SFR Turning up the heat

Sorta fishing-related

Steve_S

Smolt
keep an eye on this group.
wawildlifefirst.org

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is responsible for protecting and preserving the state’s fish and wildlife, which it holds in trust for the benefit of all Washingtonians. But WDFW has lost sight of this core mission. It has become an agency focused on killing fish and wildlife, not preserving them.

State wildlife management is supposedly based on the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. Although that model has significant flaws, its most important tenets are maintaining wildlife in the public trust, allowing killing only for legitimate purposes, promoting ethical hunting, and placing a reliance on science in wildlife management.

flyingeage-300x225.jpg


WDFW ignores science. Time and time again, WDFW’s leadership has misrepresented and ignored hard facts and the best available science, including peer-reviewed papers published by its own scientists and its own internal data. As a result, WDFW routinely authorizes overhunting and overfishing, and takes management actions that jeopardize state fish and wildlife populations—such as the decimation of the state’s cougar population, and the authorization of net pen fish farming in Puget Sound, despite the known danger it poses to endangered wild fish.

WDFW promotes unethical hunting. WDFW refuses to put ethical constraints on hunting; some of its leaders believe there is no such thing. If a species can be hunted, WDFW seems to believe it must be hunted, using any method that has not been outlawed—and even some that have been. For example, Washington voters have outlawed the brutal practice of pursuing wildlife with hounds, but some of WDFW managers openly advocate for that law to be repealed, and WDFW continues to abuse loopholes in the law to allow the barbaric practice to flourish.

WDFW’s first response is to kill animals. Whenever any purported “conflict” arises between humans and wildlife, WDFW’s default response is to kill the animal—or allow it to be killed. WDFW kills carnivores for eating cattle, even when livestock owners have left their animals in public forests without protection. It permits timber companies to kill newly awakened spring bears who are eating tree bark to survive, even though it knows that many of them are nursing mothers. And it sends hound hunters to pursue and kill cougars, even when the only reported “conflict” is the sighting of a cougar.

WDFW has betrayed the public trust. WDFW leadership has forgotten that its first responsibility is to protect and preserve the state’s fish and wildlife. It has sacrificed conservation for the sake of consumption and ecology for the sake of the economy, devasting fish and wildlife populations to cater to the demands of commercial interests, powerful politicians, and tiny factions of the hunting and fishing community.

WDFW is out of step with Washington values. The vast majority of Washingtonians neither hunt nor fish, but value the preservation of the state’s wildlife for its own sake. WDFW leadership openly declares that Washingtonians who do not hunt and fish should have no say in state fish and wildlife policy, even though most of the agency’s funding comes from general taxpayer dollars. It is time to remind WDFW that it serves at the pleasure of all Washingtonians, and that its responsibility is to preserve, not plunder, the state’s fish and wildlife.
 

longputt

Steelhead
I'm going to attempt to steer my thread back to the importance of why I posted it. Let's looks at the mission statement of the commission:

"The Commission establishes policies to preserve, protect, and perpetuate fish, wildlife, and ecosystems while providing sustainable fish and wildlife recreational and commercial opportunities compatible with healthy and diverse fish and wildlife populations. The Commission consists of nine governor-appointed members that serve six-year terms, hold meetings and hearings around the state and offer opportunities for the public to weigh in on fish and wildlife issues."
I have my issues with the Commission and the process, you may recall I posted the WDFW org chart and mission statement on the old website.

I am not tech savvy enough to go find it but, this mission statement does not seem like the one I recall. I wonder when this was last revised?

Susewind does not seem to respond to the Commission at all...he is singularly focused on the Legislature. Watch his videos, I have never heard him acknowledge the Commission. Yet he reports to the Commission (snap shot of WDFW org. chart):

1675521438135.png
 

Salmo_g

Legend
Forum Supporter
Susewind does not seem to respond to the Commission at all...he is singularly focused on the Legislature.
I've attended many Commission meetings. Susewind hangs on every word that a Commissioner speaks, so he isn't ignoring them. He is very focused on the Legislature because that is where the Department's money comes from. BTW, as long as the money keeps flowing into WDFW, the Director and Commissioners can ignore us constituents all they want.
 

Stonedfish

Known Grizzler-hater of triploids, humpies & ND
Forum Supporter
Maybe have two commissions.
One that just strictly deals with fishing and hunting and only people who can prove they actually fish and hunt can have a position on it.

The other one can oversee insect and cloud watching, moss growing, pine cone harvesting, bee petting and banana slug habitat restoration.
SF
 

wanderingrichard

Life of the Party
Politics or being political in the unsoiled dictionary sense is a positive thing. It is necessary to organize a group effort for achieving a common goal. If we want to keep hunting and fishing for decades to come we need to organize a much more effective political presence in Olympia. PNW Fly Fishing has over a thousand members, that is a decent start.
So, you're advocating we, the membership of this site, form our own PAC ?
 

wanderingrichard

Life of the Party
keep an eye on this group.
wawildlifefirst.org

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is responsible for protecting and preserving the state’s fish and wildlife, which it holds in trust for the benefit of all Washingtonians. But WDFW has lost sight of this core mission. It has become an agency focused on killing fish and wildlife, not preserving them.

State wildlife management is supposedly based on the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. Although that model has significant flaws, its most important tenets are maintaining wildlife in the public trust, allowing killing only for legitimate purposes, promoting ethical hunting, and placing a reliance on science in wildlife management.

flyingeage-300x225.jpg


WDFW ignores science. Time and time again, WDFW’s leadership has misrepresented and ignored hard facts and the best available science, including peer-reviewed papers published by its own scientists and its own internal data. As a result, WDFW routinely authorizes overhunting and overfishing, and takes management actions that jeopardize state fish and wildlife populations—such as the decimation of the state’s cougar population, and the authorization of net pen fish farming in Puget Sound, despite the known danger it poses to endangered wild fish.

WDFW promotes unethical hunting. WDFW refuses to put ethical constraints on hunting; some of its leaders believe there is no such thing. If a species can be hunted, WDFW seems to believe it must be hunted, using any method that has not been outlawed—and even some that have been. For example, Washington voters have outlawed the brutal practice of pursuing wildlife with hounds, but some of WDFW managers openly advocate for that law to be repealed, and WDFW continues to abuse loopholes in the law to allow the barbaric practice to flourish.

WDFW’s first response is to kill animals. Whenever any purported “conflict” arises between humans and wildlife, WDFW’s default response is to kill the animal—or allow it to be killed. WDFW kills carnivores for eating cattle, even when livestock owners have left their animals in public forests without protection. It permits timber companies to kill newly awakened spring bears who are eating tree bark to survive, even though it knows that many of them are nursing mothers. And it sends hound hunters to pursue and kill cougars, even when the only reported “conflict” is the sighting of a cougar.

WDFW has betrayed the public trust. WDFW leadership has forgotten that its first responsibility is to protect and preserve the state’s fish and wildlife. It has sacrificed conservation for the sake of consumption and ecology for the sake of the economy, devasting fish and wildlife populations to cater to the demands of commercial interests, powerful politicians, and tiny factions of the hunting and fishing community.

WDFW is out of step with Washington values. The vast majority of Washingtonians neither hunt nor fish, but value the preservation of the state’s wildlife for its own sake. WDFW leadership openly declares that Washingtonians who do not hunt and fish should have no say in state fish and wildlife policy, even though most of the agency’s funding comes from general taxpayer dollars. It is time to remind WDFW that it serves at the pleasure of all Washingtonians, and that its responsibility is to preserve, not plunder, the state’s fish and wildlife.
Oh, great, another anti hunting and fish group claiming to represent us in the name of all washingtonians...
 

longputt

Steelhead
I've attended many Commission meetings. Susewind hangs on every word that a Commissioner speaks, so he isn't ignoring them. He is very focused on the Legislature because that is where the Department's money comes from. BTW, as long as the money keeps flowing into WDFW, the Director and Commissioners can ignore us constituents all they want.
That's encouraging to hear, I've never been to a live meeting with Susewind, but I have hunted with him and I just avoided talking shop while we hunted.
 

Old406Kid

Life of the Party
Forum Supporter
I would definitely add to insurance costs. My balance sucks!
No worries... if you display an " I Catch and Release Wild Trout" license plate frame you'll be banned anyway. :ROFLMAO:
 

Matt Paluch

Steelhead
Forum Supporter
Well full time lobbyists cost money, and usually are paid pretty well.
Write your legislator and express you views without being an ahole, and use spell check too, they get enough misspelled, poorly written screeds from the electorate.

;)
Legislators respond to large numbers, really large numbers, whether those numbers are dollars or votes...I'd guess somewhere in the range of 200k to 300k calls, letters and e-mails to all of the various legislators would bump the issue up a bit, but frankly it is a tough lift, given the more pressing issues these days. 500k would certainly grab some attention, and maybe even get some media attention, which of course is always a double edged sword.
Face it, the average citizen/voter has exactly zero idea wha the Commission does, and is not going to sit down and review the members and their backgrounds to determine their fitness to serve.
We are a small group, notoriously unorganized, lacking funding, and in the grand scheme of things well off the radar for the vast majority.

Just the way it is...
We don't need a full time lobbyist. All it takes to make a difference is a few dedicated people to organize and a reasonably sized group of constituents to be willing to travel to Olympia and speak with their legislators. The trouble comes in when choosing who to speak with legislators. Constituents who are effective can stay on topic, make a clear and reasonable request, and have the discipline to refrain from getting dragged into unrelated areas that do nothing to help achieve your goals. The best people to advocate for what we want also know the philosophies of both parties, and use those to assist their request in both framing your argument and knowing what not to say. You also need to be able to separate your personal feelings about whichever elected official you are meeting with from what your goal is, and your goal must take priority.

A group of 100 people can be surprisingly effective. Even just one person can have a profound effect on a topic like this one (I've had elected officials change their stance twice now). If we want to work on this, I'm happy to help. We would need to have a clear request for who we want to see on the commission first though. Arguing against current commission members without having alternates that we like better could make the situation even worse.
 
Top