Cougar Attack Highlights Shortage of WDFW Officers

[rainshadow1]

We could fund all the officers we need with the money being wasted on wolves! 

  And then some...   

[olyguy79]

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.

I am not sure why this is so difficult to understand. State agencies cannot proactively take sides, disseminate facts, provide information on initiatives. What they can do is provide information to you/groups as a PDR and then you as a citizen/as a group can disseminate that info.

The reasoning is the legislature doesn't want state agencies interfering with elections. WDFW coming out and saying "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" would appear to many that it's WDFW's stance that they should vote for keeping hound hunting.

Don't like it? Tell the legislature to change state laws allowing agencies to be more proactive on initiatives just like they can on legislative bills.

[olyguy79]

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.   

 

His bias? No he's stating facts that you don't agree with so suddenly he has a bias. He's told several individuals via PM who he actually works for, and sorry it's not WDFW.

[Fl0und3rz]

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!

 

[Fl0und3rz]

It would be nice for WDFW apologists to explain the process to get WDFW to "provide information to you/groups as a PDR and then you as a citizen/as a group can disseminate that info."

To date, there is an appearance that WDFW is predominantly cozy with non or anti hunting interests.  Don't like it?  It is up to WDFW to change that perception in their formerly paying customers.

[Special T]

It would be nice for WDFW apologists to explain the process to get WDFW to "provide information to you/groups as a PDR and then you as a citizen/as a group can disseminate that info."

To date, their is an appearance that WDFW is predominantly cozy with non or anti hunting interests.  Don't like it?  It is up to WDFW to change that perception in their formerly paying customers.

The kind of insider knowledge that BigTex and Ol y  give are important. That knowlege is the only way to fight it from the inside by learning how to play the beurocratic game. We need more folks like these 2 to be active is sportsmen orgs as a guiding force. We spin our wheels a lot  trying to do the right thing because she don't know the process and language.

I really like the focus on the ROI but unfortunately the WDFW does not see sportsmen as a major financial contributor as it relates to policy issues. They are quite content to not make free riders aware of the $ sportsmen spend.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Fl0und3rz]

I agree.  But that would probably be illegally "taking a side."

[KFhunter]

Better cougar hunting rules could have prevented this from even happening in the first place, then those "3" people could have just rode their bikes in blissful ignorance.

How can you say that? So if we have more aggressive cougar hunting then there will be absolutely no cougar attacks ever again?

There will always be that cougar/bear/etc. that's goes off and attacks someone. Nothing is an absolute. We can diminish the chance obviously, but there will always be the potential.

The operative word in my quote is "could", more aggressive hunting rules "could" have prevented this, obviously there are no absolutes but I'm a firm believer in generational learning on animals being hunted. 

Like in Alaska, wolves hide in deep cover when a helicopter flies over head in areas being hunted by helicopters, the cougars if they were chased with hounds they'd eventually avoid people and dogs like a plague - thus the two dudes "could" have rode their bikes in blissful ignorance. 


Possibly

[Gringo31]

First off, this is good discussion....and thank you Bigtex for your info and what you bring to this forum.  You have a straight-forward approach and bring a knowledge to this group which is a real asset. 

We all have "beefs" with what is and what should be.  It's fair to say "we" don't feel like the natural resources in our state are being managed the right way.  It's fair to say that many of the "wildlife police" are treated poorly or put in an environment that isn't a fun place to work dealing with the BS they do internally.

What drive me crazy the most is that OUR WDFW SHOULD be the knowledge base that is above all.  They SHOULD have the expertise to manage correctly.  Why with all of that knowledge can major decisions come to a vote of an ignorant public? 

There is a disconnect that is probably just growing.  This (I believe) will only lead to massive poaching and little regard for the law.  Too much ground to cover, too little of fines and too costly for the proper permits. 

I don't see a fix coming.  It is what it is.....and everyone suffers as leadership is the real issue.     .02

[bigtex]

What drive me crazy the most is that OUR WDFW SHOULD be the knowledge base that is above all.  They SHOULD have the expertise to manage correctly.  Why with all of that knowledge can major decisions come to a vote of an ignorant public?

While I completely agree with you I think you (and others) need to look at the issues as a whole. If a law was passed that said voters can't file initiatives for wildlife laws (first off it would be ruled as unconstitutional as it's clear in the WA Constitution that voters can file an initiative or referendum for any law) what's to stop the legislature from passing a law that says voters can't file an initiative that would repeal/change a tax law? Firearms law? Etc.

While I would love it if voters couldn't decide our wildlife laws, I'm also happy that voters can repeal (or try to at least) tax increases, etc.

[KFhunter]

I recall voters approved an initiative to cap car tabs at $30 bux, how long did that last? 

[DOUBLELUNG]

It would be nice for WDFW apologists to explain the process to get WDFW to "provide information to you/groups as a PDR and then you as a citizen/as a group can disseminate that info."

To date, there is an appearance that WDFW is predominantly cozy with non or anti hunting interests.  Don't like it?  It is up to WDFW to change that perception in their formerly paying customers.

I can assure you the Game Division employees are not cozy with non or anti hunting interests.  I interviewed with them in 1999 for a bear/cougar/furbearer position, they were intensely interested in how to communicate to the general public the impacts of the initiative (it was the "hypothetical" scenario) without running afoul of the state law.  I asked a lot of questions, and my final response was "you're screwed".  They agreed.

It may be hard to believe but the technical game management people in WDFW as as good as, and as pro hunting as, their counterparts in Wyoming, Montana, Idaho and Colorado.  Where they differ is smaller game populations, more demand, and worst of all, they work for Washington State Government.  The problems originate with the Governor and Legislature, trickle down to the Director (of all agencies), and is a toxin that infiltrates all of the policy and management levels.  The technical people can't take a stand because their chain of command doesn't have their backs.  That is the primary difference I found between working for WDFW and Wyoming Game and Fish

[KFhunter]

Thanks for the insight DOUBLELUNG

[jmscon]

It would be nice for WDFW apologists to explain the process to get WDFW to "provide information to you/groups as a PDR and then you as a citizen/as a group can disseminate that info."

To date, there is an appearance that WDFW is predominantly cozy with non or anti hunting interests.  Don't like it?  It is up to WDFW to change that perception in their formerly paying customers.

I can assure you the Game Division employees are not cozy with non or anti hunting interests.  I interviewed with them in 1999 for a bear/cougar/furbearer position, they were intensely interested in how to communicate to the general public the impacts of the initiative (it was the "hypothetical" scenario) without running afoul of the state law.  I asked a lot of questions, and my final response was "you're screwed".  They agreed.

It may be hard to believe but the technical game management people in WDFW as as good as, and as pro hunting as, their counterparts in Wyoming, Montana, Idaho and Colorado.  Where they differ is smaller game populations, more demand, and worst of all, they work for Washington State Government.  The problems originate with the Governor and Legislature, trickle down to the Director (of all agencies), and is a toxin that infiltrates all of the policy and management levels.  The technical people can't take a stand because their chain of command doesn't have their backs.  That is the primary difference I found between working for WDFW and Wyoming Game and Fish

What do you think the best way is to fix those problems with WDFW? Changing the state government seems next to impossible but are there things that could be fixed inside of the dept?

[KFhunter]

There's no fix, there's only small victories.