52:45 PM
Once upon a time this sate had democrats that many people could vote for today... Dixie lee ray, Scoop jackson to name 2 democrats that were worth a :crap:... Most democrats today have 0 commonsence managing this state... Too bad the Republicans that have the common sence are neurterd and are too weak to asert them selves. :bash: In this state republicans and democrates are compleate opposits... Dems are very assertive and no idea what they are/should be doing... The Repubs have no balls to push for what we should be doing.... Just look at Dino Rossi, could have been good for this state. Unfortunatly he is just a big puss adn wan't willing to make political waves to win! :bash: I hate politics in this state!
AMEN brother!!! Too Bad Baghdad Jim ruined it for Dixie in the primary in 1980, and Senator Jackson died the night after the Soviets brought down KAL-007. When democrats had brains!
Post by: Dave Workman on December 23, 2010, 06:02:34 PM
We can't blame the legislature or the governor for ignoring us when we don't even stand up for ourselves. Throwing our money in the pot isn't enough, yes it should be, but the reality is its not.Well, that's only part of the problem
There are too many (and one is too many) hunters who actually think that drawing for deer tags, and reducing hunting opportunity, and playing along with the anti-hunters is good strategy and the only way to cope with "learning to get by with less opportunity."
:mor:
These people are so :liar: their eyes are brown, and they are self-delusional to boot.
We have a state with abundant habitat, tons of public land, three species of deer, two strains of elk, and yet we kill less than 25% of the deer they take in Ohio, and that state is about 20,000 square miles smaller, it has a fraction of the public land, and they don't get to hunt with rifles, only shotguns and ML, archery, but by comparison, we suck.
When these people go along with whatever table scraps the WDFW wants to toss out there, we present a fractured community at war with itself. WDFW loves Resource Allocation because it keeps hunting constituencies fighting each other, rather than uniting to pressure the state to provide the genuine opportunities we all pay for.
Post by: shoot-em-dead on December 23, 2010, 06:14:17 PM
We can't blame the legislature or the governor for ignoring us when we don't even stand up for ourselves. Throwing our money in the pot isn't enough, yes it should be, but the reality is its not.Well, that's only part of the problem
There are too many (and one is too many) hunters who actually think that drawing for deer tags, and reducing hunting opportunity, and playing along with the anti-hunters is good strategy and the only way to cope with "learning to get by with less opportunity."
:mor:
These people are so :liar: their eyes are brown, and they are self-delusional to boot.
We have a state with abundant habitat, tons of public land, three species of deer, two strains of elk, and yet we kill less than 25% of the deer they take in Ohio, and that state is about 20,000 square miles smaller, it has a fraction of the public land, and they don't get to hunt with rifles, only shotguns and ML, archery, but by comparison, we suck.
When these people go along with whatever table scraps the WDFW wants to toss out there, we present a fractured community at war with itself. WDFW loves Resource Allocation because it keeps hunting constituencies fighting each other, rather than uniting to pressure the state to provide the genuine opportunities we all pay for.
Side note- 4 species of deer here
Post by: Special T on December 24, 2010, 03:20:13 PM
Post by: bobcat on December 24, 2010, 03:57:36 PM
Post by: Special T on December 24, 2010, 04:00:02 PM
Post by: Dave Workman on December 24, 2010, 05:52:49 PM
yes i meant Columbia WT
Yep, I knew about the Columbia Whitetail, and I also know they cannot be hunted so I didn't count them.
Ohio, BTW, has only whitetails. And still, last year they killed (are you sitting down??) more than 200,000 deer during their lengthy season.
Post by: Bob33 on December 24, 2010, 06:02:16 PM
Columbian Whitetail? :dunno: Not sure if it's actually considered a different species than the other whitetails, or just a sub-species. But either way they can't be hunted so I wouldn't count them anyway.According to this, they are one of three sub-species of whitetail deer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbian_White-tailed_Deer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbian_White-tailed_Deer)
Post by: Dave Workman on December 27, 2010, 06:41:48 PM
Columbian Whitetail? :dunno: Not sure if it's actually considered a different species than the other whitetails, or just a sub-species. But either way they can't be hunted so I wouldn't count them anyway.According to this, they are one of three sub-species of whitetail deer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbian_White-tailed_Deer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbian_White-tailed_Deer)
And THIS is how we allow ourselves to get side-tracked off of an important discussion
Post by: bobcat on December 27, 2010, 07:10:16 PM
Post by: Wacenturion on December 27, 2010, 11:30:12 PM
I'm not sure how important the discussion was anyway. I mean it's not like anybody's opinion here is going to affect whether they do or do not merge the portions of the agencies they are talking about merging. And really, the way I'm looking at it is if it's going to actually save a lot of money, then go for it. Hopefully with the merging they can cut some of the upper managment positions which is where they really need to cut anyway.
Cut upper management positions....you have got to be kidding ...right? If anything there will probably be added positions near or at the top. Not going to save any money either......but hey, maybe we could have permit drawings for campsites in the future.....that would make for some additional revenues. :bash:
And Dave............I can surely relate. ;)
Post by: bobcat on December 27, 2010, 11:32:27 PM
Post by: Wacenturion on December 27, 2010, 11:40:39 PM
Not going to save any money? ??? Why would they do it then if it weren't going to save money? That is the whole reason for the merger.
It's politics....a shell game....it only appears to be saving money by doing something of significance. The proposal is marketed to the public as some super efficient merger/management approach that will save the day. Nothing more than that...all smoke and mirrors. Don't believe everything they feed you.
I would wager that you find dealing with car salesmen a pleasurable experience... :chuckle:
Post by: bearpaw on December 27, 2010, 11:45:07 PM
Not going to save any money? ??? Why would they do it then if it weren't going to save money? That is the whole reason for the merger.
It's politics....a shell game....it only appears to be saving money by doing something of significance. The proposal is marketed to the public as some super efficient merger/management approach that will save the day. Nothing more than that...all smoke and mirrors. Don't believe everything they feed you.
I would wager that you find dealing with car salesmen a pleasurable experience... :chuckle:
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: bobcat on December 27, 2010, 11:52:27 PM
Post by: bearpaw on December 27, 2010, 11:58:00 PM
Well- I think in the past the smoke and mirrors may have been enough, but now with as bad as the budget is, I really think they don't have a choice and they're going to be forced to do what it takes to actually cut spending and balance the budget for the long term. Whatever they do, it will involve cuts somewhere, somehow. If it were up to me, the first thing I'd cut would be the entire Fish & Wildlife Commission. What a joke that is.....
Bobcat I hope you are just jerking our chains and are not that far out of touch with reality. The Wildlife Commission while not perfect is a citizen body and a direct voice for the citizens and I can personally attest to the fact that you can talk to these people in a reasonable manner and have your thoughts heard and on occasion listened to and acted upon. I absolutely guarantee that if you take away the commission we will have greater losses in hunting. The managers in WDFW for the most part will not listen to you, most think they know best for you and I. :twocents:
Post by: bobcat on December 28, 2010, 12:19:17 AM
Post by: bearpaw on December 28, 2010, 12:54:35 AM
Kind of like how they listened to us when we tried to tell them what a joke the new permit system was? I guess you did say "on occasion." It's kind of hard for them to hear us and "have our thoughts listened to and acted upon" when they make all the decisions before they even have a public meeting. Oh, I guess they did have "broad public input and support" for their new special permit plan, ALL from the Game Management and Advisory Council (GMAC), of which 99.9% of us on here had never heard of before. They lied to the public and they lied to the Fish & Wildlife Commission. A lot of good the commission did us, in that case, huh? We'll see if they listen any better next time. Somehow I doubt it.
The way the system basically works is the WDFW lays out their proposals to the Wildlife Commission. The Wildlife Commission does not automatically enact all desires of the WDFW. They take public input, when the public is in great opposition to the WDFW, and with science considered, the Wildlife Commission sometimes set policy more in favor of the public. If you attended these meetings you would better understand the system and would also know that hunters do not make up 100% of the public that testifies. On top of that, many hunter have greatly opposing views. But at least any hunter who attends and signs up to speak has an opportunity for input.
The real meat and potatoes of this issue is that if you eliminate the Wildlife Commission, you basically will allow the WDFW to inmplement all their ideas as they choose with far less public input. There will not be as much opportunity for citizen input. That is the bottom line. :twocents:
Post by: billythekidrock on December 28, 2010, 05:09:20 AM
I'm not sure how important the discussion was anyway. I mean it's not like anybody's opinion here is going to affect whether they do or do not merge the portions of the agencies they are talking about merging. And really, the way I'm looking at it is if it's going to actually save a lot of money, then go for it. Hopefully with the merging they can cut some of the upper managment positions which is where they really need to cut anyway.
Cut upper management positions....you have got to be kidding ...right? If anything there will probably be added positions near or at the top. Not going to save any money either......but hey, maybe we could have permit drawings for campsites in the future.....that would make for some additional revenues. :bash:
And Dave............I can surely relate. ;)
I know of an agency that recently changed comissioners and somehow ended up with a couple new positions in upper management. One whole division was lost and most folks found other positions in the agency, but there was no where for the WMS manager to go so they should have let him go. But he was a "save" for one of the other managers and now he manages 4 positions instead of 20 plus. Go figure.
Obvious bloating to save upper management. I am sure it is happening all over.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on December 28, 2010, 05:11:52 AM
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on December 28, 2010, 07:09:13 AM
Post by: Sumpnneedskillin on December 28, 2010, 07:30:44 AM
The merger would put all natural resources agencies under the Governor's direct control by elimination of appointed citizen commissioners. Any elected official wants direct hire/fire control over the heads of agencies. Consumptive users would no longer get even the appearance of consideration.
DING-DING-DING We have a winner. What it basically boils down to is the Gov will run WDFW, State Parks and the DNR. What she wants she gets, no more commissions, no more commissioners just the Gov.
Post by: WDFW-SUX on December 28, 2010, 07:34:39 AM
Your average voter is to concerned with what parties they wont be invited too to vote anything but the party line...yes on global warming, anti human, anti business anti hunter, pro wolf (because the magical) ect...
They won we lost its time move on people.
Post by: WDFW-SUX on December 28, 2010, 07:38:00 AM
With such a impact on the state I would hope the head of the div containing the WDFW would have some kind of wildlife back ground but that would be asking alot.
If spotted owl litigation counts then YES!
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on December 28, 2010, 07:53:06 AM
"Hunters and fisherman will never do anything about this because they are too busy fighting with each other. Mods VS Archery, Horses VS Hikers, Powder VS Archery, spinners VS fly's, off-roaders VS everyone.. They all hate each other and will never organize together. Just think how powerful we could be if we all got along??
What we should do "but won't" is skip a year. EVERYONE!!! No buying ANY fishing or hunting tags AT ALL!! Maybe then they will listen.
I can't wait to open the wolf "food bank" this week in the Methow Valley while riding!! Mmm yummy glass filled meat balls...."
__________________
Post by: Skillet on December 28, 2010, 08:40:45 AM
This is a money grab, plain and simple. If she gets more power to hire/fire department heads, so be it. She won't be governor forever. The government in this state is so big and inefficient it could use some streamlining. I agree with Bearpaw 100%, however - eliminating the commission would be a bad deal for us.
Post by: BlackRidge on December 28, 2010, 09:01:41 AM
As others have pointed out, there are too many differing opinions, individual things we all want to fight for, and no cohesion. Something like the Wolf situation which would bring all of us together in order to get something done when the normal routes are ineffective. We have some extremely knowledgeable folks here, let's make it happen
Post by: billythekidrock on December 28, 2010, 04:27:52 PM
The merger would put all natural resources agencies under the Governor's direct control by elimination of appointed citizen commissioners. Any elected official wants direct hire/fire control over the heads of agencies. Consumptive users would no longer get even the appearance of consideration.
DNR will not be included in the package at this time. Only their enforcement division will move.
Post by: bigtex on December 28, 2010, 05:14:53 PM
The merger would put all natural resources agencies under the Governor's direct control by elimination of appointed citizen commissioners. Any elected official wants direct hire/fire control over the heads of agencies. Consumptive users would no longer get even the appearance of consideration.
DNR will not be included in the package at this time. Only their enforcement division will move.
DNR's Heritage Program which studies ESA species will also be moved to the WDFW/Parks agency. The rest of DNR will stay in tact.
Post by: melanitta on December 29, 2010, 09:14:51 AM
Post by: Wacenturion on December 29, 2010, 03:30:07 PM
Perhaps it was mentioned earlier, but WDFW and Parks are the two agencies that are not Cabinet level. This move will make them Cabinet level which should give them more power. So far, since they have not been cabinet level, WDFW has taken a proportionately bigger hit with the various budget cuts over the past couple of years. With a director sitting at the table with the Gov. perhaps the fish and wildlife issues will get a better ear. One can hope.
Wishful thinking at best. Not going to make any difference.
Post by: bearpaw on January 12, 2011, 12:52:41 PM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 19, 2011, 09:01:37 AM
Dear James,
The 2011 Legislative session is now upon us. The Legislature convened last week and critical issues for anglers will be considered. This is what is called the long session and it will last at least 105 days. This is also the budget session. This is the session where legislators will craft a 2011–2013 biennial budget.
* The Governor has proposed merging 3 state agencies. Parks, Fish & Wildlife and the Recreation & Conservation Office. The most contentious part of her proposal takes the Fish and Wildlife Commission and makes it "advisory only". She also takes away the Commission’s ability to appoint the Director. If this sounds all too familiar, it is, this is very similar to what Senator Jacobson attempted to do in the 2009 session. Defeating this will again be a priority issue for CCA. A work session was held on the merger last week in House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee. CCA’s lobbyist met with many individual committee members this week educating them on this important issue.
* On another front, WDFW is proposing hunting and fishing license fee increases (User Fees). This is consistent with what the Governor has been saying for the past six months. The 10% surcharge that was adopted in the 2009 session will go away. The Department is proposing to replace it with separate fee increases for virtually all license categories. These increases range from 1% to over 100% and total over $15 million over two years. This is compared to $1 million in fee increases charged to commercial fishing license holders!
* CCA and other groups have met with and will continue to meet with the Department, the Governor’s office and individual legislators on this issue in an attempt to determine what increases if any, would be fair and equitable for recreational anglers. CCA outlined its thoughts on potential fee increases in a letter to Director Anderson a few months ago.
* Speaking of Crab, the Senate Ocean & Natural Resources Committee held a Work Session on the Commission’s recent decision to allocate a greater number of Puget Sound crab to recreational crabbers. Andy Marks represented CCA on that panel and joined representatives from Puget Sound Anglers and Fish Northwest to defend the Commission’s decision. Commercial crabbers are putting on a full court press in an attempt to get the legislature to step in and overturn this decision and attack the Commission!On Saturday, Heath Heikkila -- CCA’s Advocacy Director – discussed the Puget Sound Crab Work Session and the WDFW merger proposal on 710 ESPN’s Outdoor Line. You can listen to the segment by clicking here.
This is a preliminary overview of the session and what we know so far. As you know, issues and positions change over the course of a session. We will be contacting you via email on a regular basis in an attempt to keep you up to date on the important issues that impact recreational anglers and our marine resources. In the meantime, it is important that you begin preparing for this session by knowing who your legislators are. Click here to look up your legislators. As we mentioned early on in our message to you, there are many new faces on the hill this year. Some of you have a clean slate of legislators to begin working with and educating on our issues. Please do your part as we call upon you to assist us in our endeavors.
Post by: forestphantom on January 27, 2011, 09:37:36 PM
I like to look to the past for insite and past mergers with Dept of Wildlife and Fisheries didn't go so well and the resource suffered. What makes them think that merging three completely different agencies with totally different missions is going to go any better. Doesn't sound like it will benifit the resource. :bash:
Post by: bigtex on January 27, 2011, 10:53:40 PM
Now tell me how much it's going to cost to replace all of those signs on the buildings across the state for the three agencies merged to reflect this change. The decals on vehicles and patches and letterhead and envelopes. Thats got to account for alot of money that they are suppose to be saving by merging.
Actually doesn't cost a whole lot. It's mainly a one-time cost, especially with signs. As far as letterhead and envelopes, you just simply order the "new" style instead of the old agency style. Many of the WDFW Access signs are actually still the old Department of Wildlife signs which were never replaced, and that was in 1994 when WDFW was formed. Usually when a agency changes it's name or logo they don't call in all of their vehicles to have new logos put on them, they just put a new logo on the vehicle when a new one is replaced. For example WDFW Enforcement's badge has changed in the past year or so, but the only vehicles that have the new badge on it are the ones that have been purchased/put in to service in the past year, it's not as if they call in all the vehicles for detailing.
Post by: christopheri on January 27, 2011, 11:46:28 PM
I havent read this whole topic but I was woundering what your take is on this possible merger? What are the pros and cons of this?
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 28, 2011, 08:59:31 AM
Post by: bigtex on January 28, 2011, 10:02:40 AM
Hey Bigtex, The old department of "what" signs? the agency was properly named then.....F&G
No it wasn't. Prior to 1994 there were two seperate dept's the Dept of Wildlife and the Dept of Fisheries. In 1994 they merged them together to form WDFW. Then even farther back there was the Dept of Game and the Dept of Fisheries.
Many of those brown signs that are on roads that point to WDFW boat launches actually say Dept of Wildlife and were posted prior to 1994. Many of the wildlife area signs also refer to the Dept of Wildlife, those of you that frequent the LT Murray Wildlife Area have probably seen these.
Post by: bigtex on January 28, 2011, 10:09:25 AM
Bigtex,
I havent read this whole topic but I was woundering what your take is on this possible merger? What are the pros and cons of this?
Well I don't really know of any Pro. Under this proposal DNR enforcement will move to the new dept, DNR has about 8 officers, however in the past year or two WDFW has lost funding for 6 officers so it really doesn't increase the enforcement presence. This would also mean that the new agency officers would have to patrol WDFW and DNR lands, DNR Officers are currently the primary officers on DNR lands but that would change. Also, State Parks would be apart of this new agency and in states where fish, wildlife, and parks are together the game wardens also help out with enforcement issues in parks. So the former WDFW Officers would have to patrol DNR lands and assist State Park Rangers with any issues they have. So the agency officers would be spread even thinner and have more responsibility then they do now and with basically the same amount of personnel.
Another con is that the fish and wildlife commission would essentially lose it's power. Currently they are the rule makers of the agency, the director can only impose emergency regs. However this proposal would make the commission an advisory board and give all the authority to the director, who will be appointed by the governor rather then appointed by the commission.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 28, 2011, 10:22:32 AM
Hey Bigtex, The old department of "what" signs? the agency was properly named then.....F&G
No it wasn't. Prior to 1994 there were two seperate dept's the Dept of Wildlife and the Dept of Fisheries. In 1994 they merged them together to form WDFW. Then even farther back there was the Dept of Game and the Dept of Fisheries.
Many of those brown signs that are on roads that point to WDFW boat launches actually say Dept of Wildlife and were posted prior to 1994. Many of the wildlife area signs also refer to the Dept of Wildlife, those of you that frequent the LT Murray Wildlife Area have probably seen these.
WRONG!!!
Prior to 1994 it was the Washington Department Of Fish and Game, Or Game dept. NOT wildlife dept Fisheries was salt water, Fish and Game was fresh water
Combined the 2 and we got WDFW And now they're worried about tweetie birds, frogs, backyard sanctuaries and whatever else the politically correct bunch in control of this state want.
Post by: bobcat on January 28, 2011, 10:24:46 AM
Post by: bigtex on January 28, 2011, 10:32:51 AM
Hey Bigtex, The old department of "what" signs? the agency was properly named then.....F&G
No it wasn't. Prior to 1994 there were two seperate dept's the Dept of Wildlife and the Dept of Fisheries. In 1994 they merged them together to form WDFW. Then even farther back there was the Dept of Game and the Dept of Fisheries.
Many of those brown signs that are on roads that point to WDFW boat launches actually say Dept of Wildlife and were posted prior to 1994. Many of the wildlife area signs also refer to the Dept of Wildlife, those of you that frequent the LT Murray Wildlife Area have probably seen these.
WRONG!!!
Prior to 1994 it was the Washington Department Of Fish and Game, Or Game dept. NOT wildlife dept Fisheries was salt water, Fish and Game was fresh water
Combined the 2 and we got WDFW And now they're worried about tweetie birds, frogs, backyard sanctuaries and whatever else the politically correct bunch in control of this state want.
Sir, there has never been a Dept of Fish and Game in WA. From the WDFW website:
In 1993, Governor Lowry signed legislation that merged the Department of Fisheries and the Department of Wildlife into a current single Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). The merger became effective March 1, 1994.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 28, 2011, 10:41:57 AM
Hey Bigtex, The old department of "what" signs? the agency was properly named then.....F&G
No it wasn't. Prior to 1994 there were two seperate dept's the Dept of Wildlife and the Dept of Fisheries. In 1994 they merged them together to form WDFW. Then even farther back there was the Dept of Game and the Dept of Fisheries.
Many of those brown signs that are on roads that point to WDFW boat launches actually say Dept of Wildlife and were posted prior to 1994. Many of the wildlife area signs also refer to the Dept of Wildlife, those of you that frequent the LT Murray Wildlife Area have probably seen these.
WRONG!!!
Prior to 1994 it was the Washington Department Of Fish and Game, Or Game dept. NOT wildlife dept Fisheries was salt water, Fish and Game was fresh water
Combined the 2 and we got WDFW And now they're worried about tweetie birds, frogs, backyard sanctuaries and whatever else the politically correct bunch in control of this state want.
I WAS WRONG!
We are both wrong. It was 1987 the name changed from Game to Wildlife and I didn't think that happened til 1994...Sorry! In 1987 was when Olympia decided to start Meddling and things got political and well.....
Fom WDFW website
A Brief History of the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
March 1890 - The first Fish Commissioner was James Crawford, appointed by Governor Elisha Ferry
1891 - State Legislature appropriated funds for a salmon hatchery.
1895 - The first salmon hatchery was built and dedicated in 1895 on the Kalama River.
1915 - Legislature passed a new Game and Game-Fish Code that provided for a Chief Game Warden and a Fish Commissioner both managed under Chief Game Warden L. H. Darwin, Department of Fish and Game
1921 - Legislature abolished the Fish Commission and replaced it with a Department of Fisheries with a Division of Fisheries and a Division of Game and Game Fish.
1932 - An initiative separated food fish and game fish and created a Department of Fisheries (food fish) under an appointed Director and a Department of Game (game fish) under a six member commission.
1987 - Legislature changed Department of Game, with a Commission-appointed director, to Department of Wildlife with a Director appointed by the Governor.
1994 - Legislature merged Department of Wildlife and Department of Fisheries, creating Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). WDFW has a 9-member Commission and the WDFW Director is appointed by the Commission.