Free: Contests & Raffles.
Did the other day. There is another howl there to send to retain two of our pro hunting commissioners, do that one too!
Option #3 is a terrible idea for what should be obvious reasons.Option #1 with modifications to appointee review/acceptance is the better approach.
I think you would get more signatures if you did not have to join Howl, just to sign for support, every organization seems to want a signup and then you get pummeled with the sky is falling emails.Just my opinion.I will look up my legislation folks and do it that way.
Quote from: storyteller on January 10, 2025, 05:00:00 PMI think you would get more signatures if you did not have to join Howl, just to sign for support, every organization seems to want a signup and then you get pummeled with the sky is falling emails.Just my opinion.I will look up my legislation folks and do it that way. You don’t have to join howl to use their automated messaging. Just click the take action button on the top left of their page; find what you want to send and fill out your information and if you don’t want to recieve emails from them make sure nothing is selected in the box. It couldn’t be any easier.
Quote from: Bushcraft on January 10, 2025, 01:37:16 PMOption #3 is a terrible idea for what should be obvious reasons.Option #1 with modifications to appointee review/acceptance is the better approach.Option #1 is do nothing, leave it as-is. How is that the best approach here?Both howls signed by me.
Quote from: brokentrail on January 10, 2025, 04:07:14 PMQuote from: Bushcraft on January 10, 2025, 01:37:16 PMOption #3 is a terrible idea for what should be obvious reasons.Option #1 with modifications to appointee review/acceptance is the better approach.Option #1 is do nothing, leave it as-is. How is that the best approach here?Both howls signed by me. One has to take a step back and look at it from a political and legislative lens and do it with the long-play in mind AND what the “other” side ultimately wants.Option #1 - (status quo) This is fine if we ever get majority control of the Commission again. In the meantime, the jackwagons that have sabotaged it over the last couple of years aren't doing themselves any favors by pissing of the hunting, angling, trapping, mining, timber, agriculture and tribal stakeholders. Heck, even some inside of WDFW are growing increasingly weary of some of the Commissioners’ nonsense. As a result, there is more of a grassroots interest in what WDFW and the Commission is doing than ever before. We benefit from this newfound interest and participation! People are finally getting off their butts and are willing to get involved and do something. The current concept of the Commission isn't the problem, per se. It's some of the anti-consumption pro-predator agenda-driven clowns that Inslee appointed that are the problem. Why not simply modify the current appointment process by requiring more of a rigorous background check and ratification process to pre-weed out the problems in advance?Option #2 - (Governor's captive and unaccountable cabinet agency) The pro-predator anti-consumption groups are merely using this as negotiation leverage point that they know is an absolutely untenable non-starter for all consumptive stakeholders, including the tribes.Option #3 - (so-called "reform") This is nothing more than a tricky trap of unintended consequences that was intentionally laid by the anti-hunting and non-consumptive entities that stealthily pushed to get the $300K “study” tucked into the budget at the last minute. Remember, change or reform is only good IF IT IS FOR THE BETTER. Unfortunately, the Democrats currently have a stranglehold in Olympia and they will absolutely have any final say-so when it comes down to the legislative verbiage of whatever the so-called "reform" might be...and guess which stakeholders those Democrat legislators are more likely to listen to when drafting any proposed legislation and/or budgets???I'll give you one guess. It will be convenient and easy for them if they can point to a bunch of data-mining e-mails from hunters and anglers that state they are in favor of “reform”.Option three is a clever trap. Unfortunately, people that desperately want change in the status-quo of the Commission are walking right into it.
My apologies if this has been posted here already. Please sign this if you haven't already to reach key decision makers about our wildlife commission. I personally don't think that dismantling the commission is the right answer. We need to have accountability. Option 3 would be best for everyone in my opinion. If you don't want to sign through Howl.org you can always contact the your state representatives. Which I have done anyways. Keep fighting! https://www.howlforwildlife.org/holdwfwcommissionaccountableTo learn more on the Ruckelshaus Repost read this...https://nwsportsmanmag.com/the-ruckelshaus-report-and-how-it-impacts-you/
Quote from: Bushcraft on January 10, 2025, 07:06:15 PMQuote from: brokentrail on January 10, 2025, 04:07:14 PMQuote from: Bushcraft on January 10, 2025, 01:37:16 PMOption #3 is a terrible idea for what should be obvious reasons.Option #1 with modifications to appointee review/acceptance is the better approach.Option #1 is do nothing, leave it as-is. How is that the best approach here?Both howls signed by me. One has to take a step back and look at it from a political and legislative lens and do it with the long-play in mind AND what the “other” side ultimately wants.Option #1 - (status quo) This is fine if we ever get majority control of the Commission again. In the meantime, the jackwagons that have sabotaged it over the last couple of years aren't doing themselves any favors by pissing of the hunting, angling, trapping, mining, timber, agriculture and tribal stakeholders. Heck, even some inside of WDFW are growing increasingly weary of some of the Commissioners’ nonsense. As a result, there is more of a grassroots interest in what WDFW and the Commission is doing than ever before. We benefit from this newfound interest and participation! People are finally getting off their butts and are willing to get involved and do something. The current concept of the Commission isn't the problem, per se. It's some of the anti-consumption pro-predator agenda-driven clowns that Inslee appointed that are the problem. Why not simply modify the current appointment process by requiring more of a rigorous background check and ratification process to pre-weed out the problems in advance?Option #2 - (Governor's captive and unaccountable cabinet agency) The pro-predator anti-consumption groups are merely using this as negotiation leverage point that they know is an absolutely untenable non-starter for all consumptive stakeholders, including the tribes.Option #3 - (so-called "reform") This is nothing more than a tricky trap of unintended consequences that was intentionally laid by the anti-hunting and non-consumptive entities that stealthily pushed to get the $300K “study” tucked into the budget at the last minute. Remember, change or reform is only good IF IT IS FOR THE BETTER. Unfortunately, the Democrats currently have a stranglehold in Olympia and they will absolutely have any final say-so when it comes down to the legislative verbiage of whatever the so-called "reform" might be...and guess which stakeholders those Democrat legislators are more likely to listen to when drafting any proposed legislation and/or budgets???I'll give you one guess. It will be convenient and easy for them if they can point to a bunch of data-mining e-mails from hunters and anglers that state they are in favor of “reform”.Option three is a clever trap. Unfortunately, people that desperately want change in the status-quo of the Commission are walking right into it. The "reform" laid out in the Ruckleshaus report is not the kind of reform you're thinking it is, but it's a fair trap to fall into.The Ruckleshaus Report's reform recommendation was to create legislative changes around appointment, accountability, process, and governance- not to change the mission or the mandate, the way certain groups would like to see it go.They report essentially said, the status quo is untenable so keep and continuing getting worse, build some siderails, or kick it to the governor.Siderails is what you'd like to see based on your feedback here. Siderails is what we need to ensure make it through the legislature without screwing over hunters.
I sent this letter to the Governor. It is how I see it.Not a bad idea to send letters/e-mails as well as signing the petition plus you can pen a more nuanced response. Governor Ferguson,I am writing concerning recent appointments to the Fish & Wildlife Commission and what the Ruckelshaus Report has termed its disfunction.The Fish & Wildlife Commission functioned just fine for decades. It is not until just the last few years that anyone complained about it. This same model seems to work fine in other States. The only reason our Fish & Wildlife Commission is drawing so much criticism is because of the poor choices made by the last administration. All you need do is watch a few of their meetings to see that some poor choices were made. The appointment of Lyn O’Conner and the reappointment of Tim Ragen are a continuation of these poor choices. O’Conner was appointed without even a notice that there were openings on the Commission. We need to keep the Commission model but incorporate a more open vetting process for Commissioners. The Ruckelshaus report mentioned three fixes, eliminating the Commission, leaving it alone or making changes. If you do away with the Commission and make the Director a cabinet position, you will end up with all the blame from anyone unhappy and believe me there will always be someone unhappy. It seems like no-win situation. Appoint some better Commissioners with a more transparent process and you get all the credit if things get better and not much blame if they don’t improve.Please recall the Commission appointments and restart the process with enough transparency that the public will have a little more confidence in.
I hope you have a better reply to your email to Ferguson than I did. The e mail reply I received back only talked about Trump's agenda and then Fergusons. It had nothing to do with the topic I sent about.
