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

[Special T]

Since he is MY rep in MY dist I was disapointed. The wheels of government soemtimes move too slow correcting its own mistakes. I have corresponded with him a couple of times on this issue and Im certain that my name is at least familuar with his staff. He is a good man who is doing a good job. Since I vote for him i think i have the ability to provide at least a small criticism. He gets plenty of praise from me when he does good things. I belive in the carrot AND the stick.

[dscubame]

Don't pay macsb no never mind, he's probably pissed cuz he can't get a descent job and has to dig ditches.

well danny the world needs ditch diggers too

[trophyhunt]

Don't pay macsb no never mind, he's probably pissed cuz he can't get a descent job and has to dig ditches.

well danny the world needs ditch diggers too

Hey now, I work in the mud!!!

[ucwarden]

Since he is MY rep in MY dist I was disapointed. The wheels of government soemtimes move too slow correcting its own mistakes. I have corresponded with him a couple of times on this issue and Im certain that my name is at least familuar with his staff. He is a good man who is doing a good job. Since I vote for him i think i have the ability to provide at least a small criticism. He gets plenty of praise from me when he does good things. I belive in the carrot AND the stick.

Good enough.  I just wanted to make sure you understood he really is doing something.

[Special T]

 

[ctwiggs1]

Oh ok. Sorry

the reaso I ask is because I see wardens asking for drivers license now and never had that before and then taking my/our guns while doing their check don't like that either so if this petition addresses that then ya im all for it.

Checking driver's license, while checking hunters and fishermen, is game wardening 101.  Since hunting and fishing licenses do not have a photo of the license holder on them, and because people often borrow the licenses of others, officers need to verify that the person who presents the license is in-fact the person listed on the license. 
Temporarily holding a person's firearm, while checking them, is just plain common sense.  It would be pretty stupid to allow someone to hold their firearm in their hands, while an officer is determining if their behavior is legal or not (or if they have warrants for their arrest). 
So I have to disagree with your position on these two issues.

not holding but taking to their own rig is what I was referencing to and I've never had it happen before so what makes it common sense now?
been checked many times and never had to show a drivers license or let them disarm me especially when I unloaded it in front of them. Then ca we say no politetly then to being disamred then? especially if it's unloaded and the officer seen the person unload it?
But really never had that happen before all my life if a game warden came up to check us out all we had to show was fishing license and or huntng license.

I don't want to spend a bunch of time on this, but an officer putting your (or anyone's) firearm in their vehicle is likely just a way to make sure the contact goes safely and a way to properly care for your firearm (vs. laying it on the ground).  I am sorry to disagree with you, but I will always support an officer taking proper precautions for their own safety.  You might be the best person on earth, but officers who don't personally know you have no way of knowing that.  Safety has to come first. 

In my own personal experience, I ended up in the hospital because I once failed to follow basic officer safety precautions when dealing with a person I had no issues with on our previous 3 contacts.  I assumed that since he had been cooperative and polite on the prior contacts, he was not a threat.  Turns out I couldn't have been more wrong and he turned on me and attacked, causing me some pretty serious injuries.  Had I treated him as I had been trained, it may have turned out much better for me.

It's too bad that law enforcement has to take such careful actions, which may offend some, but the most important thing is to go home at the end of the day.

i've said it for years, if you are scared of your work, get a new job.  The world needs ditch diggers, what it doesn't need is LEOs who treat law abiding citizens like criminals.  Sorry, not a beleiver.

Mac B your comment is nonsense.

You sound like you want LEOs to just put themselves in the line of fire and take it.......

The basis of my comment was not to belittle LEOs, quite the contrary.  In nearly thirty years of active military service I came across similar attitudes in young soldiers and old scared ones alike.  It boggles my mind that any soldier who enlists or serves during war time, will then complain about combat deployments and the dangers associated with it.  Granted it sucks but it is what you signed up for. 
These LEOs voluntarily took a job that may occasionally  put them in real danger.  Why is this a surprise?  Did you apply for a cop job expecting to not have to assume danger?  Is it justifiable in your mind to project  that fear onto the average citizen contact, when statistics clearly show there is very little risk associated with day to day LEO operations? 

((1996-2009 USA, 771 Law Enforcement Officers murdered in the line of duty, according to the FBI in 2012 to put that into perspective there are an estimated 1.34 million sworn LEOs in the US in 2010 the average number of LEO deaths was 53 per year or roughly 4 per 100,000 LEOs) ) that number pales in comparison to the 126 per 100,000 commercial fishermen who die on the job annually or the 128 per 100,000  loggers who die on the job annually))

Top Ten Most Dangerous Jobs in the USA According to FORBES Magazine:
1. Logging workers
2. Fishers and related fishing workers
3. Aircraft pilot and flight engineers
4. Roofers
5. Structural iron and steel workers
6. Refuse and recyclable material collectors
7. Electrical power-line installers and repairers
8. Drivers/sales workers and truck drivers
9. Farmers, ranchers, and other agricultural managers
10. Construction laborers

SOURCE:  http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/03/15/dying-for-a-paycheck-these-jobs-are-more-dangerous.aspx.)
Forbes Magazine   http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/2013/08/22/americas-10-deadliest-jobs-2/

That being the case if you are so concerned for your safety that you “just want to get home at night” then change careers.  Your not obligated to the police force.  You hold no enlistment, no sacred duty.  It’s a job if it scares you change it.  My experience has always been that many LEOs are quite happy with their work,  they handle the stress of it quite well.  There is however a percentage that feels like they are lucky to make it home at night.  These are the same people who in my opinion justify treating all contacts with citizens as if their life was on the line.  It’s not meant to detract from what you do, its meant to be an honest opinion from someone who spent nearly thirty years doing a job that many people considered to be terribly dangerous, but in reality wasn’t.   

These statistics are junk.  I've read them before and it's just bad journalism.

 They don't include L&I or similar agency-type violations.  In the military, we don't have "ADs", we ONLY have "NDs".  Typically, a "negligent" related death on the civilian side of things is still considered an "accident".

Also, if you narrow down "military", to "soldiers who participated in combat missions in Iraq or Afghanistan between 2002-2012", I think we both know these numbers would change drastically.

Curtis

[ctwiggs1]

Just for information sake the number of US military personnel killed in combat between 2002-present is 52.3 per 100,000 annually.  A very high number but still not in the top three in the US.

Again, are you saying number killed per number deployed to combat operations?  Or are you saying total military?

[JimmyHoffa]

Just for information sake the number of US military personnel killed in combat between 2002-present is 52.3 per 100,000 annually.  A very high number but still not in the top three in the US.

Again, are you saying number killed per number deployed to combat operations?  Or are you saying total military?

Just combat.  For all military is much lower.  Actually, young people have a lower rate since about 2000 in the military than outside of it as a civilian.

[ctwiggs1]

Can you guys post your source on that stat?

[JimmyHoffa]

Can you guys post your source on that stat?

I'll look around for the stats, but it really boiled down to young males in the civilian world are wilder and crazier than when in a controlled environment like that in the military.  They take a lot more risks, more likely to be involved in traffic, drowning, drinking, risky jobs, etc.  Don't forget you have to count that age range includes lots of things like gang bangers, drug overdoses, terminally ill and suicides in the civilian side.

[ctwiggs1]

Remember too, none of this is actually relevant to the discussion at hand.  I cited the US Army as an example of a job perceived to be more dangerous than it was, nothing more.

If you apply the logic to other career fields you will find that there are far more dangerous jobs out there than military or Law Enforcement.  Hence my supposed "attitude" about LEOs who act like every law abiding citizen out there is a threat.  The numbers don't support it, the FBI doesn't report it that way, and simple math proves it. 

Every job has its advantages and disadvantages.  If one of the disadvantages of your JOB as a LEO is that you are scared day in and day out of getting killed then in my opinion you need to look for something new. Lifes too short to spend it ducking everytime you here a bang. 

My ditch digging comment wasn't meant as a disparaging comment to cops, but a justification that any work is honorable.

And I'm telling you that I think the numbers that make up the substance of your argument are off base.

Let me give you an example:  I know of less than 10 wildlife officers who have spent more than a day or two patrolling my hunting area.  One of them was killed 20 years ago in the line of duty.  That means that in my area, ~10% of wildlife officers are killed in the line of duty.  Since WDFW employs 144 Game Wardens, I'll assume they did 20 years ago as well (probably less but bear with me).  That year, WDFW lost .7% of their Game Wardens.  If that number were applied to the military, it's the equivalent of us losing  14,000 troops in one year alone (based off a rough military estimate size of 2M).

See how you can use stats to form BS statements?

Curtis

[singleshot12]

For a long time, I had trouble understanding why the WDFW commission has never responded to my letters or emails, and why they didn't request the CD of supporting documentation of my allegations against the WDFW enforcement staff.  How could they ignore what is going on, especially when their job is to run WDFW?  Why do they allow the enforcement program to so deeply divided?
Then I looked at the commissioners we have:  http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/members.html

Other than a couple, the commissioners are largely made up of academics and career fisheries managers.  I guess it's no wonder that I haven't heard screaming from them, when their own deputy chief states "Nobody gives a @#$ about deer and elk". 

That being said, I still don't understand how they can ignore what is happening to their own agency and especially the enforcement program.
Let's all cross our fingers that the commission at least appoints a director who has the courage and drive to fix the significant problems in his or her new agency.

I believe they see the decline in hunting as a given and the present and future money for them is in fisheries, sport and commercial. Until the senate listens to hunters and people like you, this won't change until hunting in WA is nothing but an afterthought. The wolves will be all the game management they need.

 

[Sitka_Blacktail]

Remember too, none of this is actually relevant to the discussion at hand.  I cited the US Army as an example of a job perceived to be more dangerous than it was, nothing more.

If you apply the logic to other career fields you will find that there are far more dangerous jobs out there than military or Law Enforcement.  Hence my supposed "attitude" about LEOs who act like every law abiding citizen out there is a threat.  The numbers don't support it, the FBI doesn't report it that way, and simple math proves it. 

Every job has its advantages and disadvantages.  If one of the disadvantages of your JOB as a LEO is that you are scared day in and day out of getting killed then in my opinion you need to look for something new. Lifes too short to spend it ducking everytime you here a bang. 

My ditch digging comment wasn't meant as a disparaging comment to cops, but a justification that any work is honorable.

And I'm telling you that I think the numbers that make up the substance of your argument are off base.

Let me give you an example:  I know of less than 10 wildlife officers who have spent more than a day or two patrolling my hunting area.  One of them was killed 20 years ago in the line of duty.  That means that in my area, ~10% of wildlife officers are killed in the line of duty.  Since WDFW employs 144 Game Wardens, I'll assume they did 20 years ago as well (probably less but bear with me).  That year, WDFW lost .7% of their Game Wardens.  If that number were applied to the military, it's the equivalent of us losing  14,000 troops in one year alone (based off a rough military estimate size of 2M).

See how you can use stats to form BS statements?

Curtis

Your math is off.  It would be correct, but could be an anomaly if your figures were from just one year. The problem is one of anything is too small of a sample to be reliable. Say you knew one guy who sky dives and he dies because his chute didn't open. You cant extrapolate that out to 100% of sky divers are going to die.

But here's your math error.  One guy out of 10 died one year, but zero died in the other 19 years. Job danger is figured by deaths per hundred thousand per year. Times 10 guys by 20 years and you have 1 death per 200 man years.  That works out to 500 deaths per 100,000 man years.  But the one guy you knew who died may have been the only guy out of 144 (your example) who died in the 20 years. That would make the death rate 35 per 100,000. And that is about double the actual death rate of law enforcement officers which is about 18 per 100,000 which incidentally is only #10 but well above average on the list of most dangerous jobs. My job of commercial fisherman still leads that category with 116 fatalities per 100,000 workers.

[ucwarden]

As many of you know, on January 14th, I testified about the very serious problems with WDFW enforcement's administration (primarily with Chief Crown and Deputy Chief Cenci), to the Senate Natural Resources Committee.  The hearing was spearheaded by Senators Pearson and Hewitt, who are sincerely concerned about what is going on.  The committee members are continuing to receive input from both sides of the issue, so now is the time to express you thoughts and concerns.  If you want to see change occur, in order to get Washington's Fish and Wildlife officers back on track-catching poachers, then please contact Senators Hewitt and Pearson ASAP and let them know where you stand.  You can email them at:  mike.hewitt@leg.wa.gov and kirk.pearson@leg.wa.gov.

Thanks to all of you for your support!

[ucwarden]

As many of you know, on January 14th, I testified about the very serious problems with WDFW enforcement's administration (primarily with Chief Crown and Deputy Chief Cenci), to the Senate Natural Resources Committee.  The hearing was spearheaded by Senators Pearson and Hewitt, who are sincerely concerned about what is going on.  The committee members are continuing to receive input from both sides of the issue, so now is the time to express you thoughts and concerns.  If you want to see change occur, in order to get Washington's Fish and Wildlife officers back on track-catching poachers, then please contact Senators Hewitt and Pearson ASAP and let them know where you stand.  You can email them at:  mike.hewitt@leg.wa.gov and kirk.pearson@leg.wa.gov.

Thanks to all of you for your support!