Gregoire plan: merge agencies

[BlackRidge]

Kind of sounds like the big issue is how to bring all the states hunters together into a group that could work towards one or more goals we could all agree upon, I know, sounds impossible, but how else will our voices be heard above the *censored*s who actually have an agenda, soapboxes to stand on and zealot-like supporters.

As others have pointed out, there are too many differing opinions, individual things we all want to fight for, and no cohesion. Something like the Wolf situation which would bring all of us together in order to get something done when the normal routes are ineffective. We have some extremely knowledgeable folks here, let's make it happen

[billythekidrock]

The merger would put all natural resources agencies under the Governor's direct control by elimination of appointed citizen commissioners.  Any elected official wants direct hire/fire control over the heads of agencies.  Consumptive users would no longer get even the appearance of consideration.

DNR will not be included in the package at this time.  Only their enforcement division will move.

[bigtex]

The merger would put all natural resources agencies under the Governor's direct control by elimination of appointed citizen commissioners.  Any elected official wants direct hire/fire control over the heads of agencies.  Consumptive users would no longer get even the appearance of consideration.

DNR will not be included in the package at this time.  Only their enforcement division will move.

DNR's Heritage Program which studies ESA species will also be moved to the WDFW/Parks agency. The rest of DNR will stay in tact.

[melanitta]

Perhaps it was mentioned earlier, but WDFW and Parks are the two agencies that are not Cabinet level.  This move will make them Cabinet level which should give them more power.  So far, since they have not been cabinet level, WDFW has taken a proportionately bigger hit with the various budget cuts over the past couple of years.  With a director sitting at the table with the Gov. perhaps the fish and wildlife issues will get a better ear.  One can hope.

[Wacenturion]

Perhaps it was mentioned earlier, but WDFW and Parks are the two agencies that are not Cabinet level.  This move will make them Cabinet level which should give them more power.  So far, since they have not been cabinet level, WDFW has taken a proportionately bigger hit with the various budget cuts over the past couple of years.  With a director sitting at the table with the Gov. perhaps the fish and wildlife issues will get a better ear.  One can hope.

Wishful thinking at best.  Not going to make any difference.

[bearpaw]

History has proven to me that every time there is a F&W merger in this state, "hunting opportunity" is the eventual loser. 

[Elkaholic daWg]

 From CCA this morning





Dear James,

The 2011 Legislative session is now upon us. The Legislature convened last week and critical issues for anglers will be considered. This is what is called the long session and it will last at least 105 days. This is also the budget session. This is the session where legislators will craft a 2011–2013 biennial budget.


    * The Governor has proposed merging 3 state agencies. Parks, Fish & Wildlife and the Recreation & Conservation Office. The most contentious part of her proposal takes the Fish and Wildlife Commission and makes it "advisory only". She also takes away the Commission’s ability to appoint the Director. If this sounds all too familiar, it is, this is very similar to what Senator Jacobson attempted to do in the 2009 session. Defeating this will again be a priority issue for CCA. A work session was held on the merger last week in House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee. CCA’s lobbyist met with many individual committee members this week educating them on this important issue.
    * On another front, WDFW is proposing hunting and fishing license fee increases (User Fees). This is consistent with what the Governor has been saying for the past six months. The 10% surcharge that was adopted in the 2009 session will go away. The Department is proposing to replace it with separate fee increases for virtually all license categories. These increases range from 1% to over 100% and total over $15 million over two years. This is compared to $1 million in fee increases charged to commercial fishing license holders!
    * CCA and other groups have met with and will continue to meet with the Department, the Governor’s office and individual legislators on this issue in an attempt to determine what increases if any, would be fair and equitable for recreational anglers. CCA outlined its thoughts on potential fee increases in a letter to Director Anderson a few months ago.
    * Speaking of Crab, the Senate Ocean & Natural Resources Committee held a Work Session on the Commission’s recent decision to allocate a greater number of Puget Sound crab to recreational crabbers. Andy Marks represented CCA on that panel and joined representatives from Puget Sound Anglers and Fish Northwest to defend the Commission’s decision. Commercial crabbers are putting on a full court press in an attempt to get the legislature to step in and overturn this decision and attack the Commission!On Saturday, Heath Heikkila -- CCA’s Advocacy Director – discussed the Puget Sound Crab Work Session and the WDFW merger proposal on 710 ESPN’s Outdoor Line. You can listen to the segment by clicking here.


This is a preliminary overview of the session and what we know so far. As you know, issues and positions change over the course of a session. We will be contacting you via email on a regular basis in an attempt to keep you up to date on the important issues that impact recreational anglers and our marine resources. In the meantime, it is important that you begin preparing for this session by knowing who your legislators are. Click here to look up your legislators.  As we mentioned early on in our message to you, there are many new faces on the hill this year. Some of you have a clean slate of legislators to begin working with and educating on our issues. Please do your part as we call upon you to assist us in our endeavors.

[forestphantom]

I want to know who came up with the name for this new agency.   Department of Conservation and Recreation???   That doesn't role off the tongue nor does DCR. Why does Washington always have to be different.  Now tell me how much it's going to cost to replace all of those signs on the buildings across the state for the three agencies merged to reflect this change.  The decals on vehicles and patches and letterhead and envelopes.  Thats got to account for alot of money that they are suppose to be saving by merging. If this is inevitable which I hope it's not why not Fish Wildlife and Parks. 
 I like to look to the past for insite and past mergers with Dept of Wildlife and Fisheries didn't go so well and the resource suffered.  What makes them think that merging three completely different agencies with totally different missions is going to go any better.  Doesn't sound like it will benifit the resource. 

[bigtex]

Now tell me how much it's going to cost to replace all of those signs on the buildings across the state for the three agencies merged to reflect this change.  The decals on vehicles and patches and letterhead and envelopes.  Thats got to account for alot of money that they are suppose to be saving by merging.

Actually doesn't cost a whole lot. It's mainly a one-time cost, especially with signs. As far as letterhead and envelopes, you just simply order the "new" style instead of the old agency style. Many of the WDFW Access signs are actually still the old Department of Wildlife signs which were never replaced, and that was in 1994 when WDFW was formed. Usually when a agency changes it's name or logo they don't call in all of their vehicles to have new logos put on them, they just put a new logo on the vehicle when a new one is replaced. For example WDFW Enforcement's badge has changed in the past year or so, but the only vehicles that have the new badge on it are the ones that have been purchased/put in to service in the past year, it's not as if they call in all the vehicles for detailing.

[christopheri]

Bigtex,

I havent read this whole topic but I was woundering what your take is on this possible merger? What are the pros and cons of this?

[Elkaholic daWg]

    Hey Bigtex, The old department of "what" signs? the agency was properly named then.....F&G

[bigtex]

    Hey Bigtex, The old department of "what" signs? the agency was properly named then.....F&G

No it wasn't. Prior to 1994 there were two seperate dept's the Dept of Wildlife and the Dept of Fisheries. In 1994 they merged them together to form WDFW. Then even farther back there was the Dept of Game and the Dept of Fisheries.

Many of those brown signs that are on roads that point to WDFW boat launches actually say Dept of Wildlife and were posted prior to 1994. Many of the wildlife area signs also refer to the Dept of Wildlife, those of you that frequent the LT Murray Wildlife Area have probably seen these.

[bigtex]

Bigtex,

I havent read this whole topic but I was woundering what your take is on this possible merger? What are the pros and cons of this?

Well I don't really know of any Pro. Under this proposal DNR enforcement will move to the new dept, DNR has about 8 officers, however in the past year or two WDFW has lost funding for 6 officers so it really doesn't increase the enforcement presence. This would also mean that the new agency officers would have to patrol WDFW and DNR lands, DNR Officers are currently the primary officers on DNR lands but that would change. Also, State Parks would be apart of this new agency and in states where fish, wildlife, and parks are together the game wardens also help out with enforcement issues in parks. So the former WDFW Officers would have to patrol DNR lands and assist State Park Rangers with any issues they have. So the agency officers would be spread even thinner and have more responsibility then they do now and with basically the same amount of personnel.

Another con is that the fish and wildlife commission would essentially lose it's power. Currently they are the rule makers of the agency, the director can only impose emergency regs. However this proposal would make the commission an advisory board and give all the authority to the director, who will be appointed by the governor rather then appointed by the commission.

[Elkaholic daWg]

   Hey Bigtex, The old department of "what" signs? the agency was properly named then.....F&G

No it wasn't. Prior to 1994 there were two seperate dept's the Dept of Wildlife and the Dept of Fisheries. In 1994 they merged them together to form WDFW. Then even farther back there was the Dept of Game and the Dept of Fisheries.

Many of those brown signs that are on roads that point to WDFW boat launches actually say Dept of Wildlife and were posted prior to 1994. Many of the wildlife area signs also refer to the Dept of Wildlife, those of you that frequent the LT Murray Wildlife Area have probably seen these.

  WRONG!!!
 Prior to 1994  it was the Washington  Department Of Fish and Game, Or Game dept.  NOT wildlife dept Fisheries was salt water, Fish and Game was fresh water

 Combined the 2 and we got WDFW  And now they're worried about tweetie birds, frogs, backyard sanctuaries and whatever else the politically correct bunch in control of this state want.

[bobcat]

I remember when there was a "Department of Wildlife."  Don't remember the timing of all the name changes/mergers though.