Does WDFW know it has an image problem?

[bigtex]

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.

I disagree with this one. Hancock started charging for their lands about 10 years before the Discover Pass came into existence. The Hancock lands which currently charge were previously Weyerhauser and even then Weyco charged access (around $60.) I think Weyco saw how many people were wiling to spend $250-350 to access the Hancock lands in King and Pierce Counties and thought why not us?

[bigtex]

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.

While this idea has good intent, the costs would be huge!

Instead of having a Director of the Fish Program you would have what, a saltwater director, freshwater director, shellfish director, etc? On the customer service level (the people answering the phones) you have people in the fish program, so would you now need customer service representatives for all those different programs?

[Curly]

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 cooriperation they could find one. Ive said it before thata seperate 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 waterfowleing 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... Severl big organisations, tribes and sportmen groups onthe 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?

I know lots of fisherman as well as hunters would get behind eliminating much of this fish eating birds (cormorants, mergansers, etc), they almost as many people would get behind a cause to eliminate a lage portion of CA sea lions.  Sure there would be a fight with some PETA type groups, but when you are on the right/scientific side of an issue then why can't something be done.  Now if some good reasons can be given for not even trying, then give those reasons. ........

Sent from my SM-T900 using Tapatalk

[Curly]

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.

This next statement is going to sound odd to some since I started this thread about an image problem,  but I do think wdfw puts too much emphasis on trying to please people.   Your examples above are perfect illustrations of that.

With that said though, I think they should be doing more to keep sportsmen happy vs caving to any tree hugging groups.  I mean we're the ones that have been paying the bills for wildlife in this state.  The Wolf plan should not have been drafted like it was and in no way should the commission approved it like that.  When the feds say that wolves in the eastern third can be delisted but the the state keeps them protected,  that is simply ridiculous.  And why do they seem to favor the wolf over the woodland caribou? 

Sent from my SM-T900 using Tapatalk

[bigtex]

With that said though, I think they should be doing more to keep sportsmen happy vs caving to any tree hugging groups.  I mean we're the ones that have been paying the bills for wildlife in this state.  The Wolf plan should not have been drafted like it was and in no way should the commission approved it like that.  When the feds say that wolves in the eastern third can be delisted but the the state keeps them protected,  that is simply ridiculous.  And why do they seem to favor the wolf over the woodland caribou?

Actually when you look at WDFW funding only 27% comes from hunting and fishing licenses. 16% then comes from the general fund (mainly taxes). And for wildlife alone, only 18% of that initial 27% from the wildlife fund goes to the wildlife program. The biggest sole funder of WDFW.....The feds at 29%

[Bob33]

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. 

Last year several of our online evaluations filled up with 90 seconds of registration opening. We've increased our online evaluations by 25% this year. Thankfully, WDFW doubled our pay to compensate us.

A troubling problem is how many hunter education graduates don't buy a hunting license.

[grundy53]

With that said though, I think they should be doing more to keep sportsmen happy vs caving to any tree hugging groups.  I mean we're the ones that have been paying the bills for wildlife in this state.  The Wolf plan should not have been drafted like it was and in no way should the commission approved it like that.  When the feds say that wolves in the eastern third can be delisted but the the state keeps them protected,  that is simply ridiculous.  And why do they seem to favor the wolf over the woodland caribou?

Actually when you look at WDFW funding only 27% comes from hunting and fishing licenses. 16% then comes from the general fund (mainly taxes). And for wildlife alone, only 18% of that initial 27% from the wildlife fund goes to the wildlife program. The biggest sole funder of WDFW.....The feds at 29%

But isn't the "fed money" from the Pittman-Robertson act. A.k.a hunters?

sent from my typewriter

[grundy53]

With that said though, I think they should be doing more to keep sportsmen happy vs caving to any tree hugging groups.  I mean we're the ones that have been paying the bills for wildlife in this state.  The Wolf plan should not have been drafted like it was and in no way should the commission approved it like that.  When the feds say that wolves in the eastern third can be delisted but the the state keeps them protected,  that is simply ridiculous.  And why do they seem to favor the wolf over the woodland caribou?

Actually when you look at WDFW funding only 27% comes from hunting and fishing licenses. 16% then comes from the general fund (mainly taxes). And for wildlife alone, only 18% of that initial 27% from the wildlife fund goes to the wildlife program. The biggest sole funder of WDFW.....The feds at 29%

And your percentages only add up to 72% where does the other 28% come from?

sent from my typewriter

[Bob33]

With that said though, I think they should be doing more to keep sportsmen happy vs caving to any tree hugging groups.  I mean we're the ones that have been paying the bills for wildlife in this state.  The Wolf plan should not have been drafted like it was and in no way should the commission approved it like that.  When the feds say that wolves in the eastern third can be delisted but the the state keeps them protected,  that is simply ridiculous.  And why do they seem to favor the wolf over the woodland caribou?

Actually when you look at WDFW funding only 27% comes from hunting and fishing licenses. 16% then comes from the general fund (mainly taxes). And for wildlife alone, only 18% of that initial 27% from the wildlife fund goes to the wildlife program. The biggest sole funder of WDFW.....The feds at 29%

But isn't the "fed money" from the Pittman-Robertson act. A.k.a hunters?

sent from my typewriter

Not exactly. PR funds come from the sale of firearms, ammunition, and archery equipment. This includes purchases made for hunting, but also self defense, shooting, and other purposes.

[seth30]

With that said though, I think they should be doing more to keep sportsmen happy vs caving to any tree hugging groups.  I mean we're the ones that have been paying the bills for wildlife in this state.  The Wolf plan should not have been drafted like it was and in no way should the commission approved it like that.  When the feds say that wolves in the eastern third can be delisted but the the state keeps them protected,  that is simply ridiculous.  And why do they seem to favor the wolf over the woodland caribou?

Actually when you look at WDFW funding only 27% comes from hunting and fishing licenses. 16% then comes from the general fund (mainly taxes). And for wildlife alone, only 18% of that initial 27% from the wildlife fund goes to the wildlife program. The biggest sole funder of WDFW.....The feds at 29%

And your percentages only add up to 72% where does the other 28% come from?

sent from my typewriter

Pro wolf groups

[bigtex]

With that said though, I think they should be doing more to keep sportsmen happy vs caving to any tree hugging groups.  I mean we're the ones that have been paying the bills for wildlife in this state.  The Wolf plan should not have been drafted like it was and in no way should the commission approved it like that.  When the feds say that wolves in the eastern third can be delisted but the the state keeps them protected,  that is simply ridiculous.  And why do they seem to favor the wolf over the woodland caribou?

Actually when you look at WDFW funding only 27% comes from hunting and fishing licenses. 16% then comes from the general fund (mainly taxes). And for wildlife alone, only 18% of that initial 27% from the wildlife fund goes to the wildlife program. The biggest sole funder of WDFW.....The feds at 29%

And your percentages only add up to 72% where does the other 28% come from?

16% local sources, 12% "other" http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/budget/

[bigtex]

With that said though, I think they should be doing more to keep sportsmen happy vs caving to any tree hugging groups.  I mean we're the ones that have been paying the bills for wildlife in this state.  The Wolf plan should not have been drafted like it was and in no way should the commission approved it like that.  When the feds say that wolves in the eastern third can be delisted but the the state keeps them protected,  that is simply ridiculous.  And why do they seem to favor the wolf over the woodland caribou?

Actually when you look at WDFW funding only 27% comes from hunting and fishing licenses. 16% then comes from the general fund (mainly taxes). And for wildlife alone, only 18% of that initial 27% from the wildlife fund goes to the wildlife program. The biggest sole funder of WDFW.....The feds at 29%

But isn't the "fed money" from the Pittman-Robertson act. A.k.a hunters?

WDFW currently gets $107M from the feds, only a small part of that is Pittman-Robertson. A lot of it has to do with the federally managed/protected species in WA. As an example three WDFW Officers are paid for by the National Marine Fisheries Service for federal fisheries enforcement by WDFW. WDFW gets federal funding for all sorts of things.

[KFhunter]

Divorcing WDFW and CNW would be a step in the right direction.


baby steps


Unless WA voters wakes up and puts in some decent leadership.

[grundy53]

Divorcing WDFW and CNW would be a step in the right direction.


baby steps


Unless WA voters wakes up and puts in some decent leadership.

sent from my typewriter

[snowpack]

I thought I read that PR money dispersed to WA this year was $20M.  The money in is from all kinds of sporting goods, not just hunting.  I've heard that the feds decide to divvy it up among the states based on the amount of licenses sold in each state, and that Alaska gets the most back mainly due to all the fishing licenses.