And the Chehalis river is good shape in CP halfway down outgoing. Looks like fishing will be okay as far as river conditions. Take advantage of it because the next storm is headed in. Satsop looks to be headed for cycling up and down but the Chehalis flows are going to start climbing and around the 24th hit first step in flood stage as will all the upper basin tribs.

After watching the total BS in creating the new GH Policy ( which is basically WDFW do whatever you want ) I find this interesting.



Report: Fish and Wildlife Commission ‘dysfunctional’

Sportsmen and tribal officials endorsed legislation last year to eliminate the commission

Don Jenkins

Capital Press

The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission is widely seen as “dysfunctional” and needs to be reformed, according to a report by the William D. Ruckelshaus Center.

The center, run by the University of Washington and Washington State University, interviewed 113 people to evaluate the commission and Fish and Wildlife Department. State legislators asked for the $300,000 study.

Many said the nine-member commission was politically polarized and caught up in conflict, according to a draft of the report. A final report is due out in mid-December.

The report suggests lawmakers could eliminate the commission or reduce its role. “Without these reforms, the embedded dysfunctions and issues that interviewees raised would likely continue,” the report states.

The governor appoints commissioners, who hire the Fish and Wildlife director and approve regulations.

The commission has made several high-profile decisions recently, including ending spring bear hunts, keeping wolves on the state’s endangered species list and reducing cougar hunting.

Sportsmen and tribal officials endorsed legislation last year to eliminate the commission. Wildlife advocates praised the commission’s attention to conservation.

Fish and Wildlife Commissioner Chairwoman Barbara Baker said the commission isn’t dysfunctional, but it is struggling with allocating resources as the population grows and more people recreate on state lands.

“I believe this is not really dysfunction. All this unrest is a natural consequence of change,” she said. “Dysfunction is in the eye of the beholder, and if the beholder doesn’t get what he wants, it’s dysfunction.”

The Ruckelshaus report does not cite any example of commission dysfunction. Some people interviewed said the commission was too swayed by sportsmen, while others said the commission favored animal-rights groups.

“Nearly everyone agreed that the governance structure, particularly regarding the commission, needs reform,” the report states.

One option, according to the report, is to eliminate the commission. The governor would appoint the Fish and Wildlife director, who would be a member of the governor’s cabinet.

Former Fish and Wildlife Commissioner Kim Thorburn, who served from 2015 to 2023, said the commission is “terribly dysfunctional,” but shouldn’t be eliminated. “I think it should be fixed,” she said.

Commissioners are meddling in management and scientific affairs and changing the department’s mandate, she said. “They’re changing it into the department of animal rights and predator protection.”

WDFW from page A1 to A3
Eliminating the commission would eliminate commission meetings. At meetings, members of the public comment and commissioners debate and vote.

“I think what I’m hearing (in the report) is that we disagree with each other, and we disagree with each other in public,” Fish and Wildlife Commissioner Lorna Smith said.

“I don’t think an agency in the governor’s cabinet is going to follow our model and let everybody say their piece,” she said.

Another option, according to the report, is to limit the commission to “high-level policy.” The commission would not set regulations or engage in day-to-day operations.

Other proposed reforms include having a “thirdparty facilitator” at meetings to maintain “behavior protocols” and a bipartisan legislative committee to vet candidates for the commission.

Rep. Tom Dent, R-Moses, one of the legislators interviewed by the Ruckelshaus center, said he would like for groups to participate in screening candidates. Not many legislators are in step with rural issues, he said. “I’m afraid you would run into the same problem,” he said.

Another option is direct election of Commissioners. 4 must reside on the Eastside, 4 on the Westside, and the Chair is statewide. Further, each candidate must hold, and have used, licenses or permits issued by the Agency at least 3 of the 5 years prior to election. Another option for "District" is that each Region gets 1 Commissioner, who must reside in that region. Chair still elected statewide.

I don't think the Fish & Wildlife Commission is dysfunctional. I think it, along with the Department, is struggling to figure out what it should be in the 21st century. In the 20th century it was the "hook & bullet fraternity" and few citizens had a problem with that. And the Department of Fisheries was essentially the Department of Commercial Fishing where sportfishing was an afterthought.

Fish and wildlife resources and their habitat are declining. The human population, with its demand for food, shelter, and transportation are increasing without limit, one might say - non sustainably. Personally, I think the enabling legislation for WDFW needs to be revisited. The 1995 merger of the old fisheries and game departments amended existing legislation. I guess the Legislature assumed that the core principles and values were solid bedrock that would function by simply amending. I think most objective observers would say it's been a struggle. The new Grays Harbor management policy is an excellent case in point.

Given a clean slate, I'd start with something along the lines of:

1. The Legislature hereby creates the WDFW;
2. WDFW is led by a Director appointed by the Commission, whose members (one from each region) are appointed by the Governor through advise of the citizens;
3. The purpose of the WDFW is to preserve, protect, and perpetuate the fish and wildlife resources of WA, including their habitat to the extent enacted by law;
4. WDFW allows resource use and extraction through fishing and hunting that is sustainable under #2 above;
5. WDFW acknowledges indigenous rights reserved under the Stevens treaties and works with treaty co-managers where mutual interests overlap.

My idea above is to separate resource preservation from harvest because currently they are co-equal, which has demonstrably led to over-harvest, time and again. Then comes some nitty gritty details, like agency funding, hatcheries (why? and for what purpose? Should there be deer and elk hatcheries, too?). Problem I see is that lobbying might result in an agency no better than what we currently have.

I like that proposal Salmo, especially the enabling legislation. To be clear, though, there are deer "Hatcheries", called farms. where some of the most grotesque bucks are set;ectively bred for sale to folks managing deer on their ground.

Texas, and at least much of the southeast, has taken deer farming to pretty high densities such as 100 per square mile. Plenty of quality bucks, lots of meat does, but it costs. On the other hand, making deer a sustainable industry keeps the land in farming/ranching rather than McMansions on 5 acres.

I really liked reading that sports folk and tribes had a common interest in reform. More of that, please!

Reading that the "reform" might mean absolute authority for the WDFW Director gives me "pause." I don't think anyone who has followed NOF for any length of recent time thinks that is a winning prospect for sport fishers, though it could mean a boon for commercial interests....