What were dealing with in WA

[wa_archer]

Draft report calls Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission 'dysfunctional'

Observers of the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission see it as a body hampered by polarization, dysfunction and conflict, according to a draft report produced by the William D. Ruckelshaus Center.

www.spokesman.com

Great article on the recent study coming out regarding the problems with mainly our fish and wildlife commission in Wa State. The study found they are dysfunctional which is the least that can be said. There is so much fighting over agenda of anti-hunting its not funny.

Gofigure the advocacy director of Washington Wildlife first, dont le the name fool you they are anti-hunting and the biggest pushers of turing washington into a preservationist state. He is qouted as saying he is disapointed in th ereport that says that animal rights groups have an outsized influence on the commission. Thats because they do and they let them talk more than others by flooding the commission with out of state over the phone and webs speaking times.

Personally as one helping the fight on this, I find this article and research a huge step forward. As someone that grew up in WA you never had to worry about the commission because they were always on the side of managing for hunting and fishing. They had your back as a sportsman. Then within the last 5 years they have absolutely turned 180 degrees and we have to be at every meeting fighting to keep things like bear and cougar hunting alive. This is the same commission that did away with spring bear even with all the WDFW scientists saying that if anything the number of permits should have been increased.

Give it a read and watch out in your state its a widespread process being inacted to take your hunting priveldges away by those who only want you to agree with their way of thinking.

 

[SAJ-99]

To take it a step further, Bob Ferguson takes the Governor office on Jan 15. Washington residents particularly should email him today and reference this study. Respectfully and politely ask for some changes.

Email
[email protected] This one kicked back undeliverable. If anyone has a better email please post.
[email protected]

 

[Irrelevant]

To take it a step further, Bob Ferguson takes the Governor office on Jan 15. Washington residents particularly should email him today and reference this study. Respectfully and politely ask for some changes.

Email
[email protected]
[email protected]

I've read the draft report. It's well done. But don't just ask for change. Not all change is created equal.

In terms of Governance, the three options are to maintain the status quo, make it a cabinet position, or address the issues with the Commission.

If it becomes a cabinet position then hunters are hosed. It'll just be deer and elk and predator kills will be deducted from our quotas.

They caution Option 3 will take a significant amount of political will, and they insinuate it likely isn't there.

 

[SAJ-99]

I've read the draft report. It's well done. But don't just ask for change. Not all change is created equal.

In terms of Governance, the three options are to maintain the status quo, make it a cabinet position, or address the issues with the Commission.

If it becomes a cabinet position then hunters are hosed. It'll just be deer and elk and predator kills will be deducted from our quotas.

They caution Option 3 will take a significant amount of political will, and they insinuate it likely isn't there.

Understand. I also noticed that doing nothing was not an option. You have to speak to be heard. And people better speak because there are a handful of Commissioners with expiring terms at the end of the year, so it can get worse. But I would argue that you build more political capital moving toward the middle than catering to the extremes. That theory has yet to be tested.

 

[Archer86]

Your new governor which is no better then inslee is on the opposite extreme not good for sportsman at all unfortunately washington is in a bad place if your a sportsman

 

[bayoublaster7527]

Good report. The blame in states like WA and CO falls on the Governors who have virtually unchecked power to appoint whoever they like. Most state Senators are unwilling to go to blows with a sitting Governor over a wildlife commission appointment if they are from the same party, which the majority likely are. Anti-hunting groups have significant influence with Inslee in WA and Polis in CO. Reforming the commission is tricky as it could make things better….. or make things worse. Based on the makeup of the Washington state government, it likely won’t be better for hunters and anglers, but who knows politics can surprise you. Especially if enough grassroots folks organize. I hate to say it but hunters can no longer afford to sit on the sidelines in states like WA, CO, AZ, and NM where these groups have set up shop with full time employees. This should come as a warning to hunters in other western states. Washington Wildlife First is basically a franchise of the anti-hunting group Wildlife For All, with the goal of eliminating the NAM and rewriting state wildlife management to exclude hunting and fishing. If your state has a major urban/metropolitan center they will likely set up there soon.

 

[SAJ-99]

Good report. The blame in states like WA and CO falls on the Governors who have virtually unchecked power to appoint whoever they like. Most state Senators are unwilling to go to blows with a sitting Governor over a wildlife commission appointment if they are from the same party, which the majority likely are. Anti-hunting groups have significant influence with Inslee in WA and Polis in CO. Reforming the commission is tricky as it could make things better….. or make things worse. Based on the makeup of the Washington state government, it likely won’t be better for hunters and anglers, but who knows politics can surprise you. Especially if enough grassroots folks organize. I hate to say it but hunters can no longer afford to sit on the sidelines in states like WA, CO, AZ, and NM where these groups have set up shop with full time employees. This should come as a warning to hunters in other western states. Washington Wildlife First is basically a franchise of the anti-hunting group Wildlife For All, with the goal of eliminating the NAM and rewriting state wildlife management to exclude hunting and fishing. If your state has a major urban/metropolitan center they will likely set up there soon.

Any interesting theory on how some ragtag group like Washington Wildlife First has more sway than the 200,000+ hunters in the state?

 

[bayoublaster7527]

Any interesting theory on how some ragtag group like Washington Wildlife First has more sway than the 200,000+ hunters in the state?

Great question. I am by no means an expert on wildlife issues in WA but I do try to stay abreast of things as I believe what is happening to WA hunters foretells what could happen to hunters in any western state with a major urban population center. I believe we need to support each other, even across state lines. I wouldn’t necessarily say they are a ragtag group but like you I seriously doubt their membership outnumbers 200k in state hunters. I suspect they have some wealthy donors around Seattle area, likely have some support and connection back to Wildlife For All, the national organization. Also they clearly had significant influence with Gov Inslee as they convinced him to appoint quite a few openly anti-hunting commissioners, basically creating an anti-hunting voting bloc on the commission (also contributing to the aforementioned dysfunction). One theory would be that groups like Washington Wildlife First have full-time employees who work on this everyday, lobbying state reps and the governor’s office. Folks who are paid to go to work everyday and make progress on eliminating hunting. Sam Miller (recent campaign director for CATS/Prop 127 in CO) openly brags about her success leading Washington Wildlife First to end the spring bear hunt and install multiple anti-hunting commissioners. She is definitely not a volunteer. In places like this hunters are definitely going to need full time employees working at the state government level. I know many hunting organizations are making strides toward this goal recently. One of the success stories of CRWM and Prop 127 in CO was that they start organizing well before the petition ever dropped.

 

[SAJ-99]

Great question. I am by no means an expert on wildlife issues in WA but I do try to stay abreast of things as I believe what is happening to WA hunters foretells what could happen to hunters in any western state with a major urban population center. I believe we need to support each other, even across state lines. I wouldn’t necessarily say they are a ragtag group but like you I seriously doubt their membership outnumbers 200k in state hunters. I suspect they have some wealthy donors around Seattle area, likely have some support and connection back to Wildlife For All, the national organization. Also they clearly had significant influence with Gov Inslee as they convinced him to appoint quite a few openly anti-hunting commissioners, basically creating an anti-hunting voting bloc on the commission (also contributing to the aforementioned dysfunction). One theory would be that groups like Washington Wildlife First have full-time employees who work on this everyday, lobbying state reps and the governor’s office. Folks who are paid to go to work everyday and make progress on eliminating hunting. Sam Miller (recent campaign director for CATS/Prop 127 in CO) openly brags about her success leading Washington Wildlife First to end the spring bear hunt and install multiple anti-hunting commissioners. She is definitely not a volunteer. In places like this hunters are definitely going to need full time employees working at the state government level. I know many hunting organizations are making strides toward this goal recently. One of the success stories of CRWM and Prop 127 in CO was that they start organizing well before the petition ever dropped.

So they are more organized and more well-funded than hunters? Hard to dispute but it is certainly a generalized assumption. What are the solutions? You made a comment that "politics can surprise you". I don't think politics should ever surprise. People remaining unengaged leads to attacks on the NAM or anti-vax people in charge of public health. Different sides of the same coin. We get the government we deserve. All I ask is for hunters to send an email and let politicians know they are there and paying attention.

 

[Irrelevant]

So they are more organized and more well-funded than hunters? Hard to dispute but it is certainly a generalized assumption. What are the solutions? You made a comment that "politics can surprise you". I don't think politics should ever surprise. People remaining unengaged leads to attacks on the NAM or anti-vax people in charge of public health. Different sides of the same coin. We get the government we deserve. All I ask is for hunters to send an email and let politicians know they are there and paying attention.

all 200k hunters in WA, can't change who runs our state, from the Governor's office to either state legislative body.

I'd say, we don't actually get the gov't we deserve, we get the gov't that the majority says we deserve.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

So they are more organized and more well-funded than hunters? Hard to dispute but it is certainly a generalized assumption. What are the solutions? You made a comment that "politics can surprise you". I don't think politics should ever surprise. People remaining unengaged leads to attacks on the NAM or anti-vax people in charge of public health. Different sides of the same coin. We get the government we deserve. All I ask is for hunters to send an email and let politicians know they are there and paying attention.

Absolutely agree. If every hunter in a state sent emails to every state Senator it would have a huge effect. That is why HOWL has been such a game changer for hunters in states like WA, CO, AZ, etc. At the same time, I believe it will likely take more than just emails to win this fight. For example, in CO hunters pounded the email inboxes and phone lines of state Senators to protest the appointment of anti-hunting activist Jess Beaulieu to the wildlife commission. In the end Gov Polis’ henchmen at DNR, Dan Gibbs and Tim Mauck, were able to bully just enough Dem Senators into not breaking ranks and her confirmation narrowly passed by 2 votes.

Hard to say if they are more well-funded or more well organized than hunters as I am not super familiar with WA state orgs. I would say with some confidence that Washington Wildlife First and the other anti-hunting orgs are well-funded and well-organized. I think one of the important points is that these groups are out there applying pressure everyday at the state level through their paid lobbyists and campaign managers. As hunters we rely heavily on volunteers and surge support/action. That being said, I believe this is starting to change as hunters get better organized in states like Colorado. We aren’t where we need to be, but we are definitely getting better in many places.

 

[SAJ-99]

all 200k hunters in WA, can't change who runs our state, from the Governor's office to either state legislative body.

I'd say, we don't actually get the gov't we deserve, we get the gov't that the majority says we deserve.

Maybe. But it can't hurt. I would counter that the vast majority of Washington residents support legal hunting and fishing. Somehow a group of far less than 200k has had a disproportionate impact on the appointment of commissioners. Most of the responses seem to be resigned to the situation getting worse. There is minimal effort required to writing a message and sending an email.

That is why HOWL has been such a game changer for hunters in states like WA, CO, AZ, etc. At the same time, I believe it will likely take more than just emails to win this fight.

The core reason is hunters are disorganized and don't have the will power to do anything other than complain on the internet. And I will repeat, 3 commissioners have terms that expire at the end of the year and new appointments will be made. Where is the contact initiative from @HOWL for Wildlife? You want to make progress, we first have to stop the losses. When those appointments are made, hunters don't even have a voice in the room. HOWL didn't change the game. They are playing the same game of trying to put out fires after they are established. That is good for fundraising and the win rate but is exhausting. I would like to think HOWL is limited by funds, because hunters are a cheap group, too. Messaging is bad when it comes from hunters alone. The NAM should have solid backing from a lot of wildlife organizations.

Here is WWF annual statement from the website. Compare that to the money poured into fighting the CO Cat fight. The larger opponent is certainly the CBD and its lawyers.

 

[Irrelevant]

Maybe. But it can't hurt. I would counter that the vast majority of Washington residents support legal hunting and fishing. Somehow a group of far less than 200k has had a disproportionate impact on the appointment of commissioners. Most of the responses seem to be resigned to the situation getting worse. There is minimal effort required to writing a message and sending an email.

I'm never going to get my sister, someone who's never had a hunting or fishing license, yet is supportive of it, to send an email.

I'm coming around to the idea that I've been grossly underestimating how little my (our) voice matters in this state. Hunters get lumped in with Trumpers, which means we're crazy and should be ignored. You can try to paint it differently, but when it comes down to brass tacks that's just the way it's ran here in WA. And unless we somehow get flip the script and convince enough moderates that we're stick of idiocracy, we're stuck dealing with the fallout that we have almost zero political say in our own state.

 

[SAJ-99]

I'm never going to get my sister, someone who's never had a hunting or fishing license, yet is supportive of it, to send an email.

I'm not asking your sister to do it. I just want YOU to send an email. It shouldn't be hard to attach the study run from the two major public universities and say the conclusion is concerning. Simply say you would like to see the issues addressed and ask that commissioners be appointed that support the NAM, which has been a success to conservation of game and non-game animals for over 100yrs. The commissioners should also support the stated role of Wash F&W and the commission itself. It should be an easy way for a new Governor to build political capital in moderates.

I'm almost regretting even bringing it up at this point.

 

[TheJason]

I think some people are losing sight of the fact Inslee appointed these commissioners with a distinct purpose and it didn’t matter how much you or I or anyone else law complained and/or commented. There was a definite agenda.

Moving forward, engagement is crucial. But I think it’s important to remember it wasn’t that long ago we had a very functional commission.

 

[SAJ-99]

I think some people are losing sight of the fact Inslee appointed these commissioners with a distinct purpose and it didn’t matter how much you or I or anyone else law complained and/or commented. There was a definite agenda.

Moving forward, engagement is crucial. But I think it’s important to remember it wasn’t that long ago we had a very functional commission.

Agree. I get why people are dejected by the whole process. But this report gives support to calls for change. It was conducted by a legitimate group and the conclusions were damning. It is the type of report some will hope just disappears quietly. There is a window of opportunity. I hope people take it.

 

[jryoung]

Moving forward, engagement is crucial. But I think it’s important to remember it wasn’t that long ago we had a very functional commission.

Keep engaging, and keep shining a light on these issues. This statement hit home, because either way a good or bad Commission can be flipped with the winds.

Not to derail, but in California our Commission right now is the best I have ever seen it since getting involved over 15 years ago....3 of the 5 Commissioners were appointed by Newsom, two of which (Zavaleta and Murray) seem to be our most pragmatic, thoughtful Commissioners. I fully recognize that this could change for the worse in a heartbeat, or the serial litigant groups can move to the Legislature to enact rules, but hopefully for Washington it can get better.


Commissioner Murray @ 7:27 mark discussing the HSUS bear ban petition.

Commissioner Zavaleta on a multitude of MPA (Marine Protection Act) petitions in front of the Commission.

 

[TheJason]

Keep engaging, and keep shining a light on these issues. This statement hit home, because either way a good or bad Commission can be flipped with the winds.

Absolutely. There is distinct irony in the fact that one of Inslee’s best commissioner picks ever is also one of the most vocal critics of the current commission. An Audubon birder became one of the best commissioners I’ve ever seen.

 

[TOGIE]

I'm coming around to the idea that I've been grossly underestimating how little my (our) voice matters in this state. Hunters get lumped in with Trumpers, which means we're crazy and should be ignored. You can try to paint it differently, but when it comes down to brass tacks that's just the way it's ran here in WA. And unless we somehow get flip the script and convince enough moderates that we're stick of idiocracy, we're stuck dealing with the fallout that we have almost zero political say in our own state.

I think the crux of the matter is our voice barely matters in any state. Status quo works very well to our advantage. But that status quo is more delicate that anyone wants to admit - the equilibrium in our favor as hunters is sneakily tenuous across the board IMO.

Like has been said, hunters are just never gonna decide a gubernatorial election and wildlife commissions are such an easy and effective way of balancing political capital for whoever wins. The majority of citizens will never a give a crap about how that stuff plays out if they are even aware, so the governors will do what they do without concern. So, the right candidate comes along and pleases the majority of his state and happens to have the ear of a certain group could quickly spell the beginning of the end for any state. I think it's that tenuos.

So, we will be steamrolled, if only slowly. The only real wall we have built around the hunting community, and it's a strong one, is how we fund the whole system with license dollars and how those license sales generate PR income. It's a very tall and fortified wall, maybe even with a moat. But the castle will eventually crumble with enough time and enough volleys.

Privatization issues and billionaire handouts in wyoming and montana are the other version of the same thing - hunters getting hosed because their voice, in fact, doesn't matter..