Free: Contests & Raffles.
It’s bad legislation IMO, it is exactly what the anti hunters want; the Claire Loebs Davis from Washington Wildlife First has stated this on a Podcast. It would give them a direct line to the Governor and there is nothing stopping who ever is in the governors mansion from firing the WDFW director and and putting what ever anti hunter in the place of our current pro hunting director. It doesn’t fix anything.
Quote from: hughjorgan on February 20, 2024, 04:38:46 PMIt’s bad legislation IMO, it is exactly what the anti hunters want; the Claire Loebs Davis from Washington Wildlife First has stated this on a Podcast. It would give them a direct line to the Governor and there is nothing stopping who ever is in the governors mansion from firing the WDFW director and and putting what ever anti hunter in the place of our current pro hunting director. It doesn’t fix anything. Way, way , back we had this it was a train wreck.
Quote from: ghosthunter on February 20, 2024, 06:40:39 PMQuote from: hughjorgan on February 20, 2024, 04:38:46 PMIt’s bad legislation IMO, it is exactly what the anti hunters want; the Claire Loebs Davis from Washington Wildlife First has stated this on a Podcast. It would give them a direct line to the Governor and there is nothing stopping who ever is in the governors mansion from firing the WDFW director and and putting what ever anti hunter in the place of our current pro hunting director. It doesn’t fix anything. Way, way , back we had this it was a train wreck.Are you talking pre merger? Can you explain train wreck?
As bad as it is now, I think this would have made it much worse. It just about would end meaningful public input. Even now a showing by the public for or against an item makes the Commission notice. I'm not sure how that would be possible without Commission meetings and public testimony.Seems like the Director would have dictatorial powers.
Quote from: Humptulips on February 20, 2024, 10:10:28 PMAs bad as it is now, I think this would have made it much worse. It just about would end meaningful public input. Even now a showing by the public for or against an item makes the Commission notice. I'm not sure how that would be possible without Commission meetings and public testimony.Seems like the Director would have dictatorial powers.It was symbolic.
This was a excellent piece of legislation. It was purely symbolic but sent a clear message. If the commission continues it needs balanced.
Quote from: Tbar on February 20, 2024, 07:16:10 PMThis was a excellent piece of legislation. It was purely symbolic but sent a clear message. If the commission continues it needs balanced.This was my impression.
Quote from: Tbar on February 20, 2024, 11:06:24 PMQuote from: Humptulips on February 20, 2024, 10:10:28 PMAs bad as it is now, I think this would have made it much worse. It just about would end meaningful public input. Even now a showing by the public for or against an item makes the Commission notice. I'm not sure how that would be possible without Commission meetings and public testimony.Seems like the Director would have dictatorial powers.It was symbolic.I get that but Bills have a habit of getting recycled in the next session. I hope the Commission takes a hint from the Bill but I bet they won't.
Quote from: Bullkllr on February 21, 2024, 07:30:16 AMQuote from: Tbar on February 20, 2024, 07:16:10 PMThis was a excellent piece of legislation. It was purely symbolic but sent a clear message. If the commission continues it needs balanced.This was my impression. I belive Walsh even stated it didn't have much of a chance this session but meant to send a message.
Quote from: Humptulips on February 21, 2024, 12:26:51 AMQuote from: Tbar on February 20, 2024, 11:06:24 PMQuote from: Humptulips on February 20, 2024, 10:10:28 PMAs bad as it is now, I think this would have made it much worse. It just about would end meaningful public input. Even now a showing by the public for or against an item makes the Commission notice. I'm not sure how that would be possible without Commission meetings and public testimony.Seems like the Director would have dictatorial powers.It was symbolic.I get that but Bills have a habit of getting recycled in the next session. I hope the Commission takes a hint from the Bill but I bet they won't.A pending threat is not bad and if we could get a director that is separated like pre merger I don't see it as being worse. I think a balanced commission is the goal but refer anyone back to the confirmation hearings. Please tell me there's a shred of concern from across the aisle. Where is McIntyre on all of this? He has a blue collar district that is being squeezed out, we all miss Blake and Tako when it comes to legislators who care. There's public critiques of Wilcox? We are very likely in a worse place than I previously thought.