Perhaps it shouldn't be.

It does explain a few things though.

This is all very interesting, Lets find out where Jacobsen gets his money///

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.

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.

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.