POLL: Is WDFW fulfilling it's legislative mandates?

[bearpaw]

What are your thoughts? Is WDFW fulfilling it's legislative mandates?
Please grade their performance!

http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/

About WDFW

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) is dedicated to preserving, protecting and perpetuating the state’s fish and wildlife resources. The department operates under a dual mandate from the Washington Legislature to:

• Protect and enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats.
• Provide sustainable, fish- and wildlife-related recreational and commercial opportunities.

Department policy is guided by the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission composed of nine citizen members appointed by the Governor. Department operations are led by a Director and an Executive Management Team. The Director is appointed by the Fish and Wildlife Commission.

[bigtex]

Here is the actual mandate as written into state law and last amended in 2000


RCW 77.04.012
Mandate of department and commission.

Wildlife, fish, and shellfish are the property of the state. The commission, director, and the department shall preserve, protect, perpetuate, and manage the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish in state waters and offshore waters.

The department shall conserve the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish resources in a manner that does not impair the resource. In a manner consistent with this goal, the department shall seek to maintain the economic well-being and stability of the fishing industry in the state. The department shall promote orderly fisheries and shall enhance and improve recreational and commercial fishing in this state.

The commission may authorize the taking of wildlife, food fish, game fish, and shellfish only at times or places, or in manners or quantities, as in the judgment of the commission does not impair the supply of these resources.

The commission shall attempt to maximize the public recreational game fishing and hunting opportunities of all citizens, including juvenile, disabled, and senior citizens.

Recognizing that the management of our state wildlife, food fish, game fish, and shellfish resources depends heavily on the assistance of volunteers, the department shall work cooperatively with volunteer groups and individuals to achieve the goals of this title to the greatest extent possible.

Nothing in this title shall be construed to infringe on the right of a private property owner to control the owner's private property.

[bearpaw]

   Thanks for finding that for this topic. 

[bigtex]

I think the biggest problem for WDFW (and really all states) is in some cases they are almost forced into things. Federal laws such as the Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, and Migratory Bird Treaty Act all impact WDFW decisions, and with the ESA almost every WDFW decision can be impacted by the ESA. So when WDFW (or any state) wants to change something the first thing they have to is basically look and see what they can do under federal law.

As an example, states don't have much say regarding migratory bird hunting. USFWS says how long of the season can be, what the limits are, what the methods of take are and let the states set the actual dates and any further restrictions. But WDFW cant come out with a regulation saying duck hunting is open 365 days a year like they could for fishing in the local trout pond.

You don't really see this with other natural resource type agencies. It's not like there is a federal law which states how states must run their state parks. Or how many trees DNR can cut down on DNR lands

[vandeman17]

I think the biggest problem for WDFW (and really all states) is in some cases they are almost forced into things. Federal laws such as the Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, and Migratory Bird Treaty Act all impact WDFW decisions, and with the ESA almost every WDFW decision can be impacted by the ESA. So when WDFW (or any state) wants to change something the first thing they have to is basically look and see what they can do under federal law.

As an example, states don't have much say regarding migratory bird hunting. USFWS says how long of the season can be, what the limits are, what the methods of take are and let the states set the actual dates and any further restrictions. But WDFW cant come out with a regulation saying duck hunting is open 365 days a year like they could for fishing in the local trout pond.

You don't really see this with other natural resource type agencies. It's not like there is a federal law which states how states must run their state parks. Or how many trees DNR can cut down on DNR lands

I agree and the federal regulations paint with a broad brush when the states should have more say because they all face different factors. No one size fits all.

[ucwarden]

I think the biggest problem for WDFW (and really all states) is in some cases they are almost forced into things. Federal laws such as the Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, and Migratory Bird Treaty Act all impact WDFW decisions, and with the ESA almost every WDFW decision can be impacted by the ESA. So when WDFW (or any state) wants to change something the first thing they have to is basically look and see what they can do under federal law.

As an example, states don't have much say regarding migratory bird hunting. USFWS says how long of the season can be, what the limits are, what the methods of take are and let the states set the actual dates and any further restrictions. But WDFW cant come out with a regulation saying duck hunting is open 365 days a year like they could for fishing in the local trout pond.

You don't really see this with other natural resource type agencies. It's not like there is a federal law which states how states must run their state parks. Or how many trees DNR can cut down on DNR lands

BigTex:

I have agreed with almost everything you have posted on this site, until now.  I partially agree with what you said, but I think you are giving WDFW an excuse for doing a very poor job.  This director clearly comes from a fisheries background, and it shows in his performance.  In my particular case; how he manages (or doesn't manage) enforcement.  He has been made fully aware of the "issues" with WDFW enforcement, but has either ignored the problems or is a part of them. 

I realize federal law trumps a good deal of the decision making WDFW faces, but they do a piss poor job with the part they can deal with.  When I was in the field, I knew the courts wouldn't sentence suspects to what we all believe they should, but I did what I could with what I had available.  I didn't just throw my hands up and say "it's out of my control".  You gotta fight for what you believe in, and work your butt off.  I just don't see this director, or WDFW management taking on the tough issues (tribal hunting, predator control, etc.) like I think they should, but go after fish or shellfish and they are all over it.

[bobcat]

I give them an "F" for their lack of willingness to do anything to control the tribal overharvest issue.

[Bigtine96]

I give them an "F" for their lack of willingness to do anything to control the tribal overharvest issue.

  in my opinion the most important issue we have.

[Oldguy]

After reading "Operation Cody", I am convinced that if this is the way the WDFW operates, there is no hope for a positive outcome without a thorough house cleaning of the whole department. Is there anything positive that the WDFW has done in way of creating better hunting or fishing opportunities?

[Bullkllr]

After reading "Operation Cody", I am convinced that if this is the way the WDFW operates, there is no hope for a positive outcome without a thorough house cleaning of the whole department. Is there anything positive that the WDFW has done in way of creating better hunting or fishing opportunities?

That's a very fair question. I would add " what has WDFW done to simply sustain opportunities we used to have". I know there are issues to deal with like population growth, habitat loss, ocean conditions for salmon, etc. that they have no control over- but the record in my lifetime seems pretty abysmal- especially in the last 20 years or so.

[Elkaholic daWg]

After reading "Operation Cody", I am convinced that if this is the way the WDFW operates, there is no hope for a positive outcome without a thorough house cleaning of the whole department. Is there anything positive that the WDFW has done in way of creating better hunting or fishing opportunities?

That's a very fair question. I would add " what has WDFW done to simply sustain opportunities we used to have". I know there are issues to deal with like population growth, habitat loss, ocean conditions for salmon, etc. that they have no control over- but the record in my lifetime seems pretty abysmal- especially in the last 20 years or so.

Yes, right after the DFW was merged with fisheries...

[buckfvr]

When you have inept management, and many of the departmental people, and down through the ranks know it, yet allow it, by not speaking there minds as a group, then they are just as guilty of the failure as the persons ultimately incharge.

The big problem with wdfw is they all have such great jobs that they are unwilling to take a risk to right the many wrongs that are going on all around them.  They feel since they are just following orders, its not their fault.  BUT IT IS their fault for not attempting to correct the failures.

That is why top to bottom house cleaning is necessary........they all deserve to be in line for handouts........they cost us millions in wages and benefits all while failing us.  ONLY IN a government job will you find this........SICKENING  !!!!!

[ucwarden]

When you have inept management, and many of the departmental people, and down through the ranks know it, yet allow it, by not speaking there minds as a group, then they are just as guilty of the failure as the persons ultimately incharge.

The big problem with wdfw is they all have such great jobs that they are unwilling to take a risk to right the many wrongs that are going on all around them.  They feel since they are just following orders, its not their fault.  BUT IT IS their fault for not attempting to correct the failures.

That is why top to bottom house cleaning is necessary........they all deserve to be in line for handouts........they cost us millions in wages and benefits all while failing us.  ONLY IN a government job will you find this........SICKENING  !!!!!

I am not criticizing anyone at all, so don't take this as such, but it's easy to complain about what is wrong, but much more valuable to do something about it.  I agree that it's time for a major regimen change, but now what are we all going to do about it?

[Special T]

I am not a turkey hunter but i have heard that they have done an excellent job with that. There WERE some old gaurd that did an excellent job in thier area, because those individuals LOVED thier position and what they did. the 2 names that escape me, however they were the blues elk MGR that was honored on here and a waterfowl bio/warden from the skagit area.

The stars that i have meet or heard about are INDIVIDUALS that have found a way to overcome the beurocacy that is the WDFW. There is no good leadership from the department on the hunting side. I think i have heard more "the cup is half empty" from them than "half Full".

I do think they do a good job at attacking poatchers that work the salt waters, but that is it.

[returnofsid]

Here is the actual mandate as written into state law and last amended in 2000


RCW 77.04.012
Mandate of department and commission.

Wildlife, fish, and shellfish are the property of the state. The commission, director, and the department shall preserve, protect, perpetuate, and manage the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish in state waters and offshore waters.

The department shall conserve the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish resources in a manner that does not impair the resource. In a manner consistent with this goal, the department shall seek to maintain the economic well-being and stability of the fishing industry in the state. The department shall promote orderly fisheries and shall enhance and improve recreational and commercial fishing in this state.

The commission may authorize the taking of wildlife, food fish, game fish, and shellfish only at times or places, or in manners or quantities, as in the judgment of the commission does not impair the supply of these resources.

The commission shall attempt to maximize the public recreational game fishing and hunting opportunities of all citizens, including juvenile, disabled, and senior citizens.

Recognizing that the management of our state wildlife, food fish, game fish, and shellfish resources depends heavily on the assistance of volunteers, the department shall work cooperatively with volunteer groups and individuals to achieve the goals of this title to the greatest extent possible.

Nothing in this title shall be construed to infringe on the right of a private property owner to control the owner's private property.

I'm a bit bothered by how much of this 'mandate' is directed towards fish and how little is directed towards wildlife. 

In this sentence alone, I grade close to a failure...

The commission shall attempt to maximize the public recreational game fishing and hunting opportunities of all citizens, including juvenile, disabled, and senior citizens.

[Humptulips]

The Commision and Director job is so politisized they won't make any decisions that aren't PC.
I don't know how you will ever get around that.

[bearpaw]

 

[Sitka_Blacktail]

Nothing in this title shall be construed to infringe on the right of a private property owner to control the owner's private property.

This is where things get sticky, because private property owners don't always do what's best for wild fish and game populations. In fact it's not always in their perceived best interest. Ranchers and farmers may want more water than is prudent for maintaining fish stocks for example. Deer and elk may harm crops. Then the farmers and ranchers may push for a reduction in game populations on public land, not just private land, because the state property (deer and elk) move freely from public to private land. And it's not just farmers and ranchers. How many people still pour ant-freeze down the drain? How many cars leak oil that ends up in ditches or storm drains? How many private property owners spray harmful chemicals on their yards or gardens? And the biggest source of harmful chemicals being spread that I know of are timber companies spraying herbicides. But examples are everywhere.

One place I do have a problem is farmers who want to be paid for crop damages but won't permit hunting (when and where appropriate) to help control the problem. They want public money to pay for their private losses, then treat a public resource like it's a private crop and lease hunting on their property.  If you're going to take public money, you should allow public hunting.

[snowpack]

One of the problems with farmers allowing hunting is that in many cases it results in even more damages.  I would like for those farmers to allow hunting too, but most were burned in some way or another previously.  Some hunters would chase animals all over the field trampling crops or forcing the animals to damage fences when they tried to escape.  One farmer I knew thought he did right by allowing hunting and when the guys shot an elk, they drove their pick-up through his field to get the animal (doing more damage than one elk would have).  Others had issues with gates left open and livestock getting into the crops. 

[janttihunter]

I give them a D...this is coming from someone who has lived and held hunting and fishing licenses in 3 other states in the past 10 years.

[Odiewon]

I am more than just disappointed that WDFW and DNR are not enforcing the law in certain GMU's that have the green dot road closure system in place. For several years now I have hiked in several miles to get to my favorite Elk areas only to find guys on Quads and ATV's already parked and/or driving (road hunting) on the closed roads. They manage to run the elk out completely within a couple of days. Last season I witnessed a guy who had an electronic cow call hooked up to the horn switch on his quad...he'd drive a little ways, stop, cow call (illegally with an electronic call) then move on and repeat the calls. All Day long!!!

How do we get the authorities to do something about this?

[Elkaholic daWg]

 Seen that problem with trucks too when the occupants were Englishly challenged   At least they  :chuckle:claim to be

[hunterrcc]

It is not illegal to use an electronic caller for elk.  FYI

[Elkaholic daWg]

 Wondering who the 5 are?

[bigtex]

I am more than just disappointed that WDFW and DNR are not enforcing the law in certain GMU's that have the green dot road closure system in place. For several years now I have hiked in several miles to get to my favorite Elk areas only to find guys on Quads and ATV's already parked and/or driving (road hunting) on the closed roads. They manage to run the elk out completely within a couple of days. Last season I witnessed a guy who had an electronic cow call hooked up to the horn switch on his quad...he'd drive a little ways, stop, cow call (illegally with an electronic call) then move on and repeat the calls. All Day long!!!

How do we get the authorities to do something about this?

From DNR's standpoint they have 12 officer positions statewide including their Chief. Two are new positions added in 2013. There are a whopping two DNR Officers in E WA. There is one officer in Colville who handles the counties bordering Canada and Spokane County. Another officer in Ellensburg handles ALL other counties in eastern WA. One of the new positions that was funded in 2013 will be based in Yakima. Unfortunately this Yakima position has been advertised twice and is still not filled (so if you know a LEO who wants to work for DNR out of Yakima tell them to contact me for more info  ) So you can see how dwindled DNR LE efforts are for their lands.

[Forks]

The Commision and Director job is so politisized they won't make any decisions that aren't PC.
I don't know how you will ever get around that.

This is the simple truth. To many groups to please, not all will be happy.

[bigtex]

The Commision and Director job is so politisized they won't make any decisions that aren't PC.
I don't know how you will ever get around that.

This is the simple truth. To many groups to please, not all will be happy.

What's better; having a Director that is appointed by the Commission (WDFW), or having one that is elected by all citizens (such as the DNR Director)?

[sakoshooter]

The WDFW has put way too much emphasis on the almighty $ and less on wildlife and even less on hunter opportunity. It's slowly getting worse also. Not too late to turn it around in my book if we get more people writting letters and some better people running the Dept.

[Forks]

Elect whoever you wish, it is still politics anyway one looks at it.

[Humptulips]

The Commision and Director job is so politisized they won't make any decisions that aren't PC.
I don't know how you will ever get around that.

This is the simple truth. To many groups to please, not all will be happy.

What's better; having a Director that is appointed by the Commission (WDFW), or having one that is elected by all citizens (such as the DNR Director)?

In reality they are all defacto appointed by the Governor, Commisioners and Director.
Not really the way it is supposed to be. Commisioners are supposed to be confirmed by the Senate but it doesn't really work that way.
If the Senate  had to confirm before they could serve it would allow better representation by rural areas IMHO. It would make it easier to block more controversial appointments like Keyne.

[bigtex]

The Commision and Director job is so politisized they won't make any decisions that aren't PC.
I don't know how you will ever get around that.

This is the simple truth. To many groups to please, not all will be happy.

What's better; having a Director that is appointed by the Commission (WDFW), or having one that is elected by all citizens (such as the DNR Director)?

In reality they are all defacto appointed by the Governor, Commisioners and Director.
Not really the way it is supposed to be. Commisioners are supposed to be confirmed by the Senate but it doesn't really work that way.
If the Senate  had to confirm before they could serve it would allow better representation by rural areas IMHO. It would make it easier to block more controversial appointments like Keyne.

True. But Kehne was confirmed, and did have Republicans voting in favor of his confirmation...

[T-Dozzer]

I give them an "F" for their lack of willingness to do anything to control the tribal overharvest issue.