Commission plans to select new director,

[WSU]

The only name I've heard mentioned isn't a fish guy and appears to be qualified.  Time will tell, I suppose.

[JimmyHoffa]

I would think a fish guy would likely be chosen.  Fishing is a larger part of the operations for the agency--numbers of license sales and commercial fish/shellfish.  Plus there is all kinds of money and programs surrounding ESA fish and corresponding fish habitat.  I'd like to see a game guy (particularly big game), but I think the money involved with fish is what will help determine the director.

[Bob33]

You had Anderson, who was a hunter, and hated him.

Best to wish for someone who has integrity and values all sportsmen.

[Skillet]

You had Anderson, who was a hunter, and hated him.

Best to wish for someone who has integrity and values all sportsmen.

Tall order Bob.  I'd be thrilled if they could come up with someone who is an open-government advocate ball buster.  Lift up the rock and send the roaches scurrying.  I am of the opinion that the light of day is the worst thing for corrupt governments.  Half of the problems we are constantly talking about would take care of themselves if the liars weren't allowed to lie anymore and the cheats weren't allowed to cheat.  Set it up correctly for the next guy that can come in and manage BOTH the Fish and Wildlife end of things. 

This department doesn't need a Director - it needs an intervention.

[pianoman9701]

You had Anderson, who was a hunter, and hated him.

Best to wish for someone who has integrity and values all sportsmen.

I agree that we need someone who values all sportsmen. As a hunter, I feel like the wildlife has been neglected in favor of fish and shellfish. He may be a hunter but that doesn't mean it's benefited our wildlife management or hunters, as a result. I see it in how hoof disease was ignored for a very long time and mishandled. The fact that big timber going to a pay-to-play situation was seemingly a total surprise meant that someone was asleep at the wheel. Mismanagement is outlined in ucwarden's book and that lack of support he got in the largest wildlife trafficking sting in our state's history. The fact that the department couldn't even come out and publicly say how I-594 would affect its own programs is indicative of mismanagement. They didn't have to oppose it. And, the outrageous and irresponsible wolf plan is a testament to his inability to stand up for hunting and wildlife. It's way out of whack in comparison to the other Northern Rockies states.

I'm sorry if you liked Anderson, Bob. But there's been a lot of bad happen under his watch. I'd like to see someone come in and take more of an interest in our wildlife and support our hunting community like a game department should. Fish and shellfish seems to have plenty of support. I'm not saying that should go away.

[Bob33]

I'm sorry if you liked Anderson, Bob. But there's been a lot of bad happen under his watch. I'd like to see someone come in and take more of an interest in our wildlife and support our hunting community like a game department should. Fish and shellfish seems to have plenty of support. I'm not saying that should go away.

I wasn't a huge fan or detractor. I believe he was better than some of his predecessors, but certainly could have done more to help hunters.

[bobcat]

It seems to me that I read somewhere a while back that Nate Pamplin was being considered for the director position.   

[blackdog]

Nate is in the list of eight, not sure if is on the short list. Remember folks the Director works for the Commission, not the Governor or the legislature. The Governor chooses the Commissioners. The Chair of the Commission for the last five years has been Miranda Wecker who has never been confirmed by the Senate in what 10 years. Curt Smitch is one her bosses. The Commission is the problem folks in my opinion.

[Humptulips]

You had Anderson, who was a hunter, and hated him.

Best to wish for someone who has integrity and values all sportsmen.

That is a stretch to call  him a hunter. Charter boat owner for 30 years and a member of the Pacific Fisheries Management Council before joining WDFW. He was only involved in Fisheries before becoming Director.
It seems to me he said he had went hunting in the past but every thing you hear about the guy revolves around fish.

[Wacenturion]

You had Anderson, who was a hunter, and hated him.

Best to wish for someone who has integrity and values all sportsmen.

That is a stretch to call  him a hunter. Charter boat owner for 30 years and a member of the Pacific Fisheries Management Council before joining WDFW. He was only involved in Fisheries before becoming Director.
It seems to me he said he had went hunting in the past but every thing you hear about the guy revolves around fish.

Pretty accurate.

[leed]

Believe it or not, the department and employees are prevented from opinionating for or against initiatives and are not suppose to weigh in on them.  They can if asked appear before legislators and answer questions that are asked but only with specifics and even then must refrain from opinionating.  The must take a neutral stance.  I can't believe I just defended them on that but they do have issues from the top down,  from region to region.
The list is down to four.

You had Anderson, who was a hunter, and hated him.

Best to wish for someone who has integrity and values all sportsmen.

The fact that the department couldn't even come out and publicly say how I-594 would affect its own programs is indicative of mismanagement. They didn't have to oppose it. And, the outrageous and irresponsible wolf plan is a testament to his inability to stand up for hunting and wildlife. It's way out of whack in comparison to the other Northern Rockies states.

[pianoman9701]

Believe it or not, the department and employees are prevented from opinionating for or against initiatives and are not suppose to weigh in on them.  They can if asked appear before legislators and answer questions that are asked but only with specifics and even then must refrain from opinionating.  The must take a neutral stance.  I can't believe I just defended them on that but they do have issues from the top down,  from region to region.
The list is down to four.

You had Anderson, who was a hunter, and hated him.

Best to wish for someone who has integrity and values all sportsmen.

The fact that the department couldn't even come out and publicly say how I-594 would affect its own programs is indicative of mismanagement. They didn't have to oppose it. And, the outrageous and irresponsible wolf plan is a testament to his inability to stand up for hunting and wildlife. It's way out of whack in comparison to the other Northern Rockies states.

I understand they're not allowed to have an opinion for or against. Describing the effect of the initiative on the department would be different. It's important that citizens understand cause and effect. They could've clearly stated, "We're not taking sides. This is an observation of the effect of the initiative on our programs."

[Bob33]

Believe it or not, the department and employees are prevented from opinionating for or against initiatives and are not suppose to weigh in on them.  They can if asked appear before legislators and answer questions that are asked but only with specifics and even then must refrain from opinionating.  The must take a neutral stance.  I can't believe I just defended them on that but they do have issues from the top down,  from region to region.

One statement in the communication sent by WDFW to Hunter Education instructors after the passage of I594 was used by SAF as part of their lawsuit againist 594. Unfortunately, we have a legal system that creates this sort of aversion to taking a position.

[chinookie23]

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

[Man Tracker]

Inquiring minds want to know who...?