PETITION TO REMOVE WDFW DIRECTOR ANDERSON, CHIEF CROWN & DEPUTY CHIEF CENCI

[Curly]

I also have to ask...did you discuss your concerns with the Wildlife Commission or is this just an out of the blue petition?

The commission is a joke.  I've lost any faith in them. 

I do agree though, in general with most of your comments.  This petition may not do any good, but maybe it is a start.  Maybe it will get some people to pay attention.  At least he's trying something. 

[bigtex]

If you know of a more effective way to bring change, by all means , please share it with us.............

I don't know what else ucwarden has tried.  But a letter signed by the heads of multiple conservation organizations representing large numbers of hunters, elected officials (state legislators, commissioners etc.) would probably get a lot more notice/attention than a random petition delivered to the commission.

Getting conservation groups to sign on may not be that easy, especially the bigger the group. The bigger the group, the more political they are. As an example, here's the President of Puget Sound Angler's response to the petition:

"I am sorry to hear this. Sounds like a top detective is no longer at WDFW.

I dont know Steven yet, but know Phil and Mike well and they deal with many issues that are not privvy to the average individual. They do far more for us than anyone will ever know. As bad as our issues are, most have no idea of the amount that is taken care of we never see as it would be much worse.

I talk and work with them often and completely disagree with removing any of them. Mike Cenci is the driving force that busted the huge black market crab ring among many other gross negligence busts.

I never wanted to get involved in politics but had to to save some of our fisheries. Unfortunately it is all politics and sometimes it doesn't go our way. But that is reality.
Ron Garner
President
Puget Sound Anglers"

http://www.theoutdoorline.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2192

[huntnphool]

If you know of a more effective way to bring change, by all means , please share it with us.............

I don't know what else ucwarden has tried.  But a letter signed by the heads of multiple conservation organizations representing large numbers of hunters, elected officials (state legislators, commissioners etc.) would probably get a lot more notice/attention than a random petition delivered to the commission.

Getting conservation groups to sign on may not be that easy, especially the bigger the group. The bigger the group, the more political they are. As an example, here's the President of Puget Sound Angler's response to the petition:

"I am sorry to hear this. Sounds like a top detective is no longer at WDFW.

I dont know Steven yet, but know Phil and Mike well and they deal with many issues that are not privvy to the average individual. They do far more for us than anyone will ever know. As bad as our issues are, most have no idea of the amount that is taken care of we never see as it would be much worse.

I talk and work with them often and completely disagree with removing any of them. Mike Cenci is the driving force that busted the huge black market crab ring among many other gross negligence busts.

I never wanted to get involved in politics but had to to save some of our fisheries. Unfortunately it is all politics and sometimes it doesn't go our way. But that is reality.
Ron Garner
President
Puget Sound Anglers"

http://www.theoutdoorline.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2192

I'd like to know Mr. Garners position on hatcheries.

[ucwarden]

I don't see this going anywhere unless you can clearly articulate what specifically these guys have done (or not done) and provide strong corroborating evidence to support your claims.  You also need to articulate your solutions to the problems you perceive.  This needs to be part of your petition IMO.  I also have to ask...did you discuss your concerns with the Wildlife Commission or is this just an out of the blue petition?  There are some 500,000 hunters/anglers in WDFW's license database...1,000 signatures is 0.2% of those folks.

Right now, and I read your book and have frustrations about the level of incompetence in WDFW enforcement...lots of frustrations, I think its pretty easy to just label you as a disgruntled former employee trying to get back at your old bosses/employer.  I think there are more effective ways to bring about change than a mass petition and I would be curious if you or others who want this change have explored other options.     

No worries, I have plenty more.   Stand by

[ucwarden]

If you know of a more effective way to bring change, by all means , please share it with us.............

I don't know what else ucwarden has tried.  But a letter signed by the heads of multiple conservation organizations representing large numbers of hunters, elected officials (state legislators, commissioners etc.) would probably get a lot more notice/attention than a random petition delivered to the commission.

Getting conservation groups to sign on may not be that easy, especially the bigger the group. The bigger the group, the more political they are. As an example, here's the President of Puget Sound Angler's response to the petition:

"I am sorry to hear this. Sounds like a top detective is no longer at WDFW.

I dont know Steven yet, but know Phil and Mike well and they deal with many issues that are not privvy to the average individual. They do far more for us than anyone will ever know. As bad as our issues are, most have no idea of the amount that is taken care of we never see as it would be much worse.

I talk and work with them often and completely disagree with removing any of them. Mike Cenci is the driving force that busted the huge black market crab ring among many other gross negligence busts.

I never wanted to get involved in politics but had to to save some of our fisheries. Unfortunately it is all politics and sometimes it doesn't go our way. But that is reality.
Ron Garner
President
Puget Sound Anglers"

http://www.theoutdoorline.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2192

That's great.   If he had read my book he would understand that Cenci loves shellfish and shellfish cases, so if one is into shellfish you are going to love him.  But the same Deputy Chief of Fish and Wildlife has stated "Nobody gives a s@#$ about deer and elk".  How's that feel if your thing happens to be elk and not clams?

[jackmaster]

It would be sweet to have them in an open debate under oath, and of course a fisheries person is gonna like cenci, how does a game person feel about cenci? I think we know the answer to that...

[ucwarden]

If you know of a more effective way to bring change, by all means , please share it with us.............

I don't know what else ucwarden has tried.  But a letter signed by the heads of multiple conservation organizations representing large numbers of hunters, elected officials (state legislators, commissioners etc.) would probably get a lot more notice/attention than a random petition delivered to the commission.

Getting conservation groups to sign on may not be that easy, especially the bigger the group. The bigger the group, the more political they are. As an example, here's the President of Puget Sound Angler's response to the petition:

"I am sorry to hear this. Sounds like a top detective is no longer at WDFW.

I dont know Steven yet, but know Phil and Mike well and they deal with many issues that are not privvy to the average individual. They do far more for us than anyone will ever know. As bad as our issues are, most have no idea of the amount that is taken care of we never see as it would be much worse.

I talk and work with them often and completely disagree with removing any of them. Mike Cenci is the driving force that busted the huge black market crab ring among many other gross negligence busts.

I never wanted to get involved in politics but had to to save some of our fisheries. Unfortunately it is all politics and sometimes it doesn't go our way. But that is reality.
Ron Garner
President
Puget Sound Anglers"

http://www.theoutdoorline.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2192

FYI, I didn't know that forum existed, but I just registered and responded.

[trophyhunt]

I don't see this going anywhere unless you can clearly articulate what specifically these guys have done (or not done) and provide strong corroborating evidence to support your claims.  You also need to articulate your solutions to the problems you perceive.  This needs to be part of your petition IMO.  I also have to ask...did you discuss your concerns with the Wildlife Commission or is this just an out of the blue petition?  There are some 500,000 hunters/anglers in WDFW's license database...1,000 signatures is 0.2% of those folks.

Right now, and I read your book and have frustrations about the level of incompetence in WDFW enforcement...lots of frustrations, I think its pretty easy to just label you as a disgruntled former employee trying to get back at your old bosses/employer.  I think there are more effective ways to bring about change than a mass petition and I would be curious if you or others who want this change have explored other options.     

:bash:man we bitch and complain about tribes, wolves and the direction fish and game has been going.  I'm not going to question a guy trying to legitimately make changes?!  Will it work? Who knows, but sitting on your arse will absolutely get you no where!  Thanks a million ucwarden!!

[idahohuntr]

I guess my bigger point is that to be credible you have to attack the problem, not the individuals...not saying the individuals are not the problem, but what specifically are they failing at?  I know darn well no big conservation groups are going to sign on to the petition as written because it appears to be a pissing match between former colleagues.

And I am not throwing this out there to just be a jerk...I think there are legitimate issues to address with WDFW enforcement...but you have to approach this in a way that you can win.  For example, if you can articulate that WDFW is not focusing on elk poaching enough, then provide the corroborating evidence and get a group like RMEF to perk up and say "hey...whats going on wdfw...you guys are dropping the ball on elk with your over-zealous focus on shellfish".  To just go out and say Cenci needs to be fired is going to be dismissed as you simply being a disgruntled employee.  Bigtex's posted response from the puget sound guy is a perfect example.   

I don't know enough about the specific problems and evidence of the problems (sounds like some of the LEO folks do though) and I sure don't have the solutions...which is the other piece lacking in the petition.  No credible group is going to get much traction without providing their solutions to the problems.  Some of the best advice I have ever had in working with different people and groups was never to present a problem without some sort of solution.   

A while ago you (ucwarden) started collecting ideas on this forum for laws to change/modify to present to the commission...did you ever do anything with that?  I spent a few hours writing down changes I would propose that I sent you. That is the kind of thing I think you can do to build a relationship with commissioners/conservation groups and be seen as a problem solver as opposed to a disgruntled employee.  Also, I think focusing on eliminating some of the absurd and stupid laws WDFW enforces would do a lot of good for sportsmen...probably a lot more good than firing a couple of administrators that will get replaced with different administrators. 

[trophyhunt]

I guess my bigger point is that to be credible you have to attack the problem, not the individuals...not saying the individuals are not the problem, but what specifically are they failing at?  I know darn well no big conservation groups are going to sign on to the petition as written because it appears to be a pissing match between former colleagues.

And I am not throwing this out there to just be a jerk...I think there are legitimate issues to address with WDFW enforcement...but you have to approach this in a way that you can win.  For example, if you can articulate that WDFW is not focusing on elk poaching enough, then provide the corroborating evidence and get a group like RMEF to perk up and say "hey...whats going on wdfw...you guys are dropping the ball on elk with your over-zealous focus on shellfish".  To just go out and say Cenci needs to be fired is going to be dismissed as you simply being a disgruntled employee.  Bigtex's posted response from the puget sound guy is a perfect example.   

I don't know enough about the specific problems and evidence of the problems (sounds like some of the LEO folks do though) and I sure don't have the solutions...which is the other piece lacking in the petition.  No credible group is going to get much traction without providing their solutions to the problems.  Some of the best advice I have ever had in working with different people and groups was never to present a problem without some sort of solution.   

A while ago you (ucwarden) started collecting ideas on this forum for laws to change/modify to present to the commission...did you ever do anything with that?  I spent a few hours writing down changes I would propose that I sent you. That is the kind of thing I think you can do to build a relationship with commissioners/conservation groups and be seen as a problem solver as opposed to a disgruntled employee.  Also, I think focusing on eliminating some of the absurd and stupid laws WDFW enforces would do a lot of good for sportsmen...probably a lot more good than firing a couple of administrators that will get replaced with different administrators.

obviously your heart is in it for change.  This really has nothing to do with a disgruntled employee going after his ex-bosses.  Ucwarden is retired and I believe just really cares about our fish and game.  This is a very unselfish act and its all about changing the direction the department is heading.  Getting these guys fired is a great start, cenci should have been arrested for his actions at the raid in Tacoma.  We are on the same side, change has to start somewhere.

[jackelope]

 I've gotten a few messages with positive comments regarding Director Anderson. Comments that he is taking the dept in a more positive direction than any if the past directors. Other comments saying the dept is a little lopsided in favor of fisheries, but getting better.   Other comments saying he's the best director the dept has had in a few decades. I haven't been in this state for very long compared to the rest of you guys and don't really have a solid opinion on this. Thoughts??

[buckfvr]

He got us where we are today, and that is far and away enough to send him packin........Whats past is past, but he is the here and now and it needs changing.

We the hunters on this forum are going to once again find ourselves in the unenviable position of being in the minority by a long ways.....They have a huge puget sound basin following of folks who only see what they are interested in, and that is in most cases not shared by us on here.

We will put pressure everywhere we can and hope heads roll......THe guys are totally political, and that says it all.........NOT TO BE TRUSTED  !!!!!!

[trophyhunt]

I've gotten a few messages with positive comments regarding Director Anderson. Comments that he is taking the dept in a more positive direction than any if the past directors. Other comments saying the dept is a little lopsided in favor of fisheries, but getting better.   Other comments saying he's the best director the dept has had in a few decades. I haven't been in this state for very long compared to the rest of you guys and don't really have a solid opinion on this. Thoughts??

most of my anger comes from the facts from the book, I can't remember if you read operation Cody or not Josh?  The actions of the top brass in that book alone should get them removed, the constant illegal native kills(even against their own laws) being ignored, and just my own personal feelings on the wolf invasion. Non native wolves should have been addressed front and center, they should have confronted the subject before it became a problem.  I wish I had more for ya but the book for me is enough to want change.

[Landowner]

I know UCWarden. 

He's as ethical a person as you will ever meet.  Fortunately, he doesn't think any employee of WDFW is bigger than the Department or its reason for existence.

He's not gonna take action unless there's a very compelling reason to do so. 

[trophyhunt]

I know UCWarden. 

He's as ethical a person as you will ever meet.  Fortunately, he doesn't think any employee of WDFW is bigger than the Department or its reason for existence.

He's not gonna take action unless there's a very compelling reason to do so.