Commission plans to select new director,

[Tbar]

Inquiring minds want to know who...?

[Wacenturion]

One person has already been offered the position. Whether or not he accepts is another thing. BTW he is a fish person.....

I would have really been surprised if not with this commission.

[pianoman9701]

One person has already been offered the position. Whether or not he accepts is another thing. BTW he is a fish person.....

There's a shocker. They think that hunting numbers in this state have declined up until now? They've seen nothing yet. 

[WSU]

I think it makes sense to have a fish person.  The issues surrounding fish and fishing in our state are more complex and contentious than hunting.  Whoever it is also needs to realize that they are not only in charge of fish and that hunting and wildlife is very important as well.

[pianoman9701]

I think it makes sense to have a fish person.  The issues surrounding fish and fishing in our state are more complex and contentious than hunting.  Whoever it is also needs to realize that they are not only in charge of fish and that hunting and wildlife is very important as well.

So far, this hasn't been a priority for the WDFW administration. It's unlikely to change with a fish guy in place.

[WSU]

I think we need the right fish guy or gal. 

[ipkus]

I think it makes sense to have a fish person.  The issues surrounding fish and fishing in our state are more complex and contentious than hunting.  Whoever it is also needs to realize that they are not only in charge of fish and that hunting and wildlife is very important as well.

So far, this hasn't been a priority for the WDFW administration. It's unlikely to change with a fish guy in place.

Funny, you were just saying it wasn't fair to stereotype in the ALE thread?

The fisheries issues in this state are infinitely more complicated (ESA, tribal issues, multiple management agencies, international harvest agreements, etc.) than hunting issues, so it will always make sense to hire a director with experience in fisheries.  However, along with that background the most important trait they need to possess is a full understanding of both the economic and social values of hunting and fishing activities, and that providing a quality product to the user groups that pay the bills is the only way for WDFW to sustain itself going forward.

[NoBark]

Another reason to separate them out and give them each there needed focus.   

[pianoman9701]

I think it makes sense to have a fish person.  The issues surrounding fish and fishing in our state are more complex and contentious than hunting.  Whoever it is also needs to realize that they are not only in charge of fish and that hunting and wildlife is very important as well.

So far, this hasn't been a priority for the WDFW administration. It's unlikely to change with a fish guy in place.

Funny, you were just saying it wasn't fair to stereotype in the ALE thread?

The fisheries issues in this state are infinitely more complicated (ESA, tribal issues, multiple management agencies, international harvest agreements, etc.) than hunting issues, so it will always make sense to hire a director with experience in fisheries.  However, along with that background the most important trait they need to possess is a full understanding of both the economic and social values of hunting and fishing activities, and that providing a quality product to the user groups that pay the bills is the only way for WDFW to sustain itself going forward.

Yeah, it's a real riot and this topic is exactly the same as an Indian bashing thread. Someone hand me the sarcasm font please.

Ever since the department was merged, wildlife's been getting the short end of the stick. They whine about poor hunter retention and then, do nothing about it. They don't incentivize people to turn in poachers. They don't back up the guys in the field making the busts and putting on the shoe leather. They don't support prosecution with cooperation. They neglect wildlife diseases until enough citizens speak out to have them do something. Wildlife is the red-headed stepchild of the WDFW and as long as fish people run the department, it'll likely stay that way.

[ipkus]

Yeah, it's a real riot and this topic is exactly the same as an Indian bashing thread. Someone hand me the sarcasm font please.

Oh stop with the drama, no one was bashing anyone.  For someone who disdains 'liberals' you sure act like one.

As for the rest of your post,  , except for the "they don't incentivize people to turn in poachers". 

They don't?

[pianoman9701]

Yeah, it's a real riot and this topic is exactly the same as an Indian bashing thread. Someone hand me the sarcasm font please.

Oh stop with the drama, no one was bashing anyone.  For someone who disdains 'liberals' you sure act like one.

As for the rest of your post,  , except for the "they don't incentivize people to turn in poachers". 

They don't?

Not sure why you've taken to following me around, but it's getting creepy.

WDFW is nowhere near other surrounding states in incentives and working with private organizations to up the ante with regards to turning in poachers. If you look in the back of the OR games laws or MT, there are pages of sponsors who'll add to what the game departments offer for rewards. Our DFW needs to be doing a lot better job for wildlife all around. Aggressively rewarding the capture of poachers would be one good step. Another would be to get the legislature to up the fines/penalties for poaching. Make all poaching as serious as trophy animals are now. Add lifetime loss of privileges for repeat or aggravated offenders. And, as I stated before, be better at supporting the efforts of those working in the field. They're falling down on all of these things.