WDFW's Plan to Cover 30 Million Dollar Deficit

[Special T]

The budget is big enough that fixing the many issues that fire folks up isn't enough. They certainly contribute, but represent a symptom not a cause.

My guess is that the department is run horribly in part because they don't have control of their accounting. In order to make good management decisions you have to have clear accurate numbers to work with or they mean nothing. Once you go down the path of the numbers being too fuzzy they arnt reliable.

Fuzzy numbers hide inefficiency, mistakes, and misallowcated resources. It also provides cover for what Doublelung and Wacenturian discussed.

Complicating the issue further is likely cashflow issues. $ that comes into the department goes into different buckets to be spent on specific things because of mandates. Well if your accounting is a screwed up and you borrow from differing buckets to make up for cash flow... 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[WSU]

Is the review and accounting available to the public?

[Fl0und3rz]

This thread has a webinar, which appears to be a lame attempt at soliciting input from a potentially hostile crowd.

https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,229288.msg3054836.html#msg3054836

I don't about other actual public discussion/review options where they would have to answer to their customers.

[Special T]

Is the review and accounting available to the public?

This I don't know, but I will be attending the webinar and have a few questions.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Humptulips]

The budget is big enough that fixing the many issues that fire folks up isn't enough. They certainly contribute, but represent a symptom not a cause.

My guess is that the department is run horribly in part because they don't have control of their accounting. In order to make good management decisions you have to have clear accurate numbers to work with or they mean nothing. Once you go down the path of the numbers being too fuzzy they arnt reliable.

Fuzzy numbers hide inefficiency, mistakes, and misallowcated resources. It also provides cover for what Doublelung and Wacenturian discussed.

Complicating the issue further is likely cashflow issues. $ that comes into the department goes into different buckets to be spent on specific things because of mandates. Well if your accounting is a screwed up and you borrow from differing buckets to make up for cash flow... 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

I don't disagree with you but some things are very difficult to put a number on and I think most end up being complicated to the point it is hard to be specific.
As example I work on trapping issues. Admittedly, small potatoes but I deal with the fur bearer section manager who typically also has at least on additional job. Currently she is also the large carnivore manager so she works on wolves (non-hunting) and cougar and bears and also land owner outreach. Then there is Nuisance wildlife which is someone else that spends time on trapping but also damage caused by other animals ( removal permitting, special trapping, damage payments, Endangered species recovery). Also  work with Endangered species recovery people  and lastly enforcement which have myriad other duties. To top it off there is money coming in from fees, public grants, private grants as well as license money.
So how much gets spent on trapping and where does that money come from? Not an easy question to answer.

[Special T]

The budget is big enough that fixing the many issues that fire folks up isn't enough. They certainly contribute, but represent a symptom not a cause.

My guess is that the department is run horribly in part because they don't have control of their accounting. In order to make good management decisions you have to have clear accurate numbers to work with or they mean nothing. Once you go down the path of the numbers being too fuzzy they arnt reliable.

Fuzzy numbers hide inefficiency, mistakes, and misallowcated resources. It also provides cover for what Doublelung and Wacenturian discussed.

Complicating the issue further is likely cashflow issues. $ that comes into the department goes into different buckets to be spent on specific things because of mandates. Well if your accounting is a screwed up and you borrow from differing buckets to make up for cash flow... 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

I don't disagree with you but some things are very difficult to put a number on and I think most end up being complicated to the point it is hard to be specific.
As example I work on trapping issues. Admittedly, small potatoes but I deal with the fur bearer section manager who typically also has at least on additional job. Currently she is also the large carnivore manager so she works on wolves (non-hunting) and cougar and bears and also land owner outreach. Then there is Nuisance wildlife which is someone else that spends time on trapping but also damage caused by other animals ( removal permitting, special trapping, damage payments, Endangered species recovery). Also  work with Endangered species recovery people  and lastly enforcement which have myriad other duties. To top it off there is money coming in from fees, public grants, private grants as well as license money.
So how much gets spent on trapping and where does that money come from? Not an easy question to answer.

It is possible to answer it, but not if your accounting is a mess.  Accounting has to be acurate and reflective of what the $ is actually doing. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[WSU]

Here's my post from the other thread.  I might fit better here:

Recreational fishers produce three-fourths of the fishing related jobs in Washington.  Recreational fishing creates over 11 times more economic value for the state than do commercial fisheries.  All this while commercial fisheries harvest far more of the finite resource than recreational fisheries do.  Someone is going to cry foul on the above, so here's the independent economic study: https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/pub.php?id=00464

If WDFW wants recreational folks to foot the bill, they need to prioritize the resource accordingly and give far more of the pie to recreational fishers.  If the commercials still want the bulk of the pie, they should pay the bulk of cost.

[Oh Mah]

This may not get agreed with and for good reason maybe but I feel that it is time to let the hunting and fishing groups that most of us have joined and pay annual dues and donations to,that if they don't start fighting harder and filing more suits against this state then we no longer will pay dues or give donations.The anti hunting and fishing environment does not belong in the hunting and fishing arena. 

[bigtex]

This may not get agreed with and for good reason maybe but I feel that it is time to let the hunting and fishing groups that most of us have joined and pay annual dues and donations to,that if they don't start fighting harder and filing more suits against this state then we no longer will pay dues or give donations.The anti hunting and fishing environment does not belong in the hunting and fishing arena. 

Here's the problem with your statement. You make it sound as if DFW is the Dept of Fishing and Wildlife Hunting, and not the Dept of Fish and Wildlife. WDFW does not cater solely to fishermen and hunters, their job is not to make it so Jonny can get a big salmon or monster buck every year. Their job is to preserve, manage, etc the fish/wildlife in the state, and if fishing/hunting can occur than great. Here is the mandate to WDFW as written in law:

RCW 77.04.012
Mandate of department and commission.

Wildlife, fish, and shellfish are the property of the state. The commission, director, and the department shall preserve, protect, perpetuate, and manage the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish in state waters and offshore waters.

The department shall conserve the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish resources in a manner that does not impair the resource. In a manner consistent with this goal, the department shall seek to maintain the economic well-being and stability of the fishing industry in the state. The department shall promote orderly fisheries and shall enhance and improve recreational and commercial fishing in this state.

The commission may (note it is is MAY not SHALL) authorize the taking of wildlife, food fish, game fish, and shellfish only at times or places, or in manners or quantities, as in the judgment of the commission does not impair the supply of these resources.

The commission shall attempt to maximize the public recreational game fishing and hunting opportunities of all citizens, including juvenile, disabled, and senior citizens.

------------

If we want WDFW to essentially be the Dept of Fishing & Wildlife Hunting then we better be ready to fully fund the department, and not just 30ish percent of it like we currently do with our license fees, PR funds, etc.

WDFW has more to manage then simply hunting and fishing interests, things like wildlife control (the bear running through the elementary school playground), the beaver blocking a creek, making sure shellfish aren't being harvested from the sewer pumpstation and sold in the market the next day, etc. are all reasons why WDFW gets general fund funding. Those things impact all citizens of WA. Now in comparison the state legislature sees State Parks as simply a user based agency, and that is the reason why the legislature would like to see State Parks get 0 general fund money.

[Oh Mah]

This may not get agreed with and for good reason maybe but I feel that it is time to let the hunting and fishing groups that most of us have joined and pay annual dues and donations to,that if they don't start fighting harder and filing more suits against this state then we no longer will pay dues or give donations.The anti hunting and fishing environment does not belong in the hunting and fishing arena. 

Here's the problem with your statement. You make it sound as if DFW is the Dept of Fishing and Wildlife Hunting, and not the Dept of Fish and Wildlife. WDFW does not cater solely to fishermen and hunters, their job is not to make it so Jonny can get a big salmon or monster buck every year. Their job is to preserve, manage, etc the fish/wildlife in the state, and if fishing/hunting can occur than great. Here is the mandate to WDFW as written in law:

RCW 77.04.012
Mandate of department and commission.

Wildlife, fish, and shellfish are the property of the state. The commission, director, and the department shall preserve, protect, perpetuate, and manage the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish in state waters and offshore waters.

The department shall conserve the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish resources in a manner that does not impair the resource. In a manner consistent with this goal, the department shall seek to maintain the economic well-being and stability of the fishing industry in the state. The department shall promote orderly fisheries and shall enhance and improve recreational and commercial fishing in this state.

The commission may (note it is is MAY not SHALL) authorize the taking of wildlife, food fish, game fish, and shellfish only at times or places, or in manners or quantities, as in the judgment of the commission does not impair the supply of these resources.

The commission shall attempt to maximize the public recreational game fishing and hunting opportunities of all citizens, including juvenile, disabled, and senior citizens.

------------

If we want WDFW to essentially be the Dept of Fishing & Wildlife Hunting then we better be ready to fully fund the department, and not just 30ish percent of it like we currently do with our license fees, PR funds, etc.

WDFW has more to manage then simply hunting and fishing interests, things like wildlife control (the bear running through the elementary school playground), the beaver blocking a creek, making sure shellfish aren't being harvested from the sewer pumpstation and sold in the market the next day, etc. are all reasons why WDFW gets general fund funding. Those things impact all citizens of WA. Now in comparison the state legislature sees State Parks as simply a user based agency, and that is the reason why the legislature would like to see State Parks get 0 general fund money.

Agreed,They are not hired to be for the hunters and the fisherman.They also are not hired to cater to the antis of which any honest hunter in here would say that the upper management is doing that very thing.

They also seem to be falling short on the enhance and improve part.

[Humptulips]

DFW does stuff like Hydraulic Permit work, seafood inspection, endangered species rehabilitation on things we will never get to hunt like pond turtles etc. Maybe worthwhile things and maybe DFW is the proper agency to oversee them but who should pay?
Some of the stuff they do benefits the General Public more so then just hunters and fisherman. The Legislature needs to pony up for those things or not expect them to get done.

And those things are funded by the general fund, not the wildlife fund.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Well no, some are and some aren't. Endangered species recovery for instance is a mix and if you get into the etc part you would find more.
Not the point though, if what we are being told is correct it will all come out of the wildlife fund in the future. The Legislature has a responsibility to cough up for a portion.

[buglebrush]

 "The department shall conserve the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish resources in a manner that does not impair the resource"

 Big Tex, I know you are an apologist for WDFW, but can you really say they are doing this when their predator management is aimed at the reduction, not conservation, of wildlife?   

[bigtex]

DFW does stuff like Hydraulic Permit work, seafood inspection, endangered species rehabilitation on things we will never get to hunt like pond turtles etc. Maybe worthwhile things and maybe DFW is the proper agency to oversee them but who should pay?
Some of the stuff they do benefits the General Public more so then just hunters and fisherman. The Legislature needs to pony up for those things or not expect them to get done.

And those things are funded by the general fund, not the wildlife fund.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Well no, some are and some aren't. Endangered species recovery for instance is a mix and if you get into the etc part you would find more.
Not the point though, if what we are being told is correct it will all come out of the wildlife fund in the future. The Legislature has a responsibility to cough up for a portion.

Nobody said it will all come out of the wildlife fund in the future. That's why WDFW is proposing two-thirds of the proposed changes come from general fund increases via sales tax hikes, lodging tax, etc. The remaining third will be from the wildlife fund.

[winshooter88]

BigTex, The thing about the mandated items in the RCW is that they can be changed at any time by the liberals in the legislature. It appears that the last time was in 2000.

[bigtex]

"The department shall conserve the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish resources in a manner that does not impair the resource"

 Big Tex, I know you are an apologist for WDFW, but can you really say they are doing this when their predator management is aimed at the reduction, not conservation, of wildlife?   

I'm not an apologist for WDFW, I've called them out many times. But I am a realist, which many aren't. Everybody wants every chinook to be 50 pounds with guaranteed limits everyday on every river, guarantee your going to get a 400 class bull every year etc and if they don't then it's WDFWs fault.

The "conserve the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish resources in a manner that does not impair the resource" is all up to each individuals view. Who's right and who's wrong, who knows. I know people who think hunting in WA is amazing because not many states have OTC buck and bull tags, heck some states if you don't draw then you don't hunt. Then you have those who think hunting in WA sucks. Who's right and who's wrong, who knows. Everybody is their own expert.