WDFW's 6% Budget Cutting Plan

[bobcat]

Attachment C
Agency Plan for 6.287 Percent GF-S Allotment Reduction
Agency Name: ____Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife__________
Name of Program or Service Being Reduced: Agency-wide Managed Savings
Description of Reduction: WDFW has achieved some savings to date, and will achieve further
savings throughout this biennium for three principle reasons:
 Vacancy management. The state-wide hiring freeze and WDFW’s conservative approach to
filling positions exempt from the freeze have resulted in savings. We have 35-40 vacant
positions, some of which have been open, creating savings, and others that will be kept open
to create savings that can be directed toward filling the reduction in state General Fund (GFS)
support.
 Contractual work. Roughly half of WDFW’s operating budget is funded through contracts
and inter-agency agreements. The Federal stimulus efforts and increased funding for
restoring Puget Sound have resulted in increased use of WDFW staff expertise. Being fiscally
conservative, we have not added new staff to perform this work, but used existing staff. This
means some WDFW employees will be paid through contracts or interagency agreements,
rather than with GFS monies.
 Strong indirect earnings. Additional contracts with outside entities not only save GFS
dollars, but also bring higher indirect earnings that pay administrative costs associated with
the contracts. At this point, it is not clear whether the increase in earned indirect is temporary
or a continuing trend but—at least in the near term—it allows WDFW to maintain some
administrative functions with less reliance on GFS dollars.
Dollar Amount (GF-S reduction in thousands): $2,159,000
Note on provisoed amounts: WDFW has a few general fund state provisos, which are relatively small
amounts (they are reduced collectively about $50,000). We will not request any changes to the
across-the-board reductions. The department will use non-provisoed GFS or other accounts when
needed to continue the work required by the legislature.
Description of Client Impact and/or Effect on Service Outcomes:
Savings that already have been achieved will help offset the impact of FY11 GFS reductions. Future
and currently vacant positions will result in some ongoing loss of service including:
 Reduced ability to help citizens avoid potentially dangerous situations involving cougars and
black bears
 Reduced technical assistance to local entities for salmon recovery activity
 Reduced environmental engineering services (for Hydraulic Project Approvals and salmon
recovery)
 Reduced surveys of spotted owls and marbled murrelets; reduced fish- and wildlife-related
scientific support to the state Forest Practices Board
 Reduced ability to review grazing permits
 Reduction of hatchery operations and fish production oversight
 Reduction of fisheries management and conservation activities in South Sound
 Reduction and delay of Endangered Species Act plan preparations and responses
 Reduced statewide enforcement presence
 Delays in customer service
Implementation Date:
Immediately.

[Machias]

 Reduced statewide enforcement presence--What a crock, they need to cut the top management and up the enforcement in the field.

[billythekidrock]

 Reduced ability to help citizens avoid potentially dangerous situations involving cougars and
black bears

Of course they go for the scare tactic right off the bat.

[Skyvalhunter]

guess its take the bull by the horns time then

[villageidiot]

No sympathy for them from here.  We have one measley game warden and at least 12 "Ologists" counting butterflies, owls, wolves, fish and anything else they can find to count.  All they do is carry around a clipboard, wear kaki shorts and drive a green pickup and produce ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.   They can do a lot of belt tightening and still have the essential game wardens that do all the necessary work.   We have so may govt. vehicles driving our roads with exmt. license plates it's a wonder all of us working people can afford to pay for fixing the roads since about half of the vehicles driving them don't pay a nickel.    GRRRRRRRRRRR

[WDFW-SUX]

Whatever get cutting...

Does this mean less wolves?
Reduction and delay of Endangered Species Act plan preparations and responses


Sublime - April 29, 1992 (Rodney King riots)

[bigtex]

Hey Bobcat!

Have you seen anywhere where WDFW actually lists how many positions will be cut? For example, 6 enforcement positions. Or is it simply "reduce enforcement"?

Be interesting to see how many positions are actually cut since there has not been a reduction in enforcement officers throughout this whole budget mess. In fact they are having trouble finding qualified applicants.

[bobcat]

No I have not and I wouldn't know where to get that information. I suppose a call to the DFW might produce some answers to those questions. I imagine there will be something in the news when the cuts are actually made. But then again, maybe not.

[provider]

Who knows...  maybe they will just decide to propose huge fee increases on licenses,tags, applications, etc.. to cover the shortfall?  You never know? 

[Atroxus]

I wonder if it would be possible to get detailed WDFW budget info through a FOIA request? Anyone know if it is and if so how to go about doing it?

[bobcat]

There is an updated plan on the OFM site. (says it was updated Oct. 21) I don't know what is different from the one I posted originally but here it is:

http://www.ofm.wa.gov/reductions/477-WDFW.pdf

[WDFW-SUX]

I hope Scott Fitkin gets fired.

[provider]

http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/about/legislative/

[Curly]

I hope the biologists working on the bear program in CF get fired. 

[bobcat]

Good link, provider. Thanks for "providing" that.   

I'm not sure I like the option I put in bold below:




The department’s legislative request aims to maintain fishing and hunting opportunities through license fees that:
• Align revenue with the costs of providing opportunities
• Are competitive with fees charged in neighboring states
• Encourage family participation by continuing current youth and senior discounts
• Retain recreational license revenues in the state Wildlife Account
• Increase non-resident fishing and hunting participation
• Recover administrative costs of issuing commercial licenses.

[WDFW-SUX]

The department’s legislative request aims to maintain fishing and hunting opportunities through license fees that:
• Align revenue with the costs of providing opportunities
• Are competitive with fees charged in neighboring states
• Encourage family participation by continuing current youth and senior discounts
• Retain recreational license revenues in the state Wildlife Account
• Increase non-resident fishing and hunting participation
• Recover administrative costs of issuing commercial licenses.

 

*News flash* to WDFW...Your game managment has sucked for decades and the only place worse is California...No sane person would come here to hunt when they have to drive through Idaho or Oregon to get here.

[Curly]

Good link, provider. Thanks for "providing" that.   

I'm not sure I like the option I put in bold below:




The department’s legislative request aims to maintain fishing and hunting opportunities through license fees that:
• Align revenue with the costs of providing opportunities
• Are competitive with fees charged in neighboring states
• Encourage family participation by continuing current youth and senior discounts
• Retain recreational license revenues in the state Wildlife Account
• Increase non-resident fishing and hunting participation
• Recover administrative costs of issuing commercial licenses.

I know how they can " Increase non-resident fishing and hunting participation ".  They can ensure that more game and more fish exist in this state for people to want to come here to hunt and fish.  And one way to do that is to eliminate more predators like wolves, coyotes, cougars, and bears.

[Atroxus]

I am more curious about how much they spend total on enforcement officer salaries, vs "ologist"/administrative/management salaries, and where the rest of the WDFW budget gets spent. I am betting there is plenty of "dead wood" that could be pruned to allocate more budget to enforcement if we could get a look at the budget.

[bobcat]

I think we have crowded enough hunting conditions as it is and we don't need to encourage people from other states to come here and make it worse. They must be intending on reducing non-resident license and tag fees. That's the only way I can think of to encourage more non-resident "participation." And I don't want that. Our fees are right in line with other states and they should stay the same. I do know people from Oregon like to hunt mule deer and elk here sometimes since in their state they need to be drawn before they can hunt. Here they can just purchase an over-the-counter tag and go hunting. I think the over-the-couner tags are "encouragement" enough.

[Curly]

I think we have crowded enough hunting conditions as it is and we don't need to encourage people from other states to come here and make it worse. They must be intending on reducing non-resident license and tag fees. That's the only way I can think of to encourage more non-resident "participation." And I don't want that. Our fees are right in line with other states and they should stay the same. I do know people from Oregon like to hunt mule deer and elk here sometimes since in their state they need to be drawn before they can hunt. Here they can just purchase an over-the-counter tag and go hunting. I think the over-the-couner tags are "encouragement" enough.

I agree.  And if they want to be in-line with neighboring states, shouldn't they be increasing non-res fees?  Oregon and ID both jacked up the prices recently.

[bobcat]

I am more curious about how much they spend total on enforcement officer salaries, vs "ologist"/administrative/management salaries, and where the rest of the WDFW budget gets spent. I am betting there is plenty of "dead wood" that could be pruned to allocate more budget to enforcement if we could get a look at the budget.

Have you seen the list of employees and their salaries? The latest is from 2009 but it might help.

http://www.ofm.wa.gov/persdetail/2009/477.pdf

[Atroxus]

Have you seen the list of employees and their salaries? The latest is from 2009 but it might help.

http://www.ofm.wa.gov/persdetail/2009/477.pdf

  I had not until now. I take it those are monthly salaries? Those enforcement officers make some pretty nice money IMO. Heck of a lot more than my wife or I make at any rate.(and my wife has a master's degree)

[bobcat]

Yes, and did you notice all the biologists and their high salaries? I wonder how many of those biologists only deal with butterflies, frogs, squirrels, and marbled murrelets....

[Machias]

The ONLY reason we are overcrowded is because they have us all crawling over each other in a few GMUs.  The overcrowding could be elminated if they OPEN the FRICKEN State up.  This single issue is killing hunter participation from residents!

[bigtex]

Have you seen the list of employees and their salaries? The latest is from 2009 but it might help.

http://www.ofm.wa.gov/persdetail/2009/477.pdf

  I had not until now. I take it those are monthly salaries? Those enforcement officers make some pretty nice money IMO. Heck of a lot more than my wife or I make at any rate.(and my wife has a master's degree)

Yes WDFW Officers make pretty good money, actually they are the highest paid game wardens in the country. HOWEVER they are still not paid as well as other law enforcement agencies in the state, and WDFW is now known as a law enforcement agency. In fact they are no longer "Fish and Wildlife Enforcement Officers", they are "Fish and Wildlife Police Officers". Most people don't know but WDFW Officers work 171 hours months, that is their "workblock" those 11 hours over 160 aren't OT. Most law enforcement agencies (and most americans) only work 160 hours, and anything over is OT. Well that is not so with WDFW.

[bobcat]

A normal month is going to be more than 160 hours for most people. I think it comes out to 174 hours per month for a year. 4 weeks would be 160 hours for a typical 40 hour/week. A month is longer than 4 weeks. So I don't understand why you're saying anything over 160 hours for a month would be paid as OT for most people. 

[Wacenturion]

Have you seen the list of employees and their salaries? The latest is from 2009 but it might help.

http://www.ofm.wa.gov/persdetail/2009/477.pdf

  I had not until now. I take it those are monthly salaries? Those enforcement officers make some pretty nice money IMO. Heck of a lot more than my wife or I make at any rate.(and my wife has a master's degree)

Yes WDFW Officers make pretty good money, actually they are the highest paid game wardens in the country. HOWEVER they are still not paid as well as other law enforcement agencies in the state, and WDFW is now known as a law enforcement agency. In fact they are no longer "Fish and Wildlife Enforcement Officers", they are "Fish and Wildlife Police Officers". Most people don't know but WDFW Officers work 171 hours months, that is their "workblock" those 11 hours over 160 aren't OT. Most law enforcement agencies (and most americans) only work 160 hours, and anything over is OT. Well that is not so with WDFW.

That's true as far as the 160/171 hours....but many years ago they got extra steps in pay above their grade for odd and unusual hours...so in reality they do get paid for them.....like for the last 30+ years.  

[Hangfire]

I believe the AVERAGE work hours per month are 176. I have heard that WDFW officers pay is a little higher than the state patroll. They also have a higher certification level and more authority, at least that is what I was told by one.

[KillerMiller]

The average work month is 176 hrs over 12 months for most employees that work 40 hrs/wk.   

As far as WDFW budget reduction, the 6% reduction will only affect the 49% that the wildlife and general fund actually pays for WDFW, but all employees will feel the reduction.  BTW 51% of WDFW is funded through federal, local, tribal and other conservation grants and/or contracts.  So, hunters and fishermen fund a small portion of WDFW.  Many of the bios on the employee list actually have non state funded contracts that are funded by the Feds, local utilities, and many other groups.  That 51% brings revenue to WDFW that helps purchase land, puts fish in the rivers/lakes, and many other recreational activities we all enjoy.    

[Wacenturion]

The average work month is 176 hrs over 12 months for most employees that work 40 hrs/wk.  

As far as WDFW budget reduction, the 6% reduction will only affect the 49% that the wildlife and general fund actually pays for WDFW, but all employees will feel the reduction.  BTW 51% of WDFW is funded through federal, local, tribal and other conservation grants and/or contracts.  So, hunters and fishermen fund a small portion of WDFW.  Many of the bios on the employee list actually have non state funded contracts that are funded by the Feds, local utilities, and many other groups.  That 51% brings revenue to WDFW that helps purchase land, puts fish in the rivers/lakes, and many other recreational activities we all enjoy.  

You're forgetting a lot of those federal funds are either DJ (fishing) or PR(hunting)....a direct result and expenditure of hunters and fishermen.    

[Wacenturion]

Might add grants, public utilities etc funding can also be attributed to hunting and fishing indirectly.  Hunters and fishermen are responsible for far more of the budget than you assume.  As I mentioned above as an example, a 25% state share of hunting or fishing dollars generates a 75% match of federal DJ or PR. 

[dreamunelk]

FYI
Most federal grant dollars are dedicated long before the department gets them.  So bashing the WDFW on how the money is spent is moot.  In fact you have to marvel at the how the politics play out on this.  Elected officials at both the state and federal level as well as the USFWS and special interest groups dictate this but, we all blame the WDFW.  Truth is we are beating up the errand boy while the others sit back and laugh!  It is actually so sad it is funny.  The same politician who is publicly blasting the WDFW over deer and elk numbers is having lunch with the pro wolf crowd and telling them to keep it up, they will make sure ? get the funding.

If the WDFW was to apply for a grant to purchase land because it is grate deer and elk habitat the grant would not even get a second look, even if there funding available for such a purchase.  But, if that land happens to also have a special bug or something than likely there is grant funding available.  So when we gripe about purchasing land for this something we should look and see if there is an ulterior motive before shooting the errand boy.

So the moral of the story is take a long hard look at who you vote for and write/ call and hold them accountable.  So long as we continue to focus our anger on the WDFW and not hold the people who actually control the money and dictate how it is spent they will sit back and laugh at our ignorance.

[Wacenturion]

Respectfully disagree.  It's called management direction and it's a choice by WDFW, pure and simple.  It's also called backbone like in standing up for folks who have payed the freight for 60+ years.  It's the path of least resistance and is politically correct for the most part the past 10 years or longer depending on program.  If you're not dedicated enough to fight for a grant or $$$ for legitimate elk range, but take the easier path because a bug exists or you use that argument to get your elk range money....then that problem is you, the manager....not the politician. 

No one micromanages WDFW....they manage themselves with choices that reflect that management.  They also have a different type of employee now than they did 30-40 years ago. 

There's an ol' dog breeding saying which states..

"Like begets like", which means when you line breed, like close in similar bloodlines, you set both the good and bad traits. 

This in a sense can be applied to WDFW staff.  The more liberal, less likely to hunt or fish, wildlife viewing, wolf advocate types you hire, the more they eventually hire down the road.  It's a mindset that is constantly been evolving for the past 30 years and taking WDFW policies away from, as they call them....."Joe Six-pack" type hunters and fishermen.

If there had been any directors with a pair, that made it a priority to put sportsmen first in many respects....it would have been different today.  Nothing has changed for the better and nothing will in the for seeable future.

[fishnate]

 The more liberal, less likely to hunt or fish, wildlife viewing, wolf advocate types you hire, the more they eventually hire down the road.


There are more sportsman in WDFW than many think. During busy season there are around 30 employee's at my office and 90 percent participate in fishing  or hunting of some form. 

[Machias]

The more liberal, less likely to hunt or fish, wildlife viewing, wolf advocate types you hire, the more they eventually hire down the road.


There are more sportsman in WDFW than many think. During busy season there are around 30 employee's at my office and 90 percent participate in fishing  or hunting of some form.  

Certainly not trying to be a jerk to you, but I find that hard to believe.  Sportsmen would NOT call hound hunting for coyotes "socially unacceptable", and if they did then the state of affairs is in even worse trouble then I thought.  F'n morons.  

[Wacenturion]

The more liberal, less likely to hunt or fish, wildlife viewing, wolf advocate types you hire, the more they eventually hire down the road.


There are more sportsman in WDFW than many think. During busy season there are around 30 employee's at my office and 90 percent participate in fishing  or hunting of some form. 

I'm talking across the board...the whole agency.  "In some form" leaves a lot to the imagination.  What office are you referring to by the way?

[fishnate]

I work out of Wenatchee. It is the same as this states political beliefs the further west I would agree with you about people being sportsman, but there is alot of us on the eastside that are. Just sayin.

[fishnate]

Most of us that are employed by WDFW are not the ones that ban dogs for coyotes or like wolves or whatever.  It is the upper management I believe that needs the change like most things some people ruin the image for many others in the department. 

[KillerMiller]

The average work month is 176 hrs over 12 months for most employees that work 40 hrs/wk.  

As far as WDFW budget reduction, the 6% reduction will only affect the 49% that the wildlife and general fund actually pays for WDFW, but all employees will feel the reduction.  BTW 51% of WDFW is funded through federal, local, tribal and other conservation grants and/or contracts.  So, hunters and fishermen fund a small portion of WDFW.  Many of the bios on the employee list actually have non state funded contracts that are funded by the Feds, local utilities, and many other groups.  That 51% brings revenue to WDFW that helps purchase land, puts fish in the rivers/lakes, and many other recreational activities we all enjoy.  

You're forgetting a lot of those federal funds are either DJ (fishing) or PR(hunting)....a direct result and expenditure of hunters and fishermen.    

Not forgetting at all, just making a point that the 6% is State funds only.  BTW I would say dollars earned through proposals by many bios who have NO state funding do not necessarily reflect fishing and hunting dollars but do reflect the tax or rate payers that also reflect sportsman as well as the bios who earned the proposal.  Where do you think the MOU money from BPA came from?  This is money the state and tribes have to earn through proper studies and research.

[bigtex]

The amount of hunters/fishermen in WDFW greatly varies from division to division. I would have to say that the enforcement division has the most hunters/fishermen of all the divisions, in fact nearly all of them hunt and/or fish. It starts to dip a little bit when your talking general fishery or wildlife biologists. But once you get into habitat biologists and endangered species biologists/scientists the number of hunting/fishing participants really declines.

[jstone]

Usually the upper management are the ones that screw things up.. They cant think outside the box.

[JLS]

The 171 hours for enforcement officers is for a 28 day period, not a month.

[bigtex]

The 171 hours for enforcement officers is for a 28 day period, not a month.