Originally Posted By: Salmo g.
FleaFlickr02,

I think you're shortchanging the WDFW Commission(ers). Delegation is the logical method to have WDFW policy implemented by the agency. The hired and paid Director and staff should perform the will of the Legislature as expressed in applicable WACs and execute policy expressed by the Commission. Commissioners are unpaid public servants. I have attended a lot of Commission meetings and met with a few out of session over the years. I've never met one who wasn't personally dedicated to public service and protecting the state's fish and wildlife resources. They also discover that the job is vastly more complicated than they envisioned before being appointed. Nonetheless, even after learning how difficult the tasks are, many accept appointment to a second and even third term.

As for accountability, it's there. Commercial fishing interests, who I above mentioned talk to the Legislature, where the real power is, instead of Commissioners and the Director, have influenced their like-minded State Senators to withhold confirmation of many of the Governor's appointees. More recently they influenced the Governor to remove Miranda Wecker, who was perhaps the most effective Commissioner ever in its history. They have tried several times to have other Commissioners removed or appointments prevented. I could only wish we might be so effective when it comes to holding them accountable.

Bofus,

Welcome, and thanks for expressing your opinion.

Sg


I couldn't agree more with everything you just said. I have tremendous respect for the commissioners. I guess where I struggle with all this is that in one breath, everyone's reminding me that the commission "sets policy," then, in the next, aclnowledging that the decisions get made at a (much) higher pay grade, and largely out of our view. Anybody else see how that makes a guy wonder what anyone's intentions are in this mess?

I don't blame the commission. That said, I would really, really like to know whom I can blame (or cry to). It would be extra nice if that entity was someone who could ultimately influence outcomes.

When I talk about accountability, I'm not talking about whatever's written in a policy document somewhere to satisfy administrative requirements. I'm talking about the kind that names individuals and carries consequences. I don't want to see heads roll; I just want to see someone own up to the mess and tell us they're going to fix it. Discussing how they plan to fix it would get mega, super, bonus points.

How about a comparison? I bet if a commercial lobbyist doesn't garner enough political support for the cause, he/she soon ceases to be a commercial lobbyist. THAT is what real world acountability looks like. In this case, I would settle for a light, public shaming, to establish SOME incentive to stand up for our treaty and citizens' rights.