Inches away from no cougar season

[Dustin Chromers]

Who appointed the commissioners?

The governor we voted for.

 

[Salmo_g]

Were the people of Washington even asked? I get the feeling it’s decided by unelected bureaucrats…

The people of WA aren't asked about dozens, probably hundreds, of decisions made by government. Unelected bureaucrats who are hired and or appointed by the officials that we do elect. It's representative government. If every decision necessary by government were made by elective ballot voting, my guess is that most citizens would become bored shitless from all the administrative decisions necessary to run a government, and they would stop voting, perhaps entirely. Decisions tend to be made by those who show up. In roughly the last 5 years by my observation, interest groups who are not hunting or fishing oriented have been showing up at Commission meetings. There is one wildlife organization whose name I don't recall, that is opposed to wolf control and other hunting that's been making an appearance. I think that sends a strong signal. That may be where this cougar issue is coming from, but I honestly don't know.

And the unelected bureaucrats (WDFW Commissioners) are appointed by the Governor from nominations by the public, often from organizations (interest groups). For many years, the above mentioned Washington State Sportsmen's Council was very active in the nominating process, although I haven't heard much of them lately. Special interests like the Puget Sound Gillnetter's Association and the Puget Sound Purse Seine Vessel Association have been pretty active - they don't have much money to lobby, but they are backed by the seafood processors, who seem to have enough. Treaty tribes have begun lobbying the Governor for Commission nominations, apparently. And then there are those (non-special) interests like TU and the Wild Steelhead Coalition and other groups that Rob Allen probably agrees with.

 

[Salmo_g]

There are commissioners who don't "believe" hunting should be allowed under any circumstance. That's fine...but that's a decision that should be decided by voters. How to manage hunting should be decided by people who, at a minimum, accept hunting as an allowable activity.

I don't know if any Commissioners, past or present, don't believe hunting should be allowed. And while you may think that is a decision to be made by voters, we have enacted a system giving the Commission this authority. I think you have a valid point that, given the responsibilities of the Department, anyone appointed to the Commission needs to be comfortable with hunting and fishing, including commercial fishing, along with conservation, because these are all specifically listed in the WDFW enabling legislation, Rob Allen's opinion notwithstanding.

 

[Salmo_g]

Had the founding fathers known what idiocy we'd get up to there'd be a lot more rights listed..

On this we agree. Supposedly the 9th Amendment includes the numerous rights not specifically listed, but government, including SCOTUS, has determined that we only have the rights that are specifically enumerated or otherwise declared. Heck, even the 4th Amendment has been significantly abrogated by the Patriot Act and upheld by SCOTUS, so there you have it. UP THE REVOLUTION!!?!

 

[Mossback]

"I think only those who agree with me should have a voice in wildlife matters...others who do not agree with me are stupid, evil, and should not have a voice in wildlife matters."

The Constitution says so !!!

Got some Cougar jerky from a friend a few years ago, it was pretty good stuff.

 

[Coach Potter]

Who appointed the commissioners?

I believe it’s the Governor.

 

[Driftless Dan]

I disagree fundamentally and I believe the constitution does too. American's have hunted and fished since we first got here for both spirt and subsistence it is an absolute right. The constitution does not list our rights it lists limitations on government.

In fact, a right IS a limitation. The rights of the people are inherently a limitation on government.

Had the founding fathers known what idiocy we'd get up to there'd be a lot more rights listed..

You have no idea if that's true; you simply made it up.

Living in a dualistic society.. those stupid, yes I do mean stupid animal rights folks ought to remember that.

When you resort to ad hominem attacks, you lose any little credibility you have. What you OUGHT to remember is those folks vote. When they vote in a way you don't like, that's not the fault of government.

when biologists say "hey, we gotta stop hunting cougars or the population will crash" then, I'll be opposed to cougar Hunting.
I think trapping is horrible however I have absolutely no right whatsoever to tell people not to trap or to try to use government to end trapping. NONE.

The voters DO.

Activists are right down there with lawyers and despots.
We have another generation that thinks they need to change the world for the better.. two things about that.

1. They almost always make the world worse.
2. The very concept is tyrannical in nature..
Leave the world alone...

 

[Driftless Dan]

The people of WA aren't asked about dozens, probably hundreds, of decisions made by government. Unelected bureaucrats who are hired and or appointed by the officials that we do elect. It's representative government. If every decision necessary by government were made by elective ballot voting, my guess is that most citizens would become bored shitless from all the administrative decisions necessary to run a government, and they would stop voting, perhaps entirely. Decisions tend to be made by those who show up. In roughly the last 5 years by my observation, interest groups who are not hunting or fishing oriented have been showing up at Commission meetings. There is one wildlife organization whose name I don't recall, that is opposed to wolf control and other hunting that's been making an appearance. I think that sends a strong signal. That may be where this cougar issue is coming from, but I honestly don't know.

And the unelected bureaucrats (WDFW Commissioners) are appointed by the Governor from nominations by the public, often from organizations (interest groups). For many years, the above mentioned Washington State Sportsmen's Council was very active in the nominating process, although I haven't heard much of them lately. Special interests like the Puget Sound Gillnetter's Association and the Puget Sound Purse Seine Vessel Association have been pretty active - they don't have much money to lobby, but they are backed by the seafood processors, who seem to have enough. Treaty tribes have begun lobbying the Governor for Commission nominations, apparently. And then there are those (non-special) interests like TU and the Wild Steelhead Coalition and other groups that Rob Allen probably agrees with.

I agree; saying "I get the feeling" that these are unelected bureaucrats is worthless, but certain elements of American society like to place blanket blame on the bureaucracy that helps our nation make it day to day.

 

[Coach Potter]

I don't know if any Commissioners, past or present, don't believe hunting should be allowed. And while you may think that is a decision to be made by voters, we have enacted a system giving the Commission this authority. I think you have a valid point that, given the responsibilities of the Department, anyone appointed to the Commission needs to be comfortable with hunting and fishing, including commercial fishing, along with conservation, because these are all specifically listed in the WDFW enabling legislation, Rob Allen's opinion notwithstanding.

I will see if I can find the statements of the 2 commissioners I am referring to.

 

[Flymph]

Anyone who uses the government as a tool to accomplish a political agenda is bad.
Our government's exist to protect individuals against the will of the people. Yes, you heard that right.

In this situation it is wrong for animal rights idiots to use undue power to effect hunting regulations. They do not care about how that affects people or wildlife. Yes, that makes them bad people.

Animal rights idiots! By the very nature of coming to this forum makes you an animal rights "idiot". Every person on this forum seeks to preserve clean, cold, water habitats because for some reason steelhead can't vote for themselves.

I think you mean predator rights activists which I am one of those proud idiots.

 

[Chadk]

Animal rights idiots! By the very nature of coming to this forum makes you an animal rights "idiot". Every person on this forum seeks to preserve clean, cold, water habitats because for some reason steelhead can't vote for themselves.

I think you mean predator rights activists which I am one of those proud idiots.

Refreshing honesty and self-awareness. Love it.

 

[Rob Allen]

Animal rights idiots! By the very nature of coming to this forum makes you an animal rights "idiot". Every person on this forum seeks to preserve clean, cold, water habitats because for some reason steelhead can't vote for themselves.

I think you mean predator rights activists which I am one of those proud idiots.

Ok. I guess we'll never see eye to eye.
Hunting cougars is a good and wholesome activity and important biologically and ecologically. Not hunting cougars is biologically and ecologically bad. Done with this debate.

 

[Roper]

Someone define cougars…

 

[Flymph]

Ok. I guess we'll never see eye to eye.
Hunting cougars is a good and wholesome activity and important biologically and ecologically. Not hunting cougars is biologically and ecologically bad. Done with this debate.

You're responding to my post? It seems more like you are responding to yourself because nothing you said relates to my post.

 

[Zak]

Someone define cougars…

I believe they are a type of Western catamount.

 

[Roper]

I believe they are a type of Western catamount.

You took my question too seriously, think two legged…

 

[Dustin Chromers]

I don't know if any Commissioners, past or present, don't believe hunting should be allowed. And while you may think that is a decision to be made by voters, we have enacted a system giving the Commission this authority. I think you have a valid point that, given the responsibilities of the Department, anyone appointed to the Commission needs to be comfortable with hunting and fishing, including commercial fishing, along with conservation, because these are all specifically listed in the WDFW enabling legislation, Rob Allen's opinion notwithstanding.

The commission system would likely work if it was more balanced. The original idea was that people with diverse interests in wildlife would be on the commission. This would include sporting people and folks who simply like to birdwatch or photograph wildlife. It was not really intended to be a seat where activists can wield power unchecked or be heavily weighted any given direction. Honestly, it's a cautionary tale for having any group that is lock step leaning any one way in essentially total power. This is why I generally like a gridlock legislator. This way they are busy fighting themselves instead of efficiently screwing shit up for the rest of us.

 

[Dustin Chromers]

Animal rights idiots! By the very nature of coming to this forum makes you an animal rights "idiot". Every person on this forum seeks to preserve clean, cold, water habitats because for some reason steelhead can't vote for themselves.

I think you mean predator rights activists which I am one of those proud idiots.

I'm shocked. I pictured you in your home sitting in a trophy room with the rich smell of leather and pipe smoke in the air regaling folks with stories about your myriad trophies adorning you study.

 

[charles sullivan]

I appreciate people who are active in out democracy. I appreciate "activists" be they people who peacefully protest or those who speak at commission meetings/ city council meetingxssetc. Even the ones that are looney tunes get my respect for showing up and participating in society and our governance. Activists are those people who are active in our form of governance. Great for them!

As to the present make up of the commission, I have contacted my local rep's. Has anyone else? I contacted Rule and Shoemake. They know how at least one constituents feels. They responded quickly to my e-mails and we had some give and take. Does that make me an activist? No, I'm not that good. I just wrote some e-mails. It may be wise for anyone here to write some e-mails. Those who view the situation differently definitely are.

I will put on my "to do" list to follow up with my rep's (Shoemake is the one on the wildlife committee). Follow ups are always a great idea. I have a few other items that I'd like her to think about too.

 

[Driftless Dan]

I appreciate people who are active in out democracy. I appreciate "activists" be they people who peacefully protest or those who speak at commission meetings/ city council meetingxssetc. Even the ones that are looney tunes get my respect for showing up and participating in society and our governance. Activists are those people who are active in our form of governance. Great for them!

As to the present make up of the commission, I have contacted my local rep's. Has anyone else? I contacted Rule and Shoemake. They know how at least one constituents feels. They responded quickly to my e-mails and we had some give and take. Does that make me an activist? No, I'm not that good. I just wrote some e-mails. It may be wise for anyone here to write some e-mails. Those who view the situation differently definitely are.

I will put on my "to do" list to follow up with my rep's (Shoemake is the one on the wildlife committee). Follow ups are always a great idea. I have a few other items that I'd like her to think about too.

Charles has gotten to the point: PARTICIPATE in your democracy if you don't like the way it's going. Or even if you DO like it. Contact your representatives, the governor, and get your friends to do the same, to say, "I support hunting," or, "I think hunting should be banned," or anything in between.

I do that over here in Chicagoland; I am actually an elected official, a precinct committeeman. I write letters to my congressman and my two senators about national issues, and my local rep and senator for state issues (these two now know me by first name). I go to my village board meetings, often one of three or four members of the public. We got the village police to NOT spend $100K on SWAT gear that this upper-class suburb of 4500 people do not need. Just 3 or 4 of us, attending 4 or 5 meetings.