Does WDFW know it has an image problem?

[bigtex]

I've always said that being a director of any natural resource agency at any level would take it's toll on you. It doesn't matter if your the director of a state fish and wildlife agency, federal fish and wildlife agency, state or national parks. In natural resources everybody has their perfect mindset of how things should be run, and when the agency goes against them, they want the director burned. I don't think you can say that about the director of some other big agencies.

[sakoshooter]

I have read with interest a number of the postings. I do understand and recognize that we have an image problem, that is to say, I know there are a number of hunters that don't trust us or respect what we do or how we do it. I also know by reading some of the postings that many think the problem is with management and some think that we just don't care. Well I am writing as your director to say that I do care.

WDFW does confront a number of controversial issues. As director, some of the decisions I have made have been easy, not that the issue was easy, but knowing the difference between the right decision and the wrong decision made it easy for me based on my values. Others are much different in that among the choices I have all have drawbacks, and sometimes that is a gross understatement. But, in every case, I make every effort to equip myself with all the knowledge on the subject I can and then make the decision that I think is the best for fish and wildlife and the people that care about them.

I also reviewed some of the suggestions on where a director should focus his/her efforts. Not surprisingly, I agree with some of them and disagree with others.  I have some basic priorities in terms of where I spend my time. Some of them are internal like working closely with the Wildlife, Enforcement, Habitat, or Fish Program leadership on critical contemporary issues, another internal priority for me has been having a quality and committed staff; some are external like working with congressional members and state legislators and their staff regarding budget and policy issues impacting the Department, attending stakeholder meetings or interacting with leaders of organizations that represent our customers/stakeholders, working with the tribes on fishing and hunting issues takes a good deal of my time, working with federal agency leaders on issues we have a common interest like NOAA Fisheries, USFWS, National Park Service, Army Corps of Engineers; I also work closely with the Governor's Policy Office and other state agency directors and the Commissioner of Public Lands. My bosses, the Fish and Wildlife Commission, is another area where I devote a significant amount of time. Finally, there are always a list of "hot issues" that I am intimately involved in that includes things like hoof disease, wolves, land acquisitions and public access, federal Funding issues, state/tribal fishing and hunting issues, Wanapum Dam and Fish Passage, several lawsuits including the Wildfish Conservancy and Skokomish Tribe lawsuits.

I have hunted (mostly ducks and upland birds) and fished (mostly salmon, halibut, albacore) all my life. I have been director since December of 2008 including the 9 months I was interim director. When I took the job I knew full well that I wouldn't be winning any popularity contests, but I took it because I wanted to give something back to the resource, I had already taken more than my share of some species. I was recently told by the Association of Fish and Wildlife Association Executive Director that 40 states had replaced their directors within the last 36 months. I am 64 years old and you will get another director sometime down the road. Until that happens, I will continue to the best job I can for fish and wildlife and for the people who care about our natural resources. If that can include helping with changing the image of the Department in the eyes of our customers/stakeholders to a more positive one, I welcome that opportunity....because I do care.

Ducks, Welcome to the site. First off I'm glad to hear that you do hunt and fish. I know many in your building that do neither, consequently they don't even support their own job or company via the license system. Nor can you have a thorough understanding(from a hunter/fisherman standpoint) of game or fish without spending time in the field pursuing them.
If I can pass along one statement to you for consideration it would be to stop the evolution of hunting/fishing in WA from a fun, affordable sport that also allows a person to put food on the table to an expensive, barely able to afford a few tags sport fit for the wealthy. Our system is going down this path rapidly sir.

[idahohuntr]

When I took the job I knew full well that I wouldn't be winning any popularity contests, but I took it because I wanted to give something back to the resource, I had already taken more than my share of some species. I was recently told by the Association of Fish and Wildlife Association Executive Director that 40 states had replaced their directors within the last 36 months. I am 64 years old and you will get another director sometime down the road. Until that happens, I will continue to the best job I can for fish and wildlife and for the people who care about our natural resources. If that can include helping with changing the image of the Department in the eyes of our customers/stakeholders to a more positive one, I welcome that opportunity....because I do care.

I have said repeatedly on this forum, and your post confirms my feelings, that WDFW is the biggest ally sportsmen have in the state of Washington.  I appreciate you and your staffs willingness to serve us sportsmen in the myriad of complex natural resource issues found in Washington.  While I would agree that caring about the image of WDFW as perceived by its core stakeholders is important, it is 2nd in my book to doing the right things for the natural resources in our state.  I have great respect for somebody like you that knows full well you are not going to win any popularity contests but yet you serve anyways. 

One other thing that jumps out to me: the fact that you are 64 and noted that 40 states have replaced directors in the last 3 years...I hope you are willing to stick things out for several more years.  I think we need a director who is at or eligible for retirement and won't be intimidated into doing the politically popular thing simply to save his/her job.  If you resign and get replaced by somebody who's got some time to go before retirement...how willing are they going to be to stick their neck out for sportsmen on controversial issues?  How willing is the next director going to be to send letters to USFWS strongly urging the de-listing of wolves in the western 2/3 of WA or make the call to remove wolves lethally knowing that anti-hunters and activists are going to flood the Governors office with calls and letters?  While I don't think anybody could possibly blame you for retiring tomorrow, I hope you are around for a while making the tough decisions in the interest of the natural resources enjoyed by most of the citizens in this state.

I have one last and very important question though: When will the draw results be out?  

[RadSav]

I have one last and very important question though: When will the draw results be out?

Now that he is a member, I wonder if we will see Ducks trying to win a muledeer mounting kit in the "Special Permit Guess Game 2014"


Director, director the special permit results came in early and they are ready to post!  Should we post them now?...

Don't Post Them Yet!!!  My H-W time slot doesn't come up until 4:33PM tomorrow!!!

[jackelope]

 

[pianoman9701]

I'm glad that the director has joined the forum. Maybe that shows the the department really is interested in the views of us sportsmen. But there are ongoing issues facing us that remain unresolved - hunting access in private timber lands, the health of the biggest elk herd in the state, predator control and seasons, shrinking seasons and access to quality hunts. Just by virtue of his new membership, I'm not going to roll over and say that I believe all's right with the hunting world here in WA. It's not and I'm going to continue to push for change.

I don't believe that the department has been aggressively enough pursuing hoof disease. The appearance, whether valid or not, is that so far, little or no attention is being focused on big timber's use of herbicides. We know from attending meetings with both the working group and the assistant wildlife director that when toxicologies have been performed, there has been zero testing for agricultural chemicals. Only recently has the department ramped up verbiage about herbicides in its presentations. We also know that the reports of affected animals began to spike in 2008, yet it was almost 5 years before information started going out to the public and much of that, speculative. We know there was no sampling done of affected elk during the years 2010, 2011, and 2012. We're being told that the meat is safe to eat and yet, that they don't know what's causing the disease. It seems to me that without knowing the cause, it would be impossible to say with any certainty at all that the meat is safe. I believe that this is being done to avoid a huge loss in tag sales from hunters who only hunt these areas. If the meat is found unsafe to eat, who in their right mind is going to spend the money we spend on elk hunting and take the chance of contracting a disease or illness? There are so many inconsistencies with regard to this disease and what we're being told that is makes your head spin.

Hunting access on private lands. My personal feeling is that the relationship between big timber and the department (and most politicians) is too close, especially in light of the fact that an enormous amount of their lands have gone pay-to-play over the last few years. According to one quote about 6 months ago, much of this came as a complete surprise to the department. How is it that such a huge portion of SW WA has gone pay-to-play and no one knew it was coming? For the average Joe on a low income in an unstable economy, this can mean an end to hunting at all. Hunting is supposed to be for all of us, not just those who can afford it. I believe the department should be pounding big timber's table and letting them know that taking away public access should mean the department's support of their land management will change - heavier restriction on bear and elk management and support for a new tax structure which adequately reflects the changes to public access. Although I understand that big timber has a right to do with their private lands as they wish, I also understand that taking 10s of 1000s of acres of land out of unrestricted public use is a game changer.

Predator management. By the time we reach the established goals of the wolf program where ongoing management (read hunting) can commence, portions of our state will be in dire trouble. The addition of an apex predator to our already under-managed predator population is going to hurt ungulates badly. In addition, given that our population density is 16 times that of MT, there's no way that the department should have supported a plan which calls for 50% more wolves and a 3-year waiting period once goals are met. In comparison to MT and ID, who are now realizing severe economic and wildlife management backlash from their plan, we may have a complete meltdown. Cougar populations are at full carrying capacity statewide and the seasons should be extended and the tags, next to nothing to pay for. Without consistent use of hounds being available, we must do everything possible to increase the take of cougars by hunters. I believe that it is scientifically prudent to open the season year round. New evidence in ID has shown that what we have traditionally thought are the norms for population densities of cougars may have been grossly underestimated. Incidental harvest of cougars is miniscule. Open it up. In like fashion, more areas should be opened to spring bear. There is no reason that more westside units and permits shouldn't be opened to spring bear. And, if the timber companies want more bear control on their private lands, permit holders should be given free access. Otherwise, choke off their ability to manage until they become more hunter-friendly.

Hunting Season Changes - I'm an archer, so I can only comment on what has happened to our seasons. We lost a few days in the early season and the dates moved to a rotating schedule instead of fixed dates. Supposedly, the late season was increased. But, fewer and fewer units are available to archers in the late season and now, most of those in W. WA will require paid access permits. In light of recent developments, the season should be returned to a fixed 8th-20th of September. The hunter infighting that was caused 20 years ago by separating hunting methods continues today. We're all hunters, but out of necessity, we're pitted against each other in an attempt to gain reasonable access to dwindling hunting opportunities. WA is one of the few states where the method of hunting must be chosen. In most states, hunters may hunt each season for which they possess a tag and the proper firearm/implement. By segmenting the hunter populations, the department has effectively split the hunter groups into fractions which can be more easily dealt with or manipulated. This is counter-productive and will negatively affect hunter participation increasingly at a time when hunter numbers are already falling each year. The stronger that hunters are as a cohesive group, the better the outcome for hunting in general and the more job security for the department with solid hunter support and numbers. If hunters continue to be segmented and opportunity continues to fall, we will lose our heritage and the department will lose its revenue. Lose-lose.

4 years ago, I became a Master Hunter. That awakened in me an even deeper love for the sport with which I was already obsessed, but more, a responsibility to fight for wildlife, conservation, hunter access and satisfaction, and wildlife management which enhances abundant wildlife and hunter opportunity. The department may well rue the day they gave me that certification, one which until recently I'd considered surrendering. But I will continue as a MH to push the department where I think it's faltering and I will continue to contact my legislators to support hunting access and sensible management. I'd love to say that we have a department which recognizes and is addressing the challenges that wildlife and WA hunters face in the field and in the regulations. But at this point, that's just not how I feel. Thank you for considering my comments.

[jackelope]

Hunting Season Changes - I'm an archer, so I can only comment on what has happened to our seasons. We lost a few days in the early season and the dates moved to a rotating schedule instead of fixed dates. Supposedly, the late season was increased. But, fewer and fewer units are available to archers in the late season and now, most of those in W. WA will require paid access permits. In light of recent developments, the season should be returned to a fixed 8th-20th of September The hunter infighting that was caused 20 years ago by separating hunting methods continues today. We're all hunters, but out of necessity, we're pitted against each other in an attempt to gain reasonable access to dwindling hunting opportunities. WA is one of the few states where the method of hunting must be chosen. In most states, hunters may hunt each season for which they possess a tag and the proper firearm/implement. By segmenting the hunter populations, the department has effectively split the hunter groups into fractions which can be more easily dealt with or manipulated. This is counter-productive and will negatively affect hunter participation increasingly at a time when hunter numbers are already falling each year. The stronger that hunters are as a cohesive group, the better the outcome for hunting in general and the more job security for the department with solid hunter support and numbers. If hunters continue to be segmented and opportunity continues to fall, we will lose our heritage and the department will lose its revenue. Lose-lose.

P-man-
Are you a member of WSB?? If not, I would encourage you to join.
Have you seen this thread?
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,154125.0.html
The strongest advocate for bowhunters in this state and not a single comment from anyone except the president and the VP.
Unfortunate.

[pianoman9701]

And Director Anderson, please support coyote contests as not only a really enjoyable hunting opportunity, but an effective predator management tool.

[Curly]

When I took the job I knew full well that I wouldn't be winning any popularity contests, but I took it because I wanted to give something back to the resource, I had already taken more than my share of some species. I was recently told by the Association of Fish and Wildlife Association Executive Director that 40 states had replaced their directors within the last 36 months. I am 64 years old and you will get another director sometime down the road. Until that happens, I will continue to the best job I can for fish and wildlife and for the people who care about our natural resources. If that can include helping with changing the image of the Department in the eyes of our customers/stakeholders to a more positive one, I welcome that opportunity....because I do care.

I have said repeatedly on this forum, and your post confirms my feelings, that WDFW is the biggest ally sportsmen have in the state of Washington.  I appreciate you and your staffs willingness to serve us sportsmen in the myriad of complex natural resource issues found in Washington.  While I would agree that caring about the image of WDFW as perceived by its core stakeholders is important, it is 2nd in my book to doing the right things for the natural resources in our state.  I have great respect for somebody like you that knows full well you are not going to win any popularity contests but yet you serve anyways. 

One other thing that jumps out to me: the fact that you are 64 and noted that 40 states have replaced directors in the last 3 years...I hope you are willing to stick things out for several more years.  I think we need a director who is at or eligible for retirement and won't be intimidated into doing the politically popular thing simply to save his/her job.  If you resign and get replaced by somebody who's got some time to go before retirement...how willing are they going to be to stick their neck out for sportsmen on controversial issues?  How willing is the next director going to be to send letters to USFWS strongly urging the de-listing of wolves in the western 2/3 of WA or make the call to remove wolves lethally knowing that anti-hunters and activists are going to flood the Governors office with calls and letters?  While I don't think anybody could possibly blame you for retiring tomorrow, I hope you are around for a while making the tough decisions in the interest of the natural resources enjoyed by most of the citizens in this state.

I have one last and very important question though: When will the draw results be out?

Good points IDhuntr.  You bring up delisting; that is one of the many frustrating things about wdfw.  The feds allow the eastern third to be delisted, but yet wdfw has a ridiculous wolf plan in place and won't delist the wolf where the feds allow.  The Wolf plan they came up with really does seem like a slap in the face to us hunters.  I under stand that wdfw tried to keep the wolf huggers happy, but you can't convince me that science would dictate a plan like they came up with.  I was very disappointed that the commission approved the plan.

I also agree with your comment about how doing the right thing should come above keeping us happy.  I believe that the current special permit system was implemented in part because of complaints about people not drawing after 15 years of accumulating points. 

wdfw just seems to be trying to increase predators in this state. They try to eliminate night hunting, coyote contests, they did eliminate hunting coyotes with dogs.  All of these issues I think happen due to pressure by anti hunters; I just wish wdfw would stand up for us hunters in these instances. Just seems that if wildlife in the state can be managed by good science then us hunters would benefit by having healthy game populations.

I do think the director has an almost impossible job, and I suspect the commission is a big road block at times.  I know I couldn't do his job.  I do appreciate the decision he made last year to kill several of the wedge pack wolves.....that did take balls to make that call when he knew he'd get complaints from wolf huggers.

[pianoman9701]

Joined WSB. I'm not sure they have my information as It's all on the PayPal page, but I'm paid up. Thanks jackelope.

[RadSav]

I can guarantee you that post was legitimately our WDFW director. 

Will he be a daily contributor?  I doubt it.  I think he has enough on his plate that he doesn't, nor should he, want to be rambling about on H-W.  However, the post was encouraging that we might hear more from the horses mouth without all the garbage fill and lack of clarity often found in WDFW news letters.

We asked if the WDFW knows it has an image problem.  We asked if the director cares.  We asked if the WDFW was listening.  And instead of sending some crony talking head the director himself took the time to become a H-W member and contribute a nice post.  I think we have to appreciate that despite our conflicting views and Romper Room behavior.

Would I expect the director to acknowledge ucwarden in an open forum?  No I would not.  That would likely be legal and political suicide.  I expect a man with his background is smart enough not to get backed into that corner.

Did the director answer all the questions we had and in a manner that satisfied all of us?  No!  It is my hope, however, that if we conduct ourselves with a bit of civility, respect and integrity there will be more posts coming from our director.  And then, just maybe, as we both become more comfortable with the correspondence the dialog and topics can expand and both the director and H-W members can benefit.  Leading to a greater respect for one another and an expanding dialog of clarity that would then be made possible by a solid relationship.

[pianoman9701]

I agree, Rad. To me, however, that doesn't mean tip-toeing around the issues that negatively affect wildlife and hunting in our state.

[RadSav]

I agree, Rad. To me, however, that doesn't mean tip-toeing around the issues that negatively affect wildlife and hunting in our state.

I don't think anyone should tip-toe around a thing.  Though I do think we need to be reminded, occasionally,  that strength of conviction and standing up for what we believe can be done without sacrificing mutual respect and integrity.

I am reminded of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher when I find myself involved in political matters.  World leaders respected them and feared them both.  That came from being educated on the issues, fiercely standing their ground, being aggressive and all while never giving the appearance of being disrespectful or acting with a loss of integrity.

[Special T]

While i remain a WDFW skeptic, I do feel good hearing from the Director. A large part of my Beef (and many others) is the fact they remain silent instead of going to bat for hunters. I am personally disturbed/frustrated because the agency did not hesitate to call on hunters to thwart a DNR/Parks WDFW merger and we came out in droves to support them.

There is an Axiom in Business that it is much easier/cheaper to keep a customer than get a new one, and a spurned customer will cost you 10x as much as whatever the disagreement was over. For what ever reason the WDFW has the hard route to travel to repair their image and quiet spurned hunters. The Director showing up here IS GREAT! It is however just the first step. I'm happy to know that the Director is a fellow duck hunter and his words are encouraging. So far they are just that... Words... 

I appreciate the complexity and difficulty of rebuilding the relationship between the department and the sportsman, but that does not mean we should giver Director Anderson or anyone else a pass.

[stevemiller]

well said