WDFW - What do We Want in a New Director?

[BOWHUNTER45]

Pianoman...Do we send these polls and threads to the WDFW So they can see and read what sportsmen are saying    I noticed on BearPaws list that he mentioned Commercial Poaching ..Do you guys think we have more of a problem with Single Poachers or Commercial Poaching ?

[pianoman9701]

I will send a link to this thread and the results of the poll in a letter to the wildlife commission.

Poaching sucks on all levels. There are the accidental occurrences of poaching and consideration should be given, especially when someone comes forward on their own. However, whether single poaching or multiple, these people are stealing. In the case of commercial poaching, federal charges should be pursed under the Lacey Act. I'd also like to see all of the big game fines increased to where the "trophy" level is now, at least. In addition, I'd like to see more advertisements for private organizations in the WA Big Game Regulations which offer rewards for the arrest and conviction of poachers. Many states are far more aggressive with enticing the public to turn in a poacher. Although many of us would do it regardless of reward, dirtbag friends of big time poachers might be convinced to drop a dime on them if the reward is big enough. There is no honor among thieves for the right price.

[Knocker of rocks]

There have been numerous studies done that prove dredging is actually beneficial for fish and the WDFW can't get that through their heads all they say is it is bad they refuse to consider scientific studies. That is the reason I want a director that looks at the FACTS

 

Dredging does not have to be at odds with fish, but I doubt there are any bona fide studies that show dredging is beneficial 

[lokidog]

There have been numerous studies done that prove dredging is actually beneficial for fish and the WDFW can't get that through their heads all they say is it is bad they refuse to consider scientific studies. That is the reason I want a director that looks at the FACTS

 

Dredging does not have to be at odds with fish, but I doubt there are any bona fide studies that show dredging is beneficial 

 

I like many of the points mentioned, here's my short list of requirements:

Must be a hunter/fisher
Must understand the issues facing Washington wildlife/hunters/fishers
Manage predators more aggressively
Improve Washington's fishing and big game herds for more opportunity and revenue
Emphasis on commercial poaching
Improve accountability and respect of WDFW
Stabilize tribal, big timber, and environmental issues that threaten wildlife/hunting/fishing
Aggressively cut the fat in WDFW due to upcoming budget constraints (15% reduction anticipated next year)
Use other options to reduce WDFW budget rather than simply eliminating wardens and hatcheries
Good people skills and good negotiating skills to negotiate in the best interest of wildlife/hunting/fishing/trapping

 

[bearpaw]

some additional thoughts....

Poaching
I cited commercial poaching because it seems we are already doing quite a lot to discourage individual poaching. One active commercial poacher can do a huge amount of resource damage with long lasting effects. This seems to be an under enforced activity in WA.

Enforcement Reform
I never agreed with the petition to remove Director Anderson but didn't want to post that in UCWardens topic. I think UCW's concerns are justified but that he would have been farther ahead to pressure the Director, Wildlife Commission, and Governor to make changes in enforcement management. That's just my opinion looking at it from the outside and not knowing any more than I do. I do thank UCW for his dedication and sincere efforts trying to protect our resources and improve the WDFW enforcement program.

Accidental Poaching
I most definitely agree with the thought that accidental poaching should receive consideration. For example, a guy shoots a turkey to fill his 2nd tag and accidentally kills an extra bird. While that is negligent I don't think it is intentional poaching and thus should have a lessor penalty, perhaps an option to simply pay a moderate penalty would free up prosecutors and wardens from court time prosecuting these more trivial charges.

Local Warden (Good Judgement and Public Relations)
I had a hunter 2 years ago who accidentally shot a fork horn mule deer in the late whitetail season. He had passed mule deer as he should and had passed some small whitetail bucks in hopes of getting a large buck he had glimpsed early in the hunt. Late in the hunt he lowered his standards and shot what he thought was a 2x2 whitetail, it was a mule deer. Definitely a bad mistake on his part, but he turned himself in, I prepped the deer to be cut up for the food bank, the local warden explained the potential poaching penalties but only wrote the hunter for a wildlife infraction. The hunter payed the fine, about $170, learned a lesson, and there were no hard feelings he felt good about doing the right thing by turning himself in. Had the warden cited the guy for poaching with the max penalty, I doubt the guy would be as inspired to do the right thing in the future if he ever makes another mistake or knows anyone else who makes a similar mistake. Also if the guy was forced into court, a reasonable judge would be reluctant to hit the guy with a full poaching conviction anyway.

Enforcement Reform
I also know of cases where wardens pile on every possible trumped up charge to make a guy appear to be the worst scum on the earth, that does not make much of an impression on many people and probably reduces public support for wildlife enforcement. I suggest charging violators for the actual crime committed, collect penalties, build support for sensible and effective wildlife enforcement. I think enforcement/penalties need to be reformed to encourage compliance, especially first time or accidental offenses, violations lacking criminal intent should receive consideration as such. Additionally in an effort to make room for more serious poaching and criminal cases in the courts, most wildlife violations could bypass the court system entirely with options to pay a fine and/or perform community service, depending on the violation. Save our court time for cases that are disputed by the alleged poacher, for extreme poaching cases, and for violent/criminal cases. If a defendant in a wildlife case chooses to go to court and if found guilty then there should be additional court costs added to the penalties for consuming the court/prosecutor time. I bet many counties would agree with a better program to lighten the load on our court system.

Incarceration
Only put the worst violators in jail that pose a threat to citizens, penalize most violators with asset confiscation, monetary penalties, and public service. We need to reduce the load on our system and only put violent criminals in jail. Keep everyone else productive in society even when paying the price for their poaching crimes. This same philosophy could be applied across the system for many types of crimes.

[Stein]

I vote none of the above.  His/her #1 job should be securing permanent and adequate funding from the legislature.  The rest of the crew can work through the issues mentioned.

[Forks]

I vote none of the above.  His/her #1 job should be securing permanent and adequate funding from the legislature.  The rest of the crew can work through the issues mentioned.

You have it nailed, funding is everything. The new director will struggle to get federal funding like our current.

[Wacenturion]

I vote none of the above.  His/her #1 job should be securing permanent and adequate funding from the legislature.  The rest of the crew can work through the issues mentioned.

You have it nailed, funding is everything. The new director will struggle to get federal funding like our current.

Permanent and adequate funding comes from efficiency's and accomplishing meaningful things for the resource that the public views as necessary and needed.  All the rest is just same ol', same ol'.  A director better be aware and smart enough to know the difference and be willing to not only make changes that lead to the above but also be able to get buy in from employees.    An accountant isn't going to get you there. 

WDFW is too top heavy which leads to duplication of effort and over paying supervisors that are not needed in the organizational chart.  Make people responsible for their programs and hold them accountable.  A layer above them plays too easily to political correctness within.  The farther away from the expert the less they know and that folks leads to poor management decisions.  Believe me...I know.

[BOWHUNTER45]

This is what I am getting at ..Now we are getting somewhere .Why can we make it sound so easy and they can not .. it is pretty simple math . If they want sportsmen to contribute their hard owned dollars they should be finding ways to properly manage game and hunters . And by taking opportunity away is not one of them . We all know how much money we dump into it and keep getting shafted .. If they can find a way to take away all the negativity , money would come instantly and everyone would be happy .. We will end up like California if this keeps up 

[Wacenturion]

You start with simple things that get immediate results.  I'll give you an example.

WDFW boat launches....they typically look ill maintained for the most part.  Ramps that drop off and can potentially damage your trailer, filthy restrooms, pot holed dirt with some gravel parking lots.

Take a look at say Cowlitz County's Willow Grove.  Absolutely wonderful.  Clean, can holds lots of vehicles and trailers, asphalt, with docks at the end of multiple loading ramps.  Now I realize that it's big because it sits on the Columbia.  Just take an example, scale it down and apply.  You would get instant support and praise as well as a willingness to help fund it through drop box fees....like Willow Grove...$5 to launch. 

It's so freakin simple it's stupid.  WDFW Wildlife Areas could also be managed to be real showcases of wildlife management, but no, lets just manage like we have for the past 40-50 years...custodial at best.  But hey....we've had probably 12 planning cycles during those years...what a joke.  What good is a plan unless it actually contains directives that when implemented, actually do something.  Most planning leaves that stuff out....coordinate with other agencies...meet with.....investigate.....research.....bla, bla, bla.

Want to get public backing....which means legislative backing....then actually do something that says you did something worthwhile.  Get it?  When the public backs something and helps pay for it willingly it stimulates other aspects of the economy....gas sales, food sales, motels, etc.  If someone opts to stay home to avoid the crappy boat launch we all lose.  Legislators back things people say are valuable and worthwhile....too difficult not to.  Political hot potatoes.

WDFW has trained everyone to join their little pity party about lack of funds.  Manage the right way, and just for as minute pretend, if you will, that that money you're spending is yours.  Act like you are trying to make a profit even if that profit generally is in the form of customer satisfaction.  Right now...it's just raise fees, reduce opportunity and keep kicking the same message down the road.     

[Elkaholic daWg]

Did not see this as an option so will say it outright
A Director that looks at the facts of past studies when making a decision instead of just listening to his " Tree hugging Leaf Licking gofors

Also being a Gold Miner with a dredge There have been numerous studies done that prove dredging is actually beneficial for fish and the WDFW can't get that through their heads all they say is it is bad they refuse to consider scientific studies. That is the reason I want a director that looks at the FACTS

also, how about a director who asks the legislature for actions beneficial to the game animals the agency was created to protect, instead of the requests to appropriate more money by expanding  DFW LEO's police authority, as the deer, elk and other game species pay the price, since their workload just moved farther from their  original purpose. (AGAIN!)

RE.....
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,158913.0.html

[BOWHUNTER45]

Did not see this as an option so will say it outright
A Director that looks at the facts of past studies when making a decision instead of just listening to his " Tree hugging Leaf Licking gofors

Also being a Gold Miner with a dredge There have been numerous studies done that prove dredging is actually beneficial for fish and the WDFW can't get that through their heads all they say is it is bad they refuse to consider scientific studies. That is the reason I want a director that looks at the FACTS

also, how about a director who asks the legislature for actions beneficial to the game animals the agency was created to protect, instead of the requests to appropriate more money by expanding  DFW LEO's police authority, as the deer, elk and other game species pay the price, since their workload just moved farther from their  original purpose. (AGAIN!)

RE.....
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,158913.0.html

Exactly ...its that simple but for some reason they continue to ignore it 

[Stein]

Permanent and adequate funding comes from efficiency's and accomplishing meaningful things for the resource that the public views as necessary and needed.  All the rest is just same ol', same ol'.  A director better be aware and smart enough to know the difference and be willing to not only make changes that lead to the above but also be able to get buy in from employees.    An accountant isn't going to get you there. 

I hate to disagree with you but funding comes from lobbying, making friends, being absolutely carnivorous, finding buttons to push and finding ways of convincing legislators that their job is on the line if they don't fund you.

If efficiency was the answer, we wouldn't have private jets for the governor or five figure artwork in public parks.

Your answer is great in a perfect democracy, but that isn't what we have.

[Wacenturion]

Permanent and adequate funding comes from efficiency's and accomplishing meaningful things for the resource that the public views as necessary and needed.  All the rest is just same ol', same ol'.  A director better be aware and smart enough to know the difference and be willing to not only make changes that lead to the above but also be able to get buy in from employees.    An accountant isn't going to get you there. 

I hate to disagree with you but funding comes from lobbying, making friends, being absolutely carnivorous, finding buttons to push and finding ways of convincing legislators that their job is on the line if they don't fund you.

If efficiency was the answer, we wouldn't have private jets for the governor or five figure artwork in public parks.

Your answer is great in a perfect democracy, but that isn't what we have.

Sorry, but I have to partially disagree with you.

"funding comes from lobbying, making friends, being absolutely carnivorous, finding buttons to push and finding ways of convincing legislators that their job is on the line if they don't fund you."

That's part of the problem..........depending on a few whose only decision is based in politics, rather than the public good and what's right for the resource. 

[Stein]

Permanent and adequate funding comes from efficiency's and accomplishing meaningful things for the resource that the public views as necessary and needed.  All the rest is just same ol', same ol'.  A director better be aware and smart enough to know the difference and be willing to not only make changes that lead to the above but also be able to get buy in from employees.    An accountant isn't going to get you there. 

I hate to disagree with you but funding comes from lobbying, making friends, being absolutely carnivorous, finding buttons to push and finding ways of convincing legislators that their job is on the line if they don't fund you.

If efficiency was the answer, we wouldn't have private jets for the governor or five figure artwork in public parks.

Your answer is great in a perfect democracy, but that isn't what we have.

Sorry, but I have to partially disagree with you.

"funding comes from lobbying, making friends, being absolutely carnivorous, finding buttons to push and finding ways of convincing legislators that their job is on the line if they don't fund you."

That's part of the problem..........depending on a few whose only decision is based in politics, rather than the public good and what's right for the resource.

Problem?  Absolutely.

Reality.  Absolutely.

The WDFW director isn't going to change Olympia, the best we can ask of him is to effectively fight for the Department.