Does WDFW know it has an image problem?

[stevemiller]

I agree with just about everything said on this post so far,What we really need is some transparency.We dont need any more of the its not me its them,I have my hands tied and all that other bureaucratic bull from inside the dept. and from the wdfw EMPLOYEES.They need to realize they work for the state of WA. and therefore work for the people of WA. and can and should be understanding of the fact that they can and will be replaced by the people of WA.It has gotten very old for these people to say so many want it this way and so many want it that way,Well I for one want to see the proof of that and until we do we need to stop blaming each user group for what is wrong.If I had any authority in this state the very first thing I would do is get a bill passed that made it a law that any and all petition signatures need to be accompanied by a voter registration number,Period. 

[baldopepper]

Just curious- If you were appointed director what are the top 10 items you would immediately address? (Personnel changes don't count as that's obvious, nor do tribal matters as WDFW has virtually no discretion there, up to the courts)

Good question! 

Here are some quick ideas that come to mind:

1. Restructure Departments clearly identifying the responsibility to the customers each Dept serves. Example: Upland Game, Big Game, Predators, Nongame, Watchable Wildlife, Endangered Species, Shellfish, Salt Water Fish, Freshwater Fish, Hydraulics, etc. Make each of these Departments more separate from each other and charge them with improving service and opportunities to their respective users. This means more and better opportunities for all types of hunters, fishers, and non-consumptive users as well.

2. Have all Dept heads re-apply for their position and hold each department head responsible for the satisfaction of their customers.

3. Emphasize Customer Satisfaction throughout WDFW

4. Emphasize and implement multiple steps for Image Improvement

5. If there are funding issues for a particular Dept work to improve funding with the customers of that Dept.

6. Improve the availability for new hunters to take Hunter-Ed, this is the biggest bottleneck to recruiting new hunters.

7. The wolf plan is what it is. However, changes can be made to the plan and changes should be made in the areas where the most dissatisfaction exists.

8. Do more predator management rather than continually looking for ways to reduce predator management.

9. Take a more active approach to resolving the hatchery issues and natural spawning issues. This state needs more fishing opportunity, not less opportunity which is the way we are headed.

10. More emphasis on resolving the elk hoof rot issue.

11. Publicly visible steps to engage timber company issues and ensure continued access to timber company lands.

12. Address these issues of landowners taking advantage of access programs.

13. Publicly visible steps to attempt to deal with tribal issues.

These are  great ideas, and also things WDFW actually has in their power to address.  The next question is how do we as a group of consumptive outdoorsmen get behind, refine, and present such a list.  I think WDFW has become an easy target for us to hang our complaints on when it's obvious from the few comments already on this post that there is no real consensus, even amongst ourselves, about what they should do.  Seems everyone has a complaint, but not many have a valid solution (that being one that is actually within WDFW's power to implement).  Personally I don't think I'd take the directors job,  seems he has lots of enemies and very few friends.

I agree with you about everyone being unhappy with the director. FYI - In my opinion the current director is the best we've had in decades. Any replacement may be far worse.

If we could come to some consensus on what most agree are good steps, I would attempt to make a recommendation.

I know from past experience meeting with legislators that they would take that list and ask for examples of what you have in mind. i.e. wolf management changes-what specifically would you like to see changed, or what tribal issues would you like to see addressed.  I suspect that if that list was presented to the reasonable respondents on this forum it would'nt take long to see a refined version for presentation.  I think the 1st item (department restructure) is an example of a refined, presentable item.  I used to have dealing with Phil Anderson back when he was still a charter boat guy, he is really a better man than most on here give him credit for.  I think he has good intentions, he's just in a position where there is just no way to make everyone happy and those who aren't happy seemed to think it's because he's a crook or just doesn't care-neither is the case.

[bearpaw]

Just curious- If you were appointed director what are the top 10 items you would immediately address? (Personnel changes don't count as that's obvious, nor do tribal matters as WDFW has virtually no discretion there, up to the courts)

Good question! 

Here are some quick ideas that come to mind:

1. Restructure Departments clearly identifying the responsibility to the customers each Dept serves. Example: Upland Game, Big Game, Predators, Nongame, Watchable Wildlife, Endangered Species, Shellfish, Salt Water Fish, Freshwater Fish, Hydraulics, etc. Make each of these Departments more separate from each other and charge them with improving service and opportunities to their respective users. This means more and better opportunities for all types of hunters, fishers, and non-consumptive users as well.

2. Have all Dept heads re-apply for their position and hold each department head responsible for the satisfaction of their customers.

3. Emphasize Customer Satisfaction throughout WDFW

4. Emphasize and implement multiple steps for Image Improvement

5. If there are funding issues for a particular Dept work to improve funding with the customers of that Dept.

6. Improve the availability for new hunters to take Hunter-Ed, this is the biggest bottleneck to recruiting new hunters.

7. The wolf plan is what it is. However, changes can be made to the plan and changes should be made in the areas where the most dissatisfaction exists.

8. Do more predator management rather than continually looking for ways to reduce predator management.

9. Take a more active approach to resolving the hatchery issues and natural spawning issues. This state needs more fishing opportunity, not less opportunity which is the way we are headed.

10. More emphasis on resolving the elk hoof rot issue.

11. Publicly visible steps to engage timber company issues and ensure continued access to timber company lands.

12. Address these issues of landowners taking advantage of access programs.

13. Publicly visible steps to attempt to deal with tribal issues.

These are  great ideas, and also things WDFW actually has in their power to address.  The next question is how do we as a group of consumptive outdoorsmen get behind, refine, and present such a list.  I think WDFW has become an easy target for us to hang our complaints on when it's obvious from the few comments already on this post that there is no real consensus, even amongst ourselves, about what they should do.  Seems everyone has a complaint, but not many have a valid solution (that being one that is actually within WDFW's power to implement).  Personally I don't think I'd take the directors job,  seems he has lots of enemies and very few friends.

I agree with you about everyone being unhappy with the director. FYI - In my opinion the current director is the best we've had in decades. Any replacement may be far worse.

If we could come to some consensus on what most agree are good steps, I would attempt to make a recommendation.

I know from past experience meeting with legislators that they would take that list and ask for examples of what you have in mind. i.e. wolf management changes-what specifically would you like to see changed, or what tribal issues would you like to see addressed.  I suspect that if that list was presented to the reasonable respondents on this forum it would'nt take long to see a refined version for presentation.  I think the 1st item (department restructure) is an example of a refined, presentable item.  I used to have dealing with Phil Anderson back when he was still a charter boat guy, he is really a better man than most on here give him credit for.  I think he has good intentions, he's just in a position where there is just no way to make everyone happy and those who aren't happy seemed to think it's because he's a crook or just doesn't care-neither is the case.

I agree with your thoughts on the director and I know there are others who also agree. 

To be effective when making a complaint a person needs to also offer a proposed solution, I am all for looking for solutions to resolve problems. Each item I listed should include proposed actions/solutions if we were going to submit them to WDFW, I got anxious and only went into depth on #1, but we could come up with actions/solutions to each point.

[baldopepper]

I think just taking action and pushing item #1 would be a big, but very worthwhile, step.  If nothing else happened other than just breaking it into a Department of Game and a Department of Fish (as others on this forum have suggested) it would be a step in the right direction.  The complexities of fish and wildlife management in this day and age are beyond what one single agency (or one director) can handle.  It would certainly make addressing the other issues easier, and is a subject you could likely find a legislator willing to pursue.

[idahohuntr]

I'd be interested in working on #12...I continue to be disappointed by the states Access program for hunters.  There are definitely people who take advantage of the program; there is no consistency in how the program is implemented state-wide; it is difficult to identify lands and associated boundaries of enrolled properties and I contend it is one of the most important things wdfw does for hunters.

My solutions:
-Evaluate the program not by gross acreage, but by user/recreation days or game harvest on individual properties.  Acreage is an easy measure...but it does not capture the "value" of the enrolled properties.  Don't pay the guy with 1000 acres of flat ag land with no cover habitat or wildlife value more than a guy who enrolls 200 acres of high quality habitat
-EVERY single enrolled parcel needs to be displayed on a map depicting the boundaries on their website with all the rules and requests of the landowner
-Use hunt by reservation (coordinated by landowner in case he has a few weekends he wants for himself or his friends), feel free to hunt, and register to hunt.  Drop this abused "hunt by permission system" where only close friends and family ever get permission

[bearpaw]

I'd be interested in working on #12...I continue to be disappointed by the states Access program for hunters.  There are definitely people who take advantage of the program; there is no consistency in how the program is implemented state-wide; it is difficult to identify lands and associated boundaries of enrolled properties and I contend it is one of the most important things wdfw does for hunters.

My solutions:
-Evaluate the program not by gross acreage, but by user/recreation days or game harvest on individual properties.  Acreage is an easy measure...but it does not capture the "value" of the enrolled properties.  Don't pay the guy with 1000 acres of flat ag land with no cover habitat or wildlife value more than a guy who enrolls 200 acres of high quality habitat
-EVERY single enrolled parcel needs to be displayed on a map depicting the boundaries on their website with all the rules and requests of the landowner
-Use hunt by reservation (coordinated by landowner in case he has a few weekends he wants for himself or his friends), feel free to hunt, and register to hunt.  Drop this abused "hunt by permission system" where only close friends and family ever get permission

Is that your final language for a solution? if we work it from all ends, the message would be heard.
Will you support #1 or any of the other points?

[idahohuntr]

I'd be interested in working on #12...I continue to be disappointed by the states Access program for hunters.  There are definitely people who take advantage of the program; there is no consistency in how the program is implemented state-wide; it is difficult to identify lands and associated boundaries of enrolled properties and I contend it is one of the most important things wdfw does for hunters.

My solutions:
-Evaluate the program not by gross acreage, but by user/recreation days or game harvest on individual properties.  Acreage is an easy measure...but it does not capture the "value" of the enrolled properties.  Don't pay the guy with 1000 acres of flat ag land with no cover habitat or wildlife value more than a guy who enrolls 200 acres of high quality habitat
-EVERY single enrolled parcel needs to be displayed on a map depicting the boundaries on their website with all the rules and requests of the landowner
-Use hunt by reservation (coordinated by landowner in case he has a few weekends he wants for himself or his friends), feel free to hunt, and register to hunt.  Drop this abused "hunt by permission system" where only close friends and family ever get permission

Is that your final language for a solution? if we work it from all ends, the message would be heard.
Will you support #1 or any of the other points?

I'd call it "draft language" at this point    I would want to refine them to be more presentable if I'm not out in left field on Access issues.

I support most of your other points as well.  Number 2 may send the wrong message, not sure I would support that one...but if in #1 all department heads are held to accountable/objective goals...then results will speak for themselves 

[baldopepper]

I think item 5 lends itself well to item 1.  Breaking down the various agencies would certainly make funding tracking easier and make the fees easier for the consumer to swallow if they knew they were paying for their own area of interest.  If you were to get the agency broken down, one of the stipulations would be that each agency must pay their own way. Kind of a put up or shut up situation. I also agree on item 6, I don't have any immediate solutions in mind but it's certainly worth putting some emphasis on.  I agree with Idahohuntr on the access problem and see a lot of merit to his solution.  Has to be more incentive put into the program for the landowner to get him to participate.  Slippery slope however, as landowners may want to go to the sell their permit option as in the Idaho LAP or Utah CWMU system.  (I know Bearpaw, you and I agree to disagree on how good that program is)                               

[RadSav]

I agree with you about everyone being unhappy with the director. FYI - In my opinion the current director is the best we've had in decades. Any replacement may be far worse.

If we could come to some consensus on what most agree are good steps, I would attempt to make a recommendation.

I agree with you about the current director.  In my dealings with him he has been fair and reasonable.  A far cry better than what we had to deal with for a long long time!  Of course when the team is not winning everyone want's the head of the coach on a stick

Communication from the directors office would go a long way, I think.  A bit of openness and clarity would probably go a long way in crushing conspiracy theories and stop a lot of social gossip before it gets started.  I see a lot of the anger and confusion coming from folks not getting a clear understanding of the state of the state wildlife and fisheries issues.  The sportsmen I know feel the small round tables and email news briefs are generic talking points leaving as many questions as answers.  Sportsmen want to believe their voices are being heard and actions are being taken on issues we find important.  And when their voices are heard the immediate demonization of the peoples spokesman seems more common than a clear reflection of what was voiced.

Unfortunately I fear if the director was completely clear about the support he is receiving from above he would likely lose his position.  That's a dang tough position to be in when you are being ham strung by your governor and bull whipped by your customer.  I certainly would not want the job

[fireweed]

I also think WDFW could have been advocates for sportsmen to be able to access DNR land without buying a DP.  They could have discussed the issue with some legislators and got an exception for the DP requirement for people who buy hunting licenses.

Implementing the Discover Pass opened the door for Weyco to implement their pay for access system.  Kind of hard for us to complain about private property owners charging for access when the state is charging taxpayers for access to state timber lands.

Agreed. The WDFW rolled over on the DP--pathetic to get there measly 8%.  They did not stand up but were in cahoots to get a few more bucks from us.  But don't forget the private timberland owners are charging the taxpayers too.  I currently pay about $40 more in property taxes to subsidize Weyerhaeuser.  I say Weyco specifically since they own most all the private land around here.   

[Special T]

If Anderson, or who ever else has some say in the department, ACTUALLY wanted to make a statement by bringing together groups over a single issue as a gesture of cooperation they could find one. I've said it before that a separate limit for Mergansers could be that cause. I bet with some work you could get MANY fishing groups to support it, possibly the tribes, EVERY waterfowl group, and likely any hunter that cares. That is a pretty big chunk of people that you could bring together if you really tried. I KNOW you have to deal with the feds on this... Several big organizations, tribes and sportmen groups on the same page would have to make some headway. If not, what other issues do you think you could get so many people to rally around?

[JLS]

I'd be interested in working on #12...I continue to be disappointed by the states Access program for hunters.  There are definitely people who take advantage of the program; there is no consistency in how the program is implemented state-wide; it is difficult to identify lands and associated boundaries of enrolled properties and I contend it is one of the most important things wdfw does for hunters.

My solutions:
-Evaluate the program not by gross acreage, but by user/recreation days or game harvest on individual properties.  Acreage is an easy measure...but it does not capture the "value" of the enrolled properties.  Don't pay the guy with 1000 acres of flat ag land with no cover habitat or wildlife value more than a guy who enrolls 200 acres of high quality habitat
-EVERY single enrolled parcel needs to be displayed on a map depicting the boundaries on their website with all the rules and requests of the landowner
-Use hunt by reservation (coordinated by landowner in case he has a few weekends he wants for himself or his friends), feel free to hunt, and register to hunt.  Drop this abused "hunt by permission system" where only close friends and family ever get permission

Is that your final language for a solution? if we work it from all ends, the message would be heard.
Will you support #1 or any of the other points?

I'd call it "draft language" at this point    I would want to refine them to be more presentable if I'm not out in left field on Access issues.

I support most of your other points as well.  Number 2 may send the wrong message, not sure I would support that one...but if in #1 all department heads are held to accountable/objective goals...then results will speak for themselves 

If I may add my  on your idea, which I really feel is an area that needs major emphasis.  First, the HBR program needs more money, pure and simple.  I have two friends that ranch and want into it, but there is not more money to enroll new properties.  It's a crying shame, as these are both gems.

Payment is always a tough item.  Montana pays its cooperators by the hunter use days, which is flawed in that it rewards quantity over quality.  However, if you swing the pendulum too far the other way and pay simply by acre, you may end up sacrificing opportunity at the expense of quality.  I am unsure of how Wyoming or Idaho pay their cooperators?  I agree with evaluating payment based on habitat quality.

Make the properties walk in only, and have printable maps available on the internet.  This is an issue right now, as their are quirks in trying to print out the aerial photos for hunters to take and carry in the field.  I never ran into issues, but it sure could happen.  Many of the back perimeter boundaries are unmarked and someone that doesn't know or care could easily end up way off the HBR property.

Have printable maps for all enrolled properties available.  Right now, you can view them on your computer, but again it's difficult to print a legible/useful aerial.

There are some quirks to the reservation process that could be fine tuned.  I stopped by the WDFW office in St. John one day and visited with the bios there about the program and gave them some suggestions on the reservation/cancellation process.  They agreed and offered to forward the ideas for me.

I wouldn't waste one minute of my time with the HBWP program.  I think that given the appropriate funding, it would die a quick death if HBR ever had enough money.  It is abused in some instances, but in others it does provide legitimate opportunity.  I think for the money invested in it (not much), there is no harm in just letting it linger on.

I believe 110% that public access to good habitat is the most important thing in perpetuating the future of hunting.

[JLS]

In reference to #6, the local instructors have put a huge emphasis on providing on-line Hunter Ed field day courses.  These have been a HUGE bottleneck in the past where folks were waiting over a year for a class.  We have done a number of these in the past year and have seen a large decrease in the wait time.

I have yet to see a student fail the online course that would have passed the traditional classroom course.

I have comments on #7, but don't want to derail this thread.  There are much bigger issues to focus on and work towards. 

[JLS]

Reference #3, I hate to be a naysayer and not provide any solutions, but here is my rant.

How in the world do you focus on customer satisfaction?  That is why we have many of the boondoggles that make hunting difficult, like choose your weapon and 5 billion special permit categories.  Folks wanted to be able to put in for antlered and antlerless permits, so we get fed the chit sandwich that is our current permit system.  Now, if I am content putting in for cow permits I have to compete with all of the quality bull folks who have 15 points. 

My point here is that what satisfies one customer completely sets off the other one.  If I had my way we would completely overhaul our drawing process, but the folks with 18 points would want to lynch me.

It's also the same reason we poison perfectly good warmwater fisheries in order to put trout in them.  It makes no sense to me, but it is what the majority of folks WANT.

I think instead of focusing on a nebulous thing like customer satisfaction, the goal should be to simplify all seasons as much as possible, simplify drawings as much as possible, create as much general opportunity as possible, and limit the special permit focus much more than it is.  This will, in my humble opinion, by default lead to greater customer satisfaction.

[Curly]

Communication from the directors office would go a long way, I think.  A bit of openness and clarity would probably go a long way in crushing conspiracy theories and stop a lot of social gossip before it gets started.  I see a lot of the anger and confusion coming from folks not getting a clear understanding of the state of the state wildlife and fisheries issues.  The sportsmen I know feel the small round tables and email news briefs are generic talking points leaving as many questions as answers.  Sportsmen want to believe their voices are being heard and actions are being taken on issues we find important.  And when their voices are heard the immediate demonization of the peoples spokesman seems more common than a clear reflection of what was voiced.

This is what I was trying to get at with my original post.  Open and honest dialog from the director's office should be able to help their image.  Maybe the conspiracy theories about wdfw releasing wolves or being in bed with the timber industry would lessen...........among other topics.

I know the director does frequently go on a radio show on Saturday mornings, but I rarely hear those shows.......it would be nice if he could do a radio address once in a while on weekday evenings (or maybe a blog or something) about what's up with wdfw.


Sent from my SM-T900 using Tapatalk