New WDFW Director Named

[Sitka_Blacktail]

I agree bobcat, from the field of applicants I think Unsworth was hands down the best option for hunters and I am happy the Wildlife Commission chose him rather than one of the other applicants that wasn't as hunting oriented. 

In spite of a few naysayers, before he's even proven his worth one way or the other, we have agreement from a wide range of viewpoints on this. If we got the best that was available instead of the worst, that's a good thing. Don't go cutting him off at the knees before he can get started. The process he will be working under won't be an all or nothing process and we shouldn't expect all or nothing results. That would be totally unrealistic, not to mention suicidal. I'll be happy to see things heading in the right direction with some bumps along the way.

[DOUBLELUNG]

Yep, hard to turn a supertanker on a dime

[huntnphool]

 Here is a question everyone has a opinion on, so let's hear them.

 What changes would you like to see the new director make, and would those changes make him a success in your opinion?

[Curly]

I think he needs to:

1) fire Cenci along with several others in the enforcement division.

2) Revise the wolf management plan to start delisting now for NE WA.

3) Throw out the category system of special permits.


That is a start.  I'm sure I will think of other things later.

[elkboy]

I'm not expecting miracles, but I am hopeful and I believe Dr. Unsworth is as good a choice as any to try and improve WDFW and management of our resources.  I've met him a couple of times, once as a driver where we had a couple of hours to chat.  He is a genuinely avid hunter and angler, and has a strong conservation ethic.  Highly educated, highly experienced, and will not be palatable to minority, no compromise, agree with me completely or I hate you types. 

On the wolf issues, I expect the wolf haters to be less than thrilled.  I also expect the wolf lovers to be less than thrilled.  However, he may be a pretty good choice for anyone who believes that wolves are neither a hell-spawned invasion or the incarnate manifestation of Gaia.

My guess is, he knows everything he needs to know about Washington state government and politics.  I'm sure he sees areas in need of change and improvement.  Mostly, I think he sees a huge opportunity to try and better fish and wildlife resource management, at a low risk since if any faction runs him out or assassinates him politically, or his efforts are thwarted by the state politics, he can take his retirement from Idaho and resign.     

Well said, DL.  I too am very hopeful.     

[floatinghat]

DL,  My thoughts exactly.  So how long to make some changes and get them implemented? 

UCW, I think I would like to spring for a signed copy for him.  It might help the learning curve

[pianoman9701]

I found out over the weekend that Unsworth is a former student of James Peek, rabid pro-wolfer and watchable wildlife advocate who feels that what he calls "natural predators" are favorable to man to control wildlife populations. Apparently, he likes what Unsworth has been doing in ID. In 2006, Unworth indicated that aerial gunning of wolves "is the last tool in the box" in an article from High Country News. The general reaction from ID hunters to Unworth's appointment here is apparently"good riddance".

'State biologists agree that habitat is the key concern. But Jim Unsworth, the department’s wildlife chief, says the Forest Service can’t restore it fast enough. "When you have great habitat," he says, "predators aren’t an issue."'

http://www.hcn.org/issues/320/16239

This worries me a little and if the stirrings are true and accurate may be the reason the commission chose him - pick a wildlife guy to shut the hunters up but pick a wolfer to placate the greenies. I hope these are exaggerations.

[floatinghat]

I think he needs to:

3) Throw out the category system of special permits.

 

So how would permits be done in the future?  I am not against changing the process just would like to see something that makes sense.  I don't have a lot of points but have some friends with max in about everything.

[Tom Tamer]

Read up on this guy, everything I'm seeing and reading. Idaho is glad to be rid of him due to his help in the wolf issue. He is quoted as to want Non-consumptive uses of elk. So far the Anti-wolf crowd has nothing but bad things to say about him. At first glance he looks to be a Wolf Humper. I'm pretty leery of this guys, so far. Be careful what you wish for.

I saw another comment while haven't confirmed anymore that just a sentence is that Oregon also just hired a new Director? also supposedly a Wolfer? Don't know more than that.

I might be wrong but from what I read he had taken the wolf issue, which was not going away, and cooperated with the feds to get started on the management (hunting seasons) part of the issue.

  I don't think he had any responsibility in introducing the wolves. On the other hand, I have read a little that the Idaho hunters are happy he is leaving. For now I am optimistic that this will be good for the state hunters.

But the phrase, Non-consumptive uses of Elk, is terrifying. laments terms, means just that not hunting them. Oregon did just hire a Wolf advocate also. saw that report this morning. This is the Anti hunting groups getting their people into place to take us down.

[JimmyHoffa]

'State biologists agree that habitat is the key concern. But Jim Unsworth, the department’s wildlife chief, says the Forest Service can’t restore it fast enough. "When you have great habitat," he says, "predators aren’t an issue."'

Thanks for finding that.  I know from the hunting side, great habitat is what we'd like to see for animals; but wanting the Forest Service to restore it all for animals kind of says something.  Forest Service land is supposed to be multi use and is supposed to generate revenues.  I'd hope as a wildlife director he would understand that it would mean the best habitat for animals that can be attained along with all the other users.

[pianoman9701]

'State biologists agree that habitat is the key concern. But Jim Unsworth, the department’s wildlife chief, says the Forest Service can’t restore it fast enough. "When you have great habitat," he says, "predators aren’t an issue."'

Thanks for finding that.  I know from the hunting side, great habitat is what we'd like to see for animals; but wanting the Forest Service to restore it all for animals kind of says something.  Forest Service land is supposed to be multi use and is supposed to generate revenues.  I'd hope as a wildlife director he would understand that it would mean the best habitat for animals that can be attained along with all the other users.

It's funny about the NFS and great habitat. It's the greenies who destroyed habitat by pushing for a logging moratorium on NF lands in the 80s. It's hard to imagine that the whole thing is a well-planned scheme, starting with habitat destruction and now with the introduction of wolves. But it sure is working against hunters, planned or not.

[bearhunter99]

I am just hoping that he means what he says:
"Right now the overwhelming lion’s share of funds comes from sportsmen. And, you know, sometimes we’re criticized because we manage for sportsman, but, just a reality check, that’s who is paying our bills. That’s who is paying our paycheck and who is paying for the management."

Here's hoping that good change will come of this 

[Curly]

I think he needs to:

3) Throw out the category system of special permits.

 

So how would permits be done in the future?  I am not against changing the process just would like to see something that makes sense.  I don't have a lot of points but have some friends with max in about everything.

I realize that changing the system for the better is not likely to ever happen.  But I'd like to dream.  Ideally, the system should be scrapped for one that is like Idaho's system.  But it isn't going to happen........too much whining and complaining would happen and WDFW would see a decrease in revenue from permits so I realize it won't work to change it to Idaho's system.

With that said, I do think it could go back to what it was prior to the current system if WDFW were willing to take a little bit of a hit in revenue.  They could consolidate the categories back into simply cow and bull elk, doe and buck deer, etc. 

Anyway, I probably shouldn't have even mentioned it since it would never happen.  I guess I'm still bitter about WDFW distributing everyone's points for each species into all categories.  I wish they could fix that inequity before too much more time goes by, but it really is too late at this point anyway.

Probably more important than any special permit changes, would be addressing access to private timberlands.  I would think that if WDFW put some effort into access, there could be some ideas that could help with free access or at least more reasonable prices for access.

[wolfbait]

Dear Marv Letter, from George Dovel regarding the dishonesty of IDFG
October 20, 2013 at 10:23pm
From: George Dovel

Hi Marv:
The enclosed 10-2 and 10-3-03 Idaho Statesman articles are a follow-up to one of the stories I forwarded yesterday. Both IDFG and the Commissioners are crying the blues because nonresidents failed to buy half of their quota of 10,900 deer... tags, and because the scheme to sell them to g...ullible residents for the nonresident price of $235 each isn't working.

In the Statesman article published yesterday, IDFG SW Region Wildlife Manager Jon Rachael said, "All our counts suggest we've got tons of critters...I have no reason to believe we won't have a great crop of deer and elk out there." For those who don't remember, Rachael is the former IDFG wolf biologist who provided highly exaggerated deer and elk population estimates to the public and the U.S. Congress in order to justify USFWS claims of minimal impact from introducing Canadian wolves into Idaho.

He also joined former Wildlife Bureau Chief Lonn Kuck in producing a bogus study claiming that the flawed telephone harvest survey was accurate. When the Commissioners chose to waste over a million license dollars comparing the worthless phone survey with the highly accurate mandatory hunter harvest report we now have, Rachael continued to provide them with false information concerning both the relative accuracy and cost.

During the 1992-93 winter, the highest recorded snowfall in the past 50 years coupled with IDFG refusal to feed caused the starvation loss of half of southern Idaho's mule deer population. Then as now, IDFG excused the subsequent harvest declines by blaming the weather for hunters' failure to find more deer (see 10-2-03 Statesman article "A mixed year for deer and elk").

After listening to the "weather" excuse for several hunting seasons, disgusted nonresident deer hunters passed the word around that Idaho's mule deer herd was killed off and stopped buying tags. But instead of significantly reducing hunting opportunity and halting all antlerless deer harvest until the mule deer herds could rebuild, I&E Chief (now Fisheries Chief) Virgil Moore gave the Commissioners a class in selling more deer tags to nonresidents by liberalizing seasons, shooting even more breeding age females and replacement fawns, and advertising in out-of-state newspapers and sportsman shows.

By the winter of 2001-2002, mule deer numbers were slowly improving but were far short of full recovery when the second highest recorded snowfall in 50 years occurred in most of southern Idaho. Deer and elk began dying from starvation in early December 2001 but IDFG and SW Region Commissioner Don Clower refused to follow the criteria to initiate emergency feeding.

When sportsmen and legislators finally forced them to feed, SW Region officials announced their decision to feed at only one third of the sites and let hundreds of deer and elk starve to death. Local citizens on the South Fork of the Payette winter range documented the mass starvation by photographing several hundred dead deer and elk and removing the right front distal leg bone to prove that advanced malnutrition was the cause of death (disk containing photo evidence forwarded by mail).

Rachael and other F&G officials, including the director and two commissioners, published the false claim that fewer than 10 percent of the deer and elk died that winter. The citizen winter feeding advisory committee, which has become nothing but a rubber stamp for IDFG mismanagement, lent credibility to that false claim. The lone member who disagreed has since been replaced by another IDFG hand picked mouthpiece.

Wildlife Bureau Chief Jim Unsworth joined Rachael in ignoring their ongoing mule deer research which shows unacceptable fawn survival throughout southern Idaho following the 2001-2002 winter, and blamed the reduced deer harvest on (guess what) "dry weather". Unsworth's claim that the quality of big game hunting in Idaho is near the long term average (see "F&G plan to market hunting in Idaho") is proof of the adage, "Figures don't lie but liars do figure".

In yet another Statesman "news" story on 10-2-03 titled, "Elk and deer statistics for 2002," Rachael and Unsworth used several years of record low deer harvests following the 1992-93 die-off to calculate a "long term average" that is not much higher than the reduced 2002 harvest. They fail to admit that the 2002 Idaho deer harvest was less than half of the 1992 harvest and is reflecting a steady decline.

Commissioner John Burns was the lone voice of truth and reason during the Commission discussion when he said that the focus needs to be on improving Idaho's game herds instead of launching a marketing campaign proving all you want to do is sell tags. Unlike his counterparts in SW Idaho and the Magic Valley, SE Regional Wildlife Manager Carl Anderson readily admitted that the harsh 2001-2003 winter killed nearly half of the deer population.

Idaho's radically declining mule deer population and harvests are being ignored by both the agency and the commission who are charged by Idaho Code Sec. 36-103 with protecting and perpetuating this valuable species. Historically mule deer have provided more total income, more family recreation and more delicious wild meat to Idahoans than all other Idaho game species.

Mainstream Idaho sportsmen and women who value their mule deer hunting heritage must urge their elected officials to halt this excessive harvest and restore healthy mule deer populations. The Idaho Fish and Game Commission must not be allowed to continue to exploit this valuable resource while setting its own fees to benefit the bureaucracy.

I urge you to distribute this letter to your readers.

Sincerely,

George Dovel, Editor
THE OUTDOORSMAN

[idahohuntr]

I found out over the weekend that Unsworth is a former student of James Peek, rabid pro-wolfer and watchable wildlife advocate who feels that what he calls "natural predators" are favorable to man to control wildlife populations. Apparently, he likes what Unsworth has been doing in ID. In 2006, Unworth indicated that aerial gunning of wolves "is the last tool in the box" in an article from High Country News. The general reaction from ID hunters to Unworth's appointment here is apparently"good riddance".

'State biologists agree that habitat is the key concern. But Jim Unsworth, the department’s wildlife chief, says the Forest Service can’t restore it fast enough. "When you have great habitat," he says, "predators aren’t an issue."'

http://www.hcn.org/issues/320/16239

This worries me a little and if the stirrings are true and accurate may be the reason the commission chose him - pick a wildlife guy to shut the hunters up but pick a wolfer to placate the greenies. I hope these are exaggerations.

Jim Peek is not a rabid pro wolfer.  He is a wildlife professor and a hunter.  I've spent more than one afternoon hiking in the frank church with Jim...he is a tremendous source of mule deer hunting knowledge.  It is absurd to suggest Unsworth is less qualified because Peek was his major prof. 

Idaho hunters are not thinking good riddance when it comes to Unsworth.  Most wouldn't know who he is.  One small extremist Facebook group does not reflect sentiments of most idaho sportsmen...sorry, but that also is absurd.  Both Jims have done a whole lot of good for idaho wildlife.