https://www.newsbreak.com/columbia-insig...life-commission

Brought on by 50 environmental groups

For sure, the commission is ineffective. I think that's baked in, because they are a body of people who represent different interests trying to balance the needs and wants of user groups that are in direct competition with one another for whatever scraps are left of our harvestable wildlife species. There is very little common ground to be shared that benefits all the consumers of fish and wildlife resources, so anything the commission does leaves someone out in the cold.

The root of the problem is that we (that's all of us) have collectively depleted our precious wildlife resources to the point where there is some flavor of endangered or threatened species limiting all foraging and other use types, be it recreational or commercial. Better management several decades ago could have had positive effects, but we're at a point now where most wildlife-related activities are severely restricted, and that puts us in the unfortunate situation of fighting amongst ourselves for our part of the remaining scraps. It's become impossible for commissioners (or any other body) to equally and positively represent more than one or two interests at a time. Different leadership won't solve that problem.

One thing we should all hope does not happen is a decision to leave the appointment of a single director up to governors. That creates a scenario where the governor's personal or political interests rule, and that's rarely a good way to arrive at solutions that benefit multiple user groups. Indeed, recent governors have shown a tendency to hand over fish and wildlife management to the treaty tribes. That might or might not benefit wildlife in the long term, but in the immediate term, it will mean further reductions to non-tribal recreational opportunities. I don't think many of us here want that.

I see the problem a bit differently. I think that there are times, and will be more, when a decision will be win-lose. We can't, I don't think, always expect negotiations to result in something for everybody. But when we are at the point where "no" needs to be said to somebody there needs to be adequate data to support it and not just opinion.

I agree with Flea that the Governor appointing the Director would make that position highly political. If we truly want good management of our resources we need directors who are in there for many years.

I still think that direct election of Commissioners, based on 2 per region, must reside in the region they are elected from. That would provide local; accountability, in my mind.

I think part of the poor public opinion of the Commission in recent years is the perception, that individual Commission members decisions are based on their personal beliefs and hidden agenda's, not true science.
I dispute chair Baker's last comment “Tell us about what’s wrong with the science or what’s wrong with the policy we developed,” she said. “Don’t tell us what’s wrong with each of us individually. That is completely disrespectful.” To me, you have to earn respect by following the science!
Science does not always fit into personal agenda's. If science ruled the policy and season decisions, we would have a spring bear hunt every year, because WDFW staff science stated so. The PETA folks don't want to hear that, because it doesn't fit into their agenda. Not following the science is what's wrong with the current Commission, and recent policy and recreational season changes display that.

I'm headed out to fish tomorrow for a few days on the drop. Will send a report not where, but how my efforts turned out.

“I still think that direct election of Commissioners, based on 2 per region, must reside in the region they are elected from. That would provide local; accountability, in my mind.”

I would back that process proposal however, how would that provide accountability ? To whom , and what measures that accountability ? Gotta be something more that just geographic, or local area representation...

The election is accountability. Since you would be elected only by folks in the region you represent you would be accountable to them. Does mean that voters would have to be informed and vote.

The comission is representing the people. The people that dictate washington politics want to view wildlife not interact with it. They do not want to hunt or others to hunt. You want to fool fish into biting so you can penetrate their face and pull on them with sharp hooks... FOR FUN!?!? You must be a monster, right?

CM, I love the idea that the comissioners would represent folks from their geograpgic location. This could be a great way to embolden/present people, ideas, and actions that may not be represented or heard at the current table. The more you connect with people in the actual location of the wildlife you will have a better understanding of what is actually going on. Mountain Lions in wynoochee valley comes to mind. The residents in the valley are having their pets and farm animals preyed upon by cats. Several have made their voices clear that there is a problem, only to be ignored.

WDFW does not care!

That's the idea/hope.