Grandpa

Why not change the mandate of our WDFW? Wouldn't that force both the Director and the Commission to follow what the mandate states? It could be done by using the "initiative" process, which would jump over much of the political (but not all) hurdles.

We could use about 95% of the original wording that currently exists in RCW77.04.012 (Mandate of department and commission).

Why not use the laws that we have already in place, but just modify its wording?

It could read something like this:

"Wildlife, fish, and shellfish are the property of the state. The commission, director, and the department shall preserve, protect, perpetuate, and manage the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish in state waters and offshore waters.

The department shall conserve the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish resources in a manner that does not impair the resource. In a manner consistent with this goal, the department shall seek to maintain the economic well-being and stability of the [sport] fishing industry in the state. The department shall promote orderly fisheries and shall enhance and improve [the] recreational [opportunity] and [allow] commercial fishing [to occur when there is an abundance in stock size in the waters of] this state.

The commission may authorize the taking of wildlife, food fish, game fish, and shellfish only at times or places, or in manners or quantities, as in the judgment of the commission [that it] does not impair [or diminish the recreational opportunity, or jeopardize the supply of its natural resources.]

The commission shall attempt to maximize the public recreational game fishing and hunting opportunities of all citizens, including juvenile, disabled, and senior citizens.

Recognizing that the management of our state wildlife, food fish, game fish, and shellfish resources depends heavily on the assistance of volunteers, the department shall work cooperatively with volunteer groups and individuals to achieve the goals of this title to the greatest extent possible."

This new wording should even please wild fish advocates. It would change the priority of both the Commission and the Director, and still allow a limited commercial fishery when stock sizes were in abundance. People usually don't mind change if the change is not that much different then what already exists. This still allows commercial harvest, but favors the recreational user more. I think that the majority of people could be sold on something like this!

Well,

What do you think? Could this be the way to go?

Cowlitzfisherman