I am writing this to provide more info on the enforcement issue. Right now WDFW is known as a general authority law enforcement agency which basically allows them to enforce all laws of the state from traffic to drugs to wildlife. The only other state agency that is general authority is the state patrol. DNR has 9 law enforcement officers however DNR is a limited authority law enforcement agency, they have the authority to enforce hunting/fishing laws, DNR laws (mainly timber issues), and traffic violations that occur ON DNR lands. Other examples of limited authority agencies are the Liquor Control Board (which has authority to enforce only alcohol and tobacco laws) and State Parks (which has full police powers but only in state parks).

Under this legislation the WDFW would disappear and basically fall under the DNR. However as it is currently written there is no transfer of law enforcement powers to give DNR officers general authority. Which would mean the day this bill becomes law, all former WDFW officers would become DNR officers and basically lose all of the authority they had and would only be able to enforce the laws I wrote above. Now some people have said that WDFW officers should only enforce hunting/fishing laws and not deal with things such as traffic and drugs. However, let’s say you have someone trespassing on your property; a DNR officer/former WDFW officer has no authority over trespass laws because trespassing is not a fish/wildlife statute and thus would be powerless in arresting/citing the trespasser. Let’s say there is people smoking dope or underage drinkers at your favorite WDFW boat launch, a WDFW/DNR officer would not have authority to do anything, they would have to call the local state patrol, city police, or sheriff to come deal with it. What I basically mean is it ties officer’s hands behind their back.

Now what DNR law enforcement currently does is try to gain full authority law enforcement powers by asking each individual county sheriff to commission (commonly known as deputizing) their officers, which basically gives the DNR officer full police authority but only in that county. And the DNR has to do this for each 39 counties in the state. Now some sheriffs are very good about this (Kittitas County for example is great) however other sheriffs (such as King County) have policies that no outside agency can be commissioned. This creates obvious problems with what the public needs and expects of their officers. Another issue is that these commissions are only valid while the sheriff who commissioned the dept is in office. For example the current Sheriff in Kittitas County is Gene Dauna, he does have an agreement with DNR to give their officers full authority in Kittitas County, but let’s say Dauna is fired/retires/or leaves and the next sheriff comes in, that new sheriff can then either continue the agreement or decommission the officers basically taking their powers away. I think right now DNR has agreements with only about half of the states sheriffs to give their officers full police powers in their county. Federal agencies such as BLM and the Forest Service also do this same type of commissioning if they want to enforce state laws, if they aren’t commissioned then they can only enforce federal laws.

If anybody has any other enforcement related ?’s send them my way.

WASHINGTON FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov
Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission Statement on Senate Bill 6813
(A bill transferring various natural resources management duties to the Department of Natural Resources.)
February 12, 2010
The Fish and Wildlife Commission hereby expresses its strong opposition to Senate Bill 6813 . This proposed legislation would abolish the Department of Fish and Wildlife and the State Parks and Recreation Commission and transfer their powers, duties, and functions to the Department of Natural Resources. While the Legislature states that it intends no transfer of powers and duties away from the Fish and Wildlife Commission, it in fact would eliminate the central authority of the Fish and Wildlife Commission — the power to hire and fire the Director. It would also remove the Commission’s authority over the Department budget.
The three agencies that are affected by this bill have very different mandates and missions — each important to the quality of life of our citizenry. It would be improper to intentionally or unintentionally make the vital resource conservation mission of the Department of Fish and Wildlife subordinate to the resource extraction mission of the Department of Natural Resources.
After a thoughtful and deliberative process considering the costs and benefits of various natural resource agencies re-organization options, the Governor proposed ways to enhance efficiency and reduce redundancy. The Governor’s government reform process involved resource professionals, the affected stakeholders, and the public. SB 6813 proposes to enact a merger option that was thoroughly reviewed but ultimately eliminated because it lacked benefits sufficient to justify the costs and risks to the state’s natural resources.
The merger proposed in this bill will diminish the ability of each component agency to successfully focus and consolidate the needed resources on the core elements of its own unique mission. Because of the important differences in their purposes, the component parts of the agencies would not be integrated, but would remain distinct parts of the resulting combined agency. The transition is likely to give rise to a host of procedural issues which will distract staff from strategic priorities.
The impact on the governance of WDFW is our preeminent concern. In passing Referendum 45 in 1995, the voters of Washington empowered the Fish and Wildlife Commission with supervisory authority over the Department director for a purpose: to guarantee that fish and wildlife management would be both directly responsive to the public and insulated from political pressures. As is the case in states around the country, the Commission process was designed to assure that the interests of long-term conservation would not be compromised for short-term political ends.
By eliminating the Commission’s source of authority — the authority to hire and fire the director — this bill will reverse Referendum 45. If enacted, this bill will remove the power of the Commission. It will remove the Commission’s ability to demand conservation of fish and wildlife. The Commission will no longer be able to provide the public a direct avenue to exert control over the agency that sets important hunting and fishing rules. The Commission will no longer have the clout to insulate uniquely important conservation decisions from the politics of the day.
The people made their intent absolutely clear. The people voted to provide a citizen commission with the authority to govern the agency that makes decisions on the fish and wildlife resources of this state.
Susan Yeager, Executive Assistant
Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission
Phone: (360) 902-2267
Email: Susan.Yeager@dfw.wa.gov
Mail: 600 Capitol Way North
Olympia, Washington 98501-1091
Web: http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission

6813 needs to die in the Senate NROR committee on the 17th. The state has more pressing monetary issues than trying to merge 3 agencies at who knows what cost.

The current structures of DNR, Parks, and Wildlife might not be perfect, but they do work and can be changed much easier than if they were to be combined. Can you imagine the in-fighting for a single pot of money that is controlled by the DNR Director.

Depending on the director, there won't be any money unless the wishes of commercials are met.

Back to where we were before voters backed Ref 45 in 1995. The commercials will lobby for more fish-- and will get it-- with little to no resistance because of weak mechanism of public imput available.

Not being a politician or colledge educated this is my take on the whole deal.

1 Recall the govener, this all comes from her and her staff, might even save some money.

2 Referendum 45 said it all, and I'm getting tired of our government trying to change that.

3 Incumbant -outcumbant Its time to use our vote where it will get their attention.

4 Term Limits, they are in Olympia to serve the people, not feather their own nests.

5 Come on people get P SSED

Your exactly right! The Govenor is the one pushing this crap and also the one turning a blind eye on the true problems!

Ok I'm P ssed....O wait I was already there thanks to PS Steelhead closures......

Good points Panhandler. I agree completely.

I recieved letter from Mr. Rockefellers office yesterday in response from letter above. Since it was sent several weeks ago some of article is dated.



In response to your inquiry, Senator Rockefeller asked that I send along the article below from the Lewiston Tribune. His comments in the story reflect his thinking on this issue:



“Bill would abolish state agencies



Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Department of Parks and Recreation would cease to exist under measure set for a hearing Wednesday



Feb. 13

By Eric Barker of the Tribune.



Washington state senators will conduct a hearing Wednesday on a bill that would abolish the Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Department of Parks and Recreation and fold their duties into the Department of Natural Resources.



The bill, sponsored by Rodney Tom, Phil Rockefeller and Paull Shin, all west-side Democrats with districts in or near Seattle, will have its first hearing in the Natural Resources, Ocean and Recreation Committee. Rockefeller said the purpose of the bill is to consolidate duties, reduce redundancies and ultimately save money at a time the state is faced with a $2.6 billion deficit.



"It seems to me, based upon a lot of review and consideration about how to be more efficient in the delivery of natural resource-related programs, consolidation of these three agencies might actually accomplish some significant cost-savings in oversight and administrative support services," Rockefeller said.



According to a fiscal note attached to the bill, consolidating the agencies would reduce labor costs associated with the management of parks by $1 million per year and labor costs associated with management of fish and wildlife by $880,00 per year.



But the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission, which provides oversight to the Department of Fish and Wildlife, is opposed to the bill that would also strip it of its power to hire and fire the director of the department and oversee its budget. The commission issued a policy statement Friday saying Gov. Chris Gregoire considered consolidation prior to releasing her proposed budget but scrapped the idea, because its savings would not be large enough to offset risks to the state's varied natural resources. Commissioners also said the bill would reverse a referendum passed in 1995 giving it hiring and firing power over the director.



"It will remove the commission's ability to demand conservation of fish and wildlife. The commission will no longer be able to provide the public a direct avenue to exert control over the agency that sets important hunting and fishing rules. The commission will no longer have the clout to insulate uniquely important conservation decisions from the politics of the day."



Commissions overseeing the department of parks and department of fish and wildlife would still exist and retain many of their duties if the bill were passed and signed by the governor. But the commissioner of Public Lands would be the chief executive overseeing all three departments. Both commissions would no longer have authority over budgets for their respective departments. Instead they would review and make comments on the portions of the budget related to fish and wildlife and parks



Rockefeller acknowledged some powers and duties would change and said he would not make a final judgment on the bill until after the committee hearings. But he also said, "We are going to have to do a lot of things that change the way we do business as a state to be more efficient."



Sincerely,



Michael F. Hatchett

Legislative Assistant to

State Senator Phil Rockefeller

Washington's 23rd District

360.786.7644

I heard that that the bill is technically dead, but still on the table because Rodney Tom has made it necessary to implement his version of the budget. We need to keep tracking it.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=6813&year=2009

I'll have to cross reference these three sponsers of 6813 with Jacobsen and Haugen sponsers of 5127 last year and see how they voted with suspension of I-960.
Just curious how high up on the pedestal these dictators think they are above the voting public on Ref 45 and now I-960.

The answer is:

It's time for a change.

Rockefeller, tom, shin, jacobsen and haugen don't care what the voters of referendum 45 or I -960 voted for. If they are in your district I wish you would vote these worthless bums out. They have little regard of the voters they are suppose to represent.

If I remember correctly, I heard that Jacobsen is actually against this bill. I talked to someone who attended the hearing and Jacobsen said something along the lines of..its been 16 years since the fisheries and wildlife merger and things still haven't been worked out. what makes you think this merger would go fast and efficiently"

I heard that Peter Goldmark, DNR Commish was a behind the scenes guy trying to build his empire at DNR.

Anyone hear the same ?

Haven't heard that, but there isn't much that surprises me anymore with the general legislative attitude towards their employers....

Jacobsen and Haugen co sponsored 5127 last year and jacobsen said that that bill would effectively gut the commission of WDFW. Going against ref 45 that the voters passed by 61% in 1995 to establish the commission and now again voting for suspension of I-960 just a few days ago. That to me would be history of damn the voting public. I'll do what I want.

Bill 5127 didn't pass last year so here come this bill this year that again would have capabilities to gut the commission again.

Your quote above left out two prior sentences , if I remember correctly, jacobsen interrupted and questioned the testimony being presented about WDFW still being more that capable of handling hunting and fishing situations if combined into DNR. My impression was he didn't agree with that statement and would still like to gut the commission.

Anybody can review 6813 on tvw and make their own judgement.