Cougar Attack Highlights Shortage of WDFW Officers

[Fl0und3rz]

WDFW's looking at a 25 million dollar cut starting July 2019. A 25 million dollar cut would be the equivalent of nearly dissolving the entire wildlife or enforcement divisions within WDFW. WDFW would need about 115,000 new people to purchase the new "fish Washington", big game combo w/ small game, turkey, and migratory bird to cover that deficit. Obviously that's not going to happen either.

That's counting chickens before they hatch.  That highlights the disconnect between WDFW's priorities and it's customers' desires.  They've sliced and diced the opportunities to maximize revenue, while customers have been experiencing reduced ROI.

To me, it's simple economics. 

Complaining about lack of funding isn't going to convince people that they are getting a good return on their outdoor entertainment dollar.  Only a good return will do that.

[Fl0und3rz]

Bearpaw is exactly right with almost all of his points.

So is bigtex on one point.  WDFW thinks you all are stupid enough to keep paying (and they want you to pay even more) for less.  Less deer, less elk, less salmon, less.  They are betting essentially the Department's financial future on it.  I don't know exactly where it's at, but there is a breaking point coming.  And unless the mindset within upper management at WDFW changes, it is going to suck for all of us.  WDFW employees, hunters, wolf lovers, fisherpeople, etc.

Over the years, I have drastically cut back on license and app expenditures as prices increased and opportunities decreased.  I am certain I am not alone.  WDFW and its proponents can deny it all they want.  But now they are complaining about budget shortfalls.

 

[Fl0und3rz]

Might be nice if WDFW didn't have their officers doing things pertaining to fish & wildlife issues and not writing parking or other no related WDFW issues.

About 3 or 4 months ago a friend and I were having lunch at the Tokyo House in Arlington. About half way into our lunch a wdfw agent came in to look through the Tokyo House's fish receipts. Couldn't the state find someone else to do that, why does it have to be a guy that should be out in the woods or on the water.

So a Fish & Wildlife Officer is investigating a restaurant by looking at their fish receipts. You do realize that's a vital part of their job right?

I think the point is that menial admin tasks can be performed without a badge and a gun, perhaps more economically.  I agree.  Sounds like accounting work.

My guess is that accountants make as much or more than many enforcement officers.

I am not saying you need a CPA to look at paperwork. Point is that it sounds like entry level paper shuffling that commissioned enforcement officers need not be doing, and they would probably prefer not doing.  It probably could be automated and/or at least streamlined to better utilize scarce resources.

They, local LE, farm out red light and school zone traffic enforcement, and it is cash cow.  Why not simple paperwork inspection?

[bigtex]

Might be nice if WDFW didn't have their officers doing things pertaining to fish & wildlife issues and not writing parking or other no related WDFW issues.

About 3 or 4 months ago a friend and I were having lunch at the Tokyo House in Arlington. About half way into our lunch a wdfw agent came in to look through the Tokyo House's fish receipts. Couldn't the state find someone else to do that, why does it have to be a guy that should be out in the woods or on the water.

So a Fish & Wildlife Officer is investigating a restaurant by looking at their fish receipts. You do realize that's a vital part of their job right?

I think the point is that menial admin tasks can be performed without a badge and a gun, perhaps more economically.  I agree.  Sounds like accounting work.

My guess is that accountants make as much or more than many enforcement officers.

I am not saying you need a CPA to look at paperwork. Point is that it sounds like entry level paper shuffling that commissioned enforcement officers need not be doing, and they would probably prefer not doing.  It probably could be automated and/or at least streamlined to better utilize scarce resources.

They, local LE, farm out red light and school zone traffic enforcement, and it is cash cow.  Why not simple paperwork inspection?

You do realize a commissioned officer reviews the redlight/school zone footage before a ticket is sent out right? There actually is a citing officer for all those offenses.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Fl0und3rz]

Yes, I realize it. Too often, in fact.  They turned it into a cash cow.  A more complex problem than simple fish receipt review.  A cash cow.

[huntnphool]

Had they released some facts on hounding and baiting back in 1996, we'd be in a whole different place right now. They didn't have to take sides. But they shirked their duty regarding information about managing wildlife. As far as the number of officers is concerned, if the administration improved the reputation of enforcement and turned over top management levels, maybe more talent would show up to play. Who wants to work for a department that's unprofessional and has been shown to not support their wildlife officers in the field? I sure wouldn't.

For your initiative statement. Agencies can't take sides on an initiative, nor can they just freely release information.

 Of course not, it's much easier to sit back and watch the biased media spew misinformation that perpetuates the departments underlying objectives, then claim "we can't take sides".

 Then show which "side" they are taking by flushing $millions down the wolf lovers hole, hiring "the wolf whisperer".

 "Can't take sides" my a$$!

[bigtex]

Had they released some facts on hounding and baiting back in 1996, we'd be in a whole different place right now. They didn't have to take sides. But they shirked their duty regarding information about managing wildlife. As far as the number of officers is concerned, if the administration improved the reputation of enforcement and turned over top management levels, maybe more talent would show up to play. Who wants to work for a department that's unprofessional and has been shown to not support their wildlife officers in the field? I sure wouldn't.

For your initiative statement. Agencies can't take sides on an initiative, nor can they just freely release information.

 Of course not, it's much easier to sit back and watch the biased media spew misinformation that perpetuates the departments underlying objectives, then claim "we can't take sides".

 Then show which "side" they are taking by flushing $millions down the wolf lovers hole, hiring "the wolf whisperer".

 "Can't take sides" my a$$!

It's state law.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[buglebrush]

Had they released some facts on hounding and baiting back in 1996, we'd be in a whole different place right now. They didn't have to take sides. But they shirked their duty regarding information about managing wildlife. As far as the number of officers is concerned, if the administration improved the reputation of enforcement and turned over top management levels, maybe more talent would show up to play. Who wants to work for a department that's unprofessional and has been shown to not support their wildlife officers in the field? I sure wouldn't.

For your initiative statement. Agencies can't take sides on an initiative, nor can they just freely release information.

 Of course not, it's much easier to sit back and watch the biased media spew misinformation that perpetuates the departments underlying objectives, then claim "we can't take sides".

 Then show which "side" they are taking by flushing $millions down the wolf lovers hole, hiring "the wolf whisperer".

 "Can't take sides" my a$$!

It's state law.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Then they are breaking state law.  Taking no action is still an action, and therefore taking a side.  Look, it's obvious from your posts bigtex that you work, or worked for wdfw.  Your bias is pretty obvious in all your comments.   

[Southpole]

Cougar attacks are just a convenient event to create a media buzz about WDFW’s “budget shortfall”.

The implication is raise taxes or watch your children get gobbled up by cougars.

Typical government incompetency and the only answer is to raise taxes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What’s that ol’ saying, “don’t let a good crisis go to waste.”

[pianoman9701]

There's a big difference between the department saying "we oppose this legislation", and "regulated and controlled hounding and baiting allows for more predictable management of predator populations. Eliminating hounds and baiting could affect the department's ability to control those populations." It's not taking a side. It's presenting facts from the department tasked with wildlife management. Their silence and the lack of any input from the appropriate biologists in 1996 was pushed by the left side of the isle and the governor's office and definitely had an influence on the outcome of the vote. I agree with Buglebrush that their silence was a tacit support of the anti-hound and baiting argument/propaganda.

[huntnphool]

Had they released some facts on hounding and baiting back in 1996, we'd be in a whole different place right now. They didn't have to take sides. But they shirked their duty regarding information about managing wildlife. As far as the number of officers is concerned, if the administration improved the reputation of enforcement and turned over top management levels, maybe more talent would show up to play. Who wants to work for a department that's unprofessional and has been shown to not support their wildlife officers in the field? I sure wouldn't.

For your initiative statement. Agencies can't take sides on an initiative, nor can they just freely release information.

 Of course not, it's much easier to sit back and watch the biased media spew misinformation that perpetuates the departments underlying objectives, then claim "we can't take sides".

 Then show which "side" they are taking by flushing $millions down the wolf lovers hole, hiring "the wolf whisperer".

 "Can't take sides" my a$$!

It's state law.

Lmfao

[bearpaw]

Essentially I think WDFW is operating as the governor and vocal anti-hunting groups desire! They can claim they are managing wildlife to fit the politics of Washington and that is probably true. But in all their wisdom they missed the boat, they have focused on pleasing the wrong people, they have forgotten to take care of their paying customers! If you forget to take care of your paying customers your income will suffer! It's all very simple if you understand people and business!

Right now my opinion of WDFW is at its lowest point ever and there is no way I want to give them any extra money until I see positive changes first because you can't trust that they will do what is best for their customers. I would just as soon their budget is cut so that they realize they need to take care of their customers! I'm willing (even anxious) to pay more when I see improvements first!

[ctwiggs1]

Unions can take sides though.

[vandeman17]

Essentially I think WDFW is operating as the governor and vocal anti-hunting groups desire! They can claim they are managing wildlife to fit the politics of Washington and that is probably true. But in all their wisdom they missed the boat, they have focused on pleasing the wrong people, they have forgotten to take care of their paying customers! If you forget to take care of your paying customers your income will suffer! It's all very simple if you understand people and business!

Right now my opinion of WDFW is at its lowest point ever and there is no way I want to give them any extra money until I see positive changes first because you can't trust that they will do what is best for their customers. I would just as soon their budget is cut so that they realize they need to take care of their customers! I'm willing (even anxious) to pay more when I see improvements first!

   Part of my reasoning of hunting more out of state is on principle that I hate spending my hard earned money to a department that doesn't have our interest in mind. Of course, the better hunting/seasons/options helps but my principles also play a part in my decision.

[jasnt]

Essentially I think WDFW is operating as the governor and vocal anti-hunting groups desire! They can claim they are managing wildlife to fit the politics of Washington and that is probably true. But in all their wisdom they missed the boat, they have focused on pleasing the wrong people, they have forgotten to take care of their paying customers! If you forget to take care of your paying customers your income will suffer! It's all very simple if you understand people and business!

Right now my opinion of WDFW is at its lowest point ever and there is no way I want to give them any extra money until I see positive changes first because you can't trust that they will do what is best for their customers. I would just as soon their budget is cut so that they realize they need to take care of their customers! I'm willing (even anxious) to pay more when I see improvements first!