Has WDFW revealed serious fault with Resource Allocation?

[Gringo31]

The whole Damn country is a mess and WDFW is no different.  Common sense is no longer common and I appreciate hearing a bit of it from Dave.  Keep up the good work 

I want people to think about this statement....

Multiply, say, 500 wolves (from which there would be 15 identifiable breeding pairs, as required under the recently-adopted wolf management plan) by 44. That's 22,000 deer, more than the number of mule deer or whitetails annually taken by licensed hunters during a season. That number doesn't include elk, moose, caribou known to be in far Northeast Washington, or livestock. That is over and above the number of game animals already being killed by cougars, coyotes and bears.

[Kain]

If I remember right..It was neutral at BEST

You remember correctly. Possibly the best source on this would be Bearpaw.

But I recall this fiasco and at the time I talked to a guy in WDFW who I knew, and he simply said the agency "had to keep quiet" because it was a political issue. Which is bushwa. Idaho and Oregon and Michigan agencies weighed in when the same horse dung kind of initiatives were tried in those states.

The WDFW "greened" out because of political correctness.  It was at that juncture I lost any respect for them as a management agency, not that I had much before that, since the Gardner days and "secret agreements."

They "greened" out because of more money to the agency.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/1996/nov/07/bear-baiting-ban-to-cost-1-million-agency-says/

The state Department of Fish and Wildlife has already put a price tag on the effect of the voter-approved Initiative 655 that restricts certain controversial hunting methods - $1 million a year.

That’s how much the agency plans to ask the Legislature for in January so it can hire additional wildlife agents and equipment to handle the increase in nuisance calls regarding bears and big cats that’s expected as a result of the new law.

“Even before the initiative came along, we submitted a request for 31 more enforcement officers to handle increasing complaints we’re getting statewide about cougars and black bears. Essentially, the passage of 655 may give our request more of an urgent twist to it,” Fish and Wildlife Department spokesman Tim Waters said Wednesday.

They were never neutral on baiting.

http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/june2004/bear.htm

"It's a fair hunt principle; baiting isn't fair play," said Craig Bartlett, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife public information officer.

They do surveys to see how the public "feels" about lethal control methods of predators and then craft the seasons around that.  That is not science based management and goes completely against their legislative mandate. 

I cant believe the guys that dont blame the WDFW for this. 

[Jack Diamond]

if managers of WDFW cannot publicly state there position on  voter intiatives,that will pro or con affect wildlife in this state, just what the hell is their Job??
 

[bearpaw]

They can state what's needed for management if they choose.

There's no doubt in my mind that the majority of past upper management (not all) in the WDFW have been a significant negative factor for Washington's hunters. If we could get rid of certain upper managers and promote some pro-hunting personnel from within the WDFW, or bring in some managers with proven pro-hunting backgrounds, hunting might have a chance in this state.

This problem with upper management is not significant to Washington, many states are having the same type of problems with F&G management. The problem is that these guys are being educated by liberal anti-hunting professors in our universities.

My daughter is attending WSU and she was just telling me how it's obvious which professors are anti hunting/guns and which are not.

[Kain]

They can state what's needed for management if they choose.

There's no doubt in my mind that the majority of past upper management (not all) in the WDFW have been a significant negative factor for Washington's hunters. If we could get rid of certain upper managers and promote some pro-hunting personnel from within the WDFW, or bring in some managers with proven pro-hunting backgrounds, hunting might have a chance in this state.

This problem with upper management is not significant to Washington, many states are having the same type of problems with F&G management. The problem is that these guys are being educated by liberal anti-hunting professors in our universities.

My daughter is attending WSU and she was just telling me how it's obvious which professors are anti hunting/guns and which are not.

Exactly and guess where the WDFW gets most of its scientific studies to base their management plans off.  Yep WSU biology department.  The head of that department is not hunter friendly.  The same department that tells us that older cougar teach the younger ones to stay out of trouble.   

[Elkaholic daWg]

 That, and on their website you can see where they spend their (our) money dealing with issues that should be funded and dealt with by the department of ecology, who I believe gets their money from the general fund.

[Jack Diamond]

K. So how do we go about cleaning house? Other than changing the Governor? Let me rephrase that, how do we gain
Balance in WDFW?

[Dave Workman]

No need to get your panties in a wad Dave. What I state on here are my opinions. Not necessarily facts. Same as you. Just because you write something in an article doesn't mean it's true.

No, not "same as me." I am not in the habit of printing lies. I leave that to the New York Times.

What I wrote in the column under discussion was loaded with facts. There was the USFWS data. I've had years of experience interviewing people in the field, listening to complaints at boat landings, on the telephone, in the field...When I write about that stuff, it's because I've been covering this issue for more years than I care to admit. It's my beat.

We know that opportunities have declined for all user groups from what they were back in 1984 when RA was adopted and there were more than 110,000 more hunters than there are now. Let's say for the sake of argument that only half of those were big game hunters...that's still more than 50,000 FEWER hunters today, yet their across the board opportunities have been incrementally shrinking while the WDFW has added a lot of permit hunts, for the purpose of collecting additional fees, while the average guys are stuck with the "Less is More" management scheme.

Do you think losing more than 110,000 hunters over the past 25 years is a good thing? It translates to lost revenue for the agency, lost resources for the wildlife, and lost political power for hunters.

We keep hearing the game herds are not healthy. Well, who's in charge of managing the herds? Whose responsibility is it to keep those herds viable, and to step in when they see the resource being abused or misused? The department is responsible, and when the department takes credit for something good they damn well need to take the rap for something that isn't so good.

Of course the agency can't prevent hairslip disease or other diseases like CWD that have plagued deer populations in recent years in parts of the country, but the agency CAN take a far more aggressive position on predators and on tribal regs that allow hunters to kill multiple elk and deer, and they can tell the public about that. The public has a right to know that stuff, and to be outraged, but do you hear so much as a peep from Olympia? You know who publicized the tribal regs back in the 1980s after it was revealed there had been some "secret agreements" negotiated with the tribes? Me. You know who fired sportsmen up about those agreements? Me.

There are people in the department and on the WDFW and even a few on this forum who look at the growing population of wolves and cougars and bears as a success, but anyone who isn't still wet behind the ears realizes that 5-10 years down the road, it's going to be looked at as a disaster, and you only need to look at elk herds in Idaho and Montana, and the Yellowstone elk population as proof.

If you don't believe that, there's a problem, but it is YOUR problem. A lot of the old-timers on this forum seem to concur with what I've written. It is quite possible they remember I was there in this fight 30 years ago, warning that this crap was going to happen. I was there on the Capitol Steps with 2,000 angry hunters and anglers (Tom Nelson and I put most of them there) demanding better management in the early 1980s.

When the agency has done a good thing, I've said so. As Wacenturion can attest, back when he did the turkey program and it was a howling success, I said so in the old F&H News. Back when the commission adopted a 6-week, 7-weekend Northeast deer season (doing away with the split hunt) I said it was a good thing...but look at it now. Back when the agency announced plans to improve habitat for upland birds and game, and other critters in the Columbia Basin, I said it was a good thing.

When the greenies ran the mountain lion initiative, and the department did essentially nothing, I said it was a bad thing, and I can rest that case, can't I?


BTW. I don't wear panties.  And I don't drink Kool aid.

And I've got nothing personal against you Bobcat.  You are definitely entitled to your opinion.

[Dave Workman]

K. So how do we go about cleaning house? Other than changing the Governor? Let me rephrase that, how do we gain
Balance in WDFW?

You were right the first time.  Change the governor.  Change the PARTY of the governor. Change the majority party in the Legislature.

 

[Jack Diamond]

Dave. if my vote counts, we have solved the problem!!

[Elkaholic daWg]

K. So how do we go about cleaning house? Other than changing the Governor? Let me rephrase that, how do we gain
Balance in WDFW?

You were right the first time.  Change the governor.  Change the PARTY of the governor. Change the majority party in the Legislature.

 

Does the name Curt Smitch mean anything to anyone on here. Other than you Dave

[bobcat]

BTW. I don't wear panties.  And I don't drink Kool aid.

You go commando?!         Too much information, Dave. I REALLY didn't need to know that.

Oh, and BTW, I don't drink kool aid either, I'm more of a diet coke kind of guy.

[bearpaw]

Does the name Curt Smitch mean anything to anyone on here. Other than you Dave

     He was a real piece of work!!!

[Ridgeratt]

Curt Smitch

Curt Smitch has served in a variety of roles with the state and federal government throughout his thirty year public service career.  After leaving his position as an assistant professor at Michigan State University, Curt began his Washington State government career under Governor Dixie Lee Ray in 1979 as the Capital Budget Coordinator for the Office of Financial Management.  Thereafter, Curt held management positions in the Washington State Department of Fisheries and later became Director of the Washington State Department of Wildlife under Governor Booth Gardner. 

In 1994, Curt served in the Clinton Administration as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Program Supervisor for the Pacific Northwest Habitat Conservation Plan Program and became the U.S. Fish and Wildlife's Assistant Regional Director in 1995.  In 1997, he returned to Washington State government as a Special Assistant to Governor Locke for Natural Resources Policy and chaired the Governor's Natural Resource Cabinet.

Curt holds a Doctorate of Philosophy in Education from Michigan State University, a Masters in Environmental Sciences and a BS and BA in Biology from Western Washington University.  He also successfully completed the Program for Senior Executives at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. 

Curt Smitch has served with the following associations:

•Commissioner, Oregon and Washington, US/Canada, Pacific Salmon Commission, 1997-2003
•Chair, US/Canada, Pacific Salmon Commission, 2000
•Chair Elect, Policy Advisory Committee, Olympic Natural Resources Center, 1992-Present
•Chair Elect, Governor’s Council for Environmental Education, 1991-1994
•Chair, Water Resources Comm. of the International Assoc. of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, 1991
•President, Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, 1989
•Governor’s Appointee, to the State Forest Practices Board, 1984-1988
•Founding Member, Timber Fish and Wildlife Agreement, 1986

[Elkaholic daWg]

Curt Smitch

Curt Smitch has served in a variety of roles with the state and federal government throughout his thirty year public service career.  After leaving his position as an assistant professor at Michigan State University, Curt began his Washington State government career under Governor Dixie Lee Ray in 1979 as the Capital Budget Coordinator for the Office of Financial Management.  Thereafter, Curt held management positions in the Washington State Department of Fisheries and later became Director of the Washington State Department of Wildlife under Governor Booth Gardner. 

In 1994, Curt served in the Clinton Administration as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Program Supervisor for the Pacific Northwest Habitat Conservation Plan Program and became the U.S. Fish and Wildlife's Assistant Regional Director in 1995.  In 1997, he returned to Washington State government as a Special Assistant to Governor Locke for Natural Resources Policy and chaired the Governor's Natural Resource Cabinet.

Curt holds a Doctorate of Philosophy in Education from Michigan State University, a Masters in Environmental Sciences and a BS and BA in Biology from Western Washington University.  He also successfully completed the Program for Senior Executives at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. 

Curt Smitch has served with the following associations:

•Commissioner, Oregon and Washington, US/Canada, Pacific Salmon Commission, 1997-2003
•Chair, US/Canada, Pacific Salmon Commission, 2000
•Chair Elect, Policy Advisory Committee, Olympic Natural Resources Center, 1992-Present
•Chair Elect, Governor’s Council for Environmental Education, 1991-1994
•Chair, Water Resources Comm. of the International Assoc. of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, 1991
•President, Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, 1989
•Governor’s Appointee, to the State Forest Practices Board, 1984-1988
•Founding Member, Timber Fish and Wildlife Agreement, 1986

 Sure is a LOT of green in that resume which is usually not friendly  with us