Proposed Legislation: WDFW Commissioners To Receive Salary

Matt Paluch said:
Our legislators are not paid very well - certainly not rates that would allow them to live comfortably when accounting for cost of living in Washington. https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=43.03.013


Last time I checked, anglers and hunters are a majority on the commission. Please show the "imbalance" you're referring to - as well as how the commission is not reflective of the political body in charge.

MAYBE they didn't listen to you for another reason. I've certainly read enough of your comments to know that there's at least a chance that what you want them to do is either a bad idea or just not possible.
Click to expand...

Read their bios. Some things are obvious. Of course your can't be immune to the obvious and see it though.
 
Matt,

I've had some experiences with the Commission. One positive one, that was Occupy Skagit, where they listened to our evidence to develop a plan to get a federal permit to allow a CNR fishery. Other not so good ones is their decision to allow the Dept. to continue meeting behind closed doors with treaty tribes at North of Falcon meetings in clear violation of the Open Public Meetings Act. An AAG even wrote a legal opinion - that doesn't pass the red face test - supporting that outcome. Others include closing the lower Skokomish River to recreational fishing to appease the Skokomish Tribe even though there is a US federal court decision describing and concluding that the reservation boundary does NOT cross the river. And the decision to close the Stillaguamish River under the guise of Chinook conservation when the real issue is that the Tribe wants the river closed to recreational fishing, depriving anglers of important SRC and steelhead fisheries. Depending on your source, Indians make up less than 2% or 4% of the state's population. The Dept. and Commission allows the tail to wag the dog. There are other examples too of the Dept. through the Commission bites the hand that feeds it. Not great representation IMO.
 
Salmo_g said:
Matt,

I've had some experiences with the Commission. One positive one, that was Occupy Skagit, where they listened to our evidence to develop a plan to get a federal permit to allow a CNR fishery. Other not so good ones is their decision to allow the Dept. to continue meeting behind closed doors with treaty tribes at North of Falcon meetings in clear violation of the Open Public Meetings Act. An AAG even wrote a legal opinion - that doesn't pass the red face test - supporting that outcome. Others include closing the lower Skokomish River to recreational fishing to appease the Skokomish Tribe even though there is a US federal court decision describing and concluding that the reservation boundary does NOT cross the river. And the decision to close the Stillaguamish River under the guise of Chinook conservation when the real issue is that the Tribe wants the river closed to recreational fishing, depriving anglers of important SRC and steelhead fisheries. Depending on your source, Indians make up less than 2% or 4% of the state's population. The Dept. and Commission allows the tail to wag the dog. There are other examples too of the Dept. through the Commission bites the hand that feeds it. Not great representation IMO.
Click to expand...
The tribes are equal co-managers of the state's fisheries through treaties and the Boldt decision. Since the tribes are considered sovereign governments, I believe that the OPMA would not apply - intergovernmental negotiations are not open to the public by law, if I'm remembering correctly. We definitely rely on the tribal permits with the federal government in order for several fisheries to occur, so it's important to work well with the tribes.

One thing I think I can say that is about as simple as fisheries management can get is that we simply need stronger returns of anadromous fish in order to get more opportunities. With enough fish returning, the decisions become much easier. Making that happen is tremendously complicated though.
 
Matt Paluch said:
The tribes are equal co-managers of the state's fisheries through treaties and the Boldt decision. Since the tribes are considered sovereign governments, I believe that the OPMA would not apply - intergovernmental negotiations are not open to the public by law, if I'm remembering correctly. We definitely rely on the tribal permits with the federal government in order for several fisheries to occur, so it's important to work well with the tribes.

One thing I think I can say that is about as simple as fisheries management can get is that we simply need stronger returns of anadromous fish in order to get more opportunities. With enough fish returning, the decisions become much easier. Making that happen is tremendously complicated though.
Click to expand...
I'm fairly well versed in the Stevens treaties, US v WA, and the 1984 state-tribal co-management agreement (I was there). The state relies on a tribal permit in lieu of securing a permit of its own. It's arguable that the current alternative is the only alternative. It's only important for the state and tribes to work well with one another when it's mutually beneficial. To wit: if the Dept. tells one of the tribes how to manage its fishery, the tribe will simply tell the Dept to go pound sand. Yet when a treaty tribe tells the Dept how to manage a non-treaty fishery, the Dept does exactly what the tribe says. There is no legal or biological reason why the Dept can't open recreational fishing seasons on the Skokomish and the Stillaguamish excepting that the respective tribes object to it.

I agree that larger returns of anadromous fish would lead to more opportunities. The agencies and tribes have talked about increasing the size of the pie since the early 1970s. The fact is, the pie has become smaller. In my informed opinion, the size of the pie is far more likely than not to continue to become smaller and not larger going forward. Therefore, to nearly everyone's dismay, fighting over the remaining slices of pie is the reality that managers are charged with, like it or not. That being the case, I dislike paying my representatives to work against my interests instead of for them. To be clear, I'm not complaining about treaty fishing or legal treaty fishing allocations. My complaint is with the state not representing the legal non-treaty fishing interests. If the tribes can tell the state to go pound sand for trying to interfere with treaty fishing management, then the state can do likewise when the tribes attempt to control non-treaty fishing.
 
Matt Paluch said:
Our legislators are not paid very well - certainly not rates that would allow them to live comfortably when accounting for cost of living in Washington. https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=43.03.013


Last time I checked, anglers and hunters are a majority on the commission. Please show the "imbalance" you're referring to - as well as how the commission is not reflective of the political body in charge.

MAYBE they didn't listen to you for another reason. I've certainly read enough of your comments to know that there's at least a chance that what you want them to do is either a bad idea or just not possible.
Click to expand...

They are already using bad ideas... the same bad ideas they've been using for decades...

As for legislators pay. They are getting paid more than they deserve. They need to understand how bad of a job they are doing as well..
 
Matt Paluch said:
Thank you for correcting me, as it is important to have accurate information - and unless they didn't list their fishing and hunting activities for some weird reason, I was wrong.

If we can keep the discussion focused on the issues (and leaving the partisan political talking points out), I think it would be valuable for the community here to post about the various decisions being made by the commission. It would help to have those of us who hunt give their perspective as well. I never started hunting, so this would be a valuable education for me.

@Billy - how do you feel about this? I don't want to step on your toes.
Click to expand...
The current commission is pretty f'ing awful. They are at best anti-hunting. At worst they are animal rights activists. The sad part is that there are a few fisheries type groups who are on-board. It's pretty remarkable.
 
Salmo_g said:
I'm fairly well versed in the Stevens treaties, US v WA, and the 1984 state-tribal co-management agreement (I was there). The state relies on a tribal permit in lieu of securing a permit of its own. It's arguable that the current alternative is the only alternative. It's only important for the state and tribes to work well with one another when it's mutually beneficial. To wit: if the Dept. tells one of the tribes how to manage its fishery, the tribe will simply tell the Dept to go pound sand. Yet when a treaty tribe tells the Dept how to manage a non-treaty fishery, the Dept does exactly what the tribe says. There is no legal or biological reason why the Dept can't open recreational fishing seasons on the Skokomish and the Stillaguamish excepting that the respective tribes object to it.

I agree that larger returns of anadromous fish would lead to more opportunities. The agencies and tribes have talked about increasing the size of the pie since the early 1970s. The fact is, the pie has become smaller. In my informed opinion, the size of the pie is far more likely than not to continue to become smaller and not larger going forward. Therefore, to nearly everyone's dismay, fighting over the remaining slices of pie is the reality that managers are charged with, like it or not. That being the case, I dislike paying my representatives to work against my interests instead of for them. To be clear, I'm not complaining about treaty fishing or legal treaty fishing allocations. My complaint is with the state not representing the legal non-treaty fishing interests. If the tribes can tell the state to go pound sand for trying to interfere with treaty fishing management, then the state can do likewise when the tribes attempt to control non-treaty fishing.
Click to expand...
I'm 100% with you on what you said. I'm also glad to see we're on the same page regarding a dwindling resource. Fighting over the last fish is not something I'm interested in, and I would hope the rest of the stakeholders in our fisheries would stop fighting for who gets to fish right now and work towards everyone getting to fish in the future.

The way we can work for a better future involves a lot of effort by a lot of people. I'm seeing the anger from a lot of different groups, but I'm not seeing enough people willing to sacrifice the time and energy to get involved in a way that actually does something.

So my question is: Are we going to do something, or not? I'm happy to contribute time, money, and effort right now. I've got some pretty decent connections in the legislature and in the conservation community. I'm sure there are plenty of board members here who could add tremendous value. We can be the ones who make a positive impact. The only way we're guaranteed to fail is if we don't try.
 
Feb. 13, 2023
Media contact: Jennifer Becar, 564-669-0850

WDFW seeks public comments on 2023-2024 hunting seasons

OLYMPIA – From Feb. 15 through March 27, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife will accept written public comments on proposed rule changes to regulations for 2023-2024 hunting seasons.

Proposals included in this round of rulemaking include those related to landowner hunting permits, deer and elk special permits; hunting seasons, areas, and permit quotas for moose, bighorn sheep and mountain goat; and hunting seasons and regulations for migratory gamebirds.

"We encourage everyone interested in the upcoming hunting seasons to review the proposed changes and send us your feedback," said Anis Aoude, WDFW Game Division Manager.

The rulemaking proposals and comment submission forms are available on the WDFW website. Comments are accepted beginning Feb. 15. Written comments may also be submitted via postal mail to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife - Wildlife Program, PO Box 43200, Olympia, WA 98504.

WDFW will also accept public comments on the proposed recommendations at a public hearing on March 27. Those interested in providing verbal comments during the virtual meeting should pre-register online. Pre-registration for public comment closes at 8 a.m. on March 26.

WDFW Director Kelly Susewind will issue a decision on the proposed recommendations shortly after the public hearing.

All members of the public are invited to share their perspectives and participate in WDFW public feedback opportunities regardless of race, color, sex, age, national origin, language proficiency, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity and/or expression, status as a veteran, or basis of disability.

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife works to preserve, protect, and perpetuate fish, wildlife, and ecosystems while providing sustainable fish and wildlife recreational and commercial opportunities.
 
It is no secret way the resource pie is getting smaller. Since 1978 the population in Washington has doubled. We are putting more and more pressure on the resource and what it needs to thrive with our needs and at the same time there is more of us competing for access to that resource.

I'm afraid that the spring bear example will become more of the norm. I recall reading some of the material in the discussions leading up to the decision to end spring bear hunting. One that stood out was that of the public comments received 89 of the 90 comments were in favor of ending the season. A number of comments referred to concerns about the killing of sows emerging for their dens with cubs. WDFW info was that 7% of the harvest of bears by hunters happen in that spring season.

Yes, the commissioners (at least not enough) did not fight for that spring season but is that their job? At less the agency advocated for the season but where were the hunters when it counted?

While I have had my share with WDFW and the commission I feel strongly that when it comes to loss of opportunity for the fishers and hunters, we want to look for the villain for those losses we need to start by looking in the mirror!

Curt
 
Matt Paluch said:
The tribes are equal co-managers of the state's fisheries through treaties and the Boldt decision. Since the tribes are considered sovereign governments, I believe that the OPMA would not apply - intergovernmental negotiations are not open to the public by law, if I'm remembering correctly. We definitely rely on the tribal permits with the federal government in order for several fisheries to occur, so it's important to work well with the tribes.

One thing I think I can say that is about as simple as fisheries management can get is that we simply need stronger returns of anadromous fish in order to get more opportunities. With enough fish returning, the decisions become much easier. Making that happen is tremendously complicated though.
Click to expand...

They are only equal on paper.. They are far superior to sport anglers..
They take half of the 100% wild run of steelhead returning to the Wind river, then they dump them at boat ramps to let them rot when they don't want to be bothered finding a buyer.. same with Sturgeon and everything else that swims in the Columbia.

All beside the point but to suggest that there is any type of co-managing going on is ridiculous. The tribes get what they want and everyone else can shove it..

I am all for treaty rights but not tribal supremacy.
 
Smalma said:
It is no secret way the resource pie is getting smaller. Since 1978 the population in Washington has doubled. We are putting more and more pressure on the resource and what it needs to thrive with our needs and at the same time there is more of us competing for access to that resource.

I'm afraid that the spring bear example will become more of the norm. I recall reading some of the material in the discussions leading up to the decision to end spring bear hunting. One that stood out was that of the public comments received 89 of the 90 comments were in favor of ending the season. A number of comments referred to concerns about the killing of sows emerging for their dens with cubs. WDFW info was that 7% of the harvest of bears by hunters happen in that spring season.

Yes, the commissioners (at least not enough) did not fight for that spring season but is that their job? At less the agency advocated for the season but where were the hunters when it counted?

While I have had my share with WDFW and the commission I feel strongly that when it comes to loss of opportunity for the fishers and hunters, we want to look for the villain for those losses we need to start by looking in the mirror!

Curt
Click to expand...
Why do we need to look in the mirrow when we pay a department to MANAGE these resources?

Look at elk hunting in Eastern Washington. I can hunt a spike elk which has next to no success. Or I can hunt a unit which isn't suppose to have elk which has next to no success. Or I can apply for a bull tag each year which I have next to no chance of drawing in my lifetime.

And I'm suppose to look in the mirror?
 
.
Smalma said:
It is no secret way the resource pie is getting smaller. Since 1978 the population in Washington has doubled. We are putting more and more pressure on the resource and what it needs to thrive with our needs and at the same time there is more of us competing for access to that resource.

I'm afraid that the spring bear example will become more of the norm. I recall reading some of the material in the discussions leading up to the decision to end spring bear hunting. One that stood out was that of the public comments received 89 of the 90 comments were in favor of ending the season. A number of comments referred to concerns about the killing of sows emerging for their dens with cubs. WDFW info was that 7% of the harvest of bears by hunters happen in that spring season.

Yes, the commissioners (at least not enough) did not fight for that spring season but is that their job? At less the agency advocated for the season but where were the hunters when it counted?

While I have had my share with WDFW and the commission I feel strongly that when it comes to loss of opportunity for the fishers and hunters, we want to look for the villain for those losses we need to start by looking in the mirror!

Curt
Click to expand...

I think allot of anglers and hunters have lost all faith and confidence in the department and that their input means anything. After decades of attending meetings and watching the department do what they do how they do it, evading public records requests, and continuing a backdoor deal practice at North of Falcon I don't blame them.
 
Dustin Chromers said:
.

I think allot of anglers and hunters have lost all faith and confidence in the department and that their input means anything. After decades of attending meetings and watching the department do what they do how they do it, evading public records requests, and continuing a backdoor deal practice at North of Falcon I don't blame them.
Click to expand...
I know a lot of hunters that take their money out of state now. Which is a shame for our small communities.
 
Billy said:
I know a lot of hunters that take their money out of state now. Which is a shame for our small communities.
Click to expand...

All of my fishing this year and last year has been out of state. I'm not giving them any more money.
 
Billy said:
Why do we need to look in the mirrow when we pay a department to MANAGE these resources?

Look at elk hunting in Eastern Washington. I can hunt a spike elk which has next to no success. Or I can hunt a unit which isn't suppose to have elk which has next to no success. Or I can apply for a bull tag each year which I have next to no chance of drawing in my lifetime.

And I'm suppose to look in the mirror?
Click to expand...
I think it's a collective "we." If we don't show up to meetings, there's always a better chance for the people who do show up to get their way.
 
Matt Paluch said:
I think it's a collective "we." If we don't show up to meetings, there's always a better chance for the people who do show up to get their way.
Click to expand...
I disagree.. the chance of influence is the same no matter how many meetings you go to..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top