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

[Curly]

You guys bring up good points.  I bet the petition would get a lot more support if Anderson was not included.   But is it not his job as director to steer the direction and mentality of the department?  Shouldn't he step in and prevent the firing of good wardens? And when other wardens retire early because of issues can't he see there are problems and work to get solutions.  Shouldn't he have stepped in when Cenci screwed up operation Cody?  Anderson should have fired Cenci.

And separate from the enforcement issues that prompted the petition,  it seems that as director, Anderson could helped prevent some of the stupid decisions that wdfw has done over the last several years.  The Wolf plan is just idiotic, the cougar management strategy is idiotic, and when wdfw made hunting coyote with dogs illegal they were making policy against sportsmen ......why couldn't he step up in favor of sportsmen instead of letting his department make it seem like it's wdfw against us?
Since 1996 when stupid voters changed the game with predators,  wdfw should have been more aggressive with predator management,  instead they keep making stupid moves.  Why can't Anderson help steer the department's philosophy more toward less predators?
I really doubt that the commission would vote to remove Anderson anyway.  And he is likely better than someone that this commission would appoint.

[jackmaster]

Attitude and ability reflects leadership and it starts at the very top, plain and simple there isn't any other way to slice it guys.... if Anderson is so great then he would lead them out of the darkness, the first one over the wire is gonna be the bloodiest but a great leader does not balk at the fact that he is gonna take a few bullets, he just steps up and does it without fear.... it seems to me that this Anderson is great at popping smoke and obscuring his movements 

[sakoshooter]

If memory serves, Anderson came from AK and was liked because of his knowledge of salmon. Also, if memory serves, he's done better than his predecessors on salmon but sucks in my opinion on everything else - inland fisheries and hunting is definitely not his forte.
Eradication of northern pike that have naturally migrated into WA is a perfect example of the WDFW's ineptitude led by Anderson. Mr Anderson stopped responding to my emails over 4 yrs ago. Fact based emails sent as the president of Cascade Musky Association. I lost my respect for him long ago unfortunately.

[Forks]

If memory serves, Anderson came from AK and was liked because of his knowledge of salmon. Also, if memory serves, he's done better than his predecessors on salmon but sucks in my opinion on everything else - inland fisheries and hunting is definitely not his forte.
Eradication of northern pike that have naturally migrated into WA is a perfect example of the WDFW's ineptitude led by Anderson. Mr Anderson stopped responding to my emails over 4 yrs ago. Fact based emails sent as the president of Cascade Musky Association. I lost my respect for him long ago unfortunately.

Director Anderson is not from Alaska. You are thinking of the former director.

[elk101]

You might do better at protecting the wildlife if the courts would punish the poachers harder. Read in paper one of the major players in Todd's book is getting no jail time. That is not WDFW fault

[bowbuild]

I think they should split the department back to what it use to be, use 2 directors one for fish, one for game. I know when there is too much on the plate for me I concentrate on what I know the best....nobody is good at everything!

Bowbuild

[pianoman9701]

Uc, to whom is this being sent and when, please?

[Elkaholic daWg]

 

I think they should split the department back to what it use to be, use 2 directors one for fish, one for game. I know when there is too much on the plate for me I concentrate on what I know the best....nobody is good at everything!

Bowbuild

 
BEST idea YET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[jackmaster]

I think they should split the department back to what it use to be, use 2 directors one for fish, one for game. I know when there is too much on the plate for me I concentrate on what I know the best....nobody is good at everything!

Bowbuild

 
BEST idea YET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

this is so true, the only problem i have with it is that if you cant handle thr stress and rigors of this job then dont throw your hat into the ring, and this is where deligation comes into play and you use the knowledge of the men and women around you, they have plenty of guys and gals in the wdfw that have alot of expirience that should be tasked if the "plate" gets to full for mr. anderson  and that jackwad from todds book would have gotton alot harsher punishment if the prosecutor would have had the FULL backing of the wdfw, but when you drag your heels and not give that case your full involvement then that kind of B.S happens, and we the voters just sit around and take it in the shorts, when we should be asking for this prosecutors head   

[bowbuild]

I think they should split the department back to what it use to be, use 2 directors one for fish, one for game. I know when there is too much on the plate for me I concentrate on what I know the best....nobody is good at everything!

Bowbuild

 
BEST idea YET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

this is so true, the only problem i have with it is that if you cant handle thr stress and rigors of this job then dont throw your hat into the ring, and this is where deligation comes into play and you use the knowledge of the men and women around you, they have plenty of guys and gals in the wdfw that have alot of expirience that should be tasked if the "plate" gets to full for mr. anderson  and that jackwad from todds book would have gotton alot harsher punishment if the prosecutor would have had the FULL backing of the wdfw, but when you drag your heels and not give that case your full involvement then that kind of B.S happens, and we the voters just sit around and take it in the shorts, when we should be asking for this prosecutors head   
[/quote

Only problem I see there is even if you assign someone to a particular task, and they achieve it.....but the final decision is left up to a director that has little interest, or experience in that part of the department.....you end up with the same screwed up decisions.


VMB

[jackmaster]

i definatly cant disagree thats for sure, i love the idea of splitting the department into a fish side and a wildlife side, matter of fact they should hire 5 or 6 lawyers and pay them well that their job is to do nothing but try wildlife crimes, it would be their specialty and they would get good bonuses for the more years they put those scud bottom vagrants away for 

[bigtex]

matter of fact they should hire 5 or 6 lawyers and pay them well that their job is to do nothing but try wildlife crimes, it would be their specialty and they would get good bonuses for the more years they put those scud bottom vagrants away for 

Counties prosecute state and county cases, not individual agencies. Even if WDFW hired lawyers, counties would basically have to deputize/appoint them as deputy prosecutors in order for them to prosecute cases on their behalf, I guarantee you there would be a few hold outs, just like how some Sheriff's don't deputize other agencies. You then also have the issue of WDFW arresting the individual and WDFW also prosecuting them, think that will cause an issue? Bet ya it will.

State law does allow the WDFW Commission to ask the Attorney General's Office to prosecute a case when a county prosecutor fails to act, however this is rarely done and obviously it would have to be a significant case in order for WDFW to ask for it.

[bowbuild]

matter of fact they should hire 5 or 6 lawyers and pay them well that their job is to do nothing but try wildlife crimes, it would be their specialty and they would get good bonuses for the more years they put those scud bottom vagrants away for 

Counties prosecute state and county cases, not individual agencies. Even if WDFW hired lawyers, counties would basically have to deputize/appoint them as deputy prosecutors in order for them to prosecute cases on their behalf, I guarantee you there would be a few hold outs, just like how some Sheriff's don't deputize other agencies. You then also have the issue of WDFW arresting the individual and WDFW also prosecuting them, think that will cause an issue? Bet ya it will.

State law does allow the WDFW Commission to ask the Attorney General's Office to prosecute a case when a county prosecutor fails to act, however this is rarely done and obviously it would have to be a significant case in order for WDFW to ask for it.

What about a state mandatory minimun sentence guideline? Please don't tell me it can't be done. If you can have a 3 strikes out guideline, and federal mandatory minimum sentencing guideline for drug users/dealers what could possibly be the issue? Do federal sentecing guidelines have more "teeth" to them??? Can the department/state refer the more serious cases to a federal prosecutor??   


Bowbuild

[bigtex]

matter of fact they should hire 5 or 6 lawyers and pay them well that their job is to do nothing but try wildlife crimes, it would be their specialty and they would get good bonuses for the more years they put those scud bottom vagrants away for 

Counties prosecute state and county cases, not individual agencies. Even if WDFW hired lawyers, counties would basically have to deputize/appoint them as deputy prosecutors in order for them to prosecute cases on their behalf, I guarantee you there would be a few hold outs, just like how some Sheriff's don't deputize other agencies. You then also have the issue of WDFW arresting the individual and WDFW also prosecuting them, think that will cause an issue? Bet ya it will.

State law does allow the WDFW Commission to ask the Attorney General's Office to prosecute a case when a county prosecutor fails to act, however this is rarely done and obviously it would have to be a significant case in order for WDFW to ask for it.

What about a state mandatory minimun sentence guideline? Please don't tell me it can't be done. If you can have a 3 strikes out guideline, and federal mandatory minimum sentencing guideline for drug users/dealers what could possibly be the issue? Do federal sentecing guidelines have more "teeth" to them??? Can the department/state refer the more serious cases to a federal prosecutor??

I've been a big advocate for mandatory minimum sentences for natural resource offenses, it can certainly be done. But a lot of people (especially on this forum) don't like mandatory minimums.

Regarding the feds, the feds are really limited in what they can prosecute. For the feds to be able to even investigate/look into a case a violation of federal law must occur. Somebody going up to the local tree farm and whipping out 30 elk and leaving them to rot is a terrible offense, but no federal law was violated.

So for "typical" poaching you are simply limited to federally protected species (endangered species, migratory birds, etc), violations that occurred on federal land, or fish/wildlife that was taken unlawfully (anywhere) and transported over certain types of federal land (in WA this includes USFS lands, Rainier and Olympic Parks, and Lake Roosevelt Rec Area.) Outside of those three areas the feds don't really have authority.

And probably the worst thing are federal prosecutor. You don't become an Assistant US Attorney to prosecute natural resource offenders, you become an AUSA to prosecute terrorists, serial killers, and so on. So just like how we're seeing terrible sentences from many counties in WA, for the most part we are seeing terrible sentences from the federal courts in WA as well. Federally, WA is split into two US Court Districts; eastern and western. Surprisingly, the western WA federal prosecutor and court have historically been better than the eastside. It's actually ridiculous how the eastern WA federal court views natural resource cases.

[bowbuild]

matter of fact they should hire 5 or 6 lawyers and pay them well that their job is to do nothing but try wildlife crimes, it would be their specialty and they would get good bonuses for the more years they put those scud bottom vagrants away for 

Counties prosecute state and county cases, not individual agencies. Even if WDFW hired lawyers, counties would basically have to deputize/appoint them as deputy prosecutors in order for them to prosecute cases on their behalf, I guarantee you there would be a few hold outs, just like how some Sheriff's don't deputize other agencies. You then also have the issue of WDFW arresting the individual and WDFW also prosecuting them, think that will cause an issue? Bet ya it will.

State law does allow the WDFW Commission to ask the Attorney General's Office to prosecute a case when a county prosecutor fails to act, however this is rarely done and obviously it would have to be a significant case in order for WDFW to ask for it.

What about a state mandatory minimun sentence guideline? Please don't tell me it can't be done. If you can have a 3 strikes out guideline, and federal mandatory minimum sentencing guideline for drug users/dealers what could possibly be the issue? Do federal sentecing guidelines have more "teeth" to them??? Can the department/state refer the more serious cases to a federal prosecutor??

I've been a big advocate for mandatory minimum sentences for natural resource offenses, it can certainly be done. But a lot of people (especially on this forum) don't like mandatory minimums.

Regarding the feds, the feds are really limited in what they can prosecute. For the feds to be able to even investigate/look into a case a violation of federal law must occur. Somebody going up to the local tree farm and whipping out 30 elk and leaving them to rot is a terrible offense, but no federal law was violated.

So for "typical" poaching you are simply limited to federally protected species (endangered species, migratory birds, etc), violations that occurred on federal land, or fish/wildlife that was taken unlawfully (anywhere) and transported over certain types of federal land (in WA this includes USFS lands, Rainier and Olympic Parks, and Lake Roosevelt Rec Area.) Outside of those three areas the feds don't really have authority.

And probably the worst thing are federal prosecutor. You don't become an Assistant US Attorney to prosecute natural resource offenders, you become an AUSA to prosecute terrorists, serial killers, and so on. So just like how we're seeing terrible sentences from many counties in WA, for the most part we are seeing terrible sentences from the federal courts in WA as well. Federally, WA is split into two US Court Districts; eastern and western. Surprisingly, the western WA federal prosecutor and court have historically been better than the eastside. It's actually ridiculous how the eastern WA federal court views natural resource cases.

They don't like mandatory minimums for natural resource crimes, or they don't like them for other things?