Yet another set of assaults on the WDFW Commission


Well-Known Member

Gov. appointed Directors of agencies are always more politicized. While no system is perfect, Gov. appointed Commissioners, confirmed by the Senate, with the Commission appointing the agency Director spreads out the politics and political influence. I'm convinced it's the best system going because Governors and Legislators all dislike it. Take a look at any conventional agency with a Gov. appointed Director; they are invariably less attentive to and responsive to citizens than is the WDFW Commission. The Commission system is an example of government being closer to the people they represent. Frankly I think their dislike of the system validates my cynicism about gubanatorial and legislative arrogance. Power does corrupt. I'm a liberal and can't even get my Dem. Senator to give me the time of day. And it pisses me off.

Great points Sg. We voted the Commission in, by public vote in 1995 with an overwhelming 61% approval by the people state wide. Now we have an attempt to put the power of all fishing and hunting policy making decisions into the hands of ONE appointed person.

What is also interesting is that the lead sponsor of the bill is the head of the Senate Natural Resources and Marine Waters Waters Committee.
One would think that Senator Ranker, who represents fishing interests in Whatcom, Skagit and Island Counties would have a bit more concern with viable, science based descions effecting fishing especially in his district, then putting it back into a politicians hand.

Guess its politics first.

Corrected link
I completely agree.

Independent commissions help prevent agencies from becoming insular. The public is a hassle, a flat hassle, and agencies will tend to avoid that over time. It is like gravity, undeniable and ever present. The existing process with outside commissioners injects light and accountability into the agency. Questions are asked and have to be addressed. That is so, so healthy for both the fish and fisherpeople.



Active Member
then ask yourself the following questions: name any action this commission has taken to enforce the ESA listing of our wild anadramous fishes; what action has the commission taken to remove the gill nets and other non-selective salmon harvest methods; what action has the commission taken to examine the faulty statistical procedures used by WDFW staff in their determination of harvest by sport anglers; what action has the commission taken to make public the harvest data of all commercial harvesters; the list is long, extensive, and a great indication of a commission in the pockets of those who they are obliged too.

taking a new step may not solve any of these concerns, but keeping the current system guarantees no forthcoming action. sorry, i for one am not going to defend an agency and a commission who have demonstrated the worth, or lack of it, in spades.
I believe the Commission has acted responsibly within its authority as mandated by NOAA, NMFS and the treatry-tribes. Those groups not the Commission are the ones setting or flailing at setting policy on ESA harvest levels. The same is true for the non-selective harvest methods in the rivers. Having said that, the the department has been testing selective harvest methods on the Columbia.

A lot of the commercial harvest data is available if you do a bit of digging or just ask.


Well-Known Member

Besides being anything but correct, you'd only need half a brain to know that the Commission can only do that which it is legally authorized to do. Previous Commissions have generally rubber-stamped whatever their appointed Director brought them. Not so with the present Commission, which is the best informed, best educated, most responsive Commission in the history of the agency. Just because in your hair-brained mind it should be doing things it has no legal authority for doesn't make it a valueless entity. You've offered nothing but negative criticism, and your only suggestions for making improvements have required actions for which there is no legal authority. Vigorous debate enhances the value of pluralistic outcomes, but your contributions are almost invariably a waste of internet bandwidth, and certainly is in regards to this discussion. If I'm wrong, then you'll contribute a constructive alternative that is viable and legal. The challenge is yours.



Active Member
scan the RCWs and you will be astonished to find, salmo g, that once again you missed the mark by a mile or so. your continued excuse making rings quite hollow as there is much that WDFW and the commission could have done but choose not to do, go back and read my short list. keep in mind that the commissioners are POLITICAL appointees and beholdin' to those who appointed them. the way i read the tea leaves, that means the commercials, tribal and non-tribal, get anything/everything they bring forward while the sport anglers are always knocked off the table. get real salmo g, you take on what can and should have been done is totally and unexcusably bogus.
The RCW's have no legal authority over the treaty-tribes. Harvest is set by NOAA parameters and the Pacific Salmon treaty.

While all entities are politically influenced to some degree, to think that one Governor appointed director with ultimate power to set policy would be less politically influenced than 9 citizen commissioners...well, enough said.

Ed Call

Well-Known Member
Thanks for the heads up Citori. Sg, thanks for your explanation. GT, thanks for not buying in 100% by looking at it from a slightly different angle. Fact is, each of us has to decide which option we prefer. The voted upon method that carried the ballot measure, or allowing on person to hand pick one other person to be in charge. I belive in the many having strength over the one. It might not always be true, but I think it is more true than not.

Alex MacDonald

that's His Lordship, to you.....
For how bad a political appointee, one who the schmuck-in-charge gets to appoint without regard to qualifications, one only has to look at the ambassador to Luxembourg, some twit from Seattle who was a major Obama fundraiser. Took her only a year to be forced to resign. Of course, it's not like we silly peasants should have any say in things-just look at how many times the state legislature decided we really didn't mean what we voted for.


Active Member
leopardbow, please go read, study and understand the 1974 Boldt decision, beyond the 50% allocation. WDFW is clearly charged by that decision, and authorized at the federal level, with preserving and protecting our wild anadramous fish stocks. so while it is quite easy to say that WDFW has zero authority over the treaty tribes, the legal fact is they were handed that authority by judge boldt.

please don't take my word for any of this, groucho would be pretty angry if you did anything short of taking his advice: '...who you going to believe, me or your own two eyes...'

so why doesn't WDFW act? status quo thats my take on things. they were formed from an agency which was designed to develop, support and defend MSY. that was the status quo they were spawned from and the status quo they continue to preserve and protect. protecting our last remaining wild anadramous fish stocks? well what do your own two eyes tell'yah.................

will anything be different under a DNR scenario? i have no idea other than the status quo has been disrupted, and that is a very good thing to have occur. those most vocal about and playing the chicken little sonata in Fsharp are the very ones who wish to maintain the status quo, even if that means the wild anadramous stock totally collapse. sound weird? not really as most people on this planet are not comfortable with the unknown, just the way it is. so congratulations to the governor for having the courage to propose disrupting the status quo, let see how this plays out.

Ed Call

Well-Known Member
GT, refresh my memory from previous law suits when the State of Washington, in the form of WDFW, took their "authority" to court. What was the outcome? Doing nothing plays out with all fish dead. Tough action gets to court which results in an ass kicking, continues the status quo, which plays out with all fish dead. I'm all for a better option, what is it?