An Open Dialogue With WDFW Wolf Plan Consultant Francine Madden

[KFhunter]

Having been in to numerous "public meetings" over the years,  She is your typical "consultant".   One word describes them, TRAINED.   They spend years honing their craft.

Was not surprised at her responding to Mr. Anderson, nor her vocabulary,  see it all to often.

I fully understand the term "dialogue" and know when my leg is being pulled.  There are two sides to every story and its their job to win any way they can for their side.   Compromise is not an option. 

But Thanks Mr. Anderson for doing what you did  , its a start, but I think the "fix" is already in play and lip service come easy to the "trained".

She sounds as slick as Mike Grady was!   Some on here will remember him!!

I had the exact same thoughts, and it may be true, but I don't see anything positive in "taking our ball and going home".  By not participating in her advisory group (even if it is a farce) do we have any leg to stand on when we complain about what we get? 

1) The WAG had members from cattlemen
2) The WAG had hunters
3) Hunters and cattlemen were "driven out"
4) Madden appears and closes the doors, no more public allowed
5) Madden now has an echo chamber of like minded individuals, easy to see why progress is made.
5) Now that it's winding down Madden invites people from the hunting community to "validate" her victory

Yes, I had the same thoughts as you timberfaller,  but should we not try?  The results are likely to be the same in either scenario.

[jackelope]

@Rainier10

[jackelope]

Having been in to numerous "public meetings" over the years,  She is your typical "consultant".   One word describes them, TRAINED.   They spend years honing their craft.

Was not surprised at her responding to Mr. Anderson, nor her vocabulary,  see it all to often.

I fully understand the term "dialogue" and know when my leg is being pulled.  There are two sides to every story and its their job to win any way they can for their side.   Compromise is not an option. 

But Thanks Mr. Anderson for doing what you did  , its a start, but I think the "fix" is already in play and lip service come easy to the "trained".

She sounds as slick as Mike Grady was!   Some on here will remember him!!

I had the exact same thoughts, and it may be true, but I don't see anything positive in "taking our ball and going home".  By not participating in her advisory group (even if it is a farce) do we have any leg to stand on when we complain about what we get? 

1) The WAG had members from cattlemen
2) The WAG had hunters
3) Hunters and cattlemen were "driven out"
4) Madden appears and closes the doors, no more public allowed
5) Madden now has an echo chamber of like minded individules, easy to see why progress is made 
5) Now that it's winding down Madden invites people from the hunting community to "validate" her victory

Yes, I had the same thoughts as you timberfaller,  but should we not try?  The results are likely to be the same in either scenario.

Same scenario... http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,222929.msg2966672/topicseen.html#new
You're advocating for not buying hunting licenses in Washington anymore but you're questioning(it seems) whether or not this is a good opportunity to get hunters' voices out there. I don't get it.
@KFhunter

[pianoman9701]

She's purely a facilitator. She's hired to talk nice to everyone and encourages everyone to talk nice to each other. Her emails are a good example of that and the talent for which she was hired. She has no actual input and no standing other than as facilitator/moderator. Opening up a discussion with her on our forum would be as effective as opening up a discussion with a captain in the Army about what Mattis' plans are for our military in the coming years. The WAG itself, also has very few or no teeth. They discuss what's going on from their viewpoints and the Wildlife Commission and the Director are the ones who actually make the decisions. Their decisions may or may not be influenced by the WAG. IMHO, this is a very expensive dog and pony show that masks the fact that decisions have been, are being, and will be made with little consideration of her moderations or the joint efforts of the people on the WAG...except for those of the animal rights people, that is. Our government is crystal clear about their goals.

Sorry about being the wet dog stinking up the room, but it became very clear, very early on in the wolf plan process that blowing smoke up everyone's butt was the status quo and remains so today.

[Rainier10]

Great thread with potential.

It is better to have tried and failed then to have not tried at all.

She obviously listened to what was said and responded in a very positive manner.  That is a great start.  Maybe it doesn't go anywhere but at least we get a little insight as to what happens behind the curtain.

[KFhunter]

Same scenario... http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,222929.msg2966672/topicseen.html#new
You're advocating for not buying hunting licenses in Washington anymore but you're questioning(it seems) whether or not this is a good opportunity to get hunters' voices out there. I don't get it.
@KFhunter

Actually I was not (advocating not buying licenses)
I've been seeing a lot of disgruntled hunters saying they're no longer buying tags in WA, that they're taking their money and going to another state.  I started a thread to talk about that.  I'm still buying WA tags,  Yes, I'm angry at WDFW, Yes, I want to change WDFW - but we need to focus our anger into productivity.  Hunters have never been able to channel their anger into productivity.  What is one pissed off hunter?  Nothing.  This forum is the largest voice of WA hunters with some 10% of all instate hunters participating and even more guests.  We should probably get some numbers updated, I'm approving 5+ members per day here.

As I said in that thread:

Trying to hit WDFW's pocket book is not my goal here, that would be counter intuitive to increased enforcement.  I think WDFW would cut enforcement back before they cut the things I'd like to see cut.  As stated previously I've seen numerous posts where the hunter is saying they're not buying any more tags in WA so I thought it worthy of a thread. 

That is my motivation.

[KFhunter]

Great thread with potential.

It is better to have tried and failed then to have not tried at all.

She obviously listened to what was said and responded in a very positive manner.  That is a great start.  Maybe it doesn't go anywhere but at least we get a little insight as to what happens behind the curtain.

exactly

[Special T]

Her role is the mediator, For lack of a term. Her job is to try and fix a problem that was made by not only anti hunting groups, but a department that is too spineless to attempted addressing the issue. Since her organization is stacked with groups not friendly to sportsmen it is hard to take her statements at face value.

For the sake of argument i will assume her motives are sincere, since it is her job to bring 2 opposing sides of the issue together.

1st she has been brought in to meditate AFTER sportsmen have been pushed back to thier own 20 yard line (forgive the football references)  it is near impossible for sportsmen  to feel good about any outcome unless we end back at the 50 yard line. IF it had happened from day one we may be able to "compromise" and feel ok about the solution.  I'm not sure there is much recovery from this as it is much easier to build a sucessful partnership from scratch. Often times trying to resolve the situation after wounds have been inflicted requires infinitely more work/resources. An ounce of Prevention is worth a Pound of Cure.

2 I don't Fault her for not engaging online. I do however find it troubling that she doesn't appear to take her organizations shortcoming and the shortcomings of the "wolf stakeholder group" seriously.

How can sportsmen take the WDFW and her organization seriously when representation is so stacked against sportsmen? She acknowledges sportsmen are important. Unfortunately it does not appear  important enough to display that importance in representation. The disperportionate financial load is being placed on sportsmen which seems obvious some the WDFW is footing the Bill which is at least half funded by sportsmen.


I'm confounded that this disproportionate contribution is ignored. SHE is here because the WDFW doesn't belive that, YET is here to convince us sportsmen other wise.

I agree with her 100% that relationships and trust is what helps parties work through problems.  To me this is the root of the problem especially on this issue.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[jackelope]

Same scenario... http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,222929.msg2966672/topicseen.html#new
You're advocating for not buying hunting licenses in Washington anymore but you're questioning(it seems) whether or not this is a good opportunity to get hunters' voices out there. I don't get it.
@KFhunter

Actually I was not (advocating not buying licenses)
I've been seeing a lot of disgruntled hunters saying they're no longer buying tags in WA, that they're taking their money and going to another state.  I started a thread to talk about that.  I'm still buying WA tags,  Yes, I'm angry at WDFW, Yes, I want to change WDFW - but we need to focus our anger into productivity.  Hunters have never been able to channel their anger into productivity.  What is one pissed off hunter?  Nothing.  This forum is the largest voice of WA hunters with some 10% of all instate hunters participating and even more guests.  We should probably get some numbers updated, I'm approving 5+ members per day here.

As I said in that thread:

Trying to hit WDFW's pocket book is not my goal here, that would be counter intuitive to increased enforcement.  I think WDFW would cut enforcement back before they cut the things I'd like to see cut.  As stated previously I've seen numerous posts where the hunter is saying they're not buying any more tags in WA so I thought it worthy of a thread. 

That is my motivation.

Our state did all the angering around here, we don't do ourselves any favors by getting mad at one another - we all want the same thing, improved hunting and better management and a voice at the table. 

Did you see the table for the wolf discussion courtesy of HighCountryHunter88?

Steering Committee

Charles Brown    USDA – Wildlife Services
Renee Bumpus    Houston Zoo
Kyle Burks    Denver Zoo
Nancy Gloman    Defenders of Wildlife
Kym Gopp    Cleveland Metroparks Zoo
Stephanie Boyles-Griffin    The Humane Society of the United States
Kirsten Leong    US National Park Service
Francine Madden    Human-Wildlife Conflict Collaboration
Rebecca Rose    Columbus Zoo

Advisory Committee

Ed Clark    Wildlife Center of Virginia
Peter Crawshaw    IBAMA – Iguacu National Park, Brazil
Nina Fascione    Defenders of Wildlife
Camilla Fox    Project Coyote
John Hadidian    The Humane Society of the United States
Michael Hutchins    American Bird Conservancy
Rodney Jackson    Snow Leopard Conservancy
Michael Manfredo    Colorado State University
Laurie Marker    Cheetah Conservation Fund
Brian McQuinn    United Nations Development Programme
Oxford University
Julie Stein    Scentmark
Wildlife Friendly Enterprise Network
Nicole Weaver    American

I don't see a voice at that table for us 

Here's a great opportunity for a voice at the table that we're definitely missing.

[pianoman9701]

Her role is the mediator, For lack of a term. Her job is to try and fix a problem that was made by not only anti hunting groups, but a department that is too spineless to attempted addressing the issue. Since her organization is stacked with groups not friendly to sportsmen it is hard to take her statements at face value.

For the sake of argument i will assume her motives are sincere, since it is her job to bring 2 opposing sides of the issue together.

1st she has been brought in to meditate AFTER sportsmen have been pushed back to thier own 20 yard line (forgive the football references)  it is near impossible for sportsmen  to feel good about any outcome unless we end back at the 50 yard line. IF it had happened from day one we may be able to "compromise" and feel ok about the solution.  I'm not sure there is much recovery from this as it is much easier to build a sucessful partnership from scratch. Often times trying to resolve the situation after wounds have been inflicted requires infinitely more work/resources. An ounce of Prevention is worth a Pound of Cure.

2 I don't Fault her for not engaging online. I do however find it troubling that she doesn't appear to take her organizations shortcoming and the shortcomings of the "wolf stakeholder group" seriously.

How can sportsmen take the WDFW and her organization seriously when representation is so stacked against sportsmen? She acknowledges sportsmen are important. Unfortunately it does not appear  important enough to display that importance in representation. The disperportionate financial load is being placed on sportsmen which seems obvious some the WDFW is footing the Bill which is at least half funded by sportsmen.


I'm confounded that this disproportionate contribution is ignored. SHE is here because the WDFW doesn't belive that, YET is here to convince us sportsmen other wise.

I agree with her 100% that relationships and trust is what helps parties work through problems.  To me this is the root of the problem especially on this issue.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

She is purely there to moderate/facilitate an advisory committee which only has as much say with regards to wolves as the Commission, Director, and Governor give them. Her views are of no concern or consequence. She's a neutral party. This is why a dialogue with her, while maybe feeling good, has zero potential for any positive effect or outcome.

[jackelope]

Her role is the mediator, For lack of a term. Her job is to try and fix a problem that was made by not only anti hunting groups, but a department that is too spineless to attempted addressing the issue. Since her organization is stacked with groups not friendly to sportsmen it is hard to take her statements at face value.

For the sake of argument i will assume her motives are sincere, since it is her job to bring 2 opposing sides of the issue together.

1st she has been brought in to meditate AFTER sportsmen have been pushed back to thier own 20 yard line (forgive the football references)  it is near impossible for sportsmen  to feel good about any outcome unless we end back at the 50 yard line. IF it had happened from day one we may be able to "compromise" and feel ok about the solution.  I'm not sure there is much recovery from this as it is much easier to build a sucessful partnership from scratch. Often times trying to resolve the situation after wounds have been inflicted requires infinitely more work/resources. An ounce of Prevention is worth a Pound of Cure.

2 I don't Fault her for not engaging online. I do however find it troubling that she doesn't appear to take her organizations shortcoming and the shortcomings of the "wolf stakeholder group" seriously.

How can sportsmen take the WDFW and her organization seriously when representation is so stacked against sportsmen? She acknowledges sportsmen are important. Unfortunately it does not appear  important enough to display that importance in representation. The disperportionate financial load is being placed on sportsmen which seems obvious some the WDFW is footing the Bill which is at least half funded by sportsmen.


I'm confounded that this disproportionate contribution is ignored. SHE is here because the WDFW doesn't belive that, YET is here to convince us sportsmen other wise.

I agree with her 100% that relationships and trust is what helps parties work through problems.  To me this is the root of the problem especially on this issue.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

She is purely there to moderate/facilitate an advisory committee which only has as much say with regards to wolves as the Commission, Director, and Governor give them. Her views are of no concern or consequence. She's a neutral party. This is why a dialogue with her, while maybe feeling good, has zero potential for any positive effect or outcome.

Does the fact that she wrote/published the article mean anything? Or did she just sign her name on it...
She seems like more than just a mediator to me. Either way, if they're looking for a representative from the hunting community and she's nothing more than a puppet used to put that word out there, I'll take it as it's better than nothing.

[Rainier10]

Her role is the mediator, For lack of a term. Her job is to try and fix a problem that was made by not only anti hunting groups, but a department that is too spineless to attempted addressing the issue. Since her organization is stacked with groups not friendly to sportsmen it is hard to take her statements at face value.

For the sake of argument i will assume her motives are sincere, since it is her job to bring 2 opposing sides of the issue together.

1st she has been brought in to meditate AFTER sportsmen have been pushed back to thier own 20 yard line (forgive the football references)  it is near impossible for sportsmen  to feel good about any outcome unless we end back at the 50 yard line. IF it had happened from day one we may be able to "compromise" and feel ok about the solution.  I'm not sure there is much recovery from this as it is much easier to build a sucessful partnership from scratch. Often times trying to resolve the situation after wounds have been inflicted requires infinitely more work/resources. An ounce of Prevention is worth a Pound of Cure.

2 I don't Fault her for not engaging online. I do however find it troubling that she doesn't appear to take her organizations shortcoming and the shortcomings of the "wolf stakeholder group" seriously.

How can sportsmen take the WDFW and her organization seriously when representation is so stacked against sportsmen? She acknowledges sportsmen are important. Unfortunately it does not appear  important enough to display that importance in representation. The disperportionate financial load is being placed on sportsmen which seems obvious some the WDFW is footing the Bill which is at least half funded by sportsmen.


I'm confounded that this disproportionate contribution is ignored. SHE is here because the WDFW doesn't belive that, YET is here to convince us sportsmen other wise.

I agree with her 100% that relationships and trust is what helps parties work through problems.  To me this is the root of the problem especially on this issue.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

She is purely there to moderate/facilitate an advisory committee which only has as much say with regards to wolves as the Commission, Director, and Governor give them. Her views are of no concern or consequence. She's a neutral party. This is why a dialogue with her, while maybe feeling good, has zero potential for any positive effect or outcome.

If not dialogue with her then who do you think the dialogue should be started with to have a positive effect and outcome?

[Special T]

I've always thought the best way to try and get folks like her, politicians and such, to engage on a forum like this is submitting questions.

For an off the cuff idea. Take a person that wants to engage, and let them give an opening statement. Why they are here, what they would like to discuss. Either do this in a locked thread titled discussion with XYZ person and submit questions statements comments to the mods for approval.
That or you would have to have several moderators trim/police an open forum heavily.

IMO one of the hardest things about this forum on important issues is to hold elevated debate and discussion on important issues. Comments like Pmans or Timberfallers are important to the discussion, but have to be restrained so that an important discussion doesn't go off the rails. We have had so many great discussions on here with potential that get overshadowed by rants instead of discussion.

Writing clearly is a challenge for us all, and I don't think any of us have not suffered sheer frustration in discussions.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[pianoman9701]

Her role is the mediator, For lack of a term. Her job is to try and fix a problem that was made by not only anti hunting groups, but a department that is too spineless to attempted addressing the issue. Since her organization is stacked with groups not friendly to sportsmen it is hard to take her statements at face value.

For the sake of argument i will assume her motives are sincere, since it is her job to bring 2 opposing sides of the issue together.

1st she has been brought in to meditate AFTER sportsmen have been pushed back to thier own 20 yard line (forgive the football references)  it is near impossible for sportsmen  to feel good about any outcome unless we end back at the 50 yard line. IF it had happened from day one we may be able to "compromise" and feel ok about the solution.  I'm not sure there is much recovery from this as it is much easier to build a sucessful partnership from scratch. Often times trying to resolve the situation after wounds have been inflicted requires infinitely more work/resources. An ounce of Prevention is worth a Pound of Cure.

2 I don't Fault her for not engaging online. I do however find it troubling that she doesn't appear to take her organizations shortcoming and the shortcomings of the "wolf stakeholder group" seriously.

How can sportsmen take the WDFW and her organization seriously when representation is so stacked against sportsmen? She acknowledges sportsmen are important. Unfortunately it does not appear  important enough to display that importance in representation. The disperportionate financial load is being placed on sportsmen which seems obvious some the WDFW is footing the Bill which is at least half funded by sportsmen.


I'm confounded that this disproportionate contribution is ignored. SHE is here because the WDFW doesn't belive that, YET is here to convince us sportsmen other wise.

I agree with her 100% that relationships and trust is what helps parties work through problems.  To me this is the root of the problem especially on this issue.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

She is purely there to moderate/facilitate an advisory committee which only has as much say with regards to wolves as the Commission, Director, and Governor give them. Her views are of no concern or consequence. She's a neutral party. This is why a dialogue with her, while maybe feeling good, has zero potential for any positive effect or outcome.

If not dialogue with her then who do you think the dialogue should be started with to have a positive effect and outcome?

The Commission, the Wildlife director, the WDFW Director, and the Governor. And they're not going to listen to a bunch of gun-toting, cattle raising, wildlife concerned citizens who think it's time to give the NE some relief and delist. We don't donate to Inslee but we know who does.

[Rainier10]

Her role is the mediator, For lack of a term. Her job is to try and fix a problem that was made by not only anti hunting groups, but a department that is too spineless to attempted addressing the issue. Since her organization is stacked with groups not friendly to sportsmen it is hard to take her statements at face value.

For the sake of argument i will assume her motives are sincere, since it is her job to bring 2 opposing sides of the issue together.

1st she has been brought in to meditate AFTER sportsmen have been pushed back to thier own 20 yard line (forgive the football references)  it is near impossible for sportsmen  to feel good about any outcome unless we end back at the 50 yard line. IF it had happened from day one we may be able to "compromise" and feel ok about the solution.  I'm not sure there is much recovery from this as it is much easier to build a sucessful partnership from scratch. Often times trying to resolve the situation after wounds have been inflicted requires infinitely more work/resources. An ounce of Prevention is worth a Pound of Cure.

2 I don't Fault her for not engaging online. I do however find it troubling that she doesn't appear to take her organizations shortcoming and the shortcomings of the "wolf stakeholder group" seriously.

How can sportsmen take the WDFW and her organization seriously when representation is so stacked against sportsmen? She acknowledges sportsmen are important. Unfortunately it does not appear  important enough to display that importance in representation. The disperportionate financial load is being placed on sportsmen which seems obvious some the WDFW is footing the Bill which is at least half funded by sportsmen.


I'm confounded that this disproportionate contribution is ignored. SHE is here because the WDFW doesn't belive that, YET is here to convince us sportsmen other wise.

I agree with her 100% that relationships and trust is what helps parties work through problems.  To me this is the root of the problem especially on this issue.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

She is purely there to moderate/facilitate an advisory committee which only has as much say with regards to wolves as the Commission, Director, and Governor give them. Her views are of no concern or consequence. She's a neutral party. This is why a dialogue with her, while maybe feeling good, has zero potential for any positive effect or outcome.

If not dialogue with her then who do you think the dialogue should be started with to have a positive effect and outcome?

The Commission, the Wildlife director, the WDFW Director, and the Governor. And they're not going to listen to a bunch of gun-toting, cattle raising, wildlife concerned citizens who think it's time to give the NE some relief and delist. We don't donate to Inslee but we know who does.

You have all the right players there but do you understand that there is a chain of command? You can't just go to the Governor and expect that your going to get what you want.