Hold WFW Commission Accountable. PLEASE SIGN!

[MADMAX]

Agree
Sportsman and gun owners haven’t had much luck in this fine state
God help us

[actionshooter]

Signed and shared elsewhere... I feel like getting kicked in the teeth is the norm in Washington, but still not ready to give up.

[X-Force]

Signed

[fowl smacker]

Signed

[brokentrail]

Option #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.

 

While I can see your point, ty for that viewpoint/feedback, I am concerned status quo is exactly that.  No changes to current commission actions or appointments.  Which makes me want to 

[Tbar]

Option #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.

 

This is a great summary Bushcraft.  Option 3 is an absolute trap and many are walking right into it.  Remember status quo is in violation of the will of the people in regards to referendum 45 and the merger.  Honoring the intent of the merger and getting balance could happen,  I think inslee even fears this.  Which is why he is getting rid of Linville. I would be interested in talking to HOWL about this because they do excellent work and are well intended.

[Tbar]

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/holdwfwcommissionaccountable

To learn more on the Ruckelshaus Repost read this...

https://nwsportsmanmag.com/the-ruckelshaus-report-and-how-it-impacts-you/

Option 3 will put you in direct alignment with Washington wildlife first.  They were formed to reform the current structure.  They highjacked the bd bill with a very strategic vision around reform.  If you do not have a strong counter to their current playbook I would urge caution with potential reform requests.

[fishngamereaper]

I don't like any of the options really...
With Linville now gone option 1 is a no go IMO.....we will never have the majority...so option 1 is rinse and repeat of the last few years...

[ghosthunter]

Received this reply today.

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Ruckelshaus Report on the Fish and Wildlife Commission and its recommendations to consider.  I have reviewed the Ruckelshaus Report on the Commission as well.  I agree that we cannot let the Department of Fish and Wildlife be back under control of the Governor’s Office, but also believe there are changes that need to be made for it to function better and be accountable to stakeholders and the active management of fish and wildlife in our state.
 
I have had many conversations on this issue.  So far, folks request there be a way to hold the commission accountable when commissioners are acting outside of the mission.  I’ve also heard ideas of structuring a different appointment process.
 
I wouldn’t be surprised if the findings of the Ruckelshaus Report show up during session at some point.
 
Any ideas you and others have would be appreciated as well!  Thanks again for taking the time to share your comments!
 
 
 
Shelly Short
Senate Republican Floor Leader
State Senator
7th Legislative District
 
Legislative Building 409
P.O. Box 40407
Olympia, Washington  98504-0407
(360) 786-7612
 
Sign up for email updates
 
image001.png
Please be aware that any email or documents you provide to this office may be subject to disclosure under RCW 42.56.  If you would prefer to communicate by phone, please contact our offi

[fishngamereaper]

That's a blanket response going to everyone.

[James]

This is the way I see it.

1)   Disaster, worse than what we have been dealing with because now the animal rights activists have a majority vote in the commission.
2)   No public oversite and guys like Inslee and Fergy at the helm, could be worse than 1.
3)   We have a fighting chance, might not be a good one, but it is better than none, which is what options 1 and 2 are.

Option 1 and 2 are complete losses, 3 gives us a fighting chance.

[dwils233]

Option #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.

[MADMAX]

Unfortunately
Better get used to bending over
Damm shame what’s happened here

[Tbar]

Option #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 have little faith in legislative siderails especially coming off this and the bd package as a whole.  Wwf did an end around any moderate work that was put into it once.  What would make you think this wouldn't happen again? They have several champions on the anti side and consumptive users have very few of any with the majority.  I guess there is one but she's often sitting with the minority on these issues.