#487321 - 02/12/09 12:29 AM
Re: SB 5127 Why is this even being discussed?
[Re: JohnQ]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 12/15/02
Posts: 4000
Loc: Ahhhhh, damn dog!
|
This is all very interesting, Lets find out where Jacobsen gets his money///
_________________________
NRA Life member
The idea of a middle class life is slowly drifting away as each and every day we realize that our nation is becoming more of a corporatacracy.
I think name-calling is the right way to handle this one/Dan S
We're here from the WDFW and we're here to help--Uhh Ohh!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#487399 - 02/12/09 12:38 PM
Re: SB 5127 Why is this even being discussed?
[Re: Somethingsmellsf]
|
Spawner
Registered: 09/21/08
Posts: 843
Loc: COF in the Upper Left Hand Cor...
|
This is all very interesting, Lets find out where Jacobsen gets his money/// psssst, my posting above  You can also go to the Legislature's own website, it has an accessible database of all the politicians and who/what contributed to whom.
_________________________
Upstanding Member of the Porcupine Social Club, ergo, the Old Prick in the Upper Left Hand Corner.
AuntyM -- What Crab Audit???? Not That POS Senior AssHat Published!!!!
Hey Mr Childers, have you corrected that Scofflaw Spreadsheet Yet?????
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#487828 - 02/13/09 03:54 PM
Re: SB 5127 Why is this even being discussed?
[Re: MPM]
|
Spawner
Registered: 09/17/04
Posts: 592
Loc: Seattle
|
It would also be good to get as many attendees as possible for such meetings, so the lawmakers know *a lot* of sportfishermen take an interest in state politics. One thing worth remembering is that the Commission does a lot more than fisheries. Wildlife, recreational use of WDFW lands, and property management is a big part of their work. If you look at the list of Senator Jacobsen's contributers you will see a lot of money from agricultural and ranching groups. The Commission is only part of what the committee oversees that these groups are interested in. The property management role of the commission is a political hotcake, for instance cattle grazing on WDFW lands. Right now that issue, on the Whiskey Dick GMU, is in the courts. Some very political groups, not interested in fisheries except on how it might impact land use, are interested in changing the Commission.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#487834 - 02/13/09 04:05 PM
Re: SB 5127 Why is this even being discussed?
[Re: WN1A]
|
Returning Adult
Registered: 05/28/08
Posts: 346
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
I live in Seattle and have written to my Representative and Senator- plus Gregoire and Jacobsen via email. I used the form letter from CCA/ PSA and then I wrote another which was about my own personal experiences seeing the decline of salmon & steelhead fisheries around the state since I was a kid and to extinction in some areas (I only only 33 years old, but still a huge fall downwards)!
While Gregoire and Jacobsen have not yet responded, both my Speaker Frank Chop and Rep Jamie Pedersen PROMPTLY replied. With Gregoire and Jacobsen I noted that I am a registered Democrat and I supported HER campaign, voted for her, etc. and find it odd that a fellow Democrat- and especially one in a demographic such as Seattle- would side against Conservation of these dwindling resources.
_________________________
release wild steelhead
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#487840 - 02/13/09 04:19 PM
Re: SB 5127 Why is this even being discussed?
[Re: chrome demon]
|
Returning Adult
Registered: 05/28/08
Posts: 346
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
Of course, I am a sports fisherman, but these interests aside and in line with CCA's "more fish for everyone"....
I read through the entire SB5127 and don't understand the motivation behind eliminating the Commission. I am actually serious- what is the motivation- or the intent? I asked this in my letter to Jacobsen and Gregoire as well. Again, someone who is elected by a liberal demographic should side on behalf of conservation and preserving our salmon & steelhead species. To be honest, I am not sure whether Jacobsen was elected by Commercial Fisherman as mentioned in one post above. I would imagine that this area of Seattle (his constitutes) is largely left of center.
so I wonder if the elimination of the Commission is a budget issue? or is it part of Gregoire's mandate to see improvements in the Salmon & Steelhead returns (WA State Steelhead Plan, etc.) or what? if the government feels that the Commission is not working, then are they proposing an alternative to help save our fishery. Or is it simply to turn the resources over to provide money for special interests... farm land, forestry management, commercial fisheries, etc. These interests don't really sound like a Democrat to me, but maybe I am missing something hidden between the lines.
_________________________
release wild steelhead
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#487853 - 02/13/09 04:59 PM
Re: SB 5127 Why is this even being discussed?
[Re: chrome demon]
|
Juvenille at Sea
Registered: 04/20/06
Posts: 211
Loc: Twisp WA
|
cd- The bill is sponsored by state senators. I haven't heard anything about Gregoire's impressions of it. As for Jacobsen, I think the best answer is that his constituents are a coalition of different interests, and that his liberal base is probably ill informed about his shenanigans re the Commission. As for the intent of the bill, here's what I had to say to my senator: I am writing to express my strong opposition to SB 5127.
The current form of the Fish and Wildlife Commission was created by the legislature and a (60+ %) vote of the people (Ref. 45), in 1995. I would be very disappointed if the legislature circumvented the will of the people.
SB 5127 guts the authority of the Commission by-
• Taking away the power to appoint the Director.
• Making it an advisory only function.
• Reducing the number of Commissioners.
• Reducing the terms of the Commissioners.
• Reducing the power to call emergency meetings (limiting the Commission to only 2 emergency meetings a year).
• Reducing citizen representation by limiting the number of Commissioners (this would also add the burden on individual Commissioners to represent more citizens).
• Inhibiting the ability of the Commission to function by requiring all members for a quorum.
I am an elected official of a Board (Methow Valley School District #350), and have regularly been involved with Board development. There are many parallels between the functions of my Board and the Commission. Both organizations develop policy, provide governance, and represent the citizen ownership of the organizations. There is no question in my mind that the intent of this legislation is to reduce the effectiveness of the Commission, in those functions. While technical knowledge is helpful in the roles of policy and governance, they are not essential. (And reducing term lengths will only make it more difficult for members to come up to speed on the issues.) What is essential is the each member understand the roles of the Commission and be given the authority to exercise those powers. I could not imagine being effective in my position, if I had work under the restrictions envisioned in SB 5127.
One of the criticisms of the Commission is that it is not trained in the field of fisheries management and is inconsistently involved in fisheries management. This criticism fails to recognize the true functions of a Commission/Board. It is not the role of the Commission to be the technical experts- that is the work of the staff. (There is no way that any individual could be trained in all of the disciplines of fish and wildlife science, anyways.) My role as a school board member is similar in that I'm not an educational expert. The Board/Commission function is to (with the input of the public owners) set the goals of the organization, and it is then the work of the administration and staff to determine how to accomplish the goals.
I hope you will join me in supporting the authority of the current Commission structure and, should it come before you for a vote, oppose SB 5127.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#487858 - 02/13/09 05:13 PM
Re: SB 5127 Why is this even being discussed?
[Re: chrome demon]
|
Returning Adult
Registered: 12/31/04
Posts: 251
Loc: Kent, WA
|
Of course, I am a sports fisherman, but these interests aside and in line with CCA's "more fish for everyone"....
I read through the entire SB5127 and don't understand the motivation behind eliminating the Commission. I am actually serious- what is the motivation- or the intent? I asked this in my letter to Jacobsen and Gregoire as well. Again, someone who is elected by a liberal demographic should side on behalf of conservation and preserving our salmon & steelhead species. To be honest, I am not sure whether Jacobsen was elected by Commercial Fisherman as mentioned in one post above. I would imagine that this area of Seattle (his constitutes) is largely left of center.
so I wonder if the elimination of the Commission is a budget issue? or is it part of Gregoire's mandate to see improvements in the Salmon & Steelhead returns (WA State Steelhead Plan, etc.) or what? if the government feels that the Commission is not working, then are they proposing an alternative to help save our fishery. Or is it simply to turn the resources over to provide money for special interests... farm land, forestry management, commercial fisheries, etc. These interests don't really sound like a Democrat to me, but maybe I am missing something hidden between the lines. SB 5127 does not eliminate the Commission Reader’s Digest version… 1. SB 5127 removes the authority of selecting and hiring the WDFW Director from the Commission and gives it to the Governor with Senate confirmation; Jacobsen chairs the confirmation committee. 2. The bill reduces the Commission from 9 members to 5 members: two from the west; two from the east and one at large. 3. Instead of limiting the Commission members to no more than one per county they would be limited to one per “administrative region as recognized by the department”. 4. A quorum would no longer be 5 (or more) of 9; it would require all 5 for a quorum. 5. The Chair and Vice Chair would only serve a one year term instead of two years. 6. A Commission appointment would be for 3 years instead of 6. 7. Meetings would be reduced from “at least” one meeting in the first two months of the year to “one regular meeting” and instead of an unspecified number of meetings, for the remainder of the year; it would be “up to two”. If this Bill passes, with the proposed language, all Commission positions will be considered vacated January 1, 2010 and we start all over. My opinion: Jacobsen has been trying for several years to gain more control over WDFW. There are many theories on why, but no one seems to argue he is trying for control. The motive this time is, I believe, is no different. If his committee has control over who is confirmed as the WDFW Director, then he has postured himself into a favourable position of political power over the Department. Remember, he has aligned himself with commercial fishermen. The way it stands now, the Commissioners themselves have little political power and therefore, little or nothing to gain politically one way or the other. Hopefully, this scenario means they do what is in the best interest of the resource and not for political gain or favour. As far as a budget saving idea, the “savings” are less than $100,000. In my opinion, there will be far more than $100,000 worth of damage done to the resource if Jacobsen has anything to do with it.
_________________________
Fish 'til you puke; spawn 'til you die.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#487860 - 02/13/09 05:19 PM
Re: SB 5127 Why is this even being discussed?
[Re: Pisco Sicko]
|
Returning Adult
Registered: 12/31/04
Posts: 251
Loc: Kent, WA
|
cd- The bill is sponsored by state senators. I haven't heard anything about Gregoire's impressions of it. As for Jacobsen, I think the best answer is that his constituents are a coalition of different interests, and that his liberal base is probably ill informed about his shenanigans re the Commission. As for the intent of the bill, here's what I had to say to my senator: I am writing to express my strong opposition to SB 5127.
The current form of the Fish and Wildlife Commission was created by the legislature and a (60+ %) vote of the people (Ref. 45), in 1995. I would be very disappointed if the legislature circumvented the will of the people.
SB 5127 guts the authority of the Commission by-
• Taking away the power to appoint the Director.
• Making it an advisory only function.
• Reducing the number of Commissioners.
• Reducing the terms of the Commissioners.
• Reducing the power to call emergency meetings (limiting the Commission to only 2 emergency meetings a year).
• Reducing citizen representation by limiting the number of Commissioners (this would also add the burden on individual Commissioners to represent more citizens).
• Inhibiting the ability of the Commission to function by requiring all members for a quorum.
I am an elected official of a Board (Methow Valley School District #350), and have regularly been involved with Board development. There are many parallels between the functions of my Board and the Commission. Both organizations develop policy, provide governance, and represent the citizen ownership of the organizations. There is no question in my mind that the intent of this legislation is to reduce the effectiveness of the Commission, in those functions. While technical knowledge is helpful in the roles of policy and governance, they are not essential. (And reducing term lengths will only make it more difficult for members to come up to speed on the issues.) What is essential is the each member understand the roles of the Commission and be given the authority to exercise those powers. I could not imagine being effective in my position, if I had work under the restrictions envisioned in SB 5127.
One of the criticisms of the Commission is that it is not trained in the field of fisheries management and is inconsistently involved in fisheries management. This criticism fails to recognize the true functions of a Commission/Board. It is not the role of the Commission to be the technical experts- that is the work of the staff. (There is no way that any individual could be trained in all of the disciplines of fish and wildlife science, anyways.) My role as a school board member is similar in that I'm not an educational expert. The Board/Commission function is to (with the input of the public owners) set the goals of the organization, and it is then the work of the administration and staff to determine how to accomplish the goals.
I hope you will join me in supporting the authority of the current Commission structure and, should it come before you for a vote, oppose SB 5127.
Pisco, best letter I’ve seen so far, the analogy between the School Board and the Commission is brilliant. It is so good I might borrow parts of it. 
_________________________
Fish 'til you puke; spawn 'til you die.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#487866 - 02/13/09 05:32 PM
Re: SB 5127 Why is this even being discussed?
[Re: ]
|
Spawner
Registered: 12/09/08
Posts: 764
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#487885 - 02/13/09 06:17 PM
Re: SB 5127 Why is this even being discussed?
[Re: Slowleak]
|
Juvenille at Sea
Registered: 04/20/06
Posts: 211
Loc: Twisp WA
|
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#487978 - 02/13/09 11:08 PM
Re: SB 5127 Why is this even being discussed?
[Re: Pisco Sicko]
|
Repeat Spawner
Registered: 07/04/06
Posts: 1191
|
I got a response today from all of them including Jacobsen.
In a nutshell all the email replies I recieved were on the behalf of gregoire and the senators by their aides.
They thank me for their input and will take my email into consideration.
So does doing this really work or do we just get passed over by an aide of the Gov. and senators in Olympia.
Are us sportsman ever going to matter to Olympia?
Really Fed Up Here is a copy:
RE: Oppose SB 5127 - Protect our Fish and Wildlife Commission
Sent By:
"Tammi Lewis" <Lewis.Tammi@leg.wa.gov> On: Feb 02/11/09 9:37 AM
On Behalf Of: "Rep. Dan Roach" <Roach.Dan@leg.wa.gov>
To: Jerry,
Thank you for your message and taking the time to contact me with your concerns about Senate Bill 5127, which modifies the governance of the Department of Fish and Wildlife. I agree that we need to protect our fish and wildlife, and that it is important that we remain good stewards of our environment. However, in the current economic climate, we're probably going to see significant proposals to do major reductions to commissions and boards across the state. As this moves forward and we take a look at it, I would encourage you to make the Governor aware of your concerns, as much of this she may have executive authority to do, while some will require the Legislature to take action.
As you noted, SB 5127 would make several changes to the structure of the Fish and Wildlife Commission including reducing the number of commissioners from nine to five, reducing terms of commissioners from six to three years and reducing the term of the commission Chair and Vice-Chair from two years to one. Additionally, on January 1, 2010, all Commission positions would be considered vacated, and the Governor would have to appoint five commissions that same day with one member serving a three-year term, two serving a two-year term, and two serving a one-year term. SB 5127 had a public hearing on February 2nd in the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Ocean & Recreation, and has not yet been scheduled for any further action.
Thanks again for writing in, and I will certainly keep your comments in mind should this bill come before me in a vote. Please don't hesitate to contact me again with any other thoughts or concerns.
Chris
Christopher Hurst
State Representative, 31st LD
Chair, Public Safety & Emergency Preparedness Committee Financial Institutions & Insurance Committee State Government & Tribal Affairs Committee Office Contact:
314 John L. O'Brien Building
PO Box 40600 Olympia, WA 98504
Office: 360-786-7866
Fax: 360-786-7317"Jerry Brown" <jdbrown9@comcast.net>
Edited by jandlfishingguide (02/13/09 11:12 PM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#488067 - 02/14/09 12:45 PM
Re: SB 5127 Why is this even being discussed?
[Re: jandlfishingguide]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 04/25/00
Posts: 5054
Loc: East of Aberdeen, West of Mont...
|
I'm just glad we have can use email.......remember not many years ago...all correspondence would be by "snail mail"........and for sure, most of it wouldn't have been answered.
_________________________
"Worse day sport fishing, still better than the best day working"
"I thought growing older, would take longer"
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#488100 - 02/14/09 03:15 PM
Re: SB 5127 Why is this even being discussed?
[Re: jandlfishingguide]
|
Returning Adult
Registered: 12/31/04
Posts: 251
Loc: Kent, WA
|
I got a response today from all of them including Jacobsen.
In a nutshell all the email replies I recieved were on the behalf of gregoire and the senators by their aides.
They thank me for their input and will take my email into consideration.
So does doing this really work or do we just get passed over by an aide of the Gov. and senators in Olympia.
Generally speaking, Legislative Aids (or LA’s as they are known) receive, open, screen and quite often answer emails; typically they also open and screen all snail mail. During session, Representatives and Senators are extremely busy and many times they will give the LA a quick quote on a specific bill to send out in generic form. How do I know this? I have an LA in the family. A few things to consider when communicating with your legislator and/or LA: 1. The LA’s are in the office year round; they run the office and pretty much determine what their bosses see and don’t see. If your letter or email is abusive, threatening or vulgar, it will likely end up deleted or go directly to the round file. Treat the LA nice and you will likely be more successful in having your message seen or heard. If you are in Olympia, stop in and introduce yourself to the LA… a box of chocolates is always well received. If you can’t make the contact in person, try over the phone. Remember, be polite… the LA does not make or vote on policy. 2. The time to get to know your rep is NOT during session; between sessions, try for coffee or lunch and you will likely get more quality time and, during session, they are more likely to personally respond to your email due to the previous personal contact. 3. Have a point and get to it; short and succinct is better than long and rambling. 4. You don’t need to be politically savvy; you only need to know your issue and why you are for or against it. 5. Be patient, most of these folks are not familiar with the intricacies of fishing management… (most of us aren’t either).
_________________________
Fish 'til you puke; spawn 'til you die.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#488177 - 02/14/09 10:01 PM
Re: SB 5127 Why is this even being discussed?
[Re: Slowleak]
|
Repeat Spawner
Registered: 09/23/02
Posts: 1188
Loc: Monroe, Washington
|
This is nothing new. When Doumitt and Spanel were in Natural Resources, they had Ron Ozment and Will Roehl leading the commission-both pro commercial. I have a copy of the old senate hearing of the sleighing of Clyde McBrayer-prosports. Hariet Spanel said she would never let any of her boys (commecials) lose to us sporties again. Now we have for the first time ever a commisison that is concerned for the resource and sporties. So they are back trying to take control. They tied to Leave Fred Shiosake to take their place and was not allowed. This is what Jacobsen was saying about Fred being a World War 2 vet and not being allowed as chair after being vice chair. The commission wants to act on its own and doesn't need commercial influence.
The NR is trying to own the Natural Resources. This will set us back years if this passes. No private entity should own a public resource. This opens the way for them to let commercials back in. From what I understand we are hearing from the tribes now as they are very concerned and want to change things back. We ae on a path to helping the fish and getting sporties a chance.
They were orchistrating the hearing for this bill very well . Ed Owens sounded very convincing and is the lobbyist for the commercial fishermen. He is very effective. If I did not know what has happned in the past I would probably not questioned it too.
Remember what happens here could set a precident towards Alaska and that the Alaska money IS in Seattle. The commercials have spent over 100 years in Washington government to protect "their" fishery . They do not plan to lose.
Gregoire is not on board of changing the commission or eliminating it.
When the house is dealing with bills there is a lot of trading and scratching each others backs to get their agenda through. They might be against a bill but have to vote for it to get their bill passed. Happens more than not.
Edited by Fishinnut (02/14/09 10:03 PM)
_________________________
Join the Puget Sound Anglers Sno-King Chapter. Meets second Thursday of every month at the SCS Center, 220 Railroad Ave. Edmonds, WA 98020 at 6:30pm Two buildings south of the Edmonds Ferry on the beach.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#488246 - 02/15/09 03:10 PM
Re: SB 5127 Why is this even being discussed?
[Re: Fishinnut]
|
Repeat Spawner
Registered: 09/23/02
Posts: 1188
Loc: Monroe, Washington
|
Mine so far-Val Steven's staff called within 20 minutes to verify that I wanted no changes to the commission. I replied no changes whatsoever, leave it as is.
No replyback from her or Dan Kristianson. Got a poitive reply from Kirk Pearson.
_________________________
Join the Puget Sound Anglers Sno-King Chapter. Meets second Thursday of every month at the SCS Center, 220 Railroad Ave. Edmonds, WA 98020 at 6:30pm Two buildings south of the Edmonds Ferry on the beach.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 registered (eddie),
1982
Guests and
2
Spiders online. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
11505 Members
17 Forums
73128 Topics
827896 Posts
Max Online: 14307 @ 05/22/26 06:24 PM
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index
