Any news on Jay Kehne?

That is great news that Jennings is gone.

Part of my letter asked the question as to why one commissioner continually tried to circumvent the rules with his single minded agenda.

The work is NOT over, we have to be vigilant in our efforts to make sure that no single minded commissioner takes his position and tries to do the same things.

Thank you Commissioners, Gov Inslee and everyone that did their part in removing him from the commission.

Fishy

Guess I shoulda watched the whole video, Kehne was appointed at 12:00 minute. gdmit

Carcassman,

OK, let's have commercial representation on the Commission in proportion to their percent of the state fishing (and hunting) population, say about 0.05 of one commissioner.

Dogfish,

I disagree with having a treaty tribal member on the Commission. The Commission makes fish and wildlife decisions for the whole of Washington and its citizens. Treaty tribes represent less than 2% of the population with a legal interest and right to 50% of the harvestable fish and shellfish in treaty ceded areas. Absent a similar disproportionate non-treaty representation in treaty fishing decision-making - which ain't happening - this is a bad idea.

Sg

Only if we were abide by one set of rules for everybody would I be fine with a tribal member on the commission. We aren't in that situation.

With the current situation, two parties operating under two separate sets of rules in the same territory, I agree.

I would be okay with a Tribal member on the Commission since they are citizens of this state too. Plus, they could bring a perpective that is not on the Commission, and has never been.

However, that does not, and cannot, change how management of those resources between the Tribes and the State are conducted. Tribes will manage their fishery and the State will manage it's fishery (ditto for wildlife mgt). Having a Tribal member on the Commission won't change that. The Commission will not suddenly be managing Tribal fishing. And the Tribes will not be managing fisheries in areas of the State where they have no jurisdiction.

But prohibiting a Tribal member from being on the Commission simply because they are a Tribal member is not legal. It's called discrimination. I realize that nobody is suggesting that, but let's not confuse management of State/Tribal resources with membership on the Commission.

I'd be careful about setting some sort representation level for commissioners. I suspect that all residents of the state were equally represented then hunting would be a lot less available than it is now.

Thanks for posting the link. My wife has worked with NPAFC for many years and I met Guy when he was the commissioner representing Washington state on the NPAFC. The 2002 NPAFC meeting was in Vladivostok, Russia and I went along as a tourist. It was Guy's 65 birthday during the meeting and I was assigned the task of finding some place to have a small celebration. It was not easy, can't tell the story here, but it was a memorable experience. As the news article indicates Guy was more than a treaty-rights-warrior. He was a smart politician, a supporter of UW and worked to get funding for many research projects. He also worked hard to get tribal kids an education and help them to be successful in college. Steelhead fishing was a passion and he did practice CNR .

A comment about the WDFW Commission, it's work is about much more than fish. Hunting like fishing is part of the commission work but an amazing amount of time is involved with property management questions and the public's interactions with wildlife. The commissioners are chosen from various regions and should work to represent the people of the entire state.

Great news - when does the Eyefish Doc for Commissioner campaign get started?

Cohoangler, How would a tribal member on the commission not be part of managing our 50% of the pie?? To maintain their treaty rights (as interpreted as having 50%) they have to be a seperate nation.

As Dogfish has pointed out, I'd have no problem with them sitting on the commission as a member of this state if we were all managing the same piece of pie for all to fish in common. That's not the case. The tribes sure aren't going to let EyeDoc sit as a voting member of their fisheries management committee!

I get the kum bi ya (sp whatever) feeling of not having an us vs. them. That would be great! Just tear up the treaties that were made between two nations, do away with the tribal nations all together and then any well-qualified [former] tribal member would be welcome to sit on the commission and help decide how WE ALL manage the fisheries TOGETHER for COMMON usage.

Otherwise, it would be like having a Canadian citizen sit on our negotiating committee as we are working out salmon treaties with Canada. Can't sit on both sides of the fence!

I support this if Francis is willing.

Doc as a commissioner?

YGBFKM????

Doc would last all of about an hour before someone chopped off his head...because he stuck it up WAY too high for all to chop off.

Doc is not politician material. He is intelligent, informed and speaks his mind.

I hear ya Parker but no joke.
Doc has long term training and experience in staying cool in stressful situations and helping things work out as best they can. Think about it, who else do you want poking your eyeball with a scalpel?

I think he would take the time and put in the work to learn about the issues, present potential solutions to problems, surgically dissect erroneous viewpoints, and strive for a successful outcome for all involved at the end of the day. He has an excellent skillset and temperament and would be a great commissioner. Just my opinion.

Rick

Commissioner is not = to politician. I think Doc (or Salmo G) would be great additions to the commission. I've learned more from those two here and on other forums than I have from most others (no slam on others - just saying that these two guys know their stuff).

Jennings was not cool, calm, and collected after I blasted him, and REEF, and the cabezon plan in my 3 minutes.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2013/06/audio/20130608_04.m3u

Skip to minute 18:00 for comments from those of us who showed up.

At 38:50 he starts to lose it.

Did he even vote?

I didn't hear a peep from him at the vote.

Nice! Way to go Dogfish, RG, and everyone that testified...



Fishy

Great testimony, Andy! I like the Animal Farm reference.

Glad Com. Jennings is gone. His shelf-life expired.

Regarding EyeDoc's post:

We can not not hear from the audio. whether he voted or not.
He either voted in support of maintaining the regulations he opposed, or else he didn't' vote.

There were no voices heard in opposition to maintaining the Cabezon regulations; and Mr Jennings was the sponsor of the opposition.
So, the major sponsor of this regulatory change did not speak up when it came to a vote.

Time for a career change, Mr.Jennings.

FWIW, I think he is not a bad guy, just clueless wrt representing his constituency, which extended beyond REEF as soon as he applied for the job. YMMV.