Why is Unsworth getting advice from Phil Anderson?

[Little Dave]

The former director is being paid to advise the new director?  Why?

The former director has made a number of bad policy decisions, writing a $40K check to wild fish zealot lawyers, closing fisheries, leaving important stakeholders out of the loop.  Recently, the awful result from the North of Falcon discussions.

Why is he still involved with the department?  Why do we need to pay for this very poor quality advice from Phil Anderson?

[stevemiller]

Would not make any sense,Is there a link to this?

[Little Dave]

Unsworth admitted this last week that he is not very familiar with fisheries.  So he is paying Phil Anderson as his consultant.

[stevemiller]

So the states not paying, Unsworth is out of his own pocket?

[Tbar]

Transition period. Many complexities here that go far deeper than wolf issues (one of Unsworths strong points).

[2labs]

This is why we need to break up WDFW. This state is very diverse in fisheries and wild life. Dept. of game ..... Dept of fisheries.

This IMO. Would keep libs on there half of the state.
Or not they would still wanna run the show!

[stevemiller]

So he will get a few pointers on the fishery I dont mind,If Anderson has done anything good at all it would be in fishery somewhere. 

[Skillet]

So he will get a few pointers on the fishery I dont mind,If Anderson has done anything good at all it would be in fishery somewhere. 

Unsworth would get steamrolled in North of Falcon without some good advice from a guy who's been there and done that, and Unsworth knows that.  You may not like all of the outcomes, but having an experienced negotiator at the table during that high-stakes poker game doesn't hurt at all.

[Little Dave]

We could have expected a better result from a block of wood.  We need a successful negotiator not an experienced negotiator with a bad record.  We were crushed in the North of Falcon negotiations.  Not only was it a bad result, precedence has been established to close additional fisheries.

[Skillet]

 Looks like you really weren't wanting answers to your questions... 

Have a nice day!

[pianoman9701]

I don't have a problem with him gaining from Anderson's experience. I imagine that it saves us money to not have him covering stuff that's already been covered once. I don't see it as a long-term solution.

[Tbar]

We could have expected a better result from a block of wood.  We need a successful negotiator not an experienced negotiator with a bad record.  We were crushed in the North of Falcon negotiations.  Not only was it a bad result, precedence has been established to close additional fisheries.

I think Anderson supporters are going to surface in large numbers.  There are many, many fisheries in the cross hairs and may be lost forever.  Once they are gone it will be permanent, with no chance of resurrection. Phil Anderson made some bold moves, it's to be determined what the future holds for Sportsman.  Many attacks on the outdoors as we know them now, from many directions.  I would welcome Anderson to the team in any capacity, as we need as much help as possible.

[JimmyHoffa]

Too bad Phil Anderson didn't hire a mentor for the hunting portion......
But as long as it isn't over a year, I think it would be kind of alright to have someone get Unsworth transitioned into the fishing side.  But then I think....would you do this with presidents?  Would you want Obummer lending his disastrous 'helping hand' to the next guy?

[pianoman9701]

  and, the guys aren't presidential material. Even with the Presidents, it's not unheard of for one to conference with the previous President.

[Tbar]

I think Phil Anderson will be appreciated more in the future than when he held his position.  I truly believe he was one of sportsmans best advocates in a long time.  Yes even hunting.