Proposed Legislation: WDFW Commissioners To Receive Salary

[Matt Paluch]

I wonder how many innumerable line items that gets said about?

It gets said, but you have to remember that over half the state budget is spent on education due to our state constitution declaring basic education must be fully funded. This stuff doesn't have to be a mystery to anyone. The budget is public, and you can look through it whenever you want. I don't think there's anyone out there who agrees with everything in the budget, but it does work the way democracy allows it to.

 

[Rob Allen]

State revenue has been consistently beating expectations by a significant margin over the past several years. The state has plenty of money for salaries of commissioners.

That's not the point.. they are doing a shitty job and should be fired not paid..

 

[Dustin Chromers]

It gets said, but you have to remember that over half the state budget is spent on education due to our state constitution declaring basic education must be fully funded. This stuff doesn't have to be a mystery to anyone. The budget is public, and you can look through it whenever you want. I don't think there's anyone out there who agrees with everything in the budget, but it does work the way democracy allows it to.

I'm not mystified by the budget hence my critique of it.

 

[Matt Paluch]

That's not the point.. they are doing a shitty job and should be fired not paid..

Most people only learn about the controversial decisions, and base their opinions on those items alone. There have been, and there always will be, decisions by the commission that many people in the fishing and hunting communities don't agree with - but that's part of democracy. If you think you can do better, you should work on getting appointed - or even do the bare minimum by learning all of the decisions the commission is making so you have a better idea of the entire scope of their work.

I do want to make it clear that I'm not defending the commission here. I do have a problem with blanket statements like "they are doing a shitty job," that don't go into more detail. I've experienced these types of comments and accusations while serving on a volunteer board, and they always came from people who developed opinions prior to learning the facts. Attacks don't change anything. Respectful debate can change things. You don't have to vilify the people making decisions when you argue against those decisions. In fact, vilifying people often has a more negative impact on yourself than it does on them.

 

[Shad]

Most people only learn about the controversial decisions, and base their opinions on those items alone. There have been, and there always will be, decisions by the commission that many people in the fishing and hunting communities don't agree with - but that's part of democracy. If you think you can do better, you should work on getting appointed - or even do the bare minimum by learning all of the decisions the commission is making so you have a better idea of the entire scope of their work.

I do want to make it clear that I'm not defending the commission here. I do have a problem with blanket statements like "they are doing a shitty job," that don't go into more detail. I've experienced these types of comments and accusations while serving on a volunteer board, and they always came from people who developed opinions prior to learning the facts. Attacks don't change anything. Respectful debate can change things. You don't have to vilify the people making decisions when you argue against those decisions. In fact, vilifying people often has a more negative impact on yourself than it does on them.

Of course, this is true. I have acquaintances in just about every fisheries stakeholder group, and I find the majority of them to be decent people, even if their agendas are often motivated differently than mine. If we don't like the way the decisions are coming down, we should encourage our leaders to appoint someone else (best we can do); villifying those making the decisions you don't agree with only breeds more resistance to what you hope to achieve. Must admit it still feels good sometimes LOL...

 

[Rob Allen]

Most people only learn about the controversial decisions, and base their opinions on those items alone. There have been, and there always will be, decisions by the commission that many people in the fishing and hunting communities don't agree with - but that's part of democracy. If you think you can do better, you should work on getting appointed - or even do the bare minimum by learning all of the decisions the commission is making so you have a better idea of the entire scope of their work.

I do want to make it clear that I'm not defending the commission here. I do have a problem with blanket statements like "they are doing a shitty job," that don't go into more detail. I've experienced these types of comments and accusations while serving on a volunteer board, and they always came from people who developed opinions prior to learning the facts. Attacks don't change anything. Respectful debate can change things. You don't have to vilify the people making decisions when you argue against those decisions. In fact, vilifying people often has a more negative impact on yourself than it does on them.

The commission and the department have not been respectful to hunters and Anglers.

Until they do that they deserve no respect from hunters and Anglers but they do deserve the blanket statements.

Common sense and respectful debate has never swayed WDFW at least not in my dealings with them. Near as I can tell they are not open to public opinions of hunters and Anglers.
Of course I've had no dealings with them for about 10 years. At that time I dealt with region 5. At that time there were three people worth dealing with, all were biologists, none were managers.
A group I was once involved with had a couple meetings with one of the commissioners trying to influence him.
He made it clear he became a commissioner only to ensure gill netting on the lower Columbia...
Flies ignore honey.. you have to swat them and we swat them with the truth..
The truth is their only strategy is to throw hunters and Anglers under the bus.
They are an adversary..

 

[Matt Paluch]

The commission and the department have not been respectful to hunters and Anglers.

Until they do that they deserve no respect from hunters and Anglers but they do deserve the blanket statements.

Common sense and respectful debate has never swayed WDFW at least not in my dealings with them. Near as I can tell they are not open to public opinions of hunters and Anglers.
Of course I've had no dealings with them for about 10 years. At that time I dealt with region 5. At that time there were three people worth dealing with, all were biologists, none were managers.
A group I was once involved with had a couple meetings with one of the commissioners trying to influence him.
He made it clear he became a commissioner only to ensure gill netting on the lower Columbia...
Flies ignore honey.. you have to swat them and we swat them with the truth..
The truth is their only strategy is to throw hunters and Anglers under the bus.
They are an adversary..

It's like you don't even hear what other people say.

 

[Rob Allen]

It's like you don't even hear what other people say.

That is exactly how I feel about WDFW and the commission. They have never listened to a word I said. Except of course the region 5 biologists I previously mentioned.

 

[Scottybs]

They lost me at “inclusive,” political buzzword. I love the fact that there is no mention of the salary rate in the article.

 

[Bruce Baker]

They lost me at “inclusive,” political buzzword. I love the fact that there is no mention of the salary rate in the article.

I don't think a salary has been set or proposed. The bill states that the salary will be determined by the citizen's commissionon salaries for elected officials.

 

[Shad]

I don't think a salary has been set or proposed. The bill states that the salary will be determined by the citizen's commissionon salaries for elected officials.

Uh-oh. That's the same, mysterious body that somehow grants legislators a raise every biennium, regardless of performance or the state's budget. It's kind of the ultimate gravy train in WA State government.

If they are to be paid, it should be something less than a typical, full-time commissioner's salary, because while it is certainly a job, it's not a full-time job.

 

[Mossback]

They have never listened to a word I said.

Wonder why ?

 

[Rob Allen]

Wonder why ?

Because they are partisans and their decisions are already made up at least that is what their actions say.. their words matter much less.

 

[Dustin Chromers]

It's like you don't even hear what other people say.

Neither does Washington governance. Remember the thirty dollar tabs? Voted on and not adhered to. Why? Some quote from Ferguson about Washington voters being too stupid to know what they were voting on comes to mind. Bottom line is an appointed by governor position will get you allot of one thing without much balance. I'm all for non hunting and fishing stakeholders to have a position on the commission. I believe that not only anglers and hunters have a vested interest in the existence of wild steelhead, healthy salmon runs, and generally healthy wildlife populations. However, some balance to have anglers and hunters represented as well is in order. They are a stakeholder that pays fees etc for license and other. A read through of the bio in almost every case of the commission members gives me clear messages that they simply do not share the same interests as me or likely 90% of the hunting and sport angling public. I don't believe I'm radical or alone in that feeling. The WDFW doesn't have the same mission goals as they once did and the commission reflects that shift. I don't want a WDFW or commission that is essentially reflective of the political body in charge. It should mirror the desires of the angling, hunting, and outdoor recreating public that uses the lands and resources in the charge of the WDFW.

 

[Matt Paluch]

Uh-oh. That's the same, mysterious body that somehow grants legislators a raise every biennium, regardless of performance or the state's budget. It's kind of the ultimate gravy train in WA State government.

If they are to be paid, it should be something less than a typical, full-time commissioner's salary, because while it is certainly a job, it's not a full-time job.

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

Neither does Washington governance. Remember the thirty dollar tabs? Voted on and not adhered to. Why? Some quote from Ferguson about Washington voters being too stupid to know what they were voting on comes to mind. Bottom line is an appointed by governor position will get you allot of one thing without much balance. I'm all for non hunting and fishing stakeholders to have a position on the commission. I believe that not only anglers and hunters have a vested interest in the existence of wild steelhead, healthy salmon runs, and generally healthy wildlife populations. However, some balance to have anglers and hunters represented as well is in order. They are a stakeholder that pays fees etc for license and other. A read through of the bio in almost every case of the commission members gives me clear messages that they simply do not share the same interests as me or likely 90% of the hunting and sport angling public. I don't believe I'm radical or alone in that feeling. The WDFW doesn't have the same mission goals as they once did and the commission reflects that shift. I don't want a WDFW or commission that is essentially reflective of the political body in charge. It should mirror the desires of the angling, hunting, and outdoor recreating public that uses the lands and resources in the charge of the WDFW.

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.

Because they are partisans and their decisions are already made up at least that is what their actions say.. their words matter much less.

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.

 

[Billy]

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.

I don't think that is true. At least coming from the hunting side of it. The majority voted against a spring bear hunt which was approved by WDFW biologists. That means they ignored the science and chose not to allow the hunt. Lorna Smith said maybe everyone should just get use to less elk. This is in reference to the Blue Mountain herd at a 30 year low.

Sounds pretty antihunting if you ask me.

 

[Long_Rod_Silvers]

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.

On their bios only 2 of the 8 mention being a fisher or hunter.

Commission members

Meet the nine members of the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission.

wdfw.wa.gov

 

[Canuck from Kansas]

I don't think that is true. At least coming from the hunting side of it. The majority voted against a spring bear hunt which was approved by WDFW biologists. That means they ignored the science and chose not to allow the hunt. Lorna Smith said maybe everyone should just get use to less elk. This is in reference to the Blue Mountain herd at a 30 year low.

Sounds pretty antihunting if you ask me.

Let me preface by stating I am a non-hunter, but I am not an anti-hunter and not unsympathetic to hunting.

I understand where you are coming from, but there is another side. My understanding, is the WDFW biologists found that a spring hunt would not hurt the black bear population, that it still would be sustainable. I do not believe, and please check me if I am wrong, that they found it would help the Blue Mountain elk heard to any real extent. My understanding is that 70% of the calf mortality was due to predation, 70% of which was due to mountain lion predation. Not sure what the black bear proportion of the remaining 30% of the 70% is, but it would seem to me that a hunt would have a negligible effect on the elk heard; thus, we must look at other reasons the Commission voted against the spring hunt. Some have sited the ethics of a spring hunt, others, popular sentiment. Either way, from my reading, the vote was not based on the potential to save the Blue Mountain elk herd.

That's just my take, things are rarely as cut and dried as they may seem to be. Please correct me if I am wring about the WDFW biologist's findings.

 

[Billy]

Let me preface by stating I am a non-hunter, but I am not an anti-hunter and not unsympathetic to hunting.

I understand where you are coming from, but there is another side. My understanding, is the WDFW biologists found that a spring hunt would not hurt the black bear population, that it still would be sustainable. I do not believe, and please check me if I am wrong, that they found it would help the Blue Mountain elk heard to any real extent. My understanding is that 70% of the calf mortality was due to predation, 70% of which was due to mountain lion predation. Not sure what the black bear proportion of the remaining 30% of the 70% is, but it would seem to me that a hunt would have a negligible effect on the elk heard; thus, we must look at other reasons the Commission voted against the spring hunt. Some have sited the ethics of a spring hunt, others, popular sentiment. Either way, from my reading, the vote was not based on the potential to save the Blue Mountain elk herd.

That's just my take, things are rarely as cut and dried as they may seem to be. Please correct me if I am wring about the WDFW biologist's findings.

Correct. Cougars appear to be eating the vast majority of calf elk in the Blues. I didn't mean to imply it was all connected to bears.

 

[Matt Paluch]

On their bios only 2 of the 8 mention being a fisher or hunter.

Commission members

Meet the nine members of the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission.

wdfw.wa.gov

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.