An Open Dialogue With WDFW Wolf Plan Consultant Francine Madden

[Gringo31]

do you have any suggestions or recommendations for me on how to repair any damage in the short term or engage with the hunting community,

I like the dialogue but I think I'd want to hear from her what damage she speaks of.  Does she understand why people are upset?  IF she does know....... what possible solution is there?

[bobcat]

Sorry but I would not give this person the time of day. The way I see it she's stealing 1.6 million dollars from us, via the WDFW. It blows my mind that they feel this was worth 1.6 million dollars. Total joke if you ask me.

[jmscon]

The amount the state is paying for her is a typical rate for a professional consultant. If a company were to hire an engineer, accountant, etc. full time as a consultant they would be paying at least this much per year.

I did not know what her capacity was on the board, moderator or chair. I am glad that she has responded to emails the way that she has! Thanks Anderson for reaching out!

[hunter399]

I would like uncle ted Nugent as Hunter spokesman,stakeholder.
Then I wanna watch him rip em a new one.
Then I might be a little more supportive.

[Skyvalhunter]

Its good that Jake reached out to her so at least we get some kind of resemblance of her point of view. I just get the feeling that this whole wolf plan was stuffed down the hunters throat without hearing our side. There is not much trust from the hunting community that WAG or WDFW really sees or represents the hunters best interests. I personally feel that once the wolf plan runs it's coarse it will be challenged and tied up in court by the anti-hunting groups. Then we will be left in the same predicament as the back east where they are over run with wolves and no avenue to control the population. So I just think it's a no win or even equal outcome for us.
  She does seem sincere in her e-mails but the trust is not there to not believe it is just lip service. Hunters are a very passionate group and with that there are some extremists. But the same goes with the anti-hunting groups.
 I guess it could be considered a start.

[KFhunter]

Sorry but I would not give this person the time of day. The way I see it she's stealing 1.6 million dollars from us, via the WDFW. It blows my mind that they feel this was worth 1.6 million dollars. Total joke if you ask me.

Don't disagree, but I can't blame her for taking advantage of a sucker. 

Seeing as how's she's getting paid anyways, shouldn't we engage?

[bobcat]

Sorry but I would not give this person the time of day. The way I see it she's stealing 1.6 million dollars from us, via the WDFW. It blows my mind that they feel this was worth 1.6 million dollars. Total joke if you ask me.

Don't disagree, but I can't blame her for taking advantage of a sucker. 

Seeing as how's she's getting paid anyways, shouldn't we engage?

Yes, I suppose so, but I really don't feel like it will make any difference whatsoever. The wolves are here and they're here to stay. I'd rather have seen that 1.6 million spent on habitat.

[KFhunter]

1.6m could have done a lot for habitat and access.


We all know wolves are here to stay, even the most anti wolf hating rancher with a bunch of dead calves or sheep know the wolves are here to stay..but we still need to talk about it, we still need management.  Part of the wolf recovery plan is acceptance by the local stakeholders, Madden is there primarily to facilitate that endeavor, as such we still have a voice in that arena. 

Without public acceptance it won't be long before someone's dropping arsenic meatballs on denning sites.

[Humptulips]

Not sure why people are talking about the WAG. That is set. She isn't going to be able to change the makeup of the WAG. Not her job.

What I get from it is her talking about putting a hunter representative on her groups advisory council or the steering committee.
So what's that going to do? Any hunter is going to be outnumbered 19 to 1, just a token.
For that matter I think she is blowing smoke. If she wanted to have hunter representation she would have recruited from some well known hunter advocacy organizations like RMEF or Safari club. She wouldn't be trying to string along some well meaning guys off a talk forum.
She certainly managed to get all the anti hunting groups well represented.
I doubt she cares beyond her paycheck and getting everybody to compromise.
And by the way why is it called compromise when  we give and the anti hunting community take, always! Show me one time we were asked to give something up and in return got something we didn't already have.

[Southpole]

Thank you andersonjk4 for reaching out on the behalf of the hunting community. That took time and thought to put an intelligent email together to send to Ms. Madden. Again, thank you. That being said. Ms. Madden has a degree in being a word wizard and people trainer. You can hire a neutral mediator with no interest in the subject matter but the state hired a mediator with a strong lean towards and actively involved in anti hunting/ animal tolerance groups... very biased. That's where the state and Ms. Madden lost me. As I've mentioned in other threads she's a human trainer. The state has a predetermined plan for the wildlife in this state and it's up to Ms. Madden to make it appear as if everyone was heard and all user groups had a say. It's the states way of saying " well, we did what we could sooo  " Sorry for being so negative but I think she's just entertaining us.

[bknilvr00]

After reading the email exchange I have to echo what several others have said. Her dialogue reads very much like management in my workplace. They all are capable of talking the skin off a snake if it gets them what they want, but will say whatever you want to hear so you'll go away feeling like you've done something. W

[ribka]

Thank you andersonjk4 for reaching out on the behalf of the hunting community. That took time and thought to put an intelligent email together to send to Ms. Madden. Again, thank you. That being said. Ms. Madden has a degree in being a word wizard and people trainer. You can hire a neutral mediator with no interest in the subject matter but the state hired a mediator with a strong lean towards and actively involved in anti hunting/ animal tolerance groups... very biased. That's where the state and Ms. Madden lost me. As I've mentioned in other threads she's a human trainer. The state has a predetermined plan for the wildlife in this state and it's up to Ms. Madden to make it appear as if everyone was heard and all user groups had a say. It's the states way of saying " well, we did what we could sooo  " Sorry for being so negative but I think she's just entertaining us.

So as a hunter in the state of Washington you want to engage in meaningful dialogue with someone from Houston who states that  her job is to manipulate people.

I knew from her background as a social actiivist  that even before reading her response you were being shined on.

Lots of excuses in her response ( which is a typical behavior for pathological liars) and  for someone who is very highly paid by the tax payers to do her job.
Someone who is paid more than $400 an hour by the tax payers cant even keep an updated business web site and then is not even concerned enough to keep a hunting representative on the board that contains multiple out of state anti hunting representatives and her sole job is to mediate between ALL user groups? How much money do sportsmen bring into the state of Washington economy every year and to the WDFW?  Millions and millions of dollars. How much money do anti hunting groups from out of state bring in? Zero

She knew the hunting rep was retiring ; when someone retires you have a replacement lined up and trained before they leave.

"Acutely aware?"  what a load of BS

and most importantly, we also are very acutely aware that we have not yet replaced our hunter representative after he retired. And your email is exceptionally timely as this exact issue came up at our December board of directors meeting. It is one of the top items on our organizational "to do" list for 2018... 

Good luck with this social activist whose job it is to manipulate people,  but some of the more seasoned guys on here ( see their responses) , including me, have pretty good BS detectors and after reading her responses I think,  or I should say I know, you are being shined on on but good luck with that

She is laughing all the way to bank

[pianoman9701]

I'm unsure that she's insincere. She may hunt wolves in MT for all we know. My only observation of the email exchange is that forwarding the concerns of sportsmen and women to, and adding stakeholders to the WAG are not within her purview. She gets paid to make sure the meetings don't spiral out of control and that the communications from all WAG members in the meetings are delivered, received, and organized clearly. That's it.

For change to the outrageous wolf plan, there are only two possibilities.  One occurs when the USFWS and the WDFW admit the the approved wolf plan was based on non-scientific myths championed by animal rights organizations and accepted by both agencies, mistruths and misinformation campaigns, and telling the truth to our citizens about the realities of what uncontrolled wolf population growth means to WA in terms of economic loss, disease, increased ungulate predation and stress, and the direct and imminent danger to the citizens of our state. Since that admission will never take place, legislative change is the only other course. And good luck getting that to happen with a totally D-controlled legislature and executive. People will have to start being attacked and killed by wolves for this wake-up to take place. And, it will happen. As the ungulate herds dwindle, wolves will become increasingly habituated to preying on livestock, seeking out garbage, and coming closer to and being more and more comfortable around people. This is a historically documented progression of wolf behavior in every part of the world that has populations of them. Our wildlife officials lied to us and our legislators when they shoved this down our throats, and they continue to do so.

[Gringo31]

I'd love to see her reply to this....

So as a hunter in the state of Washington you want to engage in meaningful dialogue with someone from Houston who states that  her job is to manipulate people.

I knew from her background as a social actiivist  that even before reading her response you were being shined on.

Lots of excuses in her response ( which is a typical behavior for pathological liars) and  for someone who is very highly paid by the tax payers to do her job.
Someone who is paid more than $400 an hour by the tax payers cant even keep an updated business web site and then is not even concerned enough to keep a hunting representative on the board that contains multiple out of state anti hunting representatives and her sole job is to mediate between ALL user groups? How much money do sportsmen bring into the state of Washington economy every year and to the WDFW?  Millions and millions of dollars. How much money do anti hunting groups from out of state bring in? Zero

She knew the hunting rep was retiring ; when someone retires you have a replacement lined up and trained before they leave.

"Acutely aware?"  what a load of BS

and most importantly, we also are very acutely aware that we have not yet replaced our hunter representative after he retired. And your email is exceptionally timely as this exact issue came up at our December board of directors meeting. It is one of the top items on our organizational "to do" list for 2018... 

Good luck with this social activist whose job it is to manipulate people,  but some of the more seasoned guys on here ( see their responses) , including me, have pretty good BS detectors and after reading her responses I think,  or I should say I know, you are being shined on on but good luck with that

She is laughing all the way to bank

It goes back to what I said earlier.  Does she understand why hunters are upset?  I mean really understand.  Not just what the animal rights folks have told her why we are upset.

[ribka]

would you pass this reading material onto Francine

Really well written book that covers the wolf reintroduction in the US. If she was really genuinely interested in doing her job and representing all user groups she would be more than happy and actually grateful to read this

https://www.amazon.com/Real-Wolf-Politics-Economics-Co-Existing/dp/159152122X

thanks

And since you opened a dialogue with her would you please ask her about this statement on her web site

Building trust between conservationists and ranchers to reveal a critical truth about subversive anti-conservation actions, which allowed the conservation organizations and government to avoid wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars and foster conditions that led to the project's success.


Ask her what she means by "subversive anti conservation actions" Is she referring to hunters and some of the members on here that believe apex predators need to be controlled and managed?

Is  the term "subversive" a good label for someone involved, supposedly, in conflict resolution? Seems inflammatory to me but Im just a dumb sportsmen

And Why are there over 20 anti hunting organizations listed on her website and not one sportsmen's group?

is this part of her conflict resolution, fairness, diversity  and meaningful equitable dialogue?

Ive attended a few wolf meetings in WA and it was obvious they ,WDFW, had no interest in hearing feedback from sportsmen who help fund their agency.


well, at least the anti hunting groups are praising Francine on her web site. Ironic that she is training anti hunting groups how to deal with sportsmen and help them end hunting. Yep she sounds like she can be trusted

from her website:

You don’t realize how much you need this training until you’ve taken it!” – Nancy Gloman, VP Field Operations, Defenders of Wildlife

These social activists like Francine are ego centric and think sportsmen as a group of naive, easily manipulated , unsophisticated , uneducated, country white trash. This is what anti hunting groups like Defenders of Wildlife, HSUS etc are telling her.

Sportsmen through license sales and sales from the Pitmen Robertson act (https://vistaoutdoor.com/2017/06/pittman-robertson-excise-tax/) in the US and sportsmen conservation groups like RMEF, DU, TU, Wild Turkey Federation, Pheasants Forever, Ruffed Grouse Society, NRA etc contribute tens of millions of dollars a year to conservation efforts, wildlife habitat etc in the US and Canada. For Francine not to even profess to know this and her job is resolution between user groups concerning wildlife is inexcusable. Either she is incredibly uniformed, uneducated or a liar. We all know she s the latter.

She thinks you can be placated by a form letter containing a bunch of meaningless, empty platitudes

The thing with people Like Francine is that she can be pinned down and reveal her true goals by merely asking specific questions which of course she will deflect using her conflict resolution and human manipulation training and refuse to answer. Look at the spokesman from CNW who used to come on here and try and spread pro wolf propaganda. As soon as someone asked repeatedly if CNW supported all legal forms of sport hunting he disappeared.

This is a long winded post to begin with, but I hope all will take the time to read through it eventually.  Moderators please feel free to relocated as seen fit, but I wanted to get this in front of as many eyes as possible:

After reading a few of the threads on here regarding the WDFW's hiring of the conflict resolution consultant and reading mostly negative comments I decided I would do some research and try to gather more information on the situation.  My thinking was "If this is really as bad as everyone was/is making is seem then we (hunters) need to do something to change this".  I started by going back and reading the paper she published with the WDFW: People and Wolves in Washington: Stakeholder Conflict Assessment and Recommendations for Conflict Transformation
 (https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01719/wdfw01719.pdf)
In this paper I discovered that the author portray's hunter's as an important stakeholder in the wolf recovery debate and gives, in my opinion, a very accurate assessment of the sentiments of hunters towards wolves, wolf recovery and the WDFW handling of wolves in general.  I then went to the Human-Wildlife Conflict Collaboration, the organization she represents, website.  There I found a strong message of coexisting and coming together for the good of wildlife.  What I didn't find was any mention of or indication that the voice of hunters was part of their collaborative.  This is where I decided I needed to take some action and not just get onto the forum and rant and rave.  I decided to reach out to Francine Madden and let her know that I thought were portrayal of hunters in her paper was fair, but in order to bring in the support of the hunting community I urged her to consider adding a legitimate hunting presence to her organization's committees.  I fully expected a canned "thank you for your email and your comments will be considered" type of email in response and for her to not really take it seriously.  Instead I received a very thoughtful and thorough response almost immediately.  I will share my email and her response below.  Out of courtesy, I made sure she was ok with me sharing our conversation and she was more than accepting of me wanting to share it. 

My intent in sharing this and starting this thread is not to push any wolf related agenda or try and convince anyone of any wolf related issues.  (I have not stated mine or any other wolf related opinions in this thread or my conversation with Francine for a reason).  The only agenda I am pushing here is to get the voice of the hunter heard and try and get us a seat at the table.  My intent is to try and show hunters that our voice can be heard if we are willing to put forth the effort.  That being said Francine is looking for continued input from the hunting community and this may end up being a good place for constructive discussion regarding the next phase of the wolf recovery plan development.

My original email:

Hello,

I have been following the work you have been involved in with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife regarding wolf-human conflict resolution.  I read your paper People and Wolves in Washington: Stakeholder Conflict Assessment and Recommendations for Conflict Transformation, and appreciate your consideration of all user groups and how their stake in the issue.  Within this document, I feel you have portrayed a fair assessment of hunters and our sentiment toward wolves and wolf-human conflict.  However, I have seen a high level of distrust and negative sentiment from the hunting community toward you and your organization.  This stems mainly from the affiliations of a majority of the committee members you list on your website.  Many of these affiliations have a reputation for being staunch anti-hunting or at least not pro hunting.  You stress coexistence on your website and I feel from reading your work that you understand the stake hunters have in conflict resolution and in wildlife conservation in general.  I would urge you to consider recruiting some intelligent individuals from the hunting community to join your committees.  This would go A LONG WAYS in giving your organization some credibility within the hunting community.  This, and I think you would find a majority of hunters share the same level of respect and compassion toward wild animals as the other members of your committee. Thank you for your time.

Respectfully,

Jake Anderson

Washington Resident and Hunter