I-bet you big time policy changes are coming regarding management of the Salmon rescource,, from above the state level..

Treaties and agreements with other interested nations regarding our share of the salmon will likely be re negotiated for an agreement more in our favor…

It will be interesting see how the tri-partitite negotiations go between Canada, Alaska, and the United States. Then throw in the First Nations and Treaty Tribes. I don't see much different coming down the line because nobody really is interested in conservation of the fish.

Very interesting! Unpredictable at best! Hope positive for our salmon. We in WA don't want another salmon war. We know that means less for us. If tariffs/taxes piss off Canada enough, I can see a greater rape and pillage of more of our salmon destined for here. And AK retaliating on top of that. It all means less for WA. You can bet Trump and his adm. could care less of our plights here in WA, or the West coast for that matter. To him, all our salmon are, is a bargaining chip. Time will tell and trying to stay positive. https://watershedwatch.ca/stories/remember-the-salmon-war/

If giving Canada all the lower 48 salmon in trade, say, for much cheaper and more oil then he'd probably do it. Everything is negotiable to him.;

I never noticed much difference between R's and D's over the years with fisheries at the federal level. State maybe but it was only at staffing. Remember it was a D that got us Anderson.

On another note Mike Scharpf has taken the position in Puget Sound that Chad Herring had. This oportunity came about because Chad took the Region 6 Fish Program Manager position.

For the record Mike will be missed. You can disagree with him without it getting out of hand. Not that common anymore.

Chad has been here before 10 years or so ago working with RW and knows the ground so he will not have that much of a learning curve.

Good luck to both.

That's good for Mike. Was he still commenting from Olympia?

yup a far as I know. 21 years of memory is something for staff nowadays. I liked doing business with Mike.

Good for him. Institutional Memory is a rare thing now.

The CCA sent out a news letter and this was one of the items.


Commission Reform Legislation
On Wednesday, February 19, the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee will hold a hearing on two bills reforming the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission and the governance of WDFW.

House Bill 1685 would make WDFW a cabinet agency with the Director selected by the Governor. The Commission would become an advisory body and would no longer retain the authority vested in it though 1995’s Referendum 45, which includes hiring and firing the Director and setting policies for WDFW. While we are concerned about the lack of accountability in WDFW’s current governance structure and recent actions of the Commission, CCA Washington will be joining a coalition letter expressing concerns with HB 1685 to make WDFW a cabinet agency.

House Bill 1930 would change how the nine fish and wildlife commissioners are appointed. Under the bill, one commissioner would be selected to represent each of WDFW’s six regions by the county commissioners within each region. Three commissioners would be appointed at large by the Governor subject to confirmation by the Senate with requirements to ensure geographic diversity.

If you would like to sign up to testify remotely on either bill or note your position for the hearing record, you can do so up to one hour before the 8:30AM hearing here: https://app.leg.wa.gov/CSI/house?selectedCommittee=31649&selectedMeeting=32817

Now I am loving this more by the day. Having known several Commissioners over the years and had a respect for them. Not the bunch we have now put in by "guv big bird" and frankly they are a joke.


Ferguson wades into WA Fish and Wildlife Commission turmoil

The governor withdrew two appointments to the panel that former Gov. Jay Inslee made on his way out of office

Laurel Demkovich

Washington State Standard

In one of his first acts as governor, Bob Ferguson pulled back two Inslee administration appointments to the state Fish and WildlifeCommission,adding a new layer of uncertainty for the already troubled citizen panel.

JusttwodaysbeforeFerguson took office, former Gov. Jay Inslee appointed Lynn O’Connor and reappointed commission vice chair Tim Ragen to the nine-member group, which oversees the Department of Fish and Wildlife and plays a key part in setting wildlife management policy.

Aweek later, Ferguson sent a letter to the state Senate asking for the nomination process to be halted. He cited “multiple letters, emails and other correspondence from individuals, tribes and other entities expressing a desire for a more extensive process for these appointments.”

The Senate last week unanimously agreed to withdraw the appointments, leaving the commission down two members.

“We are ready and willing to continue our work and get what we need to get done with fewer of us, but that’s not to say that we don’t miss those people and what they provided for us,”Commission Chair Barbara Baker said at a Friday meeting.

It’s just the latest twist in a growing debacle surrounding the commission and its role.

A December report from the William D. Ruckelshaus Center found that many people who interact with the commission consider its current structure “dysfunctional” and in need of reforms, citing concerns about effectiveness, transparency and accountability.

The findings have sparked legislation this session to change the appointment process and even to dissolve the commission altogether.

Brionna Aho, spokesperson for Ferguson, cited the Ruckelshaus report as one reason for calling back the appointments. Aho said Ragen and O’Connor are still eligible for the jobs but will be evaluated along with more than a dozen other individuals who applied.

Ferguson has until April to name new appointees, and his team is now vetting candidates.

The governor appoints all nine of the commission’s members. They are subject to confirmation by the state Senate and serve six-year terms. According to state law, the governor must strive for a balance when selecting members that reflects the different aspects of fish and wildlife management, such as fishing, hunting and conservation.

Claire Loebs Davis, at Washington Wildlife First, said she was disappointed that Ferguson withdrew the appointments but that she understands the governor’s desire for a more transparent process. She added that she hopes Ferguson will seriously consider Ragen and O’Connor.

“We think that when they talk to those candidates, they will be as impressed with them as we have been,” she said.

Those who feel like they were left out of the process under Inslee are hopeful that theywillbeabletoworkmore with Ferguson.

DanWilson,co-chairofthe Washington chapter of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, said Inslee’s final commission appointments “abandoned any semblance of transparency and stakeholder input.” He calledFerguson’s decision to reopen the process“areally positive sign.”

“I am hopeful that transparency and engaging with stakeholders will be something that we see brought to the forefront in his decision making,” Wilson said.

Lawmakers hunt for solutions

The lack of transparency and accountability in the appointment process was a top concern among those interviewed for the Ruckelshaus report. Two bills recently introduced in the Legislature are attempting to change the process.

House Bill 1930 would give counties the power to choose who represents them on the commission. Each county legislative authority in the state’s six regions would choose a nominee, and then all counties would get one vote on the region’s final appointment.

The governor would appoint three additional members with at least one from eastern Washington and one from western Washington.

To be eligible for an appointment under the bill, someone must have held a hunting or fishing license in three of the previous five years.

That proposal, sponsored by Republican Rep. Tom Dent,of MosesLake,is scheduled for a committee hearing next Wednesday.

Another proposal, Senate Bill 5728, would set up a nominating committee to recommend commission nominees to the governor. The committee must include representatives from hunting organizations, fishing organizations, conservation groups, agriculture, outdoor recreation, local governments and tribes. The governor would be required to make appointments based on the group’s recommendations.

An eligible person would have to support science based management of wildlife, recreational hunting and fishing, have no monetary or lobbying conflicts of interest, and have purchased a valid hunting or fishing license in two of the most recent five years, unless they are a member of a tribe.

That proposal, sponsored by Rep. Keith Wagoner, R-Sedro Woolley, is not yet scheduled for a public hearing.

With only one week left until the first deadline for legislation to pass committees, it’s unclear how far those bills might make it this session.

Bigger fish to fry

The appointment debate is just a piece of theconversation over structural changes needed for the Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Among the recommendations in the Ruckelshaus report was turning the department into a cabinet agency.

A bill introduced by Rep. Larry Springer, D-Kirkland, would do that. The commission would still exist but only to connect with the public and offer guidance to the director, not to set policy.

Washington Wildlife First supports the idea. Under it, Davis said the commission would continue to have an important role but would not require nine volunteers to make decisions about all fish and wildlife policy in Washington.

But many people who interact with the commission do not think it should be stripped of its powers.

“Our communities are better served through a diverse commission than through a singular political appointee,” Wilson said.

Springer’s bill will receive a public hearing on Wednesday, but legislative leaders indicated last month that an overhaul of the department likely won’t happen this session.

Along with structural changes, the Ruckelshaus report indicated that the mandate for the state’s Fish and Wildlife Commission and department may need rethinking.Many people find it confusing. The mandate emphasizes both the need to preserve fish and wildlife while maximizing hunting and fishing opportunities.

Fred Koontz, former Fish and Wildlife commissioner, said commissioners and interest groups tend to interpret the mandate differently, which can lead to polarization and conflicts.

“Little is going to change until the legislative mandate has changed,” Koontz said. “We need to decide what the paramount purpose is and what priority programs the department should focus on in order to protect public wildlife for today and for future generations.”

Those interviewed for the Ruckelshaus report acknowledged that revamping the mandate could be politically challenging.

“Everyone wants to have the conversation, but they don’t know how to go about doing it,” Koontz said.