WDFW Spring Bear 2022 cancelled!

[Stein]

The problem is the guy nominating people, not necessarily the people themselves.  He can find 1,000 anti hunters to fill that spot, just keep naming them, dragging feet and you get nowhere.  He could even start nominating worse candidates. 

The commission needs better legislation around how they get formed and what the makeup is.  Right now, it's 3 west, 3 east and 3 at large.  It should be broken down into interest groups.  Figure out 5-9 interest groups and a way to nominate people from that group.  Take as much of it out of the political sphere as possible.

[Torrent50]

I was also told that they are drafting legislation to be presented at the session starting in January to remove the setting of hunting seasons and regulations from the Commission and make it part of the legislative process as is done in most other states.  I'm not sure exactly how I feel about this, knowing some of the other decisions that the legislature makes.  But, they would be less likely to make a decision based on emotion and ignore the science.  The one thing it would provide is many more pressure points for us, as citizens, to apply pressure to make quality decisions.

First off, this is not done in "most other states." Also, this would mean the democrat controlled legislature and the governor would approve hunting seasons, how do you think that will fare for us?

Sorry, but this is a TERRIBLE proposal!

Thanks, bigtex.  Perfect response !!!

Well, we have a commission that is appointed (or left vacant) by the Democrat Governor and approved by the Democrat run senate making decisions for "social" reasons right now......so..........  Like I said, I would have to see the details of the bill and how this would be handled, but my guess is that WDFW would propose the seasons and rules and they would just need to be voted on by the legislature.  Let's be honest, most of them don't care about hunting seasons and will vote to approve whatever the WDFW puts in front of them.  There have to be a few Democrats that hunt.

[WSU]

Not many in the legislature really care about hunting and fishing.  Certainly not enough to make it a priority over other issues.

[Stein]

I was also told that they are drafting legislation to be presented at the session starting in January to remove the setting of hunting seasons and regulations from the Commission and make it part of the legislative process as is done in most other states.  I'm not sure exactly how I feel about this, knowing some of the other decisions that the legislature makes.  But, they would be less likely to make a decision based on emotion and ignore the science.  The one thing it would provide is many more pressure points for us, as citizens, to apply pressure to make quality decisions.

First off, this is not done in "most other states." Also, this would mean the democrat controlled legislature and the governor would approve hunting seasons, how do you think that will fare for us?

Sorry, but this is a TERRIBLE proposal!

Thanks, bigtex.  Perfect response !!!

Well, we have a commission that is appointed (or left vacant) by the Democrat Governor and approved by the Democrat run senate making decisions for "social" reasons right now......so..........  Like I said, I would have to see the details of the bill and how this would be handled, but my guess is that WDFW would propose the seasons and rules and they would just need to be voted on by the legislature.  Let's be honest, most of them don't care about hunting seasons and will vote to approve whatever the WDFW puts in front of them.  There have to be a few Democrats that hunt.

On the flip side, a simple majority could shut down any or all hunting?  They have a 57-41 majority in the house and 28-21 in the senate.  I also don't have a ton of faith in the Department, the governor appoints the director after all.

[idahohuntr]

I was also told that they are drafting legislation to be presented at the session starting in January to remove the setting of hunting seasons and regulations from the Commission and make it part of the legislative process as is done in most other states.  I'm not sure exactly how I feel about this, knowing some of the other decisions that the legislature makes.  But, they would be less likely to make a decision based on emotion and ignore the science.  The one thing it would provide is many more pressure points for us, as citizens, to apply pressure to make quality decisions.

First off, this is not done in "most other states." Also, this would mean the democrat controlled legislature and the governor would approve hunting seasons, how do you think that will fare for us?

Sorry, but this is a TERRIBLE proposal!

Thanks, bigtex.  Perfect response !!!

Well, we have a commission that is appointed (or left vacant) by the Democrat Governor and approved by the Democrat run senate making decisions for "social" reasons right now......so..........  Like I said, I would have to see the details of the bill and how this would be handled, but my guess is that WDFW would propose the seasons and rules and they would just need to be voted on by the legislature.  Let's be honest, most of them don't care about hunting seasons and will vote to approve whatever the WDFW puts in front of them.  There have to be a few Democrats that hunt.

Normally I would agree that its a bad idea for the legislature to set seasons and even in WA it leaves me uneasy...but Torrent makes excellent points and frankly I think we'd have better and more consistent representation this way.  What is shaping up now is the worst possible scenario...zealots who are only accountable to a GOV who has no fear of losing an election.

[bigtex]

I was also told that they are drafting legislation to be presented at the session starting in January to remove the setting of hunting seasons and regulations from the Commission and make it part of the legislative process as is done in most other states.  I'm not sure exactly how I feel about this, knowing some of the other decisions that the legislature makes.  But, they would be less likely to make a decision based on emotion and ignore the science.  The one thing it would provide is many more pressure points for us, as citizens, to apply pressure to make quality decisions.

First off, this is not done in "most other states." Also, this would mean the democrat controlled legislature and the governor would approve hunting seasons, how do you think that will fare for us?

Sorry, but this is a TERRIBLE proposal!

Thanks, bigtex.  Perfect response !!!

Well, we have a commission that is appointed (or left vacant) by the Democrat Governor and approved by the Democrat run senate making decisions for "social" reasons right now......so..........  Like I said, I would have to see the details of the bill and how this would be handled, but my guess is that WDFW would propose the seasons and rules and they would just need to be voted on by the legislature.  Let's be honest, most of them don't care about hunting seasons and will vote to approve whatever the WDFW puts in front of them.  There have to be a few Democrats that hunt.

And if the legislature fails to pass that year's hunting season what happens? No hunting for that year? It's not common for bills to take several years to finally get passed. Seasons are approved every year, there is no default.

Commissioners can be not approved by the legislature, in fact several of Inslee's previous appointees have withdrawn because they weren't going to get approved. So there is a process to try and shape the commission. We have a legislature that this year approved a law to ban condiment packets, and other plastic eating utensils. You think they're going to be nice to hunters? Several years ago a state Senator in public session called WDFW Enforcement racist for trying to retain the little authority they have over tribal hunting enforcement. Do you think that Senator will be nice to hunters?

There is a reason why most state's don't do what MacEwen is supposedly proposing.

[idahohuntr]

I was also told that they are drafting legislation to be presented at the session starting in January to remove the setting of hunting seasons and regulations from the Commission and make it part of the legislative process as is done in most other states.  I'm not sure exactly how I feel about this, knowing some of the other decisions that the legislature makes.  But, they would be less likely to make a decision based on emotion and ignore the science.  The one thing it would provide is many more pressure points for us, as citizens, to apply pressure to make quality decisions.

First off, this is not done in "most other states." Also, this would mean the democrat controlled legislature and the governor would approve hunting seasons, how do you think that will fare for us?

Sorry, but this is a TERRIBLE proposal!

Thanks, bigtex.  Perfect response !!!

Well, we have a commission that is appointed (or left vacant) by the Democrat Governor and approved by the Democrat run senate making decisions for "social" reasons right now......so..........  Like I said, I would have to see the details of the bill and how this would be handled, but my guess is that WDFW would propose the seasons and rules and they would just need to be voted on by the legislature.  Let's be honest, most of them don't care about hunting seasons and will vote to approve whatever the WDFW puts in front of them.  There have to be a few Democrats that hunt.

And if the legislature fails to pass that year's hunting season what happens? No hunting for that year? It's not common for bills to take several years to finally get passed. Seasons are approved every year, there is no default.

Commissioners can be not approved by the legislature, in fact several of Inslee's previous appointees have withdrawn because they weren't going to get approved. So there is a process to try and shape the commission. We have a legislature that this year approved a law to ban condiment packets, and other plastic eating utensils. You think they're going to be nice to hunters? Several years ago a state Senator in public session called WDFW Enforcement racist for trying to retain the little authority they have over tribal hunting enforcement. Do you think that Senator will be nice to hunters?

There is a reason why most state's don't do what MacEwen is supposedly proposing.

State game officers have a long history of discriminatory and illegal behavior against Native Americans exercising treaty rights...so if that is your example, I'd say try again. 

There is a lot more political moderation (and influence) in the legislature than there is in the special interest appointments.  Also, as we just saw, appointments can be made without confirmation/approval by legislature. 

[Torrent50]

I honestly believe that the season setting process would probably remain the same, with public comment, meetings, etc and then seasons set for the next three year period.  But instead of those getting approved by the Commission, they would get approved by the legislature.  I think that most of those types of actions end up being a rubber stamp approval process.  I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of legislators would not read the season dates and rules to see if they agreed, but would simply vote to approve since WDFW did the work and said that is what they want. 

As it stands now, it only takes one or two commissioners to go rogue and suddenly things are drastically changed.  It would take a lot more legislators to cause the same result. 

[Stein]

I honestly believe that the season setting process would probably remain the same, with public comment, meetings, etc and then seasons set for the next three year period.  But instead of those getting approved by the Commission, they would get approved by the legislature.  I think that most of those types of actions end up being a rubber stamp approval process.  I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of legislators would not read the season dates and rules to see if they agreed, but would simply vote to approve since WDFW did the work and said that is what they want. 

As it stands now, it only takes one or two commissioners to go rogue and suddenly things are drastically changed.  It would take a lot more legislators to cause the same result.

Could be.  One could also argue that the director is appointed and would sign off on any seasons before they got to the legislature.  The Gov would then only need to get one appointment in instead of 9.

At the end of the day, it's the will of the majority.  When there are a lot of people that care about hunting and fishing, the department runs accordingly.  When there isn't, you get what we have.

[Special T]

The problem is the guy nominating people, not necessarily the people themselves.  He can find 1,000 anti hunters to fill that spot, just keep naming them, dragging feet and you get nowhere.  He could even start nominating worse candidates. 

The commission needs better legislation around how they get formed and what the makeup is.  Right now, it's 3 west, 3 east and 3 at large.  It should be broken down into interest groups.  Figure out 5-9 interest groups and a way to nominate people from that group.  Take as much of it out of the political sphere as possible.

Its already codified in law. Question... Where do we go fro recourse? The Governor appoints, the AG is in his pocket, the Senate Natural resources committee is run by a HSUS State senator of the year several times running that is supposed to confirm appointments...

This only leaves the fact that sportsmen have to open wallets, organize and file lawsuits. Sportsmen are the only group that do not sue. As a result we can be used and abused by all parties.

RCW 77.04.040
Commission—Qualifications of members.
Persons eligible for appointment as members of the commission shall have general knowledge of the habits and distribution of fish and wildlife and shall not hold another state, county, or municipal elective or appointive office. In making these appointments, the governor shall seek to maintain a balance reflecting all aspects of fish and wildlife, including representation recommended by organized groups representing sportfishers, commercial fishers, hunters, private landowners, and environmentalists. Persons eligible for appointment as fish and wildlife commissioners shall comply with the provisions of chapters 42.52 and * 42.17 RCW.

[Stein]

We would have to band together with other interest groups since it covers fishing as well.  Rec and commercial join forces which would be interesting to see.

I agree, only avenue is lawsuits or citizen's initiative.  Both require substantial money and organization.

[JeepWrangler]

Thank you for saying it out loud Special T

"Sportsmen are the only group that do not sue. As a result we can be used and abused by all parties"

The hunting community at large bitches and complains, but they do nothing.

Victims will be Victims...

[Elkaholic daWg]

Thank you for saying it out loud Special T

"Sportsmen are the only group that do not sue. As a result we can be used and abused by all parties"

The hunting community at large bitches and complains, but they do nothing.

Victims will be Victims...

https://mynorthwest.com/category/the-dori-monson-show/...        Dori Monson Today hour 2 (Longtime Sonics trainer Frank....) if you are a hunter you should listen to his talk with Tom Nelson of the Outdoor Line regarding our governess's recent appointees to the DFW Commission. It starts at about 22 minutes

[Rob]

We are our own worst enemy and it shows as we are loosing the battle.

We are a house divided.  Archers V Modern.  Master Hunters v non-master hunters, and most aggravating, west side hunters V east side hunters.  So many pointless divisions. 

We are hunters and if we would unite, there is little that would stop us.  When you look at license sales, PR funds, and the massive amount of donation based revenue that groups like DU, RMEF, Pheasants forever, etc pull in, we as a demographic control the vast majority of the money that goes into conservation and sustainability of fish and game.  But we blow it by not aligning.

This is a problem with conservatives in general.  We are independently minded where as the socialist/democratic all rally around common goals and talking points.  They build ground swell and make progress while we stand on our non-compromising islands alone as individuals where we are easy to get picked off.

Very sad.

[KFhunter]

 

Perfect is the enemy of good enough